YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY FULKE'S DEFENCE, &c. &f>e $arft*r Society. SnotitutcD 91. JB. Jtt.Bv naKuav avriji ifivqjiovevo-av, as oibi it}j Xeyojtcvip 'lovSa, /uSs : Kai avTjjs ovo-qs tS>v euro XeyopAvav Kado\uca>v. ofuos he lo-fiev Ka\ ravras fiera tcov Xout&p iv nKdarais oVSr/jitocrieufie'i/ar iKKK-qo-'uus. — Eusebii Pam- phili Eccles. Hist. Lib. n. c. 23. Opera. Vol. i. p. 66. edit. Valesii.] £ Calvin's words are: "Hanc epistolam non sine certamine ohm receptam a multis ecclesiis fuisse ex Hieronymi Eusebiique testimonio notum est. Sunt etiam hodie nonnulli, qui earn auctoritate dignam non censeant. Ego tamen, quia nullam ejus repudiandae satis justam causam video, libenter earn 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 Illyricus3 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 iii. 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, [3 Mathias Flack, or (as the name was latinised, from Albona in Istria, a part of ancient Illyria, where he was bom 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.] [fulke. J 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 cavillation, 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 bim so heinously, and to charge all protestants with his assertion so enviously : which, if it were his, should not be so evil as other 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. 0 what a stir would they keep, if they had any weighty matter of truth to bur then him withal ! Martin, 8. Martin. To let this pass : Toby, Ecclesiastieus, and the Machabees, Conc.jCart. 3. are they not most certainly rejected? And yet they were allowed and received for canonical by the same authority that St James' epistle was. Argu. in This epistle 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 WhitakJ cause indeed ? How do they then receive St James' epistle as canoni- Fbid.' cal, having been before doubted of also, yea, as they say, rejected ? Fulke, 8. 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, Ecclesiastieus, 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- l1 Whitakeri ad Rationes Campiani Responsio.] the answer to the preface. 19 tinople, sheweth for the Greek church, and St Jerome in Lih- c- rap. Prohgo Galeato2 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 in the same council are authorised, whereas the church never knew but of three. And although the book of Wisdom should be as cribed 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 cioct. one present at the same council ; which after he hath declared 2. cap.' a. ' how a man should discern the canonical scriptures from other writings by following the authority of the cathohc churches, especially those that have deserved to have apostolic sees, and to receive their epistles, he addeth further : Tenelit igitw hunc modum in scripturis canonicts, ut eas quae ah omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis, prceponat eis quas quosdam non accipiunt ; in eis vero quae non accipiuntur ab omni bus, prceponat eas, quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores mmorisque auctoritatis ecclesice tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a plwibus, alias a gravioribus haberi, quanquam hoc invmire non possit, wqualis tamen auctoritatis eas habendas puto. Totus autem canon scriptwrarum, 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 cathohc 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 [a Non idem ordo est apud Grsecos, qui integre sapiunt et fidem rectam sectantur, epistolarum septem, quse canonicse nuncupantur, qui in Latinis codicibus invenitur. Quod quia Petrus primus est in numero apostolorum, primse sint etiam ejus epistolae 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 duse; Johannis tres; et Judse una. — Hieronym. Prolog. Septem Epistolarum Canonicarum. Opera. Vol. 1. p. 1667.] 2—2 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 Augustme 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, Ecclesiastieus, and the Machabees, which by his own rule were not to be received as of absolute and sovereign authority, because the apostohc 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 symbolo1, 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 aS™ 1537! serve for a clear demonstration, that in the first English2 [} Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt qui non canonici, sed ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt : ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sapientia quas dicitur filii Syrach, qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiastieus appellatur; quo vocabulo non auctor libelli, sed scripturae qualitas cognominata est. Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobise, et Judith, et Machabseorum libri. — Expositio in Sym- bolum Apostolorum Ruffini. p. 397, 398. ed. Aid. 1563.] r_* 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 bars 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. Mb. in. c. 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 Martin, 9. find that heresy, and only heresy, is the cause of their denying these m.' w'hita-' books ; so far, that against the orders and hierarchies and particular Worrdsyeoi>e patronages of angels one of them writeth thus in the name of the tSoim rest : " We pass not for that Raphael of Toby, neither do we acknow- JJEJj.06,,],^ ledge those seven angels which he speaketh of; all this is far from appomteth canonical scriptures, that the same Raphael recordeth, and savoureth of Tobit and I wot not what superstition." Against free-will thus : " I little care eus to be for the place of Ecclesiastieus, neither will I believe free-will, though holy scrip- he affirm an hundred times, that before men is life and death." And other. Do P Ad Rationes Campiani Responsio, p. 17.] 22 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. they read against prayer for the dead, and intercession of saints, thus : " As for churches the book of the Machabees, I do care less for it than for the other. anSper- Judas' dream concerning Onias I let pass as a dream." This is their boofefqr reverence of the scriptures, which have universally been reverenced for tare, orT canonical in the church of God above 1100 years. Con. Cart. 3. and that K*™ particularly of many fathers long before, Aug. de doct. Christ. Lib. n. disgraceth Ci g their order ofdanyser- Fylle. The mouth that heth killeth the soul. The reader Fulke, 9. mav 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 instruct1 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 in 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.1 Ep. c. 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 church 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 rehgion, 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 hanc quidem scripturam, quas appellatur Machabaeorum, non habent Judaei sicut legem et prophetas et psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tamquam testibus suis, dicens, Oportebat impleri omnia quse 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 Machabaeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres a persecutoribus tarn indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt; ut etiam hinc populus Christianus adverteret, quoniam non sunt condignae pas- siones hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam quae 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. Episc. Lib. i. cap. 88. Opera. Vol. ix. p. 655-6.] 24 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. without all controversy as the 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 M. Whitaker is charged in the margin to condemn the service-book, which appointeth these books of Toby and Ecclesiastieus 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 prcefat. in lib. Tobice; some times Ecclesiastica, Ecclesiastical writings, and so are they in exposi- called of Ruffinus. Because (saith he) they were appointed tionesym- . s / tj rr 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 prcefat. 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 Ecclesiastieus 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 Mi 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 Mahtin, 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. whita- 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. As for pieces of Daniel and of Esther, we reject Fulkb,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, Epist. ad Hier.1 8 and 10, in which he I1 Petimus ergo, et nobiscum petit omnis Africanarum ecclesiarum studiosa societas, ut interpretandis eorum libris, qui Grace scripturas nostras quam optime tractaverunt, curam atque operam impendere non graveris. Potes enim efficere, ut nos quoque habeamus tales illos vires, 26 , THE 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 himself1 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, quern tu libentius in tuis Uteris 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- pretationcm distet, appareat. — Augustin. ad Hieron. Ep. xxviii. Opera. Vol. n. p. 46. Ego sane te mallem Graecas potius canonicas nobis interpretari scrip- turas, quae Septuaginta interpretum perhibentur. Perdurum erit enim, si tua interpretatio per multas ecclesias frequentius coeperit lectitari, quod a Graecis ecclesiis Latinae ecclesiae dissonabunt, maxime quia facile contradictor convincitur Graeco prolato libro, id est linguae notissimse.— Augustin. lxxi. Epist. ad Hieron. Opera. Vol. n. p. 160.] [* Cui et Eusebius et Apollinariusparisententia responderunt: Susanna: Belisque ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico ; sed partem esse prophetiae Abacuc filii Jesu de tribu Levi, sicut juxta lxx. interpretes in titulo ejusdem Belis fabulae 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 praenota- vimus, significantes eas in Hebraico non haberi. — Hieronymi Explanatio in Danielem Prophetam. Opera. Tom. i. p. 1074. Augustini Epist. ai Hieronymum, lxx. p. 611. Hieronym. Opera. Vol. iv. Hieronymi Epist. ad Augustinum, lxxiv. pp. 626, 627.] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 27 of the true Daniel it is manifest, that Daniel being 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 hved 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, containing 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 he 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 cause 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? K 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- 28 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. Martin, 11. In the argu ment bib. an. 1579- eftpaiovseirttrroXiiTLauXov. cause it was doubted of, yea, rejected of some ? Yea, you 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 httle 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 almost1, 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 to the 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.] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 29 Fulke. Now concerning the second point, whioh is calling Fulke, of some books into controversy, or moving scruples about them, X1- to diminish their credit or authority, whether you be guilty of that crime rather than we, I 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 Hebrews2. 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, Euseb. m>. hear that blame, if it be blame- worthy to tell what other men's ^i0"?™- opinions have been in such a matter ; some holding that it tom- 3- 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 [2 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 eomming 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, 1639; in Day's bible, 1551 ; in the Bishops' bible, 1584, and in Cranmer's bible, 1562. The omis sion seems to be peculiar to the Anglo-Genevese Version.] 30 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. only because it was doubted of. For 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 Jesjis 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 3nip!'6Uta John : although in the Latin church, as St Jerome1 testifieth, Mlttgiib s it hath been doubted whether it were canonical. The cause Matt. lib. 5. cap. Q1 Nam et Paulus in epistola sua quae scribitur ad Hebraeos (licet de ea multi Latinorum dubitent). — Comment. Hieronymi in Matthsei cap. 26. Opera. Vol. iv. pp. 125, 126. Ac primum solvenda est ilia quaestio, quas nobis objici potest : quare Apostolus Paulus cum Hebraeis disputans non juxta Hebraicum, quod rectum esse cognoverat, sed juxta lxx. sit loquutus? Evangelistam Lucam tradunt veteres ecclesiae tractatores medicines artis fuisse scien- tissimum; et magis Graecas literas scisse quam Hebraeas. Unde et sermo ejus tam in Evangelio, quam in Actibus Apostolorum, id est, in utroque volumine comptior est, et secularem redolet eloquentiam ; magisque testimoniis Grsecis utitur quam Hebraeis. Matthaeus autem et Johannes, quorum alter Hebraeo, alter Graeco sermone evangelia texuerunt, testimonia de Hebraico proferunt : ut est illud, Ex JEgypto vocavi jUium meum. Et, Quoniam Nazareus vocabitur. Et, Flumina de ventre ejus fluent aqua vivee. Et, Videbunt in quern compunxerunt, et cetera his similia. Pauli quoque idcirco ad Hebraeos Epistola? con- tradicitur, quod ad Hebraeos scribens utatur testimoniis quae in Hebrseis voluminibus non habentur. Quod si aliquis dixerit, Hebraeos libros postea a Judaeis esse falsatos, audiat Origenem quid in octavo volumine explanationum Isaiae huic respondeat quaestiunculae, quod nunquam Dominus et Apostoli, qui cetera crimina arguunt in Scribis et Pharisaeis, de hoc crimine quod erat maximum reticuissent. Sin autem dixerint, post adventum Domini Salvatoris et praedicationem Apostolorum libros Hebraeos fuisse falsatos, cachinnum tenere non potero, ut Salvator et Evangelistae et Apostoli ita testimonia protulerint, ut Judaei postea fal- saturi erant. — Commentar. Hieronymi in Isaiae Prophet. Lib. m. cap. 6. Opera. Vol. in. pp. 63, 64.] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 31 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 divine 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, Epistola autem qme fertur ad Hebraeos, &c. 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 Tertulhan2 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 [2 Exstat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis aucto ritatis viro, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae tenore : Aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem ? Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho pastore mcechorum. — Tertullian. de Pudicitia. Opera, p. 741. edit. Rigaltii, 1641. cap. 20. edit. Semler. Vol. iv. p. 427.] 32 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. Mahtin,12. Fulke, 12. words : " I 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. I know very well that the authority of canonical scrip 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. Fulke. If you know so well that the authority of the canonical scripture standeth not upon the certainty ofthe 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 you charge 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 apostohc 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 credit 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 apostohc man, and therefore saith plainly that it is 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 ? Is 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 g [fulke.] 34 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. and prmted 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 cathohc 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 I 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, The 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 thft author's under whose name it hath been received." How certain it is with you, whereof no man else but you can see any fight 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, 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, Hoc est corpus meum. THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 35 Fulke. That every one of us expoundeth the scripture Fulke, voluntarily according to his error or heresy, you say it needeth 13- 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, Hoc est corpus meum. 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, Hoc 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 fights of them both, Cyprian and Cornehus, dissented about rebaptizing them that were baptized of heretics. The Afri- ^mST' cans, not in one text only, but in the exposition of many, Sg^JJ,. 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 Jerome1 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 [* Augustin. ad Hieron. Epist. xxvm. Vol. ii. p. 45. and Vol. xi. p. 85. Hieronymus ad Augustin. Epist. lxxvi. de Petro reprehenso a Paulo. Opera, Vol. iv. pars 2. p. 629. edit. Benedict. 1706. The text was Gal. ii. 14.] 3—2 36 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 volun 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 rehgion. 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 lightsy the sun and the moon :" that is, the pope to be above the emperor1. " 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. " I 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. Martin 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 tio! *° 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 14- former, by which you yourselves are proved heretics, rather Q1 Innocent III. who excommunicated king John, thus interpreted' Gen. i. 16, in a letter he addressed to the English monarch. See Marsh's 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 cathohc 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 He, ex cept that "you say of H. N.a 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. Pontifex Max. the pope, as those familiar devils submit all things to the sentence and authority of their H. N. Shame you nothing therefore to quote Whitaker3, 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 [? Henry Nicholas. Vid. Cardwell's Documentary Annals, Vol. i. p. 392.] p Ad Rationes Campiani. edit. 1581.] 38 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. deny ; neither are you able to prove it of any that is allowed among us. Mabtin, Martin. Whereupon it riseth, that one of them defendeth this as iw'd. p. 101. very wel1 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 Prajf. ad 6.1 martyr St Cyprian, aflirming that the church of Rome cannot err in faith, Oxon.' p. 25. saith thus : " Pardon me, Cyprian, I would gladly believe thee, but that believing thee I should not believe the gospel." This is that which S. Lib. Con- Augustine saith of the like men : Dulcissime vanos esse, non peritos, sed 14. lib. 7. perituros, nee tarn disertos in error e, quam desertos a veritate2. And I think, verily, that not only we, but the wiser men among themselves, racer, de smile at such eloquence, or pity it, saying this or the like most truly : SfiUPCt Prodierunt oratores novi, stulti adolescentuli. Fulke, 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, aflirming that the church of Rome cannot err in faith, he saith, " Pardon me, Cyprian, I would gladly believe thee, but that in beheving thee I should not beheve the \} Sex Theses de S. Scriptura et Ecclesia. RupelUe. 1586, by John Rainolds.] [2 This is garbled from two or more passages : Nam et Hoinerus, peritus texere tales fabellas, et dulcissime vanus est, &c. Confess, i. Ii p. 146. edit. Bened. Garriebam plane quasi peritus, et nisi in Christo Salvatore nostro viam tuam quaererem, non peritus, sed periturus essem. lb. vn. 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 si Romanam ecclesiam errare non posse, fyc. Where fore, if Cyprian thought that the church of Rome could not err in that point, 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 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 Augustme 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 perfidia, " falsehood, or false dealing," can have none access3 : meaning fj8 Post ista adhuc insuper Pseudo-episcopo sibi ab haereticis consti- tuto, navigare audent, et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam princi- 40 THE ANSWER TO 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 cathohc 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 rehgion, 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 disciphne, 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 deposed1." 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 ; nee cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo pne- dicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia non potest habere accessum. Cypri- ani Opera. Par. 1509. 4to. fol. 7. hodie Epist. 35.] [' Quod et apud vos factum videmus in Sabini collegse nostri ordi- natione, ut de universss fraternitatis sufFragio et de episcoporum qui in prsesentia convenerant, quique de eo ad vos literas fecerant, judicio episcopatus ei deferretur, et manus ei in locum Basilidis imponeretnr, Nee 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 gestffi rei ac veritatis ignarum fefellit, ut exambiret reponi se injuste in epis- copatum de quo fuerat jure depositus. — Cypriani Epistola lxviii. 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 Mahtin, text : for alter and change it I hope they shall not be able in this watch- 16- 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 (in his Annotations upon the New Testament, set forth in the year 1556,) Geneva" thinketh irpaToi is more than should be in the text Matt, x., and to text of eK^uvoiuei/oi/, Luc. xxii., and irpoo-xwetv civtoT<;, Acts vii. : the first 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. In this point you do nothing but pick quarrels, see- Fulke, ing you confess that neither they have, nor can alter or change 1(^ any thing of the original text. If Beza express his conjecture upon some ground or similitude of reason, that TrpwTos in Matthew x., to etcvyvofjievov, Luke xxii., and irpoaicuveiv av- tois, 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 Ambrose2 saith, Deincam. 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 P Hie ergo qui ante reticebat, ut doceret nos quod impiorum nee verbum debeamus iterare; hie, 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. n. p. 710. edit. Bened. Paris. 1690.] * Matt. xvi. 15. 42 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, 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 endeavour 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, Fulke. Where Beza noteth corruption in places that con- x^" 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 dvaToXrj, Luke i. 78, and will Martin, not translate that, but the Hebrew word of the Old Testament; but at 18- w'oTvas, Acts ii. 24, much more, and at eBlo/xtinovTa wevre, Acts vii. "¦• 14, exceedingly: but yet, after he hath said all that he could against it, J*0-^4- he concludeth, that he durst not, and that he had a conscience, upon ToSKaWv. conjecture to change any thing. And therefore all this is gnawing only. ciiluirthen But in the third of Luke he maketh no conscience at all, to leave out ofthe New these words, verse 36, Qui fuit Cainan, not only in his own translation, JjufSeHe- but in the vulgar Latin wliich is joined therewith, saying in his Annota- >£| w)Jdlx|;of tions, JVon dubitavimus expungere; that is, "We doubted not to put it vuttSngaut out : and why ? " By the authority of Moses, Gen. xi. :" whereby he signi- text so much 35 I'llfLSPt h fieth, that it is not in the Hebrew, Gen. xi., where this posterity of Shem him. is reckoned; and so, to maintain the Hebrew 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 dvaroXy Fulke, Luke i., and wfrivas, Acts ii., and ef&SonriKovTa irevre, Acts vii., IB- 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, Qui 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 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, 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. isai. vi. 9, 26, 27) the words of our Saviour and St Paul, cited out of Isaiah, because Gai. m. 13. they are far otherwise in the Hebrew. Strike out of the Epistle to the "-as KPfr<-?- Galatians these words, " upon a tree," because in the Hebrew it is only f Hot. thus : " Cursed is he that is hanged." Deut. xxi. in fine. Yea, strike *1'"1 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 lAa/Jes. both in the Hebrew and Greek, (Psalm lxvii.) aecepisti, " thou tookest !™2\ gifts," and (Heb. x.) for corpus aptasti let them put aures perforasti, be- o'jin cause it is so in the Hebrew, (Psalm xl.) To be short, if all must be -b irio 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 Fulke, 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 bim 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 xiii. 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. iii. 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. For thus the Hebrew text is : " 22. When there yv-by shall be in any person a sin to be adjudged to death, and he \v^v 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 in 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- [p«i. xxii.i 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 46 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 mahce, you might have seen that St Jerome did read without controversy fixermt, " they have pierced," as also that the most ancient copy of the Hebrew Psalms, supposed to have i-ins 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 qui fuit Cainan, about which you make so much ado ? Martin, 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 followetb, 20. 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 Sefening those places so disagreeing from the Hebrew are cited by Christ or Hebrew6 text the evangelists and apostles, there also they must be rejected, because Testament they disagree from the Hebrew ; and so yet again it followeth that the Jj^J. JJ*^ 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 Fulke, changing, or hacking and hewing, the sacred text of holy scrip- 20, 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 Augustine1, who although he [} Contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio. Et Latinae quidem linguae homines, quos nunc instruendos suscepimus, duobus aliis ad scripturarum divinarum cognitionem opus habent, Hebraea scilicet et Graeca, ut ad exemplaria praecedentia recur- ratur, si quam dubitationem adtulerit Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas. Quamqnam et Hebraea verba non interpretata saepe 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 quae posuimus. Sunt enim quaedam verba certarum lin guarum, quae in usum alterius linguae per interpretationem transire non possint. Et hoc maxime interjectionibus accidit, quae verba mo- tum animi significant potius, quam sententiae conceptae ullam particu- lam; nam et haec duo talia esse perhibentur: dicunt enim Racha in- dignantis esse vocem, Hosanna laetantis. Sed non propter haec pauca, quae 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 Bod. Christ, lib. 2, cap. 11 : Contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio. Et Latince, . Greek interpreters." St Jerome2, though an earnest patron of the He- inp^J'n,.lib. Paralip. [* Multa enim non otiose a Septuaginta viris Hebraicae lectioni ad- dita et adjuncta comperimus. — Hexaemeron. Lib. in. cap. 5. Opera. Vol. 1. p. 42.] Qa Legimus in apostolo : In aliis Unguis et in labiis aliis loquor po- pulo huic, et nee sic exaudient me, dicit Dominus. Quod mihi videtur juxta Hebraicum de praesenti sumptum capitulo : et hoc in veteri ob- servavimus Testamento (absque paucis testimoniis, quibus Lucas solus abutitur, qui magis Graecae linguae habuit scientiam) ubiquumqne 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 Isaiae xxviii. 9-13) diversa senserunt: et quia longum est de omnibus dicere, LXX. Interpretes, qui leguntur in ec- clesiis, breviter transcurramus. — Comment. Hieronymi in Isaiae xxviii. Opera, Vol. in. 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; comment, in and concerning the foresaid places of St Luke, he doth give a reason 28. Isai. " r and in Quas- Dra"'He" guimus. * * * * Nec nostrum laborem illorum reprehensionem putamus, quum illi Ptolemaeo, regi Alexandria, mystica quaeque in scripturis Sanctis prodere noluerint ; et maxime ea quae Christi advett- tum pollicebantur; ne viderentur Judaei et alterum Denm colere: quos ille Platonis sectator magni idcirco faciebat, quia unnm Deum colere dicerentur. Sed et evangelists, et Dominus quoque noster atque Sal- vator, necnon et Paulus apostolus, multa quasi de veteri Testamento proferunt, quae in nostris codicibus non habentur: super quibus in suis locis plenius disseremus. Ex quo perspieuum est, ilia magis vera esse exemplaria, quae cum novi Testamenti auctoritate concordant — Prsefatio Hieronymi in Lib. Heb. Quaest. in Genesim. Opera, VoL ii. pp. 506, 507. Si Septuaginta interpretum pura, et ut ab eis in Graecum versa est, editio permaneret, superflue me, mi Chromati, episcoporum sanctis- sime atque doctissime, impelleres, ut Hebrsa volumina Latino sermone transferrem : quod enim semel aures hominum occupaverat, et nas- centis ecclesiae roboraverat fidem, justum erat etiam nostro silentio comprobari. Nunc vero, cum pro varietate regionum diversa ferantur exemplaria, et germana ilia antiquaque translatio corrupta sit atque violata; nostri arbitrii putas, aut e pluribus judicare quid verum sit, aut novum opus in veteri opere cudere, illudentibusque Judaeis cor- nicum,:ut dicitur, oculos configere. Alexandria et iEgyptus in Sep tuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has provinciae Palaestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaborates 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 verba describens, ut unus dissentiens statim ceteris inter se consentientibus arguatur; sed, quod majoris audaciae est, in editione Septuaginta Theodotionis editionem miscuit, asteriscis designans quae minus ante fuerant, et virgulis qua ex superfluo videbantur apposita. Si igitur aliis licuit non tenere quod semel susceperant ; et post Septuaginta cellulas, quae 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 menm Hebraeis 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 aquee vivce. Utique scriptum est, quod Salvator scrip- turn esse testatur. Ubi scriptum est? Septuaginta non habent; apo crypha nescit ecclesia. Ad Hebraeos igitur revertendum est, unde et Dominus loquitur, et discipuli exempla praesumunt. — Praefat. Hierony mi in Paralipom. Opera, Vol. i. 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 Prarf- in Act. in this very difficulty of Cainan to marvel at it reverently, rather than P°S ' 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. Here of pity you will shew unto us a piece of learn- Fulke, 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 Augustme, De Civitate, 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 ^£^3,. imagination, those seventy-two cells at Alexandria, as a fable and a he. That St Ambrose saith, " we have found that many things are not idly added of the seventy Greek interpreters ;" nexanyib. we confess as much, where their addition serveth for expli cation of that which is contained in the Hebrew: and so meaneth Ambrose ; not that they had authority to add any thing, wliich 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. Helrai. 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. cuseth himself against envious persons, that barked agamst 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 Ptolemasus, 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, wliich 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 fuit Cainan. In the place cited by you upon the 28th of Isaiah, he saith, Legimus in apostolo, Sec. " 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 ofthe 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 Montanus1, 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: Etenim 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 wliich truly, being compared together, a very certain way [J- Nam praeter excellentem formarum, chartse, et characterum praestantiam, integras etiam Chaldaicas in veteri Testamento paraphra ses, et Syriacae 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. — Praefatio, fol. 26.] 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 Saviour, 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 Bede1, in his preface unto his Ketractation 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 : Quce ulrum negligmtia interpretis omissa, Src. "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 fj1 Quae utrum negligentia interpretis omissa, vel aliter dicta, an incuria librariorum sint depravata, sive relicta, nondum scire potui- nms. Namque Graecum exemplar fuisse falsatum, suspicari non audeo : unde lectorem admoneo, ut haec nbicunque fecerimus, gratia eruditionis legat, non in suo tamen volumine velut emendates interserat, nisi forte ea in Latino codice suae editionis antiquitus sic interpretata repererit.— Praefatio ad Retractationem in Acta Apostolorum. Bedse Opera Vol. vi. p. 1. edit. Coloniae Agrippinae. 1612.] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 57 book, as places corrected, except perhaps he shall find the same in some Latin book of a 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, in Luc. cap. 32, 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 qui fuit Cainan. What your vulgar f_s 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: Porro Arphaxat 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 annomm 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 Abrahae in Hebraica veritate anni ccxoii, in Septuaginta interpretum translatione M. septuaginta sep tem reperiantur esse comprehensi. — Beda in Lucae Evangelium, cap. iii. Opera, Vol. v. pp. 256-7.] 58 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. Martin, 23. The 5th abuse of Scriptures, Corrupt Translation, which is the argumentand purjrose of this book. Fulke, 23. Martin, 24. Latin translation hath left out in the latter end of the Lord's prayer in St Matthew, and in the begmning 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 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 TrpecrfivTepoi 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 GodV,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- sion about mentaries agamst Luther for false translations; Luther against Munster, iauonsrans~ Beza against Castalio, Castalio against Beza, Calvin against Servetus, Me/an™"'' Illyricus both against Calvin and Beza. The puritans control the £"£}• *jfb^- grosser Calvinists of our country ; yea, the later translations of the See z5"ng\, selfsame heretics control the former exceedingly, not only of over- Confess. sights but of wilful falsifications; as is notorious in the later editions rum. of Luther and Beza, and in our English bibles set forth in divers 97. F years, from Tindal their first translator until this day : yea (which is Testament more) the English translators of Beza's New Testament control him °l$e year and his translation, which they protest to follow, being afraid some- Luke Hi. 36. times and ashamed to express in English his false translations in the Latin. Fulke. By false translations wilfully and of purpose to Fulke, falsify the truth of God's word is as gross and as abominable ^ 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 33rd section of this book, find fault with all the catholics, as you term them, that translate sheol, sepulchrum, "a sepulchre," and not always vi "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 Illyricus 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 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 ?™arklib- brute beasts, to whom Ambrose1 ascribeth the art of making o. cap. $. 3 iii 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? Nevertheless, whereinsoever Luther, Beza, or the English 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. De Doct Christ, lib. 2. cap. 11. Martin. But in this catalogue of dissensions, falsifiers, and dis agreeing translators, I will not greatly rip up old faults, neither abroad Martin, 25. Acts i. 14, ii. 23, iii. 21. nor at home. I leave Luther's false translations into the German French, and' tongue to the credit of Staphylus, Apolog., Part, n., and Emserus, ru'jrtions'of Pr&f- Annot. in no. Test. Luth., and other German writers of his own [x 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 similitudinemqne formare. Non miraris in fera tam pii oris officia, cujus naturam pietas exprimit ? Ursa igitur partus suos ad sui effingit similitudinem : tu filios tuos instituere similes tui non potes?— Hexaemeron. Lib. vi. cap. 4. p. 18. Ambrosii Opera, Vol. i- p. 119.] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 61 time, that saw them and read them, and reckoned the number of them, the New in the New Testament only about 1400 heretical corruptions. I leave See Lind. ' Calvin's and Beza's French corruptions to so many worthy men as 8o"&c.P'84' have noted them in their French books against the said heretics : therest™1 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 Lind- Dub. their Latin writings testify it to the world. Fulke. We are much beholding to you, that you will not Fulke, rip up old faults abroad, nor at home; and leave Luther's25- 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 Lindaniis'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 cavils, 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 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 Clarius1, monk of Casine, and bishop Fulginatensis : of pe opt. Gen. which the former writeth a whole book, discussing how he 3- 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 tietoStheS' cnapters an(i sections : the other, Isidorus Clarius, giving a pSnted at reason of his purpose, in castigation of the said vulgar Latin juntas6 1557* translation, confesseth that it was full of errors almost innu 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 corrected2- This epistle the deputies P 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, Fulgata editk Veteris et Novi Testamenti, quorum alterum ad Hebraicam, alterum ad Gracam veritatem emendatum est quam diligentissime, ut nova editio rum facile desideretur, et vetus tamen hie agnoscatur. Venetiis. 1542 1557, and 1564, fol.] [- Nam in his horum omnium studiis atque laboribns editio ilia, qua totus Christianus orbis utitur, ac semper, ut facile conjecto, usurus est, nondum squalorem suum deposuerat, nee ei quisquam errores, quibus innumeris pene scatebat, adimere adhuc curaverat. * * * * Verum etsi ea, 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 Mahtin, age, and will deal principally with the English translations of our time, which are in every man's hands within our country ; the corruptions The au- whereof, as they are partly touched here and there in the Annotations Saitebook. 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 Fulke, it cannot be denied but some faults may escape the most 26- 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 Surius3 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 Prsefat. In Vulg. Edit. 1542.] fj* The following passage will enable the reader to estimate the value of the opinion of Surius : Pestis hoc anno multis locis plurimos extinxit, prsesertim Argen- tinse et in -locis Rhenanis, et inter alios etiam Johannem Sleidanum, qui suis commentariis magnam orbi Christiano pestem invexit. Decre- verant contra ilium scribere viri duo longe clarissimi, Colonise Agrip- pinse 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 ssepius ilium perstringere. Mihi ille nee de facie unquam notus fuit. Men- dacia et errores tetros illius detestor. Multi, immo plurimi, norunt Julium Pflugram Numbergensem Episcopum, quo ob multam setatem nemo fere melius noverat res imperii. Is Sleidani Commentaries 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, ssepius exclamabat, Ibi nebulo ille scelerate 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 in your performance, as there is wisdom in your profession. But now to your nine advertisements to the reader. Martin, Martin. First, that in this book he may not look for the proof or explication and deciding of controversies, which is done in the advertSe- Annotations upon the New Testament, but only the refuting or con- mentstothe trolling of their false translations concerning the said controversies, reader. ° ° ' which is the peculiar argument of this treatise. Fulke, Fulke. I think there is no wise reader would look for 27 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- cately, and otherwise abusively, [they] have all, or the most, been answered long ago ; and if need shall be, with little labour may be answered again. Mahtin, 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, Fulke. That sheweth your mahce 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 ilia impedita fuit, et omnia in Hispanas transferri jussa fe- runtur. Certe hseretico homini nunquam tuto credi potest. — Surii Commentarius brevis rerum in orbe gestarum, pp. 370, 371. Colonic. 1574.] 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 rehgion. 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 dihgent students of the scriptures in the English tongue will not satisfy themselves with every translation, but will seek for the best approved. Martin. Thirdly, that we speak indifferently against Protestants, Martin, Calvinists, Bezites, and Puritans, without any curious distinction of29- 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, Fulke, 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, Martin, 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. He that considereth your quarrels picked to words Fulke, of one signification, as "church" and " congregation," "justice" ' and "righteousness," "elder" and "priest," "image" and "idol," "works" and " deeds," and such Eke, 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 subtleties and meanings, will smile at the places which you have not r i 5 [fulke. J 66 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. Martin, 31. Fulke,31. Mahtin, 32. 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 jour- selves. But even as the head of your church1 once jested with his cardinal, how great wealth and honour that fable of Christ (so the beast called the christian rehgion) 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 Q1 This is told of Leo X.] 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 Fulke, 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 xxi. 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 Martin, refuted are either in all or some of their English Bibles printed in " these years, 15622, 16773, 16793. 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 [s 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 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 Touching are accused wrongfully. For example : call to mind the late pretended Epist™" 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, 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 years ago1. That of 15792, I know not what translation it be, except it be the same that was first printed at Genera 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 [} Commonly called the Bishops' bible.] [2 It is the Genevan bible printed at Edinburgh in this year, that Martin quotes.] 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 tridy 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 Martin, otherwise) his Latin translation of the New Testament, with his 3^. annotations adjoined thereunto, printed in the year 1556. Fulke. You were afraid, lest they that understood not Fulke, 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 in.h» later « J edition 15fi5. all the unlearned in England know, what shameful corruptions ^^£"1 you have observed in Beza's translation or annotations. GSSkamfin the vulgar Latin. Martin. Lastly and principally is to be noted, that we will not Martin, charge them with falsifying that which indeed is the true and authen- 35- tical scripture, I mean the vulgar Latin bible, which so many years we charge hath been of so great authority in the church of God, and with all wMforsak- the ancient fathers of the Latin church, as is declared in the preface approved'' of the New Testament : though it is much to be noted, that as Luther, ^oughftbs only in favour of his heresies, did wilfully forsake it, so the rest SSd'totT^eir followed, and do follow him at this day, for no other cause in the world, evident con- , - . , fusion. but that it is against them. And therefore they inveigh agamst 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. In the margin, " You will not charge us with for- Fulke, saking the old approved Latin text, though it be an ill sign "5- 70 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. and to our evident confusion." St Augustine1, 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, ^Ethiopia, 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 hved within 400 years after Christ that knew it, but almost every one followed a several translation. And St Augustme 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 [} Ex hac Septuaginta interpretatione etiam in Latinam linguam interpretatum est, quod ecclesia? Latins tenent. Quamvis non defuerit temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus et om nium trium linguarum peritus, qui non ex Graeco, sed ex Hebrseo in Latinum eloquium easdem scripturas converterit. — Augustinus, De Civitate Dei. Lib. xviii. c. 43. Opera, Vol. vii. p. 625. See also the passage from Augustine De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. n. c. 11. Opera, Vol. i. 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 Martin, 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 sororem. in St Peter these words, " Labour that by good works you may make 2 Pet Xm 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 V 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. If there be no greater argument, as you confess Fulke, there can be none, that their avoiding of this vulgar Latin • 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 muUerem 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 translation2 of 1 Tim. hi. and Tit. i., both Latin and English, will warrant them to Q2 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. Titusi. 5, 6. Rhemish Test. 1557.] 72 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. be the husbands of one wife ; so that every child may sec 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 prmted, 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, as 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. Matitin, Martin. So do they in infinite places alter the old text, wliich pleased them well before they were heretics ; and they do it with brasen faces and plain protestation, having no shame nor remorse at all in fleeing from that which all antiquity with one consent allowed and embraced until their unhappy days. Which though it be an evident condemnation of their novelties in the sight of any reasonable man, that hath any grace ; yet as I began to admonish thee, gentle reader, we will not charge them for altering the ancient approved Latin trans lation, because they pretend to follow the Hebrew and Greek ; and our purpose is not here to prove that they should not follow the Hebrew and Greek that now is, before the ancient approved Latin text, which is done briefly already in the preface to the New Testament. Fulke, Fulke. You were afraid belike to be overmatched in rail ing, and therefore you thought to bear us down at once [' It is not admitted into the text by either Griesbach or Scholz.] 37. THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 73 with a whole flood of reproachful slanders; and that you utter even with the same face with which you affirm, that all an tiquity with one consent allowed and embraced your vulgar Latin text : for what else you should mean I cannot con jecture, seeing you say afterward you will not charge us for altering the ancient approved Latin translation. What say you, Martin? Doth all antiquity with one consent allow and embrace your vulgar Latin translation? What is the cause then that the most of all antiquity of the Latin church used not your vulgar Latin text ? Or dare you join issue with me, that all the Latin doctors for 400 years after Christ used none other Latin translation but that ? or that they all knew your vulgar Latin translation? You are never able to prove it. The Seventy translation indeed was greatly esteemed, and almost generally received in the Greek and Latin churches2, and out of it were innumerable Latin versions, as St Angus- tine affirmeth. But your vulgar Latin followeth it not in many places, as it were easy to shew if time and occasion served, and I suppose you will not deny. As for the rea sons you bring in the preface to the New Testament, to prove that we should not follow the Hebrew and Greek that now is, before that ancient approved text; when they come to be considered, it shall appear how vain and frivolous they are. But as for the Hebrew and Greek that now is, [it] may easily be proved to be the same that always hath been ; neither is there any diversity in sentence, howsoever some copies, either through negligence of the writer, or by any other occasion, do vary from that which is commonly and most generally received in some letters, syllables, or words. Martin. Neither will we burden them for not following the vulgar Martin, Latin text, when the same agreeth with most ancient Greek copies : 3 which notwithstanding is great partiality in them, and must needs be themimP of an heretical wilful humour, that among the Greek copies themselves forsaking they reject that which most agreeth with the vulgar Latin text, in J,oPi?srtnat places of controversies. Yet will we not, I say, neither in this case g^^em lay falsehood and corruption to their charge, because they pretend to |p?roX!dt translate the common Greek text of the New Testament, that is, one though this certain copy. But here at the least let them shew their fidelity, and their incre- that they be true and exact translators. For here only shall they be tLnty^1" examined and called to account. [2 August. De Civit. Dei. Lib. xviii." c. 43. Opera, Vol. vii. p. 843.] 74 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. Fulke, Fulke. In translation we follow the common, usual, and 38' prmted copies, as you do in your translation; and yet you know there be as many, yea, ten times as many diverse read ings in the Latin as are in the Greek : witness hereof the bible printed at Antwerp by Christopher Plantine, 1567, of Hentenius' castigation ; where the margins almost of every leaf be full of diverse readings, obelisks, asterisks, stigmates, signifying the variety that is in many copies, by adding, de tracting, changing. MwXopt. Tne same ^ confessed by Arias Montanus. pr™: S.*ub. Lindanus likewise acknowledgeth as much. 3- Of that which you say, we reject that which best agreeth with the vulgar Latin in places of controversy, you bring none example. But that among your diverse readings you reject that which agreeth best with the Hebrew and with the Greek in places of controversy, I will give you an ex ample. Gen. iii. 15., where the Hebrew truth teacheth, that the seed of the woman shall break the serpent's head, and the Greek translateth the pronoun in the masculine gender, (he) meaning Christ, and some ancient copies of your vulgar Latin have ipse; you nevertheless follow that blasphemous corruption, that in these latter times hath been received in your vulgar Latin bibles, and read still in your text ipsa, she; which though you would wrest blasphemously to the virgin Mary, which is proper to Christ, cannot by the circumstance of the place be aptly referred to any but to Eve. Martin, Martin. And if they follow sincerely their Greek and Hebrew text, 39 • which they profess to follow, and which they esteem the only authen- We charge ^ical text, so far we accuse them not of heretical corruption. But if saking and jt shall be evidently proved, that they shrink from the same also, and latin^their translate another thing, and that wilfully and of full intention to and Greek countenance their false religion and wicked opinions, making the scriptures to speak as they list; then we trust the indifferent reader, for his own soul's sake, will easily see and conclude, that they have no fear of God, no reverence of the scriptures, no conscience to deceive their readers : he will perceive that the scriptures make against them, wliich they so pervert and corrupt for their purpose; that neither the Hebrew nor Greek text is for them, wliich they dare not trans late truly and sincerely; that their cause is naught, which needeth such foul shifts; that they must needs know all this, and therefore do wilfully against their conscience, and consequently are obstinate heretics. THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 75 Fulke. We crave no pardon, if it can be proved that Fulke, we have wilfully translated another thing than is contained ' m the Hebrew and Greek, to maintain any false rehgion or wicked opinion. Provided always, that if any translator, or all the translators, have ignorantly erred in misunderstanding any word or phrase of the Hebrew or Greek text, that if it may be plainly shewed unto them, they acknowledging the fault, they may not be charged with heretical corruption, from which it is certain their intention was most free. Martin. And the more to understand their misery and wretched- Maetin, ness, before we enter to examine their translations, mark and gather 40* of all that which I have said in this preface, their manifold flights and jumps from one shift to another, and how catholic writers have pursued and chased them, and followed them, and driven them even to this extreme refuge and seely covert of false translation, where also they must of necessity yield, or devise some new evasion, which we can not yet imagine. Fulke. Hitherto I hope the indifferent reader will con- Fulke, fess, that you have driven us tc no jumps nor shifts, but40- only uttered your own malicious and unlearned quarrels. And how popish writers have pursued and chased us to extreme refuge, and seely covert of false translation, let it appear by the learned answers1 of Mr Jewell, Mr Home, Mr Nowell," Mr Bridges, Mr Calfhill, and others ; that I speak nothing of Q1 For instance, Jewel's Defence of the Apology of the Church of England, containing an answer to a certain book lately set forth by Mr Harding. Lond. 1564. Jewel's Answer to Mr Harding's book, entitled a detection of certain errors. Lond. 1565. Jewel's Reply to Mr Harding's Answer. Lond. 1566. — This was translated into Latin by Whitaker. Letters between Jewel and Dr Henry Cole. Rastel's Return of Untruths, answered by Jewel. — This work has hitherto escaped the notice of Jewel's biographers. Feckenham's Declaration of scruples and stays of conscience touching the oath of supremacy, answered by Home, bishop of Winchester. Nowell's Reproof of a book entitled a proof of certain articles in religion, denied by Master Jewel, set forth by Thos. Dorman. Nowell's Reproof of Mr Dorman's Proof continued. Nowell's Confutation of Dorman's last book, entitled a Defence &c. Bridges' Reply to the Horn-blast of Thos. Stapleton. Calfhill's Answer to John Martiall's Treatise of the Cross.] 76 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. Martin, 41. The divers shifts and flights that the protest ants are driven unto by the catholics, as it were the jumps and turnings of an hare be fore the hounds.Fulke, 41. mine own simple labours, who being one of -the meanest, having confuted ten or twelve of your popish treatises, . can receive no reply of any man, but only of poor Bristow, to whom in this respect I confess myself more beholding than to all the papists beside, saving that I have rejoined to him almost two years ago, and yet I hear not of his answer. Martin. First, we are wont to make this offer (as we think) most reasonable and indifferent : that forasmuch as the scriptures are diversely expounded of us and of them, they neither be tied to our interpretation, nor we to theirs; but to put it to the arbitrement and judgment of the ancient fathers, of general councils, of universal custom of times and places in the catholic church. No, say they, we will be our own judges and interpreters, or follow Luther, if we be Lutherans ; Calvin, if we be Calvinists; and so forth. Fulke. For expounding of the scriptures, we will not refuse the arbitrement and judgment of the ancient fathers, of general councils, of universal custom of times and places in the catholic church ; for this you say is your offer, which was never refused of us, though you most falsely affirm, that we say we will be our own judges and interpreters, or follow Luther, if we be Lutherans; Calvin, if we be Cal vinists, &c. Who ever said so, you shameless slanderer? What have you differing from us, wherein you have the judgment of the ancient fathers, of general' councils, of universal custom of times and places in the cathohc church? Unless perhaps you mean some wretched sophistry, by dis joining these that you here seem to join together. And if you so do, we must first ask you, whether you yourselves in all expositions of the scriptures will stand to the ar bitrement of every ancient father, or of every general council, or of any custom in any time or place? I know, and you cannot deny it, that you will stand to nothing, that is not allowed by your pope, though fathers, councils, custom, time or place, or all the world be against it, yea, the manifest scripture, which is so plain that it needeth no exposition : as the commandment against images in rehgion, Theodoret, Gelasius, Vigilius, Chrysostom against transubstantiation, Epiphanius against images, the sixth council of Constan tinople for condemning the pope of heresy, the councils of Constance and Basil for deposing the popes, and decreeing that the council is above the pope, and many other like THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 77 matters beside, in which you go clearly from the consent of all antiquity for 600 years, as the bishop of Sarum hath made plain demonstration, and you are not able to reply. Martin. This being of itself a shameless shift, unless it be better Martin, coloured, the next is to say, that the scriptures are easy and plain, and sufficient of themselves to determine every matter, and therefore they will be tried by the scriptures only. We are content, because they will needs have it so, and we allege unto them the books of Tobit, Eccle siastieus, Machabees. No, say they; we admit none of these for scrip ture. Why so ? Are they not approved canonical by the same authority of the church, of ancient councils and fathers, that the other books are ? No matter, say they, Luther admitteth them not; Calvin doth not allow them. Fulke. That the scriptures are plain and easy to be Fulke, understood, of them that use the ordinary means to come to it, for all doctrine necessary to be known, and sufficient to determine every matter, the Holy Ghost himself doth testify, 2 Tim. iii. and some of the ancient fathers also do bear wit ness, as Augustine, de Doct. Christ, hb. 2, Chrysostom, in Gen. hom. 13, de verb. Esai. Vidi dominwm, Src. horn. 2. If therefore you had the spirit of the ancient fathers, you would be content to be tried by the scriptures, for re verence you owed to God's most holy and perfect writings ; and not because we will have it so, who are content in many controversies to be tried by the judgment of the ancient fathers, or general councils, or universal custom of times and places ; and in all controversies, wherein all the ancient fathers, all councils, and universal custom of all times and places do consent, if any think such things can be brought against us, as it is falsely and sophistically bragged. But whereas we refuse the books of Tobit, Ecclesiastieus, Machabees, for canonical scripture, it is not (as you say ridiculously) because Luther and Calvin admitted them not, but because they are contrary to the canonical scriptures, and were never received of the church of Israel for canonical, nor of the cathohc church of Christ for more than 400 years after Christ, as I have shewed before. Martin. Well, let us go forward in their own dance. You allow at Martin, the least the Jews' canonical books of the Old Testament, that is, all that are extant in the Hebrew bible, and all of the New Testament without exception. Yea, that we do. In these books then, will you be IS THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. tried by the vulgar ancient Latin bible, only used in all the west church above a thousand years? No. Will you be tried by the Greek bible of the Septuagint interpreters, so renowned and authorised in our Saviour's own speeches, in the evangelists' and apostles' writings, in the whole Greek church evermore? No. How then will you be tried? They answer, only by the Hebrew bible that now is, and as now it is pointed with vowels. Will you so? and do you think that only the true authentical Hebrew, which the Holy Ghost did first put into the pens of those sacred writers? We do think it (say they), and esteem it the only authentical and true scripture of the Old Testament. Fulke, Fulke. Where so many of your own popish writers do accuse your vulgar Latin text of innumerable corruptions, what reason is there, that we should follow that translation only; especially seeing God hath given us knowledge of the tongues, that we may resort to the fountains themselves, as St Au gustine exhorteth ? As for the Greek translation of the Sep tuagint, from which your own vulgar Latin varieth, (although we reverence it for the antiquity, and use it for interpreta tion of some obscure places in the Hebrew,) why should you require us to be tried thereby, which will not be tried by it yourselves ? If I were as captious as you are with John Keltridge about the Greek bible of the Septuagint interpre ters, I might make sport with you, as you do with him : but I acknowledge your synecdoche, that you mean the Old Tes tament only, whereas the word bible is commonly taken for both. But to the purpose : we acknowledge the text of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Chaldee, (for in the Chaldee tongue were some parts of it written,) as it is now prmted with vowels, to be the only fountain, out of which we must draw the pure truth of the scriptures for the Old Testament, adjoining herewith the testimony of the Mazzoreth, where any diversity of points, letters, or words, is noted to have been in sundry ancient copies, to discern that which is proper to the whole context, from that which by error of the writers or printers hath been brought into any copy, old or new. Martin, Martin. We ask them again, What say you then to that place of 44- the psalm, where in the Hebrew it is thus, "As a lion my hands and '•1N3 my feet," for that which in truth should be thus, "They digged or pierced my hands and my feet ;" being an evident prophecy of Christ's nailing to the cross? There indeed (say they) we follow not the He brew, but the Greek text. Sometimes then you follow the Greek, and not the Hebrew only. And what if the same Greek text make for the THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 79 catholics, as in these places for example, " I have inclined my heart to keep thy justifications for reward," and " Redeem thy sins with alms ;" might we not obtain here the like favour at your hands for the Greek text, specially when the Hebrew doth not disagree? No, say they, nor in no other place where the Greek is never so plain, if the Hebrew word at the least may he any otherwise interpreted, and drawn to another signification. Fulke. We say to you first, that you have falsely pointed Fulke, the Hebrew word in the margin ; for all the printed books that ever I have seen, as Bomberg, both in foUo and quarto, Stephanus, Basil, Plantine, Arias Montanus, Com- plutensis, all place camels under caph, where you make patach. But perhaps your Hebrew is most out of Minister's dictionary, where it is pointed as you make it. But for answer to your question, we say, that there is a double testimony of the Mazzorites to prove, that in the most ancient and best corrected copies the Hebrew was caru, "they have digged or pierced": this is testified not only by our translators, but also by Johannes Isaac, your own rabbin, against Lindanus, a prelate of yours. And this the authors of the Complutensian edition do acknowledge ; for thus they have pointed it, caru, ¦1"»<3 where is nothing but the redundance of aleph (which is un derstood in every comets) differing from the usual reading and declining of the verb corah, that signifieth " to pierce or dig." Again, where it is read otherwise, if it be rightly pomted, as it is in Arias Montanus, caari, it cannot sig-?^3 nify sicut leo, "as a Hon," as both the Mazzorites do teach, and Johannes Isaac, a grammarian, out of them by the points and the note over iod doth plainly demonstrate. For what should shurech sound in iod? or if you would contend it should be daghes, to what purpose should it be in iod, if the word should signify "as a Hon"? Therefore, how soever this variety of copies came, either by neghgence of some writers, or by corruption of the Jews, we have suf ficient warrant for the ancient and true reading, which the Greek translator did follow, which also was in St Jerome's copy; otherwise he would not have translated out of the Hebrew fixermt, " they have pierced." Therefore Babbi Jo seph, which made the Chaldee paraphrase upon the Psalter, laboured to express both the copies, as well that which hath plainly "they have pierced," as that which hath it corruptly, TT 80 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. mio frOI as though it spake of a lion, and yet cannot rightly be so translated, because the points are imperfect even for that P'n prm reading. Therefore he hath said, nikethin heich cheariah, " they have indented and pierced like a Hon my hands and my feet," as it is in the Venice print of Daniel Bomberg, al though Arias Montanus, in his bible, have no more but nachethin, which he translateth, " biting my hands and my feet." I have played the fool to utter these matters in the mother tongue to ignorant men, that can make no trial of them; but you have not only given me example, but also enforced me with your insoluble question (as you thought), by one word somewhat out of frame, to overthrow the whole Hebrew text. But you are to be pardoned, for that you follow your Mr Lindanus herein, who hath nothing else in effect to quarrel against the Hebrew text, but this; and therefore he repeateth it in many places, to make greater shew of it, as you do. In other places, where the Hebrew word hath divers significations, who shall forbid us to choose that which is most agreeable to the circumstance of the text, and to the analogy or rule of faith? Martin,45. Fulke, 45. Praefat. in pent. Martin. We reply again and say unto them, Why ? Is not the credit of those Septuagint interpreters, who themselves were Jews, and best learned in their own tongue, and (as St Augustine often, and other ancient fathers say) were inspired with the Holy Ghost in trans lating the Hebrew bible into Greek, — is not their credit, I say, in determining and defining the signification of the Hebrew word, far greater than yours? No. Is not the authority of all the ancient fathers, both Greek and Latin, that followed them, equivalent in this case to your judgment? No, say they; but because we find some ambiguity in the Hebrew, we will take the advantage, and we will determine and limit it to our purpose. Fulke. St Jerome abundantly answereth this cavil, de nying that supposed inspiration, and deriding the fable of their 70 cells1, (which yet pleased Augustine greatly,) yea, calling in question, whether any more were translated by them, than the five books of Moses ; because Aris- taius, a writer in Ptolemy's time, and after him Josephus, make mention of no more. The same cause therefore, that moved St Jerome to translate out of the Hebrew, moveth us : whose translation, if we had it sound and perfect, might [J See before, p. 52.] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 81 much further us for the same purpose: although for the signification of the Hebrew words we require no more credit, than that which all they that be learned in the Hebrew tongue, must be forced to yield unto us. And seeing your vulgar Latin departeth from the Septuagint interpretation, even in the books of Moses, which (if any be theirs) may most rightly be accounted theirs, because it is certain they translated them, although it be not certain whether they translated the rest: with what equity do you require us to credit them, which your own vulgar translation affirmeth to have translated amiss, as I have shewn before in the example of Cainan's generation ? Another example you have in the 4th of Genesis, Norme si bene egeris recipies, &c. " If thou shalt do well, shalt thou not receive ? but if thou shalt do evil, straightway thy sins shalt be present in the doors." The Greek text hath, Ovk. av opdios irpooeve'yKns, &c. "Not if thou hast rightly offered, but thou hast not rightly di vided ; hast thou sinned ? be still." Where your translation cometh much nearer to the Hebrew, as might be shewed in very many examples. As for the ancient fathers' credit of the Greek church, and the Latin that followed them, if our judgment alone be not equivalent unto them, yet let these ancient fathers, Origen and Jerome, — that thought them not sufficient to be followed, and therefore gathered or framed other interpretations, — let their judgment, I say, joining with ours, discharge us of this fond and envious accusation. Martin. Again, we condescend to their wilfulness, and say : What Martin, if the Hebrew be not ambiguous, but so plain and certain to signify one 4o- thing, that it cannot be plainer? As, " Thou shalt not leave my soul Psal. xv. in hell;" which proveth for us, that Christ in soul descended into hell. 1,^3 i,a3 Is not the one Hebrew word as proper for soul, as anima in Latin? : ' '"•' the other, as proper and usual for hell, as infernus in Latin? Here then at the least will you yield ? No, say they, not here neither ; for Beza telleth us, that the word which commonly and usually signifieth " soul," yet for a purpose, if a man will strain, it may signify not only "body," but also "carcase,'' and so he translateth it. But Beza (say we), being admonished by his friends, corrected it in his later edition. Yea, say they, he was content to change his translation, but not his opinion concerning the Hebrew word, as himself protesteth. You have chosen a text for example, wherem Fulke, is least colour (except it be with the unlearned) of an hun- • r l 6 [FULKE. J 82 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. dred. For whereas you ask, whether nephesh be not as proper for soul as anima in Latin, and sheol for hell as infernus in Latin ; I utterly deny both the one and the other.. For nephesh is properly the life, and sheol the grave or pit,. though it may sometimes be taken for hell, which is a con sequent of the death of the ungodly, as nephesh is taken for person, or one's self, or (as it is sometimes) for a dead carcase. Yea, there be that hold, that it is never taken for the reasonable immortal soul of a man, as anima is, specially of ecclesiastical writers. That Beza translated the Greek of the New Testament after the signification of the Hebrew words, although it was true in sense, yet in mine opinion it was not proper in words ; and therefore he him self hath corrected it in his latter editions, as you confess: he hath not changed his opinion concerning the Hebrew: the reason is, because it is grounded upon manifest texts of scripture, which he citeth, Levit. xix. 27, and xxi. 1, and 11. Num. v. 2, and ix. 10. In the first place your own vulgar Latin translation for lanephesh turneth mortuo: you shall not cut your flesh for one that is dead. In the second place your vulgar Latin hath, Ne non contaminetur sacerdos in mortibus ; and, Ad omnem mortuum non ingredietur omnino : Let not the priest be defiled with the deaths of his coun trymen ; and, The high priest shall not enter in to any dead ni-Mta ty body at all : where the Hebrew is hnephesh, and j"lt0S3"!?3 tyl ki- iib na **-1'1 ^ ^' ^n ^e tnird place your vulgar Latin readeth T • " pollutusque est super mortuo, they shall cast out him that is v.t polluted by touching a dead carcase ; where the Hebrew is lanephesh. In the first place your vulgar Latin hath indeed anima, but in the same sense, that it had before mortuo : for the text is of him that is unclean by touching any dead body, which in Hebrew is nephesh. How say you now, is the Hebrew word as proper for soul as anima in Latin ? — except you will say, the Latin word anima doth properly signify a dead body. Hath not Beza good reason to retain his opinion concerning the Hebrew word, when he hath the authority of your own vulgar translation? You that note such jump* and shifts in us, whither will you leap to save your honesty? Will you say, the Hebrew text is corrupted since your trans lation was drawn out of it? The Seventy interpreters then will cry out against you: for they with one mouth, THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 83 in all these places, for the Hebrew word nephesh render the usual signification yf^v^, adding in the xxi. of Lev. 11, TBTeXevrijKvia, which either you must translate a dead body, or you shall call it absurdly a dead soul. Would any man think to have found in you either such gross ignorance, or shameful negligence, or intolerable malice against the truth, that, Beza sending you to the places, either you would not or you could not examine them ; or if you did examine them, that you would notwithstanding thus maliciously, against your own knowledge and conscience, rail against him ? You make us to say, if a man will strain the word, it may signify not only body, but also carcase. What say you ? did Moses strain the word to that signification ? You said before, that we were at the jumps and turnings of an hare before the hounds ; such mighty hunters you are, and we such fearful hares before you. I am not skilful in the terms of hunting, but in plain English I will speak it, that if all the traitorous wolves and foxes that be in the kennel at Rhemes, would do their best to save your credit in this section, nay, in this whole preface, they shall never be able to maintain their own, with any indifferent reader. Martin. Well then, doth it like you to read thus, according to Martin, Beza's translation, "Thou shalt not leave my carcase in the grave?" No; we are content to alter the word carcase, (which is not a seemly word for our Saviour's body,) and yet we are loth to say soul ; but if we might, we would say rather "life," "person," as appeareth in the margin of our bibles: but as for the Hebrew word that signifieth hell, though the Greek and Latin bible throughout, the Greek and Latin fathers in all their writings, as occasion serveth, do so read it and understand it, yet will we never so translate it; but for "hell" we will say "grave," in all such places of scripture as might infer limbus patrum, if we should translate "hell." These are their shifts, and turnings, and windings, in the Old Testament. Fulke. I have shewed you before, that in the New Fulke, Testament we like better to- translate according to the proper and usual signification of the Greek word. But the Hebrew word in the Old Testament may be translated, accord ing to the circumstance of the place, life, person, self, yea, or dead body, and in some place perhaps carcase. You follow us very near, to seek advantage of the English word carcase, which commonly is taken in contempt, and therefore 6—2 84 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. we would not use it, speaking of the body of our Saviour Christ, when it was dead. But you hunt yourself out of breath, when you would bring the same contempt to the cadaver. Latin word cadaver, which Beza used. For cadaver sig- nifieth generally a dead body of man or beast, and by your vulgar Latin translator is used for the dead bodies of sacri fices, of saints and holy men, as indifferently as for carrion to TTT^a. of beasts, or carcases of evil men : namely, in Job xxxix. 33, "Wheresoever the dead body is, thither will the eagle resort;" which similitude our Saviour Christ applieth to himself, Matt. xxiv. 28, " Wheresoever the dead body is, thither will the eagles be gathered;" where he compareth himself to the dead body, and the faithful to the eagles. Now concerning the other Hebrew word, which you say signifieth hell, because the Greek and vulgar Latin in terpreter do so translate it : when just occasion shall be given afterward, cap. vii., I will shew that it properly signi fieth a grave, pit, or place for dead bodies; and that in this place of the xvi. psalm it must needs so signify, not only the latter part of the verse, expressing in other words that which was said in the former, but also the apostle's proving out of "it the resurrection of Christ, do sufficiently declare. If you have no place therefore in the scriptures, to prove your limbus patrum, but where the Holy Ghost speaketh of the death and burial of the fathers, no marvel though you must strain the Hebrew word, which properly signifieth grave, and the Greek word, which properly signifieth a dark place, and especially the Latin, which signifieth generally a low place : none of all the three words signifying hell, as we commonly understand the word hell, properly and only, but by a figure, where mention is made of the death pf the ungodly, whose reward is in hell. These be the poor shifts, turnings and windings, that you have to wreath in those fables of limbus patrum and purgatory, which the church of God from the beginning of the world unto the coming of Christ never heard of, nor many hundred years after Christ, until the Montanists, or such like heathenish heretics, brought in those fantasies. Martin, Martin. In the New Testament, we ask them, will you be tried 48- by the ancient Latin translation, which is the text of the fathers and the whole church ? No; but we appeal to the Greek. What Greek? THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 85 say we ; for there be sundry copies, and the best of them (as Beza confesseth) agree with the said ancient Latin. For example, in St Peter's words, " Labour that by good works you may make sure your vocation 2 Pet. i. and election," doth this Greek copy please you ? No, say they ; we appeal to that Greek copy which hath not these words, "by good works ;" for otherwise we should grant the merit and efficacy of good works toward salvation. And generally, to tell you at once, by what Greek we will be tried, we like best the vulgar Greek text of the New Testament, which is most common and in every man's hands. Fulke. We need not appeal to the Greek, for any Fulke, thing you bring out of the vulgar Latin against us. As 48- for that text, 2 Pet. i. "Labour that by good works," &c, I have answered before in the 36th section. We like well the Latin, or that Greek copy which hath those words, "by good works;" for we must needs understand them where they are not expressed : and therefore you do impudently believe us to say they do not please us. Calvin upon that text saith: Nonnulli codices habent bonis operibus; sed hoc de sensu nihil mutat, quia subaudiendum est etiam si non exprimatur. " Some books have, 'by good works'; but this changeth nothing of the sense, for that must be understood although it be not ex pressed." The same thing in effect saith Beza: "that our elec tion and vocation must be confirmed by the effects of faith, that is, by the fruits of justice, &c. ; therefore in some copies we find it added, 'by good works.' " So far off is it, that Beza misliketh those words, that he citeth them to prove the per petual connection of election, vocation, justification, and sancti fication. This is therefore as wicked a slander of us, as it is an imtrue affirmation of the vulgar Latin, that it is the text of the fathers and the whole church; whereby you shew yourself to be a Donatist, to acknowledge no church, but where the Latin text is occupied : so that in Greece, Syria, Armenia, ^Ethiopia, and other parts of the world, where the Latin text is not known or understood, there Christ hath no church by your unadvised assertion. That we like best the most common Greek text, I am sure that we do it by as good reason, if not by better, than you in so great diversities of the Latin text, who like best of that which is most common and in every man's hands. Martin. Well, say we, if you will needs have it so, take your Martin, pleasure in choosing your text. And if you will stand to it, grant 49, us that Peter was chief among the apostles, because your own Greek 86 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. Matt. x. text saith, " The first, Peter." No, saith Beza, we will grant you no such thing; for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favoured Peter's primacy. Is it so? then you will not stand to this Greek text neither? Not in this place, saith Beza. Fulke, Fulke. In granting Peter to be the first, we need not 49- grant him to be the chief ; and if we grant him to be the chief, it followeth not that he is chief in authority. But if that were granted, it is not necessary that he was head of the church. And albeit that were also granted, the bishop of Kome could gain nothing by it. But what saith Beza, where the text saith, " the first Peter" ? If we must believe you, he saith, "No, we will grant you no such thing ; for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favoured Peter's primacy." I pray you, Martin, where hath Beza those words ? will you never leave this shameful forgery ? Beza, in the tenth of Matthew, doth only ask the question : Quid si hoc vocabulum, &c. " What if this word were added by some that would establish the pri macy of Peter ? for nothing followeth that may agree with it." This asketh Beza, but as an objection, which immediately after he answereth, and concludeth that it is no addition, but a natural word of the text found in all copies, confessed by Theophylact, an enemy of the pope's primacy, and defendeth it in the third of Mark (where it is not in the common Greek copies, nor in the vulgar Latin) agamst Erasmus, who, finding it in some Greek copies, thought it was untruly added out of Matthew. But Beza saith, Ego vero non dubito quin hxc sit germana lectio: " But I doubt not but this is the true and right reading of the text ;" and therefore he translateth Pri- mum Simonem, " the first Simon," out of the few copies Eras mus speaketh of. Therefore it is an abominable slander to charge bim with following the common received text, where it seemeth to make against you, when he contendeth for the truth against the common text, yea, and against your own vulgar Latin, to give you that which you make so great account of, that Peter in the catalogue of the apostles was first. So greatly he feareth to acknowledge that Peter was called first ! and so true it is that you charge bim to say, "No, we will grant you no such thing ; for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favoured Peter's primacy !" I hope your favourers, seeing your forgery thus manifestly dis covered, will give you less credit in other your shameless slan ders : at the leastwise this in equity I trust all papists will THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 87 grant, not to believe your report against any man's writing, except they read it themselves. Now that this word " the first" argueth no primacy or superiority, beside those places quoted by Beza, Acts xxvi. 20, Rom. i. 8, and iii. 2, you may read 1 Par. xxiii. xxiv. where the posterity of Levi and Aaron are [i cimm. rehearsed, as they were appointed by David in their orders xxiv.' 7.]' or courses : Subuel primus, Rohobia primus, sors prima Joiarib, &c. where lest you should think of any headship or princi pality,, because the Hebrew is sometime tWl, and the Greek ap-^ow, you may see that Subuel is called primus of the sons of Gerson, when there is no more mention; and more expressly, Rohobia is called primus of the sons of Eleazer, of whom it is said, that he had no more sons ; and that IDttl signifieth here the first in order, it appeareth by those generations, where the second, third, or fourth, is named, as in the sons of Hebron and of Oziel. Also in the sons of Semei, where Jehoth is counted the first, Riza the second, Jaus and Beria, because they increased not in sons, were accounted for one family. In all which there is no other primacy than in the first lot of piy«-,n Joiarib, where the Hebrew word is harishuon, and so follow the rest in order, unto four and twenty courses. Therefore there is no cause why we should not stand to the Greek text in that place, neither did Beza ever deny to stand to it. Martin. Let us see another place. You must grant us (say we) Martin, by this Greek text, that Christ's very blood which was shed for us is really in the chalice, because St Luke saith so in the Greek text. No, saith Beza ; those Greek words came out of the margin into the text, and therefore I translate not according to them, but according to that which I think the truer Greek text, although I find it in no copies in the world : and this his doing is maintained and justified by our See chap. i. .... » , num. 37 : English Protestants m their writings ot late. chap. xvii. num. 11. Fulke. Still Beza speaketh as you inspire into him, while Fulke, he speaketh through your throat or quill. The truth is, Beza • saith, that either there is a manifest solcecophanes, that is, an appearance of incongruity ; or else those words " which is shed for you" seem to be added out of St Matthew; or else it is an error of the writer's, placing that in the nomi native case which should be in the dative : for in the dative case did Basil read them in his Morals1, 21. definition. T1 Tovro to nmqptov q maivq SiadqKq iarXv Iv ra aipari p.ov, ra inrep vpuv tK^vvopAva. Hie calix novum testamentum est in sanguine 88 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. Nevertheless, all our old books, saith Beza, had it so written, as it is commonly printed, in the nominative case. Here are three several distinctions, yet can you find none but one proposition that you set down, as though it were purely and absolutely affirmed by Beza. Likewise, where you speak of no copies in the world, you say more than Beza, who speaketh but of such copies as he had; who, if he were of no better conscience than you would have him seem to be, might feign some copy in his own hands to salve the matter. But the truth is, that since he wrote this, he found one more ancient copy, both in Greek and Latin, which now is at Cambridge, where this whole verse is wanting. But of this matter, which somewhat concerneth myself particularly, I shall have better occasion to write in the places by you quoted, cap. i. 37, and cap. xvii. 11, where I will so justify that which I have written before touching this place, as I trust all learned and indifferent readers shall see how vainly you in sult against me, where you bewray grosser ignorance in Greek phrases than ever I would have suspected in you, being ac counted the principal linguist of the seminary at Rhemes. Martin, Martin. Well, yet, say we, there are places in the same Greek text, as plain for us as these now cited, where you cannot say, it came l Thess. ii. out of the margin, or it was added falsely to the text. As, " Stand and hold fast the traditions," &c. : by this text we require that you grant us traditions delivered by word of mouth, as well as the written word, that is, the scriptures. No, say they, we know the Greek word signifieth tradition, as plain as possibly ; but here and in the like places we rather translate it " ordinances," " instructions," and what else soever. Nay, sirs, say we, you cannot so answer the matter, for in other places you translate it duly and truly "tradition;" and why more in one place than in another? They are ashamed to tell why; hut they must tell, and shame both themselves and the devil, if ever they think it good to answer this treatise : as also, why they changed " congregation," which was always in their first translation, into " church" in their later translations, and did not change likewise " ordinances" into " tra ditions," "elders" into "priests." Fulke, 51. Fulke. That the Thessalonians had some part of chris tian doctrine delivered by word of mouth, that is, by the apostle's preaching, at such time as he did write unto them, meo, qui pro vobis funditur. Basilii Moralia. Regula xxi. c. 3. Opera, v. iii. p. 254. Edit. Gamier, Parisiis, 1722.] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 89 and some part by his epistles, the text enforceth us to grant, and we never purposed to deny : but that the church at this day, or ever since the New Testament was written, had any tradition by word of mouth of any matter necessary to sal vation, which was not contained in the Old or New Testa ment, we will never grant, neither shall you ever be able out of this text or any text in the bible to prove. Make your syllogisms when you dare, and you shall be answered. But "we know," you say, "that the Greek word sig nifieth tradition as plain as possibly; but here, and in like places, we rather translate it ordinances, instructions, and what else soever." We know that it signifieth tradition, constitu tion, instruction, precept ; also mancipation, treatise, treason : for all these the Greek dictionaries do teach that it signi fieth. Therefore if in anyplace we have translated it "ordi nances", or " instructions", or " institutions", we have not gone from the true signification of the word; neither can you ever prove that the word signifieth such a doctrine only as is taught by word of mouth, and is not or may not be put in writing. But in other places you can tell us, that we translate it duly and truly "tradition"; and you will know, why more in one place than in another, affirming that we are shamed to tell why. For my part, I was never of counsel with any that translated the scriptures into English; and therefore it is possible I cannot sufficiently express what rea son moved the translators so to vary in the exposition of one and the same word. Yet can I yield sufficient reason that might lead them so to do, which I think they followed. The papists do commonly so abuse the name of tradition, which signifieth properly a delivery, or a thing delivered, for such a matter as is delivered only by word of mouth, and so received from hand to hand, that it is never put in writing, but hath his credit without the holy scriptures of God, as the Jews had their cabala, and the scribes and Pharisees had their traditions, beside the law of God ; and the Valentinian irenams, heretics accused the scriptures, as insufficient of authority 2. ' and ambiguously written, and that the truth could not be found in them by those that knew not the tradition, which was not delivered by writing, but by word of mouth, just as the papists do. This abusing of the word "tradition" might be a sufficient cause for the translators to render the Greek 90 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. word, where it is taken for such doctrine as is beside the commandment of God, by the name of tradition, as the word is commonly taken. But where the Greek word is taken in the good part, for that doctrine which is agreeable with the holy scriptures, they might with good reason avoid it, as you yourself do not always translate tradere, to betray, but sometimes to deliver. So did the translators give these words/ "ordinances", "instructions", "institutions", or doctrme deli vered ; which do generally signify the same that tradition, but have not the prejudice of that partial signification in which the papists use it, who, wheresoever they find tradition, straightway imagine they have found a sufficient argument against the per fection and sufficiency of the holy scripture, and to bring in all riff-raff and trish-trash of man's doctrine, not only beside, but also contrary to the manifest word of God, contained in his most holy and perfect scriptures. To the shame of the devil therefore, and of all popish maintainers of traditions uncommanded by God, this reason may be yielded. Now to answer you, why ecclesia was first translated "con gregation", and afterward "church" ; the reason that moved the first translators, I think, was this : the word church of the common people at that time was used ambiguously, both for the assembly of the faithful, and for the place in which they assembled ; for the avoiding of which ambiguity they trans lated ecclesia the congregation ; and yet in their creed, and in the notes of their bibles, in preaching and writing, they used the word church for the same : the later translators, seeing the people better instructed and able to discern, when they read in the scriptures, the people from the place of their meeting, used the word church in their translations, as they did in their preaching. These are weighty matters that we must give account of them. Why we change not ordinances into traditions, and elders into priests, we will answer when we come to the proper places of them. In the mean season we think, there is as good cause for us in trans lating, sometime to avoid the terms of traditions and priest, as for you to avoid the names of elders, calling them ancients, and the wise men sages, as though you had rather speak French than English, as we do : like as you translate confide, " have a good heart," after the French phrase, rather than you would say as we do, "be of good comfort." THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 91 Martin. The cause is, that the name of church was at the first Martin, odious unto them, because of the catholic church which stood against 52, them ; but afterward this name grew into more favour with them, be cause of their English church, so at length called and termed. But their hatred of priests and traditions continueth still, as it first began ; and therefore their translation also remaineth as before, suppressing the names both of the one and of the other. But of all these their deal ings they shall be told in their several chapters and places. Fulke. I pray you, who first translated the creed into Fulkk, the English tongue, and taught it to the people, and for 52- that cause were accounted heretics of the antichristian Ro mish rabble ? If the name of church were odious unto them, why did they not suppress that name in the creed which they taught to young and old, and instead of cathohc church call it the universal congregation or assembly ? Well, Davus, these things be not aptly divided according to their times. The first translation of the bible, that was printed in the English tongue, in very many places of the notes useth the name church, and most notoriously in the Song of Salomon, where before every other verse almost it telleth which is the voice of the church to Christ her spouse ; which no reason able man would think the translators would have done, if the name of the church had been odious unto them, or that they thought the cathohc church stood against them. Look Thomas Matthews' bible, in the Canticles of Salomon, and upon the xvi. of St Matthew's Gospel, the 18th verse, the words of Christ to Peter. Therefore your senseless imagina tions shew no hatred of the cathohc church in our translators, but cankered mahce and impudent folly in yourselves. Martin. To conclude, as I began, concerning their shifts and jumps, Martin, and windings, and turnings every way from -one thing to another, till 53- they are driven to the extreme refuge of palpable corruptions and false translations : consider with me in this one case only of traditions, as may be likewise considered in all other controversies, that the ancient fathers, councils, antiquity, universality, and custom of the whole church allow traditions; the canonical scriptures have them, the Latin text hath them, the Greek text hath them ; only their translations have them not. Likewise in the Old Testament, the approved Latin text hath such and such speeches, that make for us ; the renowned Greek text hath it, the Hebrew text hath it ; only their translations have it not. These are the translations which we call heretical and wilful, and which shall be examined and discussed in this book. 92 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. Fulke, Fulke. By what windings and turnings, I pray you, are " we driven to that miserable refuge of palpable corruptions and false translations ? for hitherto you have shewed none, but such as shew your own ignorance or mahce. Neither, I hope, you shall be able to shew any, though you swear never so sore at your work. Yes, I ween, this one case only of tradi tions, (for so you seem to say,) if it be considered, will discover no less. It is marvel, if for your sake all the Greek diction aries in the world must not be corrected, and taught to say, that irapal>oai.$ can signify nothing but a tradition, that is, not written. But yet you roll in your accustomed rhetoric, say ing, that "the ancient fathers, councils, antiquity, universality, and custom of the whole church allow traditions :" and so do we, so many as be good and agreeable to the holy scrip tures ; but that there be traditions of matter necessary to salvation not contained in the holy scriptures, when you bring your fathers, councils, &c. you shall receive an answer to them. That the canonical scripture alloweth any traditions contrary to the doctrine thereof, or to supply any want or imperfection thereof, as though all things required to make the man of God perfect, prepared to all good works, were not contained in the scriptures, you shall never be able to prove, although for spite against the perfection of the canoni cal scripture you should brast asunder, as Judas did, which betrayed the author of the scripture. Finally, whatsoever you say out of the Old Testament without proof or shew of proof, it is as easily denied by us as it is affirmed by you. When you bring but only a shadow of reason, it shall soon be chased away with the light of truth. THE ARGUMENTS OF EVERY CHAPTER, WITH THE PAGE WHERE EVERY CHAPTER BEGINNETH. CHAPTER I. PAGE That the Protestants translate the holy Scripture falsely of pur pose, in favour of their heresies, throughout all controversies 95 CHAPTER II. Against apostolical traditions 164 CHAPTER III. Against sacred images 179 CHAPTER IV. The ecclesiastical use of words turned into their original and profane significations 217 CHAPTER V. Against the Church 225 CHAPTER VI. Against priest and priesthood. Where much also is said of their profaning of ecclesiastical words 240 CHAPTER VII. Against purgatory, Limbus Patrum, and Christ's descending into hell 278 CHAPTER VIII. Concerning justification, and God's justice in rewarding good works 332 CHAPTER IX. Against merits, meritorious works, and the reward for the same 343 CHAPTER X. Against free will 375 CHAPTER XI. For imputative justice against true inherent justice 401 94 THE ARGUMENTS OF EVERY CHAPTER. CHAPTER XII. PAGE For special faith, vain security, and only faith' 415 CHAPTER XIII. Against penance and satisfaction 428 CHAPTER XIV. Against the holy sacraments, namely baptism, and confession ... 450 CHAPTER XV. Against the sacrament of holy orders, and for the mamage of priests and votaries 460 CHAPTER XVI. Against the sacrament of matrimony 492 CHAPTER XVII. Against the blessed sacrament, and sacrifice, and altars 497 CHAPTER XVIII. Against the honour of saints, namely, of our blessed lady 526 CHAPTER XIX. Against the distinction of Dulia and Latria 539 CHAPTER XX. Adding to the text 547 CHAPTER XXI. Other heretical treacheries and corruptions worthy of observa tion 557 CHAPTER XXII. Other faults Judaical, profane, mere vanities, follies, and novelties 571 A DISCOVERY m*»™. MANIFOLD CORRUPTIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, BY THE HERETICS OF OUR DAYS, SPECIALLY THE ENGLISH SECTARIES, AND OF THEIR FOUL DEALING HEREIN, BY PARTIAL AND FALSE TRANSLATIONS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR HERESIES, IN THEIR ENGLISH BIBLES USED AND AUTHORISED SINCE THE TIME OF SCHISM. CHAPTER I. That the Protestants translate the holy Scriptures falsely of purpose, in favour of their heresies. Martin. Though this shall evidently appear throughout this whole Martin, 1. book in every place that shall be objected unto them; yet because it is an observation of greatest importance in this case, and which stingeth them sore, and toucheth their credit exceedingly, insomuch that one of them setting a good face upon the matter saith confidently, that Confutation all the papists in the world are not able to shew one place of scrip- fo. 35, p. 2. ' ture mistranslated wilfully of purpose ; therefore I will give the reader certain brief observations and evident marks to know wilful corruptions, as it were an abridgement and sum of this treatise. Fulke. Although this trifling treatise was in hand two or Fulke, 1. three years ago, as by the threatening of Bristow1 and Howlet [} Richard Bristow, a most zealous advocate for the Roman Catholic cause, was born at Worcester in the beginning of the 16th Century. He left the University of Oxford in 1569, and becoming acquainted with Dr Allen, was made public lecturer on Divinity at Doway. He wrote, among other things, A brief treatise of divers plain and sure ways to find out the truth in this doubtful and dangerous time of heresy, contain ing sundry motives unto the Catholic faith ; or, considerations to move a man to believe the Catholics, and not the heretics. Antwerp, 1674. These motives were answered by Fulke in his Retentive to stay good Christ ians in true faith and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristow. London, 1580. Bristow also wrote A Reply to William Fulke, in Defence of Dr Allen's Scroul of Articles, and Book of Purgatry. Lovaine, 1580. To 96 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. it may appear ; yet, that it might seem new, and a sudden piece of work compiled with small study, you thought good by carping at my confutation of Howlet1 last made, and of M. Whitaker 's2 work, set forth later than it, as it were by setting on new ears upon your old pot, to make it seem to be a new vessel. And first of all, you would seem to have taken occasion of my confident speech in my. confutation of Howlet's nine reasons3, in rehearsing whereof you use such fidelity as commonly papists used to bear towards God, the church, your prince, and your country. For what face so ever I set upon the matter, with a whorish forehead and a brasen face you make report of my saying ; which, being testified by a thousand copies printed, as it were by so many witnesses, doth cry out upon your falsehood and injurious dealing. For my words, out of the place by you quoted such doth against Howlet, are these : "That some error may be in trans- Howlett o ' v rthli."8 lation (although by you it cannot be shewed) I will not deny ; but that any shameless translations, or wilful corruptions, can be found of purpose to draw the scriptures to any heretical which Fulke rejoined the following year, in his book entitled A re joinder to Bristow's Replie in defence of Allen's Scroll of Articles and Booke of Purgatorie, §c. 1581. p. 792. Wood's Athens, Vol. i. pp. 482—484.] Q1 The Howlet here referred to was Persons the Jesuit, who pub lished under this name a treatise, entitled A brief Discourse, containing the reasons why Catholics refuse to go to Church. Doway, 1580. It was answered the same year, in A Check to Mr Howlet's Screechings to her Majesty, (Wood's Athens, Vol. v. pp. 68, 69.;) and in a Caveat for Parson Howlet, 1581, (Hartshorne's Book Rarities of Cambridge, p. 442;) and also by Fulke, in Howlet's Nine Reasons; and seems to be the same book as the one just mentioned. Wood's Athene, Vol. n. p. 60, and Possevinus in Apparat. Sacr. Vol. n., under Robert Persons.] [2 Whitaker, a learned divine, and Master of St John's College, Cam bridge: the able antagonist of Cardinal Bellarmine, Stapleton, Cam pian, Saunders, Rainolds, &c. He died in 1595.] [3 " A briefe confutation of a Papist Discourse : lately set forth, and presumptuously dedicated to the Queen's most excellent Majestie: by John Howlet, or some other birde of the night, under that name, contayning certaine Reasons, why Papistes refuse to come to Chinch, which reasons are here inserted and set downe at large, with their several answers. By D. Fulke, Maister of Pembroke Hall, in Cam bridge. Seene and allowed. At London, printed for George Byshop, 1581. qto. b. 1. 58 leaves."] !•] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 97 opinion, all the papists in the world shall never be able to make demonstration." This was my saying, and I repeat it again with as great confidence as before; yea, and with much greater too, forasmuch as all the papists in the semi nary, having now beaten their heads together to find out " shameless translations and wilful corruptions of purpose to maintain heresies," can find nothing but old frivolous quarrels answered long before, or new trifling cavils, not worthy in deed of any learned man's answer, but for satisfying of the simple and ignorant. How this my saying differeth from your slanderous report, I trust every reasonable papist that will take pains to confer them together, will be enforced to acknowledge. For where I say " shameless translations and wilful corruptions," (as Howlet chargeth us), you report me to say "mistranslated ;" although in plain words I did confess that there might be some errors even in the best and perfectest of our translations. For to translate out of one tongue into another is a matter of greater difficulty than it is- commonly taken, I mean exactly to yield as much and no more than the original containeth, when the words and phrases are so different, that few are found which in all points signify the same thing, neither more nor less, in divers tongues. Where fore, notwithstanding any translation that can be made, the knowledge of the tongues is necessary in the church, for the perfect discussing of the sense and meaning of the holy scrip tures. Now, if some of our translators, or they all, have not attained to the best and most proper expressing of the nature of all words and phrases of the Hebrew and Greek tongue^ in English, it is not the matter that I will stand to defend, nor the translators themselves, I am well assured, if they were all living: but that the scriptures are not impudently falsified or wilfully corrupted by them, to maintain any heretical opinion, as the adversary chargeth us, that is the thing that I will (by God's grace) stand to defend against all the papists in the world. And this end you have falsely and fraudulently omitted in reporting my saying, whereupon de- pendeth the chief, yea, the whole matter of my assertion. You play manifestly with us the lewd part of Procrustes, the thievish host, which would make his guests' stature equal with his bed's, either by stretching them out if they were too short, or by cutting off their legs if they were too long. So r i ' 7 [fulke. J 98 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. if our sayings be too short for your purpose, you strain them to be longer ; if they be too long, you cut off their shanks ; yea, that which is worse, the very head, as you play with me in this place. I myself, and so did many hundreds beside me, hear that reverend father, M. Doctor Coverdale, of holy and learned memory, in a sermon at Paul's cross, upon occasion of some slanderous reports that then were raised against his translation, declare his faithful purpose in doing the same; which after it was finished, and presented to king Henry VIII. of famous memory, and by him committed to divers bishops of that time to peruse, of which (as I remember) Stephen Gardiner was one; after they had kept it long in their hands, and the king was divers times sued unto for the pubhcation thereof, at the last being called for by the king himself, they redelivered the book ; and being demanded by the king what was their judgment of the translation, they answered that there were many faults therein. "Well," said the king, "but are there any heresies maintained thereby ? " They answered, there were no heresies, that they could find, maintained thereby. "If there be no heresies," said the king, "then in God's name let it go abroad among our people." According to this judg ment of the king and the bishops, M. Coverdale defended his translation, confessing that he did now himself espy some faults, which, if he might review it once over again, as he had done twice before, he doubted not but to amend ; but for any heresy, he was sure there was none maintained by his trans lation. After the same manner, I doubt not (by God's help) so to defend all our translations, for all your evident marks to know wilful corruptions, that not one shall be found of pur pose to maintain any heretical opinion, and not many errors committed through negligence, ignorance, or human frailty- Martin, 2. Martin. The first mark and most general is : If they translate else- Evident where not amiss, and in places of controversy between them and us most signs to know falsely; it is an evident argument that they do it not of negligence, oi ruptionsin ignorance, but of partiality to the matter in controversy. This is to be trans atmg. ggen through the whole bible, where the faults of their translations are altogether, or specially, in those scriptures that concern the causes in question between us. For other small faults, or rather oversights, we will no further note unto them, than to the end that they may the more easily pardon us the like, if they find them. Fulke, 2. Fulke. This mark is too general to know anything !•] TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 99 thereby : when you do exemplify it in special, you shall easily be answered : in the meantime, it is sufficient to deny generally, that wherewith you so generally charge us, that we have in places of controversy translated anything falsely. If one word be otherwise translated in any place of contro versy, than it is in other places out of controversy, there may be rendered sufficient reason of that variety, without that it must needs come of partiality to the matter in controversy, but rather of love of the truth, which in all matters of ques tion between us is confirmed by plain text of scriptures, or necessary collection out of the same ; so that if the translation in those places were the same that yours is, of the New Tes tament, it should neither hinder our truth, nor fortify your error. As for small faults and oversights, reason it is (as you say) they should be pardoned on both sides. Martin. If, as in their opinions and heresies they forsake the an- Martin, 3. cient fathers, so also in their translations they go from that text and ancient reading of holy scriptures, which all the fathers used and ex pounded; is it not plain that their translation followeth the vein and humour of their heresy ? And again, if they that so abhor from the an cient expositions of the fathers, yet, if it seem to serve for them, stick not to make the exposition of any one doctor the very text of holy scripture ; what is this but heretical wilfulness ? See this, chap. i. numb. 43. chap. x. numb. 1, 2. chap, xviii. numb. 10, 11. and chap. xix. numb. 1. Fulke. We never go from that text and ancient reading, Fulke, 3. which all the fathers used and expounded ; but we translate that most usual text, which was first printed out of the most ancient copies that could be found ; and if any be since found, or if any of the ancient fathers did read otherwise than the usual copies, in any word that is any way material, in anno tation, commentaries, readings, and sermons, we spare not to declare it as occasion serveth : but that we " stick not to make the exposition of any one doctor the very text of holy scripture," it is a very heinous slander, neither can it be proved in any of the places of your book, which you quote for that purpose. Martin. Again, if they that profess to translate the Hebrew and Martin, 4. Greek, and that because it maketh more for them (as they say), and therefore in all conferences and disputations appeal unto it as to the fountain and touchstone, if they (I say) in translating places of con troversy flee from the Hebrew and the Greek ; it-is a most certain argu- 7—2 100 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH [cH. ment of wilful corruption. This is done many ways, and is to b.e observed also throughout the whole bible, and in all this book. Fulke, 4. Fulke. We never flee from the Hebrew and Greek in any place, much less in places of controversy ; but we always hold, as near as we can, that which the Greek and Hebrew signifieth. But if in places of controversy we take witness of the Greek or vulgar Latin, where the Hebrew or Greek may be thought ambiguous; I trust no wise man will count this a flight from the Hebrew and Greek, which we always translate aright, whether it agree with the Seventy or vulgar Latin, or no. Martin, 5.' Martin. If the Greek be idololatria and idohMra, and they trans- eiSm\o\a- late not idolatry and idolater, but, worshipping of images, and wor- T,P€i?\ , shipper of images : and that so absurdly, that they make the apostle sayj eiSai\o\a- , " f , . „. , ,, . uji.iPi Tp»is. covetousness is worshipping ot images ; this none would do but tools or Eph. y. madmen, unless it were of purpose against sacred images. See chap. iii. B?b'. an. 1577. numb. 1, 2. Fulke, 5. Fulke. If the Greek words do signify as we translate, (as hath been often proved,) who but a wrangling quarreller would find fault therewith, except it were to maintain idolatry, or worshipping of images, which before God and all wise men of the world is all one? And where you say, none but fools or madmen would translate, Ep. v.1 Col. hi., " covetousness is worshipping of images ;" I pray you, in whether order will you place Isidorus Clarius, of a monk of Casinas made bishop Ful- ginas, which in the third to the Colossians upon your vulgar Latin text, (which according to the Gneek calleth idololatria, simulacrorum servitus, the service of images,) in his notes upon the place writeth this : Prceter cetera peccata avaritid peculiare hoc nomen assecuta est, ut dicatur esse (horrendum nomen) cultus simulacrorum. Nam pecunia quid aliud est quam simulacrum quoddam, vel argenteum vel aureum, quod homines avari plus amant, et longe majore cultu atque honor e prosequuntur, quam ipsum Deumf® "Above other sins, p The translations of Tyndale 1534, Cranmer 1539, and Bishops' Bible 1584, render Ephes. v. 5. & imiv elbaXoXaTpqs, "which is a worshipper of images." The Geneva versions 1557, 1560, have it the same as the Authorised version of 1611, "which is an idolater." The Vulgate has, "quod est idolorum servitus."] [s Critici Sacri. vii. 284.] !•] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 101 covetousness hath obtamed this pecuhar name, that it is called (which is an horrible name) the worshipping of images ; for what other thing is money but a certain image, either of silver or gold, wliich covetous men do love more, and prosecute with far greater worship and honour, than they do God him self?" Or, if you make no count of Isidorus Clarius, in what degree will you account the deputies of the council of Trent3, whose severe censure this note hath escaped ? of fools, or of madmen, or of enemies to sacred images? Yea, how will you excuse your own vulgar Latin translation, which turneth idololatria out of Greek into simulacrorum servitus, " the service or worship of images" ? I am"not so unaquainted with your shameless shifts, but I know right well that you will say, this Latin word simulacrum signifieth a false image, or an idol that is worshipped as God ; for nothing else you will acknowledge to be an idol. But who shall better tell us what the Latin word simulacrum doth signify, than the father of eloquence in the Latin tongue, even Tully himself, who in bis oration pro Archia poeta useth simulacrum for the same that statua and imago? Speaking of the cunning image-makers of Greece, he saith, Statuce et imagines non animorum simulacra sunt, sed corporum : " standing images and other images are not similitudes or images of the minds, but of the bodies." And in his accusation of Verres he nameth effigies simulacrumque Miihridatis, " the shape and image of Mithridates," In his second book De Inventione he sheweth that Zeuxis, that fambus painter, did paint the image of He lena : ut excellentem muliebrisformce pulchritudinem muta in sese imago contineret, Helenas se pingere velle simulacrum dixit. " That a dumb image might contain in it the excellent beauty of a woman's form, he said he would paint the simili tude or image of Helena." Also in his familiar epistles, Epist. lxviii., Illi artifices corporis simulacra ignotis nota faciehant : " those workmen did make the images of the bodies known to them that knew them not." And so com monly he useth simulacrum justitice, virtutis, civitatis, for the image or similitude of justice, of virtue, of a city or commonwealth, &c. And so do other good Latin writers, as well as he, use the word simulacrum, not only for an image [* The deputies who took off the interdiction pronounced on tho edition of 1542.] 102 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH [cH. that is rehgiously worshipped, but even generally for any image, and in the same signification that they use the word imago. But peradventure ecclesiastical writers use the word simulacrum only for idols forbidden ; and I perhaps shall be chidden of Martin for citing testimonies out of profane authors, to know the use of ecclesiastical terms. Let us see then what christian writers say to this matter, and how they use this word simulacrum. You yourselves say we may not trans late that verse of Genesis, " God made man after his idol." De vera Dei But Lactantius1 calleth men viventia Dei simulacra, "living cap.uk' ' ' images of God," which we ought to garnish rather than simu lacra insensibiliaDeorum, " the senseless images of the Gods," which the heathen garnished : yea, he hath a whole chapter, Deorig. intituled, De simulacris et vero Dei simulacro et cultu, cap. 2. "" " Of images and of the true image and worship of God"; in which also he sheweth that simulacrum is called of simili- tude : and therefore the heathenish idols, having no resem blance of God, cannot properly be called simulacra. St Ambrose2, another writer of the church, upon 1 Cor. x., upon that text, Non quia simulacrum est aliquid, &c, " not that the image is anything" : (the Greek is idolum :) Simulacrum vere nihil est, quia imago videtur rei mortuce : " The image or idol is indeed nothing, because it seemeth to be an image of a dead thing." Also upon the 45th psalm : " God was high in the patriarchs and prophets, which did not compare him imaginibus terrenis et simulacris scrupeis3, to images or similitudes of the earth and stone." Tertulhan4 also, a Latin writer, in his book De Spectaculis, speaking of cunning workmanship of imagery, shewed in those plays, and the authors of them, saith : Scimus enim nihil esse nomina mor- tuorum, sicut nee ipsa simulacra eorum : " we know that the names of those dead men are nothing, as also their images." P Nam si deorum cultores simulacra insensibilia excolunt, et quidquid pretiosi habent, in ea confemnt, quibus nee uti possunt, nee gratias agere, quod acceperint; quanto justius est et verius, viventia Dei simulacra excolere, ut promereare viventem 1 Lactantii De vero Cultu, Lib. vi. cap. 13. Opera, Vol. i. p. 472. edit. Dufresnoy, Lutet. Paris. 1748.] Q2 Simulacrum vere nihil est, quia imago videtur rei mortua? : sed sub tegmine simulacrorum diabolus colitur. Ambros. Op. Vol. n. p. 146.] Q3 In Psal. xlv. Enarratio, prop, fin.] P Tertullianus de Spectaculis, p. 15.. edit. Rigalt. 1634.] *¦] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 103 Afterward to their names, nominibus, he joineth imaginibus, to shew that simulacra and imagines are all one, which of Christians at that time were greatly abhorred in detestation of idolatry. St Augustine5 calleth the same simulacra, which before he called imagines: Cum ex desiderio mortuorum constituerentur imagines, unde simulacrorum usus exortus est : " when for desire of the dead images were made, whereof the use of images came, through flattery, divine honour was given unto them." And so they brought in idolatry, or the worshipping of images. The same Augustine6, in his book Octoginta Qucestion., in the seventy-eighth question, which is intituled De simulacrorum pulchritudine, " of the beauty of images," ascribeth to God the cunning by which they are made beautiful. And in his questions upon the book of Judges, lib. vii. cap. 41, inquiring how Gideon's ephod was a cause of fornication to the people, when it was no idol7, he P Non igitur mirum est, si praevaricatores angeli, quorum duo maxima vitia sunt superbia atque fallacia, per hunc aerem volitantes, quod uni vero Deo deberi noverant, hoc sibi a suis cultoribus exe- gerunt, a quibus dii putari voluerunt, dante sibi locum vanitate cordis humani: maxime cum ex desiderio mortuorum constituerentur ima gines, unde simulacrorum usus exortus est. Augustini Contra Faustum. Lib. xxii. cap. 17. Opera, Vol. viii. p. 577. edit. Paris. 1837.] Q6 Ars ilia summa omnipotentis Dei, per quam ex nihilo facta sunt omnia, quse etiam sapientia ejus dicitur, ipsa operatur etiam per arti fices, ut pulchra atque congruentia faciant ; quamvis non de nihilo, sed de aliqua materia operentur, velut ligno, aut marmore, aut ebore, et si quod aliud materiae genus manibus artificis subditur. Sed ideo isti non possunt de nihilo aliquid fabricare, quia per corpus operantur, cum tamen eos numeros et lineamentorum convenientiam, quse per corpus corpori imprimunt, in animo accipiant ab ilia summa sapientia, quas ip- sos numeros et ipsam convenientiam longe artificiosius universo mundi coipori impressit, quod de nihilo fabricatum est; in quo sunt etiam corpora animalium, quse jam de aliquo, id est, de elementis mundi fabricantur, sed longe potentius excellentiusque, quam cum artifices homines easdem figuras corporum et formas in suis operibus imitantur. Augustini Liber de diversis Quaestionibus, lxxviii. Vol. vi. p. 125.] [7 Hoc ergo illicitum cum fecisset Gedeon, fornicatus est post illud omnis Israel, id est, sequendo illud contra legem Dei: ubi non frustra quseritur, cum idolum non fuerit, id est, cujusquam Dei falsi et alieni simulacrum, sed ephud, -id est, unum de sacramentis tabernaculi quod ad vestem sacerdotalem pertineret, quomodo fornicationem scriptura dicat populi ista sectantis atque venerantis. Augustini Qusestiones in Judices, xli. Vol. m. p. 939.] 104 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. plainly distinguisheth simulacrum from idolum, as the ge neral from the special, Cum, idolum non fuerit, id est cujus- piam dei falsi et alieni simulacrum : " when it was no idol, that is to say, an image of some false or strange God." Again he saith : " Those things that were commanded to be made in the tabernacle, were rather referred to the worship of God, than that anything of them should be taken for God, or for an image of God, pro Dei simulacro. So that simulacrum with St Augustine signifieth as generally as image, and can not be restrained to signify an idol in the evil part, except you add, that it is an image of a false or strange god. Ar- nobius, an ecclesiastical writer of the Latin church, useth the word simulacrum for an image generally ; calling man also simulacrum Dei, (as Lactantius1 doth the image of God,) Cont. gent. lib. vi. Putatis autem nos occultare quod colimusj si delubra et aras non habemus ? Quod enim simulacrum Deo fingam, cum si recte existimes sit Dei Iwmo ipse simu lacrum ? " Think you that we do hide that which we worship, if we have no temples and altars? For what image shall I feign to God? whereas, if you judge rightly, man himself is the image of God." You see therefore that simulacrum sig nifieth not an idol worshipped for God, but even as much as imago, by your own rule. Last of all, (for I will not trouble the reader with more, although more might be brought,) Isi dorus Hispalensis, an ancient bishop of the Latin church, Originum, lib. viii., speaking of the first inventors of images, which after were abused to idolatry, saith : Fuerunt etiam et quidam viri fortes aut urbium conditores, quibus mortuis homines qui eos dilexerunt simulacra finxerunt, ut haberent aUquod ex imaginum contemplatione solatium; sed paulatim hunc errorem, &c. " There were also certain valiant men, or builders of cities, who when they were dead, men which loved them made their images or counterfeits, that they might have some comfort in beholding the images ; but by little and little, the devils persuading this error, it is certain that so it crept into their posterity, that those whom they honoured for the only remembrance of their name, their successors esteemed P Itaque simulacrum Dei non illud est, quod digitis hominis ex lapide, aut aere, aliave materia fabricatur; sed ipse homo, quoniam et sentit, et movetur, et multas magnasque actiones habet. Firm. Lac- tantii Divin. Institut. Lib. n. cap. 2.] !•] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 105 and worshipped as gods." Again he saith, Simulacra autem a similitudine nuncupata, &c. " Images are called simulacra of the similitude, because by the hand of the artificers of stone or other matter they resemble the counte nance of them in whose honour they are feigned ; or they are called a simulando, whereof it followeth they are false things2." These testimonies needed not for them that be but half- learned, which know right well that simulacrum is synono- mon with imago ; but that our adversaries are so impudent, that to serve their idolatrous affection they care not what idols they invent, of words, of significations, of distinctions, so they may seem to say somewhat in the ears of the unlearned, which are not able to judge of such matters. But perhaps they will say, their vulgar Latin interpreter useth the word simulacrum only for idols that are worshipped with divine honour. Neither is that true ; and although it were, seeing it seldom useth simulacra, and most commonly idola, and sometimes imagines, what reason is there why we may not call those things images, which your interpreter calleth simu lacra ? And to prove that your interpreter useth simula crum for an image generally, as all other Latin writers do, you may see 1 Sam. cap. xix.3, where speaking of the image which Michol laid in the bed, to counterfeit the sickness of David, first he calleth it statuam, and afterward the same image he calleth simulacrum. And sure it is, that David had no idols in his house. And lest you should cavil about the Hebrew word teraphimi, which the Septuaginta translate KevoTctcpia, Aquila calleth noprpoifxara, St Jerome telleth you Quast. Heb. P Sed paulatim hunc errorem, persuadentibus dsemonibus ita ut posteris constet irrepsisse, ut quos illi pro sola nominis memoria ho- noraverunt, successores deos existimarent atque colerent. Simulacra autem a similitudine nuncupata, eo quod manu artificis ex lapide aliave materia eorum vultus imitantur, in quorum honorem finguntur. Ergo simulacra, vel pro eo quod sunt similia, vel pro eo quod si- mulata atque conficta, unde et falsa sunt. Etymologiarum, Lib. vm. • cap. 5, 6, Vol. in. p. 376. edit. Arevalo.] [3 The LXX. have 1 Sam. 13. ical ZXafcv q MeXxoA to. KevorcKpta: the Vulgate has, "Tulit autem Michol statuam." At the 16th verse the LXX. have, ««. 'Sou ra Kevoraqjia: the Vulgate, "inventum est simulacrum."^] [4 Et furata est Rachel idola patris sui: (Gen. xxxi. 19.) ubi nunc idola legimus, in Hebrseo Theraphim (?''Bin) scriptum est, quse 106 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. they signify figuras or imagines, " figures or images," which sometimes were abused to idolatry, as those which Bachel stole, and those which are mentioned Jud. xvii. Aben Ezra, and other of the rabbins, say they were astronomical images, to serve for dials, or other purposes of astrology ; and such, it is most like, was that which was placed in David's bed, which your interpreter calleth statuam and simulacrum. Therefore, whereas we have translated idololatria, Col. iii.1, " worship ping of images," we have done rightly; and your Latin inter preter will warrant that translation, which translateth the same word, simulacrorum servitus, the service of images. It is you therefore, and not we, that are to be blamed for translation of that word ; for where you charge us to depart from the Greek text, which we profess to translate, we do not, except your vulgar translation be false. But you, pro fessing to follow the Latin, as the only true and authentical text, do manifestly depart from it in your translation ; for the Latin being simulacrorum servitus, you call it the service of idols, appealing to the Greek word, which you have set in the margin, elSioXoXarpeia, and dare not translate according to your own Latin ; for then you should have called covetousness even as we do, the worshipping or service of images. And yet you charge us in your notes with a marvellous impudent and foohsh corruption. But I report me to all indifferent readers, whether this be not a marvellous impudent aud fool ish reprehension, to reprove us for saying the same in English, that your own interpreter saith in Latin ; for simulacro rum servitus is as well the service of images, as simulacro rum artifex is a maker of images, whom none but a fool or a madman would call a maker of idols ; because, not the craftsman that frameth the image, but he that setteth it up to be worshipped as God, maketh an idol, according to your own Aquila poprpapara, id est, figuras, vel imagines interpretatur. Hoc au tem ideo, ut sciamus quid Judicum libro Thbraphim sonet. (Jud. xvii. 5.) Hieronymi Qusestionum Hebraic, in Genesim. Opera, Vol. u. p. 535. edit. Martianay.] [x koi rqv ivXeoveguiv, rfns io-riv ddaXoXarpela. Coloss. iii. 5. "Et avaritiam, quse est simulacrorum servitus.'" Vulg. "And covetousness, which is worshipping of idols." Tyndale, Cranmer. "And covetousness, which is idolatry." Geneva, Authorised. "And covetousness, which is worshipping of images." Bishops' Bible. "And avarice, which is the service of idols." Rheims.J !•] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 107 acceptation of an idol. But of this matter enough at this time. Martin. If the apostle say, a Pagan idolater, and a Christian idol- Martin, 6. ater, by one and the same Greek word, in one and the same meaning ; 1£or; v; , and they translate, a Pagan idolater, and a Christian worshipper of xptjs. images, by two distinct words and diverse meanings ; it must needs be Blb- an' 1S62' done wilfully to the foresaid purpose. See chap. iii. numb. 8, 9. Fulke. We translate not only pagan idolaters, but also Fulke, 6. Jewish idolaters, nor Christians only worshippers of images, but pagans also : wherefore this is a foohsh observation. And if we do any where explicate, who is an idolater, by translating him a worshipper of images, both the word bear- eth it, and it is not contrary to the sense of the scriptures, in which we find the worshipping of images always forbidden, but never commanded or allowed. Martin. If they translate one and the same Greek word tradition, Martin, 7. whensoever the scripture speaketh of evil traditions ; and never translate irapdioaK. it so, whensoever it speaketh of good and apostolical traditions; their intention is evident against the authority of traditions. See chap. ii. numb. 1, 2, 3. Fulke. This is answered sufficiently in confutation of Fulke, 7. the preface, sect. 51. The English word " tradition" sounding in the evil part, and taken by the papists for matter un written, yet as true and as necessary as that which is con tained in the holy scriptures, we have upon just cause avoided in such places, as the Greek word signifieth good and necessary doctrine, delivered by the apostles, which is all contained in the scriptures ; and yet have used such English words as sufficiently express the Greek word used in the original text. Do not you yourselves translate tradere some times to betray, and sometimes to deliver? Martin. Yea, if they translate "tradition," taken in ill part, where it Martin, 8. is not in the Greek ; and translate it not so, where it is in the Greek, ri Soy/xa- taken in good part ; it is more evidence of the foresaid wicked intention. JJje|[;^;. See chap. ii. numb. 5, 6. p rl cos £avres iv Koo-pa Hoyparifeo-de ; Col. ii. 20. "Quidadhuc tamquam viventes in mundo decernitis?" Vulg. "Are ye led with tra ditions of them that say?" Tyndale. "Are ye led with traditions 3" 108 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH, Fulke, 8. Fulke. Our intention can be no worse than your vulgar Latin interpreter's was, who, where the Greek hath e6n, translateth it traditions, Act. vi. And the right understanding of the word SoyfiaTt^eaOe, according to the Apostle's mean ing, will yield traditions, as well as e9n in the place before mentioned. Martin, 9. Martin. If they make this a good rule, to translate according to the usual signification, and not the original derivation of words, as Beza and Pag. 209. Master Whitakers do ; and if they translate contrary to this rule, what is it but wilful corruption ? So they do in translating idolum an image, presbyter an elder ; and the like. See chap. iv. and chap. vi. numb. 6, 7, 8, &c, numb. 13, &c. Fulke, 9. Fulke. Neither Beza, nor Master Whitaker, make it a perpetual rule to translate according to the usual significa-' tion ; for sometimes a word is not taken in the usual signifp cation : as Fcenerator, used by your vulgar Latin interpreter, Luke vii., usually signifieth an usurer ; yet do you translate it a creditor. Likewise stabulum, used Luke x., usually signifieth a stable, yet you translate it an inn. So navis, which usually signifieth a ship, you call it a boat, Mark viii.; and navicula, which usually signifieth a boat, you call a ship, Luke v. And yet I think you meant no wilful corruption. No more surely did they which translated idolum an image, and presbyter an elder, which you cannot deny. But they follow the original derivation of the words ; whereas some of yours both go from the usual signification, and also from the original derivation. Cranmer, Bishops' Bible. "Are ye burdened with traditions?" Geneva. "Are ye subject to ordinances?" Authorised. "Why do you yet de cree as living in the world?" Rheims. (See c. n., n. 4.)] [} Luke vii. 41. &v0 xPeu>(Pfl^TCU y' Saveurrjj nvi. Vulgate, "Duo debitores erant cuidam foeneratori." Rhemish translation, "A certain creditor had two debtors." Luke x. 34. ijyayev avrov eh irav&oxeiov. Vulgate, "duxit in sta bulum", rendered by the Rhemish translator, "brought him to an inn.'' Mark viii. 10. eppas tis to tvXo'wv. Vulg. "ascendens navim." Rhemish translation, "going up into the boat." Luke v. 3. 48l8a the kinS made supreme head, then their translation was 1562. made accordingly ; and if afterward, when these errors were well estab lished in the realm, and had taken root in the people's hearts, all was altered and changed in their later translations, and now they could not find that in the Greek, which was in the former translation ; what was it at the first, but wilful corruption to serve the time that then was? See chap. iii. 5. chap. xvii. numb. 15, chap. xv. numb. 22. I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. Ill Fulke. For images, altars, the catholic church's autho- Fulke, rity, the king's supremacy, nothing is altered in the latter 12, translations, that was falsely translated in the former, except perhaps the printer's fault be reformed. Neither can any thing be proved to maintain the popish images, altars, church's authority, or pope's supremacy, out of any translation of the scriptures, or out of the original itself. Therefore our trans lations were not framed according to the time; but if any thing were not uttered so plainly or so aptly as it might, why should not one translation help another ? Martin. If at the first revolt, when none were noted for heretics Martin, 11 and schismatics but themselves, they did not once put the names of schism or heresy in the bible1, but instead thereof division and sect, Bib. 1562. insomuch that for an heretic they said, an author of sects ; what may we judge of it but as of wilful corruption ? See chap. iv. numb. 3. Fulke. Yes, reasonable men may judge, that they did Fulke, it to shew unto the ignorant people, what the names of ' schismatic and heretic do signify, rather than to make them believe, that heresy and schism was not spoken against in the scripture. That they translated heresy sect, they did it by example of your vulgar Latin interpreter, who, in the 24th of the Acts2, translateth the Greek word alpeoews sectce. In which chapter likewise, as he also hath done, they have translated the same word heresy. Martin. If they translate so absurdly at the first, that themselves Martin, are driven to change it for shame ; it must needs be at the first wil- 1 ful corruption. For example, when it was in the first temple, and in the later altar; in the first always congregation, in the later always church; in the first, "to the king as chief head," in the later, "to the [} Titus iii. 10. AlperiKov avBpamov pera piav Kal Sevrepav vov- 6eo-iav irapaiTov. Wiclif, 1380, renders it, " Eschew thou a man here tic ;" and Tyndale, 1534, " A man that is given to heresy, after the first and second admonition, avoid." Cranmer's version 1539, and 1562, has, " A man that is author of sects, after the first and second admonition, avoid." The Geneva versions of 1557, 1560, 1577, 1580, have, "Re ject him that is an heretic, after once or twice admonition." The Rhemish, Bishops' 1584, and Authorised 1611, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid."] P Acts xxiv. 5. T?js rfij' Na£copala>v alpeoetos. Vulgate, "Sectse Nazarenorum." Rhemish version, " Sect of the Nazarenes." " Sect of the Nazarites," edit. 1534, 1539, 1567.] 112 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. king as having pre-eminence." So did Beza first translate carcase, and afterward soul1. Which alteration in all these places is so great, that it could not be negligence at the first or ignorance, but a plain heretical intention. See chap. xvii. numb. 15, chap. v. numb. 4, 5, chap. xv. numb. 22, chap. vii. numb. 2. Fulke, Fulke. Nay, it may be an oversight, or escape of neg ligence, or the printer's fault, as it is manifest in that quarrel you make of temple for altar : for in Thomas Matthew's translation, the first that was printed in English with au thority, there is altar in both places, 1 Cor. ix. and x. For the term congregation changed into church, it was not for shame of the former, which was true, but because the other term of church was now well understood, to shew that the, word of scripture agreeth with the word of our creed ; or perhaps to avoid your fond quarrel, not now first picked, to the term congregation. Whereas the former was, "To the king or chief head," the latter saying, " the king as having pre-eminence," doth nothing derogate unto the former, and the former is contained under the latter. For I hope you will grant, that the king is chief head of his people; or if the word liead displease you (because you are so good a Frenchman), tell us what chief doth signify, but an head? Now this place of Peter speaketh not particularly of the king's authority over the Church, or in church matters: therefore if it had been translated " supreme head," we could have gained no greater argument for the supremacy in ques tion, than we may by the word pre-eminence, or by the word extolling, which you use3. That Beza altered the word cadaver into animam, I have shewed he did it to avoid L1 Ovk eyKaTaXetyets rqv ^XV" f1011 «s adov. "Non derelinques animam meam," Edit. 1582. " Non derelinques cadaver meum," Edit. 1556. Nov. Test. Bezae. "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in grave," New Test, translated out of Greek by Beza, Englished by L. Tomson. C. Barker, 1583. fol.] P Extolling a mistake apparently for excelling. The translations alluded to here are of 1 Pet. ii. 13 : 'Ynora-yqTe ovv iraar) avffpomivtj KTto-ei fiia top Kvptov' e'ire 0ao-iXeT, ols vnepe^ovri. "Whether it be unto the king as unto the chief head," Tyndale, 1534; Cranmer, 1539; Geneva, 1557. " Whether it be unto the king as unto the superior," Geneva, 1560. "Whether it be to the king, as excelling," Rheims, 1582. "Whether it be unto the king as having the pre-eminence," Bishops' Bible, 1584. "Whether it be to the king as supreme." Authorised version, 1611.] '•J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 113 offence, and because the latter is more proper to the Greek, although the Hebrew word, which David doth use, may and doth signify a dead body or carcase. Martin. If they will not stand to all their translations, but fly to Martin, that namely, which now is read in their churches3 : and if that which is now read in their churches, differ in the points aforesaid from that that was read in their churches in king Edward's time ; and if from both these they fly to the Geneva bible, and from that again to the other aforesaid : what shall we judge of the one or the other, but that all is voluntary, and as they list ? See chap. iii. numb. 10, 11, 12, chap. x. numb. 12. Fulke. If of three translations we prefer that which Fulke, is the best, what sign of corruption is this ? If any fault have, either of ignorance or negligence, escaped in one, which is corrected in another, and we prefer that which is corrected before that which is faulty, what corruption can be judged in either ? Not every fault is a wilful corruption, and much less an heretical corruption. The example that you quote out of your 3rd ehapter, concerning the translation of idolum, is no flying from our translation to another, but a confuting of Howlet's cavil agamst our church service ; because this word is therein read translated an image, 1 John v.4, whereas in that bible, which by authority is to be read in the church service, the word in the text is idols, and not images; and yet will we justify the other to be good and true, which readeth, " Babes, keep yourselves [3 Archbishop Parker's translation, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, was first printed in folio in the year 1568, and in 4to. in 1569. It was ordered, in the Convocation of 1571, (Wilkins, Cone. Vol. iv. p. 263.) that copies should be provided by all dignitaries for their private houses, and by all church officers for the use of their cathedral and parish churches. (See Constitutions and Canons Eccle siastical, in Dr Cardwell's Synodalia, VoL. i. p. 123. Documentary Annals, Vol. ii. p. 11.) The edition quoted in these notes is that printed by Barker, fol. 1584. The Injunctions of Edw. VI. 1547, do not specify what particular translation shall be used: neither do Queen Elizabeth's in 1559.] £4 TeKvia, (fwXd^are eavrovs otto t5>v fl8(iX vehemently, that here it must needs so signify, and there it must not; and both this and that to one end, and in favour of one and the same opinion ; what is this but wilful translation ? So doth Beza urge Bezain yvvaiKa to signify wife, and not to signify wife, both against virginity Imfix.™' 1- and chastity of priests : and the English bible translateth accordingly. Blb' *"• 15'9- See chap. xv. numb. 11, 12. Fulke. To the general charge I answer generally, Fulke, We do not as you slander us ; nor Beza, whom you shame- 18- fully belie, to urge the word yvvcuna, 1 Cor. vii. I1. not to signify a wife, against virginity and chastity of priests ; for clean contrariwise, he reproveth Erasmus restraining it to a wife, which the apostle saith generally, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman ;" which doth not only contain a commendation of virginity in them that be unmarried, but also of continency in them that be married. And as for the virginity or chastity of priests, he speaketh not one word of it in that place, no more than the apostle doth. Now, touching the other place that you quote, 1 Cor. ix. 52, [' Bonum fuerit viro mulierem non attingere, is the rendering of Beza's version, upon which he has these remarks: Mulierem non at tingere, yvvaiicos pq airreo-Bat,. Erasmus, uxorem non attingere, id est, (ut ipse interpretatur) ab uxore ducenda abstinere. Ego vero existi- mo Paulum verbo SamaBiu significasse in genere viri cum muliere congressum: quern tamen per se non damnat, quum eo velit homines ut remedio uti, idque in matrimonio, si continere se non possint, minime id facturus si malum esset conjugium. Nam praecipit quidem humana prudentia, ut ex duobus malis quod minus malum est eligamus: Christiana vero religio contra, ut quicquid malum est sine ulla ex- ceptione vitemus. Falsa est igitur Hieronymi doctrina, qui adversus Jovinianum disserens, verbum carrecrSai ita urget, quasi in ipso etiam mulieris contactu sit periculum : quum constet virum non minus bona conscientia uti posse ac debere uxore sua quam esca et potu, ut recte defendit Augustinus. Nov. Test. 1656.] P The words are (1 Cor. ix. 5.), pq oIk exopev i£ovijs. "As by the sin of one (sin came) on all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one (good came) upon all men, even to the righteousness of life." Rom. v. 18. edit. Jugge. 1568. "Likewise, then, as by the offence of one (the fault came) on all men to condemnation; so by the justifying of one (the benefit abound ed) toward all men to the justification of life." Rom. v. 18. edit. 1579.] I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 121 is altogether void of sense, and must be explicated by ad dition of that which is necessarily or probably to be un derstood. So you translate, Matth. viii. Quid nobis ? " What is between us ?" Mark ii. Post dies2, " after some days." Accumberet, "he sat at meat;" and many such like. But where you charge our translation to say, the benefit (only) abounded toward all men, not that justice came on all ; you do shamefully add to our translation : for the word ' only' is of your own slanderous addition, and the rest is your mali cious collection. For we mean not to extenuate the benefit of Christ's redemption, but by all means to set it forth to the uttermost : as the word ' abounded' doth shew, if you do not blemish the light of it by your blockish addition of this word ' only'. And that we are truly made just by Christ, and yet by imputation, as we are truly made sinners by Adam, and yet partly by imputation, as we are actually by corruption, we do at all times and in all places most wil lingly confess : for the justice of Christ which is imputed unto us by faith, is no false or phantastical justice, as you do no less blasphemously than phantastically affirm ; but a true and effectual justice, by which we are so truly made just, that we shall receive for it the crown of justice, which is eternal life, as the apostle proveth at large, Rom. iv. and v., whom none but an hell-hound will bark against, that he defendeth "imputative and phantastical justice." Martin. But in this case of justification, when the question is Martin, whether only faith justify, and we say no, having the express words of Ja^esii i4. St James ; they say, yea, having no express scripture for it : if in this JJjg}; jjj^j_ case they will add 'only' to the very text, is it not most horrible and w^tl-ban''' devilish corruption ? So did Luther, whom our English protestants isSi.w'hita'k. honour as their father, and in this heresy of only faith are his own children. See chap. xii. Fulke. In the question of justification by faith only, Fulke, where St James saith no, we say no also; neither can it be proved that we add this word ' only' to the text in any translation of ours. If Luther did in his translation add the word 'only' to the text, it cannot be excused of wrong trans lation in word, although the sense might well bear it. But [2 "Intravit Capharnaum post dies." Vulg. edit. Clem. "Post dies octo." edit. Sixt.] 122 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. seeing Luther doth himself confess it, he may be excused of fraud, though not of lack of judgment. But why should our translation be charged with Luther's corruption? Be cause " our English protestants honour him as their father." A very lewd slander : for we call no man father upon earth, though you do call the pope your father ; albeit in another sense Luther was a reverend father of the church for his time. But as touching the doctrine of only faith justifying, it hath more patrons of the fathers of the ancient primitive church, than Martin can bear their books, though he would break his back, who in the same plain words do affirm it as Luther doth, that only faith doth justify. And the apostle which saith1 " that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law," speaketh more plainly for justification by faith only (as we do teach it), than if he had said a man is justified by faith only. Which text of Rom. hi., and many other, are as express scripture to prove that we teach and believe, as that St James saith against justification by faith only, where he speaketh of another faith, and of another justification, than St Paul speaketh of, and we understand, when we hold that a man is justified by faith only, or without works of the law, which is all one. Martin, Martin. If these that account themselves the great Grecians and iiieir ieno- Hebricians of the world, will so translate for the advantage of their cause, ranceof the as though they had no skill in the world, and as though they knew Greek and -.i .,../..„ , Hebrew neither the signification oi words, nor propriety of phrases in the said thefrUfaise language ; is it not to be esteemed shameless corruption ? and wilful translation 7.77 -rr 1 > n • thereof . Jiulke. Yes ; but if it cannot be proved that so they agamst their , -*¦ v knowledge, translate, then is this an impudent slander, as all the rest 25. ' are ; and so it will prove when it cometh to be tried. Martin, Martin. I will not speak of the German heretics, who to maintain this Brentius Me- ^exes^' that au our works> be they never so good, are sin, translated for lancth. ^see Tibi soli peccavi, " to thee only have I sinned," thus, Tibi solum peecavi, Dial, i; c. 12.' that is, " I have notliing else but sinned : whatsoever I do, I sin :" whereas lot'ils'vw. neither the Greek nor the Hebrew will possibly admit that sense. Let TINTS'? "$ these P383 as Lutherans, yet wilful corrupters, and acknowledged of our wriitaLpag. English protectants for their good brethren. But if Beza translate, 108. I1 Rom. iii. 28.] [2 Lindani Dubitantium Dialogus : de origine Sectarum hujus seculi. Colonise. 1571. 8vo. Foppen's Bib. Belg. p. 411.] I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 123 eti ovrcov rjpav acrdevS>v3, " when we were yet of no strength," as the Bom. v. 6. Geneva English Bible also doth interpret it, whereas every young Grecian knoweth that do-Bevqs is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether without strength : is not this of purpose to take away man's free will altogether ? See chap. x. numb. 13. Fulke. I know not what German heretics those be which Fulke, maintain that heresy, that all our works, be they never so ' good, are sin, except they be the Libertines, with whom we have nothing to do. For we never say that good works are sin, for that were all one to say that good were evil. But that all our good works are short of that perfection which the law of God requireth, we do humbly confess against ourselves : or else, whatsoever seemeth to be a good work, and is done of men void of true faith, is sin. For these assertions we have the scripture to warrant us. And if, to prove the latter, any man hath translated those words of David in the 51st psalm, lecha, lebadecha, tibi solum, or, vq^h ^p? tantummodo tibi peocavi, &c. "To thee only, or altogether to thee I have sinned," in respect of his natural corruption which he doth express in the next verse, he hath not departed one whit from the Hebrew words, nor from the sense which the words may very well bear ; which he that denieth, rather sheweth himself ignorant in the Hebrew tongue, than he that so translateth. For what doth lebad signify, but solum f;v? or tantum ? and therefore it may as well be translated solum tibi, as soli tibi. And the apostle, Rom. hi., proving by the latter end of that verse all men to be unjust, that God only may be true, and every man a liar, as it is written, " that thou mayest be justified in thy words," &c. favoureth that interpretation of Bucer, or whosoever it is beside. "But if Beza translate ert ovtiov rip.wv dv ipoi. participle to be understood, that should signify a co-operation with free will, to wit, cruyKomdo-ao-a, " which laboured with me" ? See chap. x. numb. 2. Fulke. The Greek is, jj X"J°IS ro^ ®60" ^ v dnoKaTao-rdo-eas irdvrav. Acts W. 20, 21. " Et miserit eum qui predicates est vobis, Jesum Christum. Quem oportet quidem coelum recipere usque in tempora restitutionis omni um." Vulg. " Et miserit eum qui ante praedicatus est vobis, Jesum Christum. Quem oportet quidem ccelo capi usque ad tempora restitutionis om nium." Beza.] !•] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 131 and the Geneva bible is afraid to follow it. Yet neither of them both mishketh this sense, nor can ; for it is all one with that which you translate, " whom heaven must receive." Cal vin only saith, the Greek is ambiguous, whether heaven must receive Christ, or Christ must receive heaven. But when you grant that heaven must receive Christ, you can not deny for shame of the world, but Christ must be re ceived of heaven : wherefore you understand neither Calvin nor Illyricus, who speak of the other sense, "that Christ must receive heaven." And Master Whitaker, not of Beza's translation, but of the text, and even of your own translation, may prove, that Christ's natural body is contained in heaven. And as for your appeal to the greatest Grecians, and the Greek schools both of Oxford and Cambridge, [it] is vain and frivolous ; for the least grammarians that be in any country schools are able to determine this question, whether these propositions be not all one in sense and signification, Ego amo te, and Tu amaris a me; "I love thee," or "thou art loved of me." But it is strange divinity, that Christ should be contained in heaven. Verily, how strange soever it seem eth to Gregory Martin, it was not unknown to Gregory Nazianzen, as good a Grecian and as great a divine as he is. For in his second sermon irepl v\ov, not far from the beginning, he writeth thus of our Saviour Christ : $e7 yap avrov f&acnXevew d%pi Tovoe, ical virep ovpavov oeydrivai aXPl XP°VWV diroKaTao-Tacjews. "For he must reign until then, and be received or contained of heaven until the times of restitution." Here you see Nazianzen2 citing this very place of Saint Peter, Acts hi., for the mean verb of active signification, doubteth not freely to use the passive verb in the same sense that Beza translateth the place, against which you declaim so tragically. And if you think it be such an heinous offence, to render passively in the same sense that which is uttered actively in the text, so that no man for his credit would so translate Demosthenes, as Beza doth Saint Luke ; I pray you, what regard had you of your credit and estimation ? when Matt. iv. you trans late, out of Latin, Qui dcemonia habebant, "such as were possest ; " and Luke ii. Ut profiterentur, " to be enrolled." [a Greg. Naz. Oratio xxxvi. Opera, edit. Lutet. Parisiis 1609, p. 579.] 9—2 132 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. Belike you have a privilege to do what you list, when other men may not do that which is lawful. Martin, 37. Pag. 34, 35. Against D. Sand. Hocke, pag. 308. See Comm. Bud. Figu- rata con structs, or crxiifio: 'Attikov. Martin. But yet there is worse stuff behind : to wit, the famous place Luke xxii., where Beza translateth thus, Hoc poculum novum tes- tamentum per meum sanguinem, qui pro vobis funditur1 : whereas in the Greek, in all copies without exception, he confesseth that in true gram matical construction it must needs be said, quod pro vobis funditur; and therefore he saith it is either a plain solcecophanes (and according to that presumption he boldly translateth), or a corruption crept out of the margin into the text. And as for the word solcecophanes, we understand him that he meaneth a plain solecism and fault in grammar, and so doth M. Whitakers : but M. Fulke saith, that he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancy and figurative speech, used of most eloquent authors ; and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his devices, striving to make St Luke's speech here, as he construeth the words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue. He sendeth us first to Budee's commentaries, where there are examples of solcecophanes : and, indeed^ Budee taketh the word for that which may seem a solecism, and yet is an elegancy, and all his examples are of most fine and figurative phrases, but, alas ! how unlike to that in St Luke ! And here M. Fulke was very foully deceived, thinking that Beza and Budee took the word in one sense : and so taking his mark amiss, as it were a counter for gold, where he found solcecophanes in Budee, there he thought all was like to St Luke's sentence, and that which Beza meant to be a plain solecism, he maketh it like to Budee's elegancies. Much like to those good searchers in Oxford (as it is said, masters of arts,) who, having to seek for papistical books in a lawyer's study, and seeing there books with red letters, cried out, Mass books, Mass books : whereas it was the code or some other book of the civil or canon law. Fulke,37. Fulke. This must needs be a famous place for the real presence of Christ's blood in the sacrament, that never one of the ancient or late writers observed, until within these few years. But let us see what fault Beza hath com mitted in translation. The last word in the verse, to eK%v- vofxevov, he hath so translated, as it must be referred to the word tw al/ian, signifying blood, with which in case it doth not agree. That is true ; but that he confesseth that all Greek copies without exception have it as it is com monly read, it is false: only he saith, Omnes tamen ve- [} Beza's words are, "Hoc poculum est novum illud testamentum per sanguinem meum, qui pro vobis effunditur." Edit. 1556 and 1582.] '¦J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 133 tusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant. "All our old Greek copies had it so written." He speaketh only of his own, or such as he had, and not of all without exception; for since he wrote this note, there came to his hands one other ancient copy, both of Greek and Latin, in which this whole verse of the second delivery of the cup is clean left out. For immediately after these words, tovto eari to eraJ/ua fiov, irXrjv 1S01) q \elp doth follow ; and so in the Latin, Ve- runtamen ecce manus qui tradet me, &c. Moreover, Beza telleth you, that Basil in his Ethicks, op. icd. citing this whole text of St Luke, readeth, Tip iy7T6jO v/mwv i/c^vvo/ievco in the dative case, agreeing with rep cupari, the word next before. By which it is manifest, that in S. Basil's time the read ing was otherwise than now it is in most copies. Again, where you say, he confesseth that in true grammatical con struction it must needs be said, Quod pro vobis funditur, his words are not so; but that those words, if we look to the construction, cannot be referred to the blood, but to the cup, which in effect is as much as you say : ' His judg ment indeed is of these words, as they are now read, that either it is a manifest solcecophanes, or else an addition out of the margin into the text; and as for the word solcecophanes, you understand him that he meaneth a plain solecism and fault in grammar, and so doth M. Whitakers.' How you understand him, it is not material, but how he is to be understood indeed. M. Whitakers, whom you call to witness, doth not so understand him, but sheweth that if he had called it a plain solecism, he had not charged St Luke with a worse fault than Jerome chargeth St Paul. But what reason is there that you or any man should under stand Beza, by solcecophanes, to mean a plain solecism? Think you he is so ignorant, that he knoweth not the dif ference of the one from the other? or so negligent of his terms, that he would confound those whom he knoweth so much to differ? "But Master Fulke (say you) saith that he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancy and figurative speech, used of most eloquent authors : and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his devices, striving to make St Luke's speech here, as he construeth the words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue." Thus you write ; but if I give not all Grecians and Latinists just oc- 134 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. casion, before I have done with you, to laugh at your proud ignorance, and to spit at your malicious falsehood, let me never have credit, I say not of a Grecian or learned man, which I desire not, but not so much as of a reasonable crea ture. Ah, sir ! and doth M. Fulke say, that this speech of St Luke is an elegancy in the Greek tongue ? I pray you, where saith he so ? You answer me quickly, " Against D. Saunder's Rock, p. 308 1." I tremble to hear what words you have there to charge me withal. Indeed in that page I begin to speak of that matter against Saunder, who chargeth Beza as you do, and moreover affirmeth that Beza should teach that St Luke wrote false Greek, because he saith, that here is a manifest solcecophanes. But that neither you shall quar rel, that I choose some piece of my saying for my pur pose, nor any man doubt how honestly you charge me, I will here repeat whatsoever I have written touching that matter in the place by you quoted : " But the protestants do not only make themselves judges of the whole books, but also over the very letter (saith he) of Christ's gospel, finding fault with the construction of the evangelists, and bring the text itself in doubt. Example hereof he bringeth Beza in his annotations upon Luke xxii., of the words, ' This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you.' In which text, because the word blood in the Greek is the dative case, the other word that followeth is the nominative case, Beza supposeth that St Luke useth a figure called solcecophanes, which is appearance of incongruity ; or else that the last word, ' which is shed for you,' might by error of writers, being first set in the margin out of Matthew and Mark, be removed into the text. Here upon M. Saunder, out of all order and measure, raileth upon Beza and all protestants. But I pray you, good sir, shall the only opinion of Beza, and that but a doubtful opinion, indict all the protestants in the world of such high treason against the word of God? For what gaineth Beza by this interpretation? Forsooth, the Greek text is con trary to his sacramentary heresy. For thus he should trans- [7 In Fulke's work, entitled "A retentive to stay good Christians in true faith and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristow. Also, the Discoverie of the daungerous Rocke of the Popish Church, Commended by Nicholas Saunder, D. of Divinitie. London, 1580."] !¦] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 135 late it : " This cup is the new testament in my blood, which cup is shed for you." Not the cup of gold or silver (saith he), but the hquor in that cup, which is not wine, because wine was not shed for us, but the blood of Christ. Why, then the sense is this: This blood in the cup which is shed for you, is the new testament in my blood. What sense in the world can these words have? By which it is manifest, that the words ' which is shed for you', cannot be referred to the cup, but to his blood. For the cup was the new testament in bis blood, which was shed for us ; which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the manifest word of God. Neither doth the vulgar Latin trans lation give any other sense, although M. Saunder is not ashamed to say it doth. The vulgar Latin text is this: Hie est calix novum testammtum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur. What grammarian, in construing, would re fer qui to calix, and not rather to sanguine 2 Again, Erasmus translateth it even as Beza: Hoc poculum novum testa- mentum per sanguinem meum, qui pro vobis effunditur. Now, touching the conjecture of Beza, that those words by error of the scrivener might be removed from the margin into the text, [it] is a thing that sometime hath happened, as most learned men agree, in Matthew xxvii., where the name of Jeremy is placed in the text for that which is in Zachary, and yet neither of the prophets was named by the evangelist, as in most ancient records it is testified. The like hath been in the first of Mark, where the name of Esay is set in some Greek copies, and followed in your vulgar translation, for that which is cited out of Malachi ; which name was not set down by the evangelist, but added by some unskilful writer, and is reproved by other Greek copies. But this place, you say, is not otherwise found in any old copy, as Beza confesseth: then remaineth the second opinion, that St Luke in this place useth solcecophanes, which is an appear ance of incongruity, and yet no incongruity. Wherein I cannot marvel more at your mahce, M. Saunder, than at your ignorance, which put no difference between solcecismus and solcecophanes; but even as spitefully as unlearnedly you affirm that Beza should teach that St Luke wrote false Greek, whereas solcecophanes is a figure used of the most eloquent writers that ever took pen in hand, even Cicero, 136 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Demosthenes, Greek and Latin, profane and divine, and even of St Luke himself in other places, whereof for ex amples I refer you to Budseus upon the word solcecophanes. The appearance of incongruity is, that it seemeth, that to eK-^yvofievov, which is the nominative case, should agree with Tip aifiaTi, which is the dative case; whereas indeed to is used as a relative for o, as it is often, and the verb eo-Tt, which wanteth, is understood, as it is commonly in the Greek tongue ; and so the translation must be, Hoc poculum no vum testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effun- ditur, or effusus est. So that this is nothing else but an im pudent and unskilful quarrelling against Beza, whereas you papists defend against the manifest institution of the cup, and the practice of the primitive church, the communion in one kind of bread only. Cone. Const. Sess. xiii. 21." Where,, find you that I affirm St Luke's speech here to be an elegancy in the Greek tongue? yea, or solcecophanes to be nothing else but an elegancy and figurative speech? A figure indeed I say that it is; but are all figures ele gancies, or all figurative speeches elegancies of speech? Some figures, I trow, serve to excuse similitudes of faults in speech. But I say solcecophanes is used of the most eloquent writers. Very well ; doth it thereof follow that it is always an elegancy ? Have not the most elegant authors used hyper* batons, perissologies, and other figures that are counted faults of speech, and not elegancies and fine speeches ? But " aU the examples of Budee, you say, to whose commentaries I send you, are of most fine and figurative phrases." K they be such, they do the better prove that for which I called him to warrantize, namely, that solcecophanes is not a solecism, or false Greek, wherewith Saunder accuseth Beza to charge St Luke. But where you utter your foohsh pity, in saying, Alas, how unlike they are to that in St Luke! I think the case is not so clear as you make it ; for I suppose those examples that he bringeth of the figure of the whole con struction changed after a long hyperbaton, or parenthesis, may well be taken for figurative speeches, but not for ele gancies and fine figurative phrases : as again, those popular sayings which, being taken out of the common people's speech, Budseus saith, the most eloquent orators have translated into their finest writings. Peradventure, as musicians use some* I.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 137 time a discord to set forth the harmony of concord, so they by hardly avoiding of a solecism would shew the grace of congruity and elegancy. But of this whole matter let the judgment be with them that are learned and eloquent in both the tongues. It is sufficient for me that he which useth solcecophanes in Greek committeth not a solecism, or speaketh false Greek, as Saunder termeth it. But where you say, that " Master Fulke was foully deceived and took his marks amiss, as it were a counter for gold, to think that Beza and Budee took the word in one sense," you say your plea sure, but you shall well know, that Master Fulke is not so young a babe, to take a counter for gold, as you are a bold bayard, to pronounce of all men's meanings what you list. For how are you able to prove, that Beza by solcecophanes meaneth a plain solecism ? Think you that Beza is so simple a child also, to term copper by the name of gold? If he had meant a solecism, could he not have said so ? But you must play Procrustes' part ; for neither my saying nor Beza's meaning were large enough for you, to frame your slanderous cavil against the truth, and therefore with a loud he you must lengthen my saying, and with proud and false presumption you must stretch out his meaning. These be your arts, this is your eloquence, these are the sinews of your accusations. What "those good searchers in Oxford" were, which, being masters of arts, could not discern between mass books, and law booksj for my part I never heard ; but I think it to be a matter of as good credit as that you report of me and Beza. Martin. This was lack of judgment in M. Fulke at the least, and Maktin, no great sign of skill in Greek phrases ; and he must no more call D. Saunders unlearned for not understanding Beza's meaning, but himself, who indeed understood him not. For if Beza meant that it was an elegancy used of the finest authors, and such as Budee doth exemplify of, why doth he say, " that he seeth not why Luke should use solcecophanes," but thinketh rather, it is a corruption crept into the margin ? Tell us, M. Fulke, we beseech you, whether is the better and honester defence, to say, that it is an elegancy and fine phrase in St Luke, or to say, that it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin, the gospel is here corrupted ? Think you Beza such a fool, that he would rather stand upon this latter, if he might have used the former, and had so meant by sohecophanes ? Yea, what needed any defence at all, if it had been an usual and known elegancy, as you would prove it \ 138 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Fulke, Fulke. I had rather it should be counted want of judgment in me, so it were by a man of judgment, than to be taken so often with falsification and lack of truth. For my skill in Greek phrases, although I never professed any, yet I see nothing brought by you to change my opinion of Saunder's unlearned slander, in railing agamst Beza, for say ing that St Luke should write false Greek. And if solceco phanes do differ as much from soloecismus, as gold doth from copper, as you seem to say, when you write that I take a counter for gold, I might think myself very unlearned in deed, if I did understand Beza speaking of solcecophanes, as though he spake of soloecismus. But you demand why Beza saith, that he seeth not why St Luke should use solcecophanes, if he meant that it was an elegancy used of the finest authors. Still you thrust in your he in every corner : who saith he meant it was an elegancy ? Beza saith, he seeth no cause why St Luke should use solcecophanes, that is, depart from the usual and ordinary construction; and therefore passeth to another conjecture. But you speak me fair to tell you, " whether is the better and honester defence, to say that it is an elegancy and fine phrase, or to say it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin, the gospel is here corrupted." First, I answer you, that Beza affirmeth neither, but rather translateth as Basil did read. Secondly, I say, there is no dishonesty in either of both conjectures ; for this solcecophanes, though it be no elegancy, yet may be defended from solecism, or false Greek. And certain it is that some words have crept out of the margin into the text, as the name of Jeremy in all copies that are extant, Matt, xxvii., and of Esay in many, Mark i. And yet we say not the gospel is corrupted ; which foul phrase it seemeth you have great pleasure in, notwithstanding you yourself out of Lindanus charge all the Greek copies of the Epistle to the Corinthians to be corrupted by Marcion, the mischievous mouse of Pontus. You ask further, whether I " think Beza such a fool to stand rather upon the latter, if he might have used the former, and had so meant by solcecophanes ? " Nay, rather, think you Beza such a fool, that he would mean a plain solecism, and call it only an appearance of solecism ? What he rather stood upon, his translation doth best shew, which' is both with St Basil's '¦] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 139 reading, and with the appearance of incongruity, which is none in deed. " Yea, what needed any defence at all," say you, "if it had been an usual and known elegancy?" So well you love a he when you have made it, that you can never leave it until you have worn it all to nought. Now you have it, not only an elegancy, but an usual and known elegancy. Verily, I never said it was an elegancy, as my words are plain to be read of every man, and much less that it was an usual and known elegancy. Only I say it is usual and common in the Greek tongue, that the prepositive article is used for the relative ; and so much in the next section you yourself do grant me : and as for defence you talk of, I see none needful, except it be for that this phrase here used of St Luke is lawful, though it be not so common as the ordinary construction. Martin. For you say further, that to is taken for o, and «rn is Maktin, understood, and that this is a common thing in the best Greek authors ; 39- but you must add, that the said relative must always be referred to the antecedent of the same case, as this speech, to irorqpwv to eKxwopevov may be resolved thus, to iro-rqpiov b eKxwopevov «m, or rather « «c- Xvverai : but that ev tco atpaTi pov, to eKxwopevov, may be resolved, o e'x- Xyvopevov eo-n, you shall never be able to bring one example ; and you wilfully abuse whatsoever knowledge you have of the Greek tongue to deceive the ignorant, or else you have no skill at all, that speak so barbarously and rustically of Greek elegancies. For if you have skill, you know in your conscience, that ev ra e'pa a'lpari to virep vpav c'kxv- vo/xe/'ov is as great a solecism in Greek, and no more elegancy, than to say in Latin, In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the school deserveth whipping. And yet you ask very vehemently concerning these words, Hie calix novum testamentum in meo sanguine qui pro vobis fundetur, what mean grammarian would refer qui to calix, and not to sanguis ? I answer that a mere Latinist, for ignorance of the Greek tongue, would refer it rather as you say : but he that knoweth the Greek, as you seem to do, though he be a very young grammarian, will easily see it cannot be so referred : as in the like, Acts xiv., Sacerdos quoque i upeh Jovis qui erat ante civitatem eorum. Here qui is ambiguous, but in the T,"i °l°s Greek we see that qui must be referred to Jovis, and cannot be referred to Sacerdos. Fulke. First, I take that you grant me, that it is a Fulke," common thing in the Greek tongue, that the article pre- 39- positive is taken for the subjunctive, and the verb substan tive may be understood where it is not expressed ; which if 140 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. you would not have granted, might have been extorted from you by confession of all Grecians and Greek writers. Se condly, where you teach me a general rule, to add to the former concession, that the said relative must always be re ferred to the antecedent of the same case, as in the example you bring, to irorr\piov to eKyyvopevov, you shall pardon me to learn of you. I take you for no such Aristarchus, that you have power to make new rules in the Greek gram mar, and such as shall control not only Homer, but all good authors that ever did write in that language, of sole cism and incongruity. For if the relative must always be referred to the antecedent of the same case, to agree with it in case, or else it is false Greek, I will abide by it, there is no Greek author whose works are extant, but he hath committed solecism. The examples that hereof might be brought out of every several writer, if they were heaped together, would make a book as big as Bias. But in this so clear a case to cite any examples, I see not to what purpose it should be, unless it were to make httle children, that learn tvittod in the grammar schools, to be witnesses of your intolerable arrogancy and incredible ignorance. One example I will bring you out of St Mark, not unlike this of St Luke, but that the verb eoTi is expressed : ml (pepovotv avTov eirt yoXyoQd toitov, b soti p.e6eppnvevo- fxevov Kpaviov tottos, " and they bring him to the place Gol gotha, wliich is, being interpreted, The place of sculls." This example is more than sufficient for so plain a matter. For although it be an elegancy for the relative to agree in case with the antecedent sometimes, yet to make a perpetual rule thereof it proceedeth of too much rashness, want of know ledge and consideration. But I " shall never be able to bring one example " like to this of St Luke, where, the relative not agreeing in case with the antecedent, the participle may be resolved by the verb substantive that is not expressed ; and I " wilfully abuse whatsoever knowledge I have of the Greek tongue, to deceive the ignorant, or else I have no skill at all, to speak so barbarously and rustically of Greek ele gancies, and I know in my conscience, it is as great a solecism in Greek, and no more elegancy, than to say in Latin, In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the 'school deserveth whipping :" and I know not what beside. But I-j TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 141 touching the similitude of the solecisms, if you had made your example alike, that is, put in the relative in the Latin, as it is in the Greek, In meo sanguine qui fusus pro vobis, there is no more solecism in the one than in the other. But all this while I bring no example, and you urge an example, yea, so extremely, that you say confidently, I shall never be able to bring one: but what if I bring two or three? who then abuseth his knowledge in the Greek? who hath no skill at all ? who deserveth whipping ? Have you so read all authors, and bear them and all their phrases so well in mind, that you dare before all the world avouch, that I shall never be able to bring one example? But to let all the world see your vanity, I will begin with Theognis, who in the 863rd of his Elegiac Sentences writeth thus : TLoXXoTs dxpqarroicri 6ebs 81861 dv8pdiearori, to Ka\ 6eo\ ixSaipovn, And in the 23rd Idyll: Km ttotI tov 6ebv rjv6e rbv vfipio-e. From Theocritus let us pass to Hesiodus, out of whom it were over tedious to cite how often he useth the article prepositive for the relative, and not agreeing in case with the antecedent : but an example or two shall serve, where the verb substantive is understood, and not expressed, nor 142 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. any other verb to govern the relative, yet not agreeing in case with the antecedent : Kpqvqs T devdov Kal diroppvTov, q t ddoXcoTOs. Again, in "Epy. 'ti/nip. Olcovoiis Kplvas ot eV epypan tovtco apio-Toi. Here, methinks, I hear you grudge against poetry and poetical hcence, as doubtless you would quarrel against pro fane authorities, if I should bring you any hke examples out of prosaical writers. We must see therefore, whether we are not able to bring examples of the like phrase out of the holy scriptures. First, that solcecophanes is found in St Luke, I will refer you to the first cap. of his gospel, ver. 74, and cap. vi. ver. 4; likewise, Acts xxvii. 3, and Acts xiii. 6. But for the like solcecophanes to this in question, Luke xxii., I will send you first to St Paul, Col. i. 25. irXnpwoai tov Xojov tov Uew, to fivoTr/piov to airoKeKpvfXfxevov airo toiv aiwvwv Kal diro twv yevewv, vvvl oe e(pavepw9ij toss dytoiq avTou. In this verse to nvoTiqpiov must needs be the ac cusative case, as tov Xoyov is, by apposition : then is to airoKeKpvp.fievov for all the world as to eKyvvo/mevov, the nominative case, signifymg Quod absconditwm fuit, which the latter part of the verse, vvvl Se ktpavepwdrj, doth most plainly declare : for what else should be the nominative case to the verb kv, Kal o r/v, Kal o ep-^ifxevos. " Grace to you, and peace from him (or from God, as some copies have) which is, and which was, and which is to come." Would not your grammar say it is a plain solecism, because he saith not, tov ovtos, and tov epxpnevov ? What have you here to quarrel ? Is not a7ro tow o wv and o ep-^dfievos the same phrase that is in Luke, t a'ipaTi, to eK-yyvofxevov^ Well, let us go I.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 143 a httle further, to the next verse of the same chapter, where we read thus : Kal diro 'ltjoov XpicrTov, 6 fidpTvs 6 ttiotos, o irpooTOTOKos eic twv veKpwv, Kal o apyjov Tail/ fiaoiXewv ttjs yfjs. " And from Jesus Christ, which is a faithful wit ness, the first-born from the dead, and prince over the kings of the earth." The more usual construction would require that he should have said, KexapiTapevq. Luke i. 28. "Ave, gratia plena," Vulg. " Hail, full of grace," Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, Rheims. " Hail, thou that art freely beloved," Geneva. " Hail, thou that art in high favour," Bishops'. " Hail, thou that art highly favoured," Authorised version.] P hs e'^epXqro irpbs rbv irvXmva avrov yXjcmpevos. Luke xvi. 20. "Qui jacebat ad januam ejus ulceribus plenus," Vulg. " Full of sores," all the Versions.] 150 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH; we would use it; but for lack of a participle, we are con strained to use the noun, 'full of sores.' I may likewise ask you, whether you would translate Ke%pvcrwpevos full of gold, or gilded? And so of all other verbs of that form, where there is in English a participle : why ought not like wise KeyapiTwpevos be translated by the participle? Martin, Martin. Again, why say they (Heb. xiii.) "Let your conversation , " , be without covetousness," and say not, " Let marriage be honourable "oSi "I™'- m dl, and the bed undefiled ;" both being expressed alike by the ttos. TiVios apostle, and by way of exhortation, as the rest that goeth before and o ya.fi.oi . f0jioweth? gee chap, XV- num. 15. Fulke, Fulke. Although the sense were not so greatly different, yet the participle $e following in the latter part of the verse, iropvovs 8e, &c, "but fornicators and adulterers God will judge," sheweth that the former part of the verse is an affirmation rather than an exhortation. Again, the purpose of the apostle is plain, to dissuade them from whoredom and adultery; and not only to exhort married men to use marriage temperately, but for avoiding of whoredom and adultery, which God will punish, to shew the remedy that God hath provided for man's infirmity to be honourable and void of filthiness. Martin, Martin. Are we too suspicious, think you? How can "fear" be translated "that which he feared;" "repentance," "them that repent *le'za', ' or amend their life;" "tradition," the doctrine delivered; "temples," ^xhess.va.2°' shrines; "idols,'' devotions; " every human creature," all ordinances of and ui. man; "foreknowledge," providence; "soul," carcase; "hell," grave; "altar," temple; "table," altar; and such like? p dfaXdpyvpos 6 rpoiros. Heb. xiii. 5. " Sint mores sine avaritia," Vulg. "Let your conversation be without covetousness," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops' Bible, Authorised version. "Let your manners be without avarice," Rheims.] P npios S ydpos iv irao-i, Kal q Koirq dplavros. Heb. xiii. 4. " Ho- norabile connubium in omnibus, et thorus immaculatus," Vulg. " Let wedlock be had in price in all points, and let the chamber be undefiled," Tyndale. " Wedlock is to be had in honour among all men, and the bed undefiled," Cranmer, Geneva. " Marriage, honourable in all, and the bed undefiled," Rheims. " Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled," Authorised. " Wedlock is honourable among all men, and the bed undefiled," Bishops' Bible.] I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 151 Fulke. We think you not more suspicious, than mah- Fulke, cious. "From his fear," may well (for explication sake) be45- translated, " from that which he feared3," Heb. v. 7, even as hope is sometime taken for that which we hope for, as Col. i. 5. Tit. h. 13. So may "repentance" in Beza Acts xxvi.4 20, signify them that repent, as "circumcision" often signifieth them that are circumcised: neither is there any change of the sense, to say the fruits worthy of repentance, or the fruits worthy of them that repent, or amend their life. And I pray what doth "tradition," 2 Thess. ii. and hi. signify, but the doctrine delivered5 ? Doth not the apostle declare, what his tradition was, when he dehvereth this doctrine, that if any man will not work, let him not eat, 2 Thess. ih. 10.? The word vaovs, as it is used, Acts xix. 24, signifieth neither temples nor shrines6, but certain idolatrous coins, on which was stamped the figure of Diana's temple, more like to your popish shrines than to the temple of God. Where "idols" [ Kal eltraKovcrBels dirb ttjs ebXafielas. Heb. V. 7- " Exauditus est pro sua reverentia," Vulg. "Exauditus esset ex metu," Beza, 1566. " And was herd for his reverence," Wiclif. " Heard, because of his godliness," Tyndale. "Was heard, because of his reverence," Cran mer, Rhemish. "And was heard in that which he feared," Geneva, Tomson's translation of Beza, Edit. Barker, 1583.] P rols eBveaiv dirayyeXXoiv peravoeiv. Acts xxvi. 20. "Annuntia- bam ut poenitentiam agerent," Vulgate. "Annuntiavi ut resipisce- rent," Beza, edit. 1566. "That they should repent," New Test., Englished by W. Tomson, from Beza's version, 1583.] [5 Kal Kpareire rds irapa86o-eis. 2 Thess. ii. 15. " Et tenete traditio- nes," Vulgate. "Et retinete traditam doctrinam," Beza, 1582. "Et tenete traditam doctrinam," Beza, 1556. "Keep the instructions which ye have been taught," Tomson's translation of Beza, Geneva. " Holde ze the tradiciouns," Wiclif. "Keep the ordinances," Tyndale, Cran mer. "Hold the traditions," Rhemish, Authorised. xal pq Kard Tqv irapd8oatv qv wapeXafie. 2 Thess. iii. 6. "Et non secundum traditionem," Vulgate. "Et non ex tradita doctrina," Beza, 1566. "And not after the techynge," Wiclif. "And not after the institution," Tyndale, Cranmer. " And not after the instruction," Geneva, Tomson's version. "And not according to the tradition," Rhemish. "And not after the tradition," Authorised.] p iroimv vaovs dpyvpovs 'Apreptdos. Acts xix. 24. "Faciens sedes ar- genteas Dianee," Vulg. " Qui faciebat templa argentea Dianse," Beza, 1566. " Which made silver shrines for Diana," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised.] 152 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. are translated ' devotions', I know not, except you mean Acts xvii. 23, where the word is o-ef&do-paTa1 , which your vulgar Latin translator, 2 Thess. ii., calleth quod colitur, "that which is devoutly worshipped," and so the word signifieth ' whatsoever is rehgiously worshipped or adored,' and not "idols," as you say, nor simulacra, "images," as your translator calleth them, Acts xvii. ; for it is derived of crefid^w, or oef3dfyp.ai, which signifieth ' to adore,' ' to worship,' 'to honour devoutly or religiously2.' " Every human creature" signifieth in that place, 1 Pet. ii., every magistrate, of what creation or ordination soever he be ; and so is meant by that translation (all ordinances of men), not all laws of men, which yet were not impious, if you add the restraint, "for the Lord," for whom nothing can be that is against his law. The rest of your quarrels be all answered before. Martin , Martin. What caused these strange speeches in their English bibles? " Thou shalt not leave my soul in the grave." " Thou hast delivered Psal. Ixxxvi. 13. ' ' my soul from the lowest grave." "A covetous man is a worshipper of images." " By laying on of the hands of the eldership." " Hail, freely beloved." "Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt rule over him." "Break off thy sins with righteousness," for "redeem with alms." " Jealousy is cruel as the grave," for " as hell." Cant. viii. Bib. anna 1579. "The griefs of the grave caught me." Psalm cxvi. And, "God Psal. xlix. will redeem my soul from the power of the grave." " O grave, I will be thy destruction." Os. 13, and such like. What made Calvin so translate into Latin, that if you turn it into English, the sense is, that Titus ui. God ' poured water upon us abundantly,' meaning the Holy Ghost ? what else, but because he would take away the necessity of material water in baptism, as in his commentary and Beza's it is evident ? Fulke, Fulke. These speeches are not strange in God's church, howsoever they sound in your ears. So many of them as p dva8e 'which doth not properly signify "hell," but a dark place, such as the pit is wherein the dead are put, and of the poets is taken for hell, had bred such monsters as limbus patrum, purgatory, and Christ's descending into them ; therefore he did plainly trans late that verse as it is meant, of the raising up of Christ's body out of the grave; which, if he had translated out of He brew, as he did out of Greek, had not been offensive nor untrue, as I have shewed in answer to your preface, sect. 46, and of this chapter, sect. 32. But seeing Beza himself hath altered that translation, and it was never foUowed of our Enghsh translators, what demonstration is this, that we are wilful corrupters of the holy scriptures ? Martin 52. OV OGL oopavov Sefcacrdai. Acts iii. 21. Martin. Again, when he had translated for " Whom heaven must receive," thus, "who must be contained in heaven," he saith: 'Whereas we have used the passive kind of speech, rather than the active,' which is in the Greek, 'we did it to avoid all ambiguity. For it is very expedient that there should be in the church of God this perspicuous testimony against them, that for ascending by faith into heaven, so to be joined to our Head, obstinately maintain that Christ must be called again out of heaven unto us :' meaning his presence in the blessed sacrament, and inveighing no less against the Lutherans than the Fiac. niyr. catholics, as the Lutherans do here against him for this wilful inter pretation, and that by Calvin's own judgment, who thinketh it a forced translation. Fulke,52. Fulke. True it is, that he meant concerning the manner of Christ's presence in the blessed sacrament, and that he so translated, to exclude the carnal manner of presence, which the papists have invented : but all this while the translation is true, and warranted by Gregory Nazianzen, as I have shewed before, sect. 36 of this chapter. For he that saith, 'heaven must receive Christ,' (as you do,) cannot deny, except he be mad, but that Christ must be received of heaven. So I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 159 that Beza doth none otherwise translate, than you do, Qui dcemonia habebant; which is actually thus to be translated, "those who had devils," and you say, 'which were possest of devils,' that is, were had of devils. That the Lutherans did find fault with Beza's translation, it proveth it not to be false : he hath justified it sufficiently in his answer to Selneccerus and the divines of Jena. Neither doth Calvin (as you say untruly) think it a forced translation; but not weighing the sentence sufficiently, supposeth that the words are placed am biguously, for that it seemeth to be doubtful whether we should say, that heaven must receive Christ, or that Christ must receive heaven. But if it be once granted (as it is of you) that heaven must receive Christ, there is neither Calvin nor Illyricus, nor any man that beareth the face but of a young grammarian, yea, of a reasonable man, which can deny that conversion by the passive: Christ must be received of heaven. Therefore, if you had any respect of your credit with men of understanding, you would not for shame rehearse this quarrel so often; which hath not so much as any colour or shew of reason to maintain it, but that you abuse the names of Illyricus and Calvin, as misliking it, whose arguments by no means will serve your turn, because that which is denied by them, or doubtful to them, is plain and confessed by you. Martin. But Beza goeth forward still in this kind. Rom. v. 18, Martin, whereas Erasmus had put propagatum est, indifferently, both of Adam's sin, which made us truly sinners, and of Christ's justice, which maketh us truly just; he rejecting it, among other causes why it dis pleased him, saith : " That old error of the sophists," meaning catholics, "which for imputative justice put an inherent quality in the place, is so great and so execrable to all good men, that I think nothing is so much to be avoided as it." Fulke. A manifest echpsis, or want of words, being in Fulke, that verse, for which Erasmus hath put propagatum est, 53' which word is ambiguous, and may give occasion of error, for men to think that the righteousness of Christ cometh by pro pagation, as the guiltiness of Adam doth ; Beza thought good to supply the lack, rather by such words as are warranted by the text, verses 12, 15, and 16, and can give no occasion of error. And therefore thus he rendereth that verse : Nempe igitur, sicut per unam offensam reatus venit in omnes homi- 160 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. ties ad condemnationem ; ita per unam justificationem bene- ficium redundavit in omnes homines ad justificationem vitce. "Now therefore, as by one offence guiltiness came upon all men unto condemnation ; so by one justification the benefit abounded toward all men unto justification of life." In this verse these words, "guiltiness came," and "the benefit abounded," are added for explication sake, and are taken out of the verses going before, in which the apostle speaketh of the same matter. Therefore Beza, to avoid occasion of the heresy of the papists, of justice inherent, among other causes which he rehearseth, refuseth that word by which Erasmus supphed the text, and useth such words for that purpose, as the apostle himself in the verses precedent doth offer, for this necessary supply : which seeing it must be made, that there may be a sense and understanding, who can mishke that it should be made by the apostle's own words ? or who can suppose that the apostle would leave any other words to be understood, than such as he himself had before expressed? And as for the heresy of inherent justice, [it] can have no hold in this verse, except some such word be added for supply, as the apostle never used in this case. That Christ's justice doth make us as truly just, as Adam's sin made us truly sinners, there is no question: but by what means we are made just, we say, as the scripture teacheth us to speak, that justice is im puted to us through faith, Rom. iv. The papists say it is a quahty inherent within us; for which words and matter they have no warrant in the holy scripture. Martin, Martin. These few examples prove unto us that the scriptures translated verbatim, exactly, and according to the proper use and signi fication of the words, do by the heretics' confession make for the catholics ; and therefore Beza saith he altereth the words into Other : and, I think, it may suffice any indifferent reader to judge of his purpose and meaning in other places of his translation, and consequently of theirs that either allow him, or follow him, which are our English Calvinists and Bezites. Many other ways there are to make most certain proof val7 afd of their wuuuness> as wften tlle translation is framed according to their Titus iii. 6. false and heretical commentary; and when thev will avouch their trans- ii. is. and ' lations out of profane writers, Homer, Plutarch, Pliny, Tully, Virgil, and Terence, and reject the ecclesiastical use of words in the scriptures and fathers; which Beza doth for the most part always. But it were infinite to note all the marks, and by these the wise reader may conceive the rest. !•] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 161 Fulke. These examples prove nothing less. For to run Fulke, over them all briefly, the first two we translate verbatim, 64, "A man is justified by faith without the works of the law," and "repent" and "repentance" we say for fxeravoelv and p.eTavoia. What make these for popery ? If Luke i. 6, we should call o'lKaiwuara, "justifications," what should popery gain but a vain cavil, when yourselves confess, that those justifications are often used for commandments? Acts ii. 27, all our English translations are as you would have them, "Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption ;" by which verse no descent into limbus, but the resurrection from death, can be proved. If we translate as you do Acts ih. 21, "whom heaven must receive," we will easily convince that Christ must be received of heaven. In the last example the question is not, how the word is to be translated, but by what word the want of the text is to be supphed; which we supply not with words of our own, but with the apostle's own words. Have you not gained greatly by translating verbatim, exactly, and according to the proper use and signification of the words ? I like well, that every indifferent reader may- judge by these examples of Beza's purpose in other places of his translation. But you have two other ways to make certain proof of their wilfulness. The first is, when the trans lation is framed according to their heretical commentary. A reasonable man would think rather that the commentary were framed according to the text, than the text to the commentary. But to justify the truth of those translations, for the first text you quote, it is handled sect. 26 of this chapter, and so consequently cap. vii. The second is answered sect. 46 ; the other two concerning tradition sect. 23 of the preface, and in the chapter following. The second way of proof is, when they will avouch their translations out of pro fane writers. I think there is no better way to know the proper or diverse signification of words, than out of ancient writers, though they be never so profane, who used the words most indifferently in respect of our controversies, of which they were altogether ignorant. As for the ecclesiastical use of words in the scripture and the fathers, which Beza (you say) doth for the most part reject, it is untrue : except there be good and sufficient cause why he should so do, warranted r ' i u [fulke.J 162 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. by the scripture itself, or necessary circumstances of the places which he doth translate. For if the scripture have used a word in one signification sometimes, it is not ne cessary that it should always use it in the same signification, when it is proved by ancient writers that the word hath other significations, more proper to the place, and agreeable to the rule of faith, which perhaps the usual signification is not. As for example, the scripture useth very often this word irals for a "boy," or "servant :" but when the same word is apphed to our Saviour Christ in the prayer of the apostles, Acts iv. 27, who would not translate it "child," or "son," as the word doth sometime, but more seldom, signify ? How the fathers of the church have used words, it is no rule for translators of the scripture to follow ; who oftentimes used words as the people did then take them, and not as they signified in the apostles' time : as fxerdvoia for a public testification of repentance, which we call "penance," yeipoTovia for "imposition of hands," and such like ; in which sense these words were never used before the apostles' times, and therefore it is not hke that they would begin a new use of them, without some manifest exphcation of their meaning, without the which no man could have understood them ; as they have done in the use of these words tt'icttis, fidirTicrna, eKKXtiola, and such like. It is not a fault therefore prudently to seek even out of pro fane writers, what is the proper signification of words, and how many significations a word may have, and reverently to judge, which is most apt for the place to be translated, and most agreeable with the Holy Ghost's meaning in that text ; and not always to be tied to the usual signification of words, as they are sometimes taken in scripture, and much less as they are used of the ancient fathers. Martin,. Martin. But would you think that these men could notwithstand- Annot. ing speak very gravely and honestly against voluntary and wilful translations of scripture, that so notoriously offend therein themselves? Hearken what Beza saith against Castalio and the like. " The matter," saith he, " is now come to this point, that the translators of scripture out of the Greek into Latin, pr into any other tongue, think that they may lawfully do any thing in translating. Whom if a man reprehend, he shall be answered by and by, that they do the office of a translator, not that translateth word for word, hut that expresseth the sense. So it cometh to pass, that whiles every man will rather freely follow his own judgment, than be a religious interpreter of the Holy Ghost, he Acts x. 46*. I-J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 163 doth rather pervert many things than translate them." Is not this well said, if he had done accordingly ? but doing the clean contrary, as hath been proved, he is a dissembling hypocrite in so saying, and a wilful heretic in so doing, and condemned by his own judgment. Fulke. No wise man doubteth, but they could both Fulke> speak very gravely and avoid most rehgiously all voluntary and wilful translations of scripture, that might tend to main tain any error. And the rather they will be persuaded, that Beza hath avoided that lewd kind of translation, for which he reproveth Castalio, when they shall see that you, so malicious an enemy unto him, having spent all your invention to seek holes in his translation, can find nothing but such childish cavils, as when they be discovered, men will marvel that you were not ashamed to move them. Martin. But after this general view of their wilful purpose and Martin, heretical intention, let us examine their false translations more particu larly, and argue the case with them more at large, and press them to answer, whether in their conscience it be so or no, as hitherto is said ; and that by several chapters of such controversies as their corruptions concern ; and first of all (without further curiosity whence to begin, in cases so indifferent) of traditions. Fulke. The more particularly you examine our trans- Fulke, lations, the freer, I hope, they shall be found from false- 66, hood and wilful corruption. And the more at large you argue the case, and press us to answer, the more you shall make the case to appear worse on your side, and the truth clearer on our part. And as God is witness of our con science and sincerity in setting forth his word, without adulte ration or corruption; so I appeal to the consciences of all indifferent readers, whether hitherto you have gotten any advantage against us in this whole chapter, which yet you profess to be the abridgement and sum of your whole treatise. H— 2 164 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. CHAPTER II. Heretical Translation of Holy Scripture against Apostolical Traditions. Martin, 1. Martin. This is a matter of such importance, that if they should grant any traditions of the apostles, and not pretend the written word ' see the an- only, they know that by 'such traditions, mentioned in all antiquity, their the new tes- religion were wholly defaced and overthrown. For remedy whereof, sfmiess'ii. is. Emd for the defacing of all such traditions, they bend their translations against them in this wonderful manner. Wheresoever the holy scrip ture speaketh against certain traditions of the Jews, partly frivolous, partly repugnant to the law of God, there all the English translations irapaSoati. follow the Greek exactly, never omitting this word " tradition." Con trariwise, wheresoever the holy scripture speaketh in the commendation of traditions, to wit, such traditions as the apostles delivered to the church, there all their said translations agree, not to follow the Greek, which is still the selfsame word; but for "traditions," they translate "ordinances," or "instructions." Why so, and to what purpose? We appeal to the worm of their conscience, which continually accuseth them of an heretical meaning, whether by urging the word, "traditions," wheresoever they are discommended, and by suppressing the word where soever they are commended, their purpose and intent be not to signify to the reader that all traditions are naught, and none good ; all reproveable, none allowable. Fulke, 1. Fulke. Traditions indeed is a matter of such import ance, as if you may be allowed whatsoever you will thrust upon us under the name of unwritten traditions, the written word of God shall serve to no purpose at all. For first, as you plainly profess, the holy scripture shall not be ac counted sufficient to teach all truth necessary to salvation, that the man of God may be perfect, prepared to all good works. Secondly, with the Valentinian heretics, you accuse the scriptures of uncertain understanding without your tra ditions; under pretence of which you will bring in what you list, though it be never so contrary to the holy scrip* ture's plain words, by colour of interpretation, as you do the worshipping of images, and many other like heresies. As for the mention that is made of apostohcal traditions in divers of the ancient fathers, some of them are such as you yourselves observe not, and not for the tenth part of those that you observe can you bring any testimony out of the II J TUANSLATIONS OF THE 1S1BLE. 165 ancient fathers ; as is proved sufficiently by so many propo- siti6ns as were set down by the bishop of Salisbury, M. Jewel, whereof you can bring no proof for any one to have been taught within 600 years after Christ. Now concern ing the traditions of the apostles, what they were, who can be a better witness unto us than Ignatius, the disciple of the apostles, of whom Eusebius writeth, that when he was led towards Rome, where he suffered martyrdom, he earnestly exhorted the churches by which he passed, to continue in the faith, and against all heresies, wliich even then began to bud up, he charged them to retain fast the tradition of the apostles, which by that time he protested to be com mitted to writing ; for by that time were all the books of the new testament written. The words of Eusebius concern ing this matter are, Lib. in. cap. 35 : irpovrpeire Te dirpl% eyeoQai Ttjs t(Sv dirooroXwv irapacdaews, ijv virep docpaXe'ias Kal eyypdtpws wot] fxapTvp6fj.evos oiaTvirovaOai dvayKalov yyelTo. " And he exhorted them straitly to keep the tra dition of the apostles, which, testifying that it was now for assurance committed to writing, he thought necessary to be plainly taught." Against this tradition of the apostles, which for certainty and assurance is contained in their holy and un doubted writings, we say nothing, but strive altogether for it. But because the word "traditions" is by you papists taken to signify a doctrine secretly delivered by word of mouth, with out authority of the holy scriptures, we do willingly avoid the word in our translations, where the simple might be deceived, to think that the Holy Ghost did ever commend any such to the church, which he would not have to be com mitted to writing in the holy scriptures ; and instead of that word so commonly taken, although it doth not necessarily signify any such matters, we do use such words as do truly express the apostle's meaning, and the Greek word doth also signify. Therefore we use the words of "ordinances," or "in structions," or "institutions," or "the doctrine delivered," all which, being of one sense, the Greek word irapdSocris doth signify, and the same doth "tradition" signify, if it be rightly understood : but seeing it hath been commonly taken, and is urged of the papists to signify only a doctrine dehvered beside the word of God written, in such places where the Holy Ghost useth the Greek word irapdSocris in that sense, 166 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cili we translate by that word " tradition ;" where he useth it for such doctrine as is grounded upon the holy scriptures, our translators have avoided it, not of any heretical meaning, that all irapde'ocrets, "traditions," are naught, but that all such as have not the holy scripture to testify of them, and to war rant them, are evil, and to be avoided of all true Christians; which cannot without blasphemy acknowledge any imper fection in the holy scriptures of God, which are able to make a man wise unto salvation, if they should think any doctrine necessary to salvation not to be contained therein. Martin, 2. Martin. For example, Matt, xv.1, thus they translate, "Why do thy irapdSoaw. disciples transgress the tradition of the elders ?" And again, " Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" And again, " Thus have you made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition." Here, I warrant you, all the bells sound "tradition,'' and the word is never omitted ; and it is very well and honestly trans- 2Thess.ii.i5. lated, for so the Greek word doth properly signify. But now on the other side, concerning good traditions, let us see their dealing. The trcis, traditiones. ap0Stle by the selfsame words, both in Greek and Latin, saith thus: " Therefore, brethren, stand and hold fast the traditions which you have learned either by word, or by our epistle2." And again, "Withdraw 2 Thess. iii. 6. yourselves from every brother walking inordinately, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us3." And again, according l Cor. xi. 2. 4,0 the Greek which they profess to follow : " I praise you, brethren, Q1 Atari oi padqTCU crov irapajiaLvovtri rqv irapaSomv Tmv irpetr- flvrepav; Matt. XV. 2.] P_a Kal Kpareire rds irapaSoaeis as eSMxdqre. 2 Thess. ii. lo". "Tenete traditiones quas didicistis," Vulg. "Tenete traditam doctri nam, quam edocti estis," Beza. " Hold ye the traditions that ye have learned," Wiclif. " Keep the ordinances which ye have learned," Tyndale, Cranmer. "Keep the instructions which ye have learned," Geneva. "Hold the tradi tions which you have learned," Rheims. " Hold the traditions which you have been taught," Authorised version.] r_s Kai pq Kara rqv irapd8ooiv qv irapeXaftov trap ijpiov. 2 Thess. hi. 6. "Et non secundum traditionem quam acceperunt a nobis," Vulg. "Et non ex tradita doctrina quam accepit a nobis," Beza. "And not after the teaching that they received of us," Wiclif. " And not after the institution which he received of us," Tyndale, Cranmer. "And not after the instruction which he received of us, Geneva. "Not according to the tradition which they have received of us," Rheims. "Not after the tradition which he received of us," Authorised version.] II.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 167 that in all things you are mindful of me, and as I have delivered unto Kaflnjs you, you keep my traditions*." wapeoWa, * " ras irapa- 6"ool, oti irdvra pov pepvqade, Kal KaOcos irapiScoxa vpiv, rar irapa86ireis Karexere. 1 Cor. xi. 2.] [6 "Et sicut tradidi vobis, prsecepta mea tenete," Vulg.] 168 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. do by "ordinances" or "instructions", and might as well have used the word prwcepta in those two places, as he did in this one, if it had pleased him. Martin, 3. Martin. Here we see plain mention of St Paul's traditions, and consequently of apostolical traditions, yea, and traditions by word of mouth, delivered to the churches without writing or scripture. In all which places look, gentle reader, and seek all their English translations, Yet m. Fulke and thou shalt not once find the word "tradition," but instead thereof, found there, ordinances," " instructions," "preachings," "institutions," and any word agamst ' else rather than " tradition." Insomuch that Beza, their master, trans- Hocfce. if hrteth it "traditam doctrinam,'' "the doctrine delivered," putting the usinTn""' singular number for the plural, and adding "doctrine" of his own: so stance, let framing the text of holy scripture according to his false commentary, or himself the rather putting his commentary in the text, and making it the text of 2 Thess. ii. scripture. Who would think their malice and partiality against tradi- Trapado- ti°ns were so great, that they should all agree with one consent so duly •reis. and exactly in these and these places to conceal the word, which in other places do so gladly use it, the Greek word being all one in all the said places ? Fulke, 3. Fulke. There is no question but the apostles by word of mouth, that is, by preaching and teaching, dehvered the doctrine of the gospel to the churches; but that they preached, taught, or dehvered any doctrine as necessary to salvation, which they proved not out of the holy scriptures, and which is not contained in the new testament or the old, this is not yet proved, neither ever can it be proved. Such matters of ceremonies, order, and discipline, which are mutable, no man denies but they might and did deliver ; but yet in them nothing but agreeable to the general rules set down in the scripture. But in aU these places the word " tradi tion" cannot once be found. Yet M. Fulke saith it is found. Yea, doth? where saith he so? You answer, p. 153, against D. Saunders' Rocke. Therefore, if he give not an instance, let him give himself the he. But he that chargeth Fulke to say it is found, heth the more. For so he saith not : read the place who will. He speaketh against Saunders, who affirmed that the very name of "tradition" used in the better part, cannot be suffered to be in the English bible, as though there were some decree of the synod, or act of parhament against it; and saith, it may be and is suffered in that sense which the Holy Ghost useth it, but not to !!•] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 169 bring prayer for the dead, or any thing contrary to the scripture under the name of traditions apostolic. By which words I mean, that there is no prohibition or edict to the contrary, but if any man will use the word tradition in trans lation of the Bible, he is permitted so to do: I do not affirm it is so found. But as if I should say, The papists in England are suffered to hve as becometh good subjects, I affirm not that they are, or shall be found so to hve. But to omit this foolish quarrel, Beza our master is said to have translated irapd^ooeK, "the doctrine dehvered," putting the singular number for the plural, and adding " doctrine" of his own. What an heinous matter here is! The word "doctrine" is a collective, comprehending many precepts or traditions ; and in the next chapter the apostle useth the same word in the singular number. Again, the 1 Thess. iv. 2, he caUeth the same irapayyeXias, "precepts" or "documents," which word signifieth the same that irapae'daeis : witness your vulgar Latin translator, which gives one word for both, prmcepta, 1 Cor. xi. and 1 Thess. iv. And that the word doctrine is added to the text, it is a fond cavil : for the word doctrine is con tained in irapao'bais, which signifieth a "delivery;" but where of, if not of doctrme ? Our Saviour Christ also, Matt. xv. 9, by the testimony of Esay reproveth the tradition of the Pharisees, " teaching the doctrines precepts of men ;" which testimony of Esay could take no hold of them, if traditions were not doctrines and precepts. So that in this transla tion of Beza (cry out as loud as you can) there is neither fraud nor corruption, mahce nor partiality ; but a prudent declining of that term, which might give occasion of error, and the apostle's meaning truly and faithfully dehvered. To shew that one word may be diversely translated, especially when it signifieth divers things, to wise men is needless. I have said before, you yourselves translate, (or else you should be taken for madmen,) the Latin word tradere, of which tradition is derived, sometimes "to deliver," sometimes "to betray," and yet the Greek and Latin word being all one in all the said places. Martin. Yea, they do elsewhere so gladly use this word, Martin, 4. "tradition," when it may tend to the discredit thereof, that they put the said word in all their English bibles, with the like full con- 170 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Col. ii. 10. sent as before, when it is not in the Greek at all : as when they Vit°rrie*~ translate thus, " If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye led with tra- * of the year nmoNs?" and, as another English translation* of theirs readeth more heretically, " Why are ye burdened with traditions ?" Tell us sincerely, you that profess to have skill in the Greek, and to translate according to the Greek ; tell us, we beseech you, whether this Greek word 86ypa Coi.ii. 24. do signify "tradition," and SoytiaTiCeo-Oai "to be led or burdened with Eph. 11.15. ° ** . c6yp.a ®s peydXcov nvcov direxopevovs' a earn irdvra els (j)6opdv Ttj diroxpqcei. KaBeiXe tcov iroXXcov rqv cj)vorla>cri.v, Kal eirrjyaye' Kara to ivraXpara Kal oi8ao-KaXias tcov dvdpconwv. tl Xeyeis; Kav tov vopov enrqs, Xoirrbv 8i8ao-KaXia iarlv dvQpdmov perd rbv Kaipov. q bri irapeiroiow abrbv, ovtcos eltrev, q to tcov 'EXXqvcov alvlrreTai' SXov dvBpamvov to 86ypa iorl, cj>qo-lv. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Coloss. cap. ii. Horn. vn. Opera, Vol. xi. p. 372. edit. Benedict.] [j* Nolite, inquit, diligere mundum, neque ea quce in mundo sunt ; id est, neque elementa, quibus compactus est mundus, neque errores quos humana adinvenit traditio, deligamus; sed solum Christum qui mortuus est pro nobis. Ambros. Comment, in Epist. ad Coloss. ii. 2. Opera, Vol. n. p. 270. Sagina enim carnalis sensus traditio humana est...Hinc enim aggravati non poterant sursum jungi capiti suo. p. 271. (super v. 23.)] 172 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [i CH, saith he, " nor those errors quos humana adinvenit traditio, " which the tradition of men hath invented." And afterward, Sagina enim carnalis sensus humana traditio est: "For the tradition of man is the pampering of carnal sense; by which, he saith, men are so burdened, that they cannot be joined to the head which is above." Yet " burdening with traditions" is called of you the more heretical translation. Say as much to Ambrose, that he maketh an heretical com mentary. The interpreter of Theodoret, printed at Cohen, 1573, hath translated in the very text, for ^toacncaX/as, "traditioneshominum," "traditions of men." You see now, this matter is not so void of testimony of the fathers, as you sup posed. The reason you require us to make, is made often before. We thought it not meet to express the Greek word in both places by the same English word, because the Enghsh word, as it is used by you, is not so indifferent, to signify the doctrme of God dehvered out of the scriptures, as to signify doctrines of men devised beside the scriptures. If we must answer why we call tradition " ordinance," and ordinance " tradition ; " let your vulgar Latin interpreter an swer us, or you for him, why he calleth tradition " precept," and usage or precept "tradition"? The one he doth 1 Cor. xi. 2, the other Acts vi. 14, where the Greek is e9n, signify ing there " precepts," or " observations commanded," he trans lateth traditiones, as in the other place the Greek being irapaSdaeis he translateth " prcecepta." If this be lawful for him, why should it be counted corruption or false trans lation in us? seeing we are moved with as good reason as can be yielded for him. As for authentical and apos tolical traditions, that are grounded upon the doctrine of the apostles expressed in their writings, we shall be ready to receive them, whensoever they shall be brought forth. If they cannot be proved by the scriptures, which are "written that we might beheve, and believing have eternal life," and "which are able to make us wise unto salvation," we have nothing to do with them: we may well spare them: nay, we dare not admit them, lest we should answer for blas phemy against the holy scriptures in that dreadful day, if by admitting of such traditions we should profess, that the doctrme contained in the holy scriptures is imperfect or insufficient to salvation. II. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 173 Martin. Somewhat more excusable it is, but yet proceeding of the Mahtin, 6. same heretical humour, and on your part (that should exactly follow the Greek) falsely translated, when you translate in St Peter's epistle thus : " You were not redeemed with corruptible things from your vain con- l Pet. i. 18. versation received by the tradition of the fathers." Where the Greek is *k tjJs pa- thus rather to be translated, "from your vain conversation delivered bv Ta'-os . )f " J vp.iov ava- the fathers. But your fingers itched to foist m the word "tradition," a-Tpo^jjs and for "delivered" to say "received," because it is the phrase of the ¦""'""poira- eatholic church, that it hath "received" many things " by tradition," which you would here controul by likeness of words in this false trans lation. Fulke. I marvel why you should count it an heretical Fulke, 6. humour, to use the word "traditions" in the evil part, which the Holy Ghost so useth, and your own vulgar translator also ; but that you are more partial in allowing the tra ditions of men, than we in avoiding the term sometimes, only for doubt lest traditions of men should creep into the place of God's commandments. But how is it falsely trans lated on our part, that profess to follow the Greek, which is truly translated in your vulgar Latin text, which pro- fesseth to translate the Greek as well as we? Belike, be cause we say, "received by the tradition of the fathers," which according to the Greek should be, " dehvered by the fathers," but that our fingers itched to foist in the word " tradition." What, I pray you, hath your vulgar translator foisted in that word ? did his fingers itch against such catholic phrases, that he would controul them by a false translation ? Do you not perceive that while you rail upon us, you revile your own vulgar Latin translation, which hath the same word " tradition," for which you storm against us ? But for de livered, we have said, received. See whither frowardness driveth you : the apostle saith, " they were dehvered from the vain conversation of their fathers' tradition." Do you then understand, that it was dehvered by the fathers, but not received by their sons? Certainly they were dehvered from that vain conversation which they had received. For receiving doth necessarily import delivering. And because you called for a lexicon in the next section before, Scapula will teach you, that iraTpoirapdSoTos doth signify as in differently a patre traditus as a patre acceptus, " dehvered by the father," and " received by the father." What wrangling then is this, about the moon-shine in the water, to cry 174 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. out "false translation," "foisting," "itching fingers," and I know not what? Martin, 7. Martin. But concerning the word "tradition," you will say perhaps the sense thereof is included in the Greek word, "delivered." We grant. But would you be content, if we should always expressly add, Tradidi " tradition," where it is so included ? Then should we say, 1 Cor. xi. 2, iruptduiKa. « j pra;se you that as I have delivered you (by tradition), you keep my precepts," or " traditions." And again, v. 23 : " For I received of our Lord, which also I delivered unto you," (by tradition,) &c. And Luke i. 2: "As they (by tradition) delivered unto us, which from the beginning saw," &c, and such like, by your example, we should translate in this sort. But we use not this licentious manner in trans lating holy scriptures ; neither is it a translator's part, but an inter preter's, and his that maketh a commentary ; neither doth a good cause need other translation than the express text of the scripture giveth. Fulke, 7. Fulke. We will say it is contained in the Greek word iraTpoirapa^oTov, which signifieth "received by tradition or delivery from the fathers," and not in the verb irapaSiSwpi, which signifieth otherwise many times, than simply "to de liver ;" and when it signifieth " to deliver," it doth not alway signify to deliver by word of mouth, without writing, as you understand tradition, but as well by writing, as by preaching. As when St Paul saith, " I received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you," speaking of the institution of the supper, he meaneth that which the evangehsts had written, and he himself doth write. So 2 Thess. ii., when he willeth them to hold the traditions which they had learned of him, he speaketh not only of such as they learned by his preaching, but such also as they learned by his epistle. Wherefore if you should expressly add the >word "tradition" in your partial signification, wheresoever you find the word delivered, you should not only translate ridiculously, but also heretically and falsely. Words in derivation and composition do not always signify according to their pri mitive. Martin, 8. Martin. And if you will yet say, that our vulgar Latin translation hath here the word, " tradition," we grant it hath so, and therefore we also translate accordingly. But you profess to translate the Greek, and not the vulgar Latin, which you in England condemn as papistical, and say it is the worst of all, though Beza, your master, pronounce it to be U.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 175 the very best1 ; and will you, notwithstanding, follow the said vulgar ?is^Te,r of Latin, rather than the Greek, to make traditions odious ? Yea, such is nag. 147.. ' your partiality one way, and inconstancy another way, that for your Novum Test heretical purpose you are content to follow the old Latin translation, ' ' though it differ from the Greek ; and again, another time you will not follow it, though it be all one with the Greek most exactly ; as in the place before alleged, where the vulgar Latin translation hath nothing of traditions, but, " Quid decernitis," as it is in the Greek, you translate, "Why are ye burdened with traditions?" Col. ii. 20. Fulke. You may be sure we will say that we know Fulke, 8. to be true, and sufficient to discharge our translation from your foolish and malicious quarrelling. But we profess (you say) to translate the Greek, and not the vulgar Latin. And, I pray you, what doth your vulgar Latin interpreter pro fess to translate, but the Greek ? If he then, translating out of Greek, could find "tradition" in the Greek word, why should not we find the same, especially being admonished by him ? who if he translated truly, why are we blamed for doing P Beza's opinion was not quite what Martin has here represented it. In the preface alluded to, he says as follows: "Vulgatae illius editionis, qua jampridem utimur, quis auctor fuerit, video inter doctos homines non constare. Hoc quidem constat, praeterquam quod pluri- mis locis a librariis est depravata, saepe illam a Graecis discedere, saepe obscure multa interpretari, quaedam praetermittere, quaedam adjicere; ut minime mirum sit, eruditis hominibus nunquam satisfecisse, impe- ritis autem multis magnos errores objecisse. Eruditos voco, non eos duntaxat qui praecipue hoc nomine digni sunt, quales sane perpauci semper extiterunt; sed eos quoque qui vel mediocrem utriusque lin guae peritiam ad pietatis cognitionem attulerunt. Ceteros autem, quod ad id attinet de quo agimus, nihil moror; quorum tamen duo genera esse video : unum eorum qui per imperitiam, quod pleraque errata non modo non intelligunt, sed ne suspicari quidem possunt, idcirco in recepta ilia interpretatione acquiescunt ; qui tamen proculdubio meliora amplecterentur, siquis ilia commonstraret : alterum eorum qui, perverso quodam ingenio et ignobili natura praediti, ita in crassis illis et ob- scuris tenebris versantur, ut veritatis lucem sponte refugiant. Mi com- miseratione sane aliqua digni sunt: isti vero plane indigni quorum corruptis et depravatis judiciis quisquam commoveatur; quinimo aperti sunt veritatis hostes; minis enim est inter mendacium et igno- rantiam, qua isti tantopere delectantur, consensus Quum igitur in ilia Vulgata editione (quam tamen ego maxima ex parte amplector, et ceteris omnibus antepono) permulta requirantur, laudandus est profecto eorum labor qui illam emendare studuerunt. Pnefatio in Nov. Test. edit. Bezae, 1556.] 176 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. as he did ? if his translation be false, why is it allowed as the only authentical text ? We follow not, therefore, the Latin translation, but join with it wheresoever it followeth the Greek, as we do in ten thousand places more than this ; and willingly depart not from it, but where it de- parteth from the Greek, or else useth such words as would be offensive, if they were translated into English, or occa sion of error ; as you do likewise, when you depart from the proper and usual signification of words, which your Latin translator useth : as when you call fcenerator, "a cre ditor," which signifieth an usurer, Luke vii.; stabulum, "an inn," and stabularius, "an host," Lukex.; una sabbati, "the first of the sabbath," Johnii. ; ecclesia, "the assembly," Acts vii. ; baptismata, "washings," Mark vii., and such like. But we in England (say you) condemn the Latin trans lation, as papistical. We accuse it as not true in many places, and we say it is the worst of all, though Beza, our master, pronounce it to be the very best. This toucheth me some what; for in the margin is noted "Discovery of the Bock, p. 147." where, indeed, speaking of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, the Greek trans lation of the Septuagint, and the common Latin translation, I say the Tridentine Council alloweth none for authentical, but the common Latin translation, that is the worst of all. Now what saith Beza contrary to this ? Speakmg of the divers Latin translations of the New Testament only, he saith of the vulgar Latin, that he followeth it for the most part, and preferreth it before all the rest : maxima ex parte am- plector, et ceteris omnibus antepono. So that I speak of the whole Bible, Beza of the New Testament only : I speak of the vulgar Latin text, in comparison of the original He brew and Greek, and the Septuagint's translation ; Beza, of the Latin translation of the New Testament, in comparison of all other Latin translations, that were before him, as Erasmus, Castaho, and such like. According to your old manner therefore, you rehearse out of my writings, either falsifying the words, or perverting the meaning. These things considered, you have no cause to accuse us of par tiality and inconstancy, for foUowing or leaving your Latin text, which we never did but upon good ground and reason sufficient. H-] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 177 Martin. So that a blind man may see you frame your translations Martin-, 9. ^o bolster your errors and heresies, without all respect of following sincerely either the Greek or the Latin. But for the Latin no marvel ; the Greek at the least why do you not follow ? Is it the Greek that induceth you to say ordinances for traditions, traditions for decrees, ¦j-opa- ordinances for- justifications, elder for priest, grave for hell, image for ^yuaVa. idol? Tell us before God, and in your conscience, whether it be because StKaiai. you will exactly follow the Greek : nay, tell us truly, and shame the iJJ."™^. devil, whether the Greek words do not sound and signify most properly tc/oos. that which you of purpose will not translate, for disadvantaging your "^J. ow heresies ? And first, let us see concerning the question of images. Fulke. A blind man may see, that you cavil and slan- Fulke, 9. der, quarrel and rail, without respect either of conscience towards God, or honesty toward the world : insomuch, that most commonly you forget the credit of your own vulgar Latin translation, so you may have a colour to find fault with ours. And yet again you ask, whether it be the Greek which induceth us to say, for irapaSooeis ordinances, and for Soy/jiaTa traditions, &c. I tell you, the Greek alloweth us so to say, which is sufficient, when other godly causes move us beside so to translate. Is it the Latin that in- Fomerator.Stabulum. duceth you to say, for 'an usurer,' ' a creditor;1 for 'a stable,' A™d^ctUD1' 'an inn;' for 'what was done,' 'what was chanced1;' for 'fas- aS1"*' tening to,' 'crucifying2;' for 'be you saved,' 'save yourselves3;' Art?"™' for 'creature,' 'creation;' for 'confessed,' 'promised4;' for 'aActs'vT5' boat,' 'a ship;' for 'a ship,' 'a boat ;' for 'singing,' 'piping5;' Luke™.38' P Acts v. 7. Kal q ywq abrov pq tlbvia to yeyovbs elo-qXdev. "Et uxor ipsius, nesciens quod factum fuerat," Vulg. "And his wife not knowing what was chaunced," Rhemish version.] P Acts ii. 23. 8id xclPav dvopcov irpoo-irq^avres dvetXere. "Per manus iniquorum affligentes interemistis," Vulg. " You by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain," Rhemish version. "Have crucified and slain," Versions 1534, 1539, 1557, 1611.] P Acts ii. 40. Scodqre diro rqs yeveas rqs crKoXids Tavrqs. " Sal- vamini a generatione ista prava," Vulg. "Save yourselves from this perverse generation," Rhemish version.] P1 Acts vii. 17. Ka8cbs 8e qyyi^ev 6 xpdvos rqs iirayye-Xlas qs copoo-ev 6 Bebs rcf Afipadp. "Cum autem appropinquaret tempus promis- sionis, quam confessus erat Deus Ahrahae," Vulg. "And when the time drew near of the promise which God had promised to Abra ham, &c." Rhemish translation.] P* Matt. xi. 17. HbXqo-apev vplv, Kal ovk olpxqcracr8e. "Cecinimus vobis, et non saltastis," Vulg. "We have piped to you, and you have not danced," Rhemish version.] [fulke.] 178 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. Navis, Mark iv. CecinimuSjMatt. xi. Fcenum,Matt. xiv. Befectio,Mark xiv. Insipientia, Luke vi. Simula- crum. for 'hay,' 'grass1;' for 'refection,' 'refectory5;' for 'foolish ness,' 'madness3;' for 'an image,' 'an idol,' &c. ? I blame not all these as false translations ; yet every man may see they are neither usual nor proper : yet as for some of these (though not for all) I know you may give good reason* so may we, for any shew of alteration or departing from the usual signification of the Greek word, that you are able to allege against us. P Matt. xiv. 19. AvaKXtd/jvat iirl robs x°P™vs. "Discumbere su per foenum," Vulg. " To sit down upon the grass," Rhemish version.] [2 Mark xiv. 14. noO eo-n to KardXvpa; "Ubi est refectio mea?" Vulg. " Where is my refectory ?" Rhemish version.] [3 Luke vi. 11. 'EirXqo-8qo-av dvolas. "Repleti sunt insipientia," Vulg. "And they were replenished with madness," Rhemish version.] HI- J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 179 CHAPTER III. Heretical Translation against Sacred Images. Martin. I beseech you, what is the next and readiest and most proper Martin, 1. English of idolum, idololatra, idololatria? is it not, "idol, idolater, e'iSmXov. idolatry"? Are not these plain English words, and well known in our eiSu,XoXd- language? Why sought you further for other terms and words, if you had e iSaiXoXa- meant faithfully ? What needed that circumstance of three words for "rpeia. one, " worshipper of images," and " worshipping of images4 " ? Whether, Bib. 1577. I pray you, is the more natural and convenient speech, either in our English tongue, or for the truth of the thing, to say, as the holy scripture doth, " covetousness is idolatry," and consequently, " the covetous man Eph. y. is an idolater;'' or, as you translate, "covetousness is worshipping of images," and, " the covetous man is a worshipper of images "? Fulke. K you ask for the readiest and most proper Fulke, 1. English of these words, I must needs answer you, ' an image, a worshipper of images, and worshipping of images,' as we have sometimes translated. The other that you would have, ' idol, idolater, and idolatry,' be rather Greekish than English words; which though they be used of many Enghshmen, yet are they not understood of all, as the other be. And therefore I say, the more natural and convenient speech for our English tongue, and as convenient for the truth of the thing, it is to say, ' covetousness is the worshipping of images, and the covetous man is a worshipper of images,' as to say, 'covetousness is idolatry, and the covetous man is an idolater,' as I have proved before ; seeing idolum by your own interpreter is called simulacrum, and simula crum signifieth as much as imago, an image, cap. i. numb. 5. Martin. We say commonly in English, Such a rich man maketh Martin, 2. his money his god; and the apostle saith in Like manner of some, TSSafSJjf" " whose belly is their god," FhiL iii. : and generally every creature is translation, , . -,.-,-, , . ,A covetous our idol, when we esteem it so exceedingly that we make it our god. man is a wor- But who ever heard in English, that our money, or belly, were our Images. P The versions of 1534 and 1539 render qns io-rlv elScoXoXarpeia, Col. iii. 5, " Which is worshipping of images." The Geneva transla tion has, like the Authorised version of 1611, "Which is idolatry." The Vulgate has, "Quae est simulacrorum servitus."] 12—2 180 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ell. images, and that by esteeming of them too much we become worshippers of images ? Among yourselves are there not some even of your super intendents, of whom the apostle speaketh, that make an idol of their money and belly, by covetousness and belly cheer ? Yet can we not call you therefore in any true sense, " worshippers of images," neither would you abide it. You see then, that there is a great difference betwixt idol and image, idolatry and worshipping of images; and even so great difference is there betwixt St Paul's words and your translation. Fulke, 2. Fulke. Before you can shew that absurdity of this translation, ' a covetous man is a worshipper of images,' you must defend your own vulgar Latin translation, which calleth elhwXoXaTpe'ia simulacrorum servitus, which I have proved to signify the serving or worshipping of images, cap. i. numb. 5, Now to our English phrase, ' a rich man maketh his money his god, a glutton his belly,' and so of other creatures honoured above measure ; I say, the worshipping of images may be after two sorts, either when they are worshipped as gods, (as among the grosser sort of the gentiles and papists,) and then it is agamst the first commandment, "Thou shalt have none other gods but me"; or else when men pretend to worship God by them, as the Israehtes did in the calf, Exod. xxxii., and in Jeroboam's calves, and in the brasen serpent, and the wiser sort of the gentiles and papists pretend to do in worshipping their images ; and then it is a sin against the second commandment, "Thou shalt make to thy self no graven images: thou shalt not fall down to them, nor worship them." By similitude therefore of them that trusted in images as their gods, and so honoured them which were not able to help them, the apostle calleth the covetous man a worshipper of images, and covetousness, worshipping of images ; and not properly, but because their money is to them the same occasion of departing from God, that the images was to the worshipper of them. So if we will speak improperly, as the apostle saith, " their belly is their God," we may say it is their idol, or their image, which they worship as God : not that the belly, or any such thing, is God, or an idol, or an image properly ; but that it is so termed, for that to such vile creatures is given that divine honour which is due to God, but by worshippers of idols and images is given to idols or images. I confess the use of the English tongue, in these speeches, is rather to call them idols than images, and HI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 181 to extend the name idol (which is always taken in the evil part) to that which the word image cannot so aptly signify : yet in truth of the thing there is no difference between idol and image, worshipping of idols, and worshipping of images, whether you speak of such as be idols and images, so properly called, or of such as be only by simihtude figuratively so named. If any of our superintendents be such as you speak of, I wish them amended, or else removed. For my part, I know none to be such, although I wish to the best increase of God's grace, to despise the world, and to be more earnest in setting forth God's glory. As for the great difference you speak of betwixt St Paul's words and our translation, I see none as yet. Martin. Will you see more yet to this purpose ? In the English Martin, 3. bible, printed the year 1562, you read thus : " How agreeth the temple 2 Cor. vi. of God with images1 ?" Can we be ignorant of Satan's cogitations herein, that it was translated of purpose to delude the simple people, and to make them believe that the apostle speaketh against sacred images in the churches, which were then in plucking down in England, when this your translation was first published in print ? Whereas in very truth you know, that the apostle here partly interpreteth himself to speak of men as of God's temples wherein he dwelleth, partly alludeth to Salo mon's temple, which did very well agree with images (for it had the Salomon's cherubins, which were the representations of angels, and the figures of WenPagree oxen to bear up the lavatory), but with idols it could not agree, and JStnou© therefore the apostle's words are these, " How agreeth the temple of God idols- with idols?" Fulke. We had need to see more, before we be con- Fulke, 3. victed of corruption ; for hitherto we have seen nothing but a foolish cavil, grounded upon the common use ofthe word "idol" in English, in which speech it is taken only for unlawful images, although in the Greek it signifieth as generally as imago in Latin, and by TuUy himself is used for the same. But in the Enghsh bible, printed 1562, we read thus, 2 Cor. vi., " How agreeth the temple of God with images2 ?" Here you cannot be " ignorant of Satan's cogitations, that it P Ti'r 8e crvyKaTaBeo-is vacp Gfou perd elScoXav ; 2 Cor. vi. 16. "What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" Rhemish, Authorised version.] [3 It is "images" in the Bibles of 1534, 1539, 1557, but "idols" in the Authorised version, 1611.] 182 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ell. was translated of purpose to make the simple people' believe; that the apostle speaketh against sacred images in churches; which were then in plucking down in England, when this translation was first pubhshed in print." You are so cunning in Satan's cogitations, that he hath inspired into you a mani fest untruth ; for this text was so translated and printed near thirty years before 1562, in king Henry the VIHth's time, when images were not in plucking down. And when it was printed again, 1562, which was the fifth year of her majesty's reign (God be thanked ! ) there was no need to pluck down images out of churches, which were plucked down in the first and second years of her reign. Wherefore that purpose is vainly imagined of you : for the translator's purpose was the same that the apostle's, to shew that the rehgion of God hath nothing to do with images made by man's device to honour them as gods, or to honour God by them. And where you say that the apostle " alludeth to Salomon's temple, which did well agree with images, but not with idols ;" I answer you, Salomon's temple did not agree with images made by the device of man, to honour God by them or in them. For the cherubins were not of man's device, but of God's commandment : the oxen to hold up the lavatory, the pomegranates, and other ornaments, were not for any use of rehgion to worship God in them or by them, but for use and garnishing of the house appointed by God in his law, and by direction of his Spirit in Salomon. For the commandment, "Thou shalt not make to thyself," is no restraint unto God, but unto men of their own brain or private intent to make images to serve in rehgion. Therefore the apostle, speaking of such images as were forbidden by God's law, is not otherwise to be understood ; and no more is our translation. Martin, 4. Martin. When Moses by God's appointment erected a brasen fxen-d twv serpent, and commanded the people that were stung with serpents to The'toasen behold it, and thereby they were healed ; this was an image only, and as Smage!'5' an image was ** erected and kept. and used by God's commandment. afterward an But wllen it; Srew to te an m0LJ saith St Augustine, that is, when the idol, and people began to adore it as God, then king Ezechias brake it in pieces, to Numb. xxi. the great commendation of his piety and godly zeal. So when the' civitXc. I. children of Israel, in the absence of Moses, made a calf, and said, "These ixod.gxxxli!' are thy gods, O Israel, that brought thee out of Egypt," was it but an image which they made ? was that so heinous a matter, that God would III. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 183 bo have punished them as he did ? No, they made it an idol also, saying) The molten " These are thy gods, O Israel ;" and therefore the apostle saith to the 1 cor? x." ° Corinthians, "Be not idolaters, as some of them ;" which also you trans- e'^aKo^-m late most falsely, "Be not worshippers of images, as some of them." Fulke. The brasen serpent first and last was an image, Fulke, 4. holy when it was commanded by God to be made as a sacra ment of our redemption by Christ, lawful when it was reserved only for memory of that excellent miracle ; unlawful, cursed, and abominable, when it was worshipped, and therefore justly broken in pieces by the godly king Ezechias. Tou cite Au gustine as it pleaseth you, to follow your own context : Quem sane serpentem, propter facti memoriam reservatum, cum postea populus errans tanquam idolum colere ccepisset, Ezechias, &c. "Which serpent truly, being reserved for the memory of the fact, when afterward the people going astray began to worship as an idol, Ezechias the king, serving God with religious power, with great praise of his piety brake in pieces." Here it is certain that Augustine, as most ecclesias tical writers, useth the word idolum for an image abused. But that the people began to adore it as God, he saith not ; for they only worshipped God by it, falsely indeed and super- stitiously, but yet not believing that image to be God him self, but a holy representation of his power, which was shewed by it in the days of Moses. That Ezechias, by rehgious or ecclesiastical power and authority, did put down idolatry, you pass it by, as though you saw it not in St Augustine. But you bring another example to prove that images, except they be worshipped as gods, be no idols. In truth, seeing all religious worship is due only to God, although the idolaters intend not to worship their images as gods, yet by worship ping of them they make unto themselves gods of them, and so offend both against the first and second commandments. Yet how prove you that the Israehtes made a god of their ealf ? Because they said, "These are thy gods, 0 Israel, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt." But even by that same speech it is manifest that they worshipped not the calf, as believing it to be God; but contrariwise protested thereby, that they meant not to change their God, but to worship the same God, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, by that image ; which they could not be ignorant that it was made but yesterday of their ear-rings, and therefore 184 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. could not think it was the same God that brought them out of the land of Egypt, but that they would worship God by that visible shape, which they saw before them. And Aaron by Ms proclamation confirmeth the same : " To-morrow," saith he, " shall be holy day to Jehovah," that is, to the only true God, whom they dishonoured, pretending to worship him by that image : so heinous a thing it is to make images to repre sent God, and to worship them for his honour, although the worshipper do not believe them to be gods. Therefore where we have in some translations, 1 Cor. x., called those idolaters worshippers of images, we have not erred ; for an image it was they worshipped, thinking to worship God therebyt But if either image or idol, worshippers of images or idolaters^ would please you, we have both in our translations, the one expressing what we mean by the other ; that these cavillations Avere needless, but that mahce against the truth incenseth you to pick quarrels, and that translation which useth the terms of idols and idolaters, was then in printing at Geneva, when images were in pulling down in England, namely, the first and second years of the queen's reign, being finished the 10th of April, 1560 ; which notably confuteth the fond purpose, that you slander our translators to have had. Martin, 5. Martin. We see then that the Jews had images without sin, but not idols. Again, for having idols they were accounted like unto the Psal. cvi. gentiles, as the Psalm saith : " They learned their works, and served their graven idols." But they were not accounted like unto the gentiles for having images, which they had in Salomon's temple, and in the in cap. xxv. brasen serpent. St Jerome writeth of the Ammonites and Moabites The protest- (who were gentiles and idolaters), that coming into the temple of Jeru- tothiTim-6 salem, and seeing the angelical images of the cherubins covering the Moalrftes!nd propitiatory, they said, " Lo, even as the gentiles, so Juda also hath idols of their religion." These men did put no difference between their own idols and the Jews' lawful images. And are not you ashamed to be hke to these ? They accused Salomon's temple of idols, because they saw there lawful images : you accuse the churches of God of idolatry, because you see there the sacred images of Christ and his saints. Fulke, 5. Fulke. We know that the Jews had images without sin, and so have we ; but to have images in any use of rehgion without God's express commandment, neither is it lawful for them nor us, because we have a general com mandment to the contrary. They were accounted like the gentiles therefore, for having images contrary to God's com- III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 185 mandment, of their own appointment; and worshipping them ; not for having images appointed by God, which yet it was not lawful for them to worship. But the Protestants, you say, are like to the Ammonites and Moabites, of whom St in Em*. Jerome writeth', that coming into the temple, and seeing- t*P'3""' the cherubins covering the propitiatory, they said, "Lo, even as the gentiles, so Juda also hath idols of their rehgion," as we accuse the church of God of idolatry, because we see there the sacred images of Christ and his saints. This that you say St Jerome writeth, he only reporteth it as a ridiculous fable of the Jews : Ridiculam vero in hoc loco Hebrcei narrant fabulam. " The Hebrews in this place tell a ridiculous fable." But fables are good enough to bolster false accusations. Secondly, he reporteth them to say : Sicut cunctce gentes colunt simulacra, ita et Juda habet suce religionis idola. "As all nations worship images, so hath Juda also idols of their rehgion." By which words you see, that he calleth images and idols the same things. For simulacrum to be taken as largely as imago, I have proved before, insomuch that man is called simulacrum Dei, "the image," not the idol, "of God," as idol is taken in the evil part. But neither are you like to Juda, nor we to Ammon and Moab, in this case. For Juda had God's com mandment to warrant their images ; so have not you, but his commandment against your images. Again, Moab and Ammon (if the tale were true) had idolatrous images of their own ; so have not we. Martin. But tell us yet, I pray you, do the holy scriptures of Martin, 6. «ither Testament speak of all manner of images, or rather of the idols of the gentiles ? Your conscience knoweth that they speak directly against The holy the idols and the idolatry that was among the pagans and infidels ; from speaketh the which as the Jews in the Old Testament, so the first Christians in fSof'the the New Testament, were to be prohibited. But will you have a demon- fSSIIrt «Ji°' station that your own conscience condemneth you herein, and that you r"31""* of apply all translation to your heresy ? What caused you, being otherwise P Ridiculam vero in hoc loco Hebraei narrant fabulam. Postquam urbs aperta, templumque reseratum est, filiique Ammon et Moab et Seir ingressi sunt templum, videruntque Cherubim protegentia pro- pitiatorium, dixerunt: Sicut cunctse gentes colunt simulacra, ita et Juda habet sua; religionis idola. Comment. Hieronymi in Ezech. cap. xxv. v. 8. Opera, Vol. in. p. 870.] 186 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH, in all places so ready to translate "images," yet Esai. xxxi. and Zachar.. xiii. to translate " idols" in all your bibles with full consent ? Why in these places specially and so advisedly ? No doubt, because God saith there, speaking of this time of the New Testament, " In that day every man shall cast out his idols of silver and idols of gold :" and, " I will destroy the names of the idols out of the earth, so that they shall no more be had in remembrance." In which places if you had translated " images," you had made the prophecy false ; because images have not been destroyed out of the world, but are and have been in christian, countries with honour and reverence even since Christ's time. Marry, in the idols of the gentiles we see it verified, which are destroyed in all the world, so far as gentility is converted to Christ. Fulke, 6. Fulke. Verily the commandment of God, being a com mandment of the first table, unto which whatsoever is said in the scriptures of images, or the worship of them forbidden, must be referred, speaketh generally of all manner of images made by the device of man for any use of rehgion, whether they be of Jews, pagans, or false Christians. But we are offered a demonstration, that our own conscience condemneth us herein, and that we apply all translations to our heresy. And that is this : in Esai. xxxi. and Zachar, xiii. with one con sent all translate " idols," because God speaketh of the time of the New Testament, where if they had translated "images,", they " had made the prophecy false, because images in chris tian countries are with honour, but idols of the gentiles are destroyed out of the world so far as gentility is converted to Christ." A goodly demonstration, I promise you! That the translators had no such respect, it is plain; for that they do not understand the xxxi. of Esaias of the time of Christ, but of the reformation made by Ezechias. But in Esai. xliv., which is a manifest prophecy of the church of Christ, they all use the word "image ;" also Micheas the v. and in divers other places, where the destruction of idolatry is prophesied by the rehgion of Christ, which is verified only in true Christians ; for otherwise both idolatry of pagans and of false Christians hath remained in many places, and yet remaineth to this day. Martin, 7. Martin. And what were the pagan idols or their idolatry? St Paul Hom. i. telleth us, saying : " They changed the glory of the incorruptible God the idols of into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds and agans. ^eas(.g an(j oreepmg things, and they served (or worshipped) the creature more than the Creator." Doth he charge them for making the image of, J1'-] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLEi 187 man or beast ? Yourselves have hangings and cloths full of such paint-. mgs and embroiderings of imagery. Wherewith then are they charged ? With giving the glory of God to such creatures, wliich was to make them idols, and themselves idolaters. Fulke. That the pagans changed the glory of God Fulke, 7. into the similitude of the image of man, &c. it was the extremity of their madness ; but that they made images of man or beast, if you will not confess that Jupiter, Mars, &c. were men, and Isis a cow or beast, yet remember that they made images of their emperors, and committed idolatry to them : otherwise, to make images out of rehgion was not the offence of idolatry in them nor us, that have them in hangings, and paintings, and other lawful images. Martin. The case being thus, why do you make it two distinct things Martin, 8. in St Paul, calling the pagans "idolaters," and the Christians doing the ' por. v. same " worshippers of images," and that in one sentence, whereas the apostle useth but one and the selfsame Greek word in speaking both of pagans and Christians ? It is a marvellous and wilful corruption, and well to be marked ; and therefore I will put down the whole sentence as in your English translation : " I wrote to you that you should not company with fornicators ; and I meant not at all of the fornicators of this world, either of the covetous, or extortioners, either the idolaters, &c, elSmXoXd- but that ye company not together, if any that is called a brother be a ^P""- fornicator, or covetous, or a worshipper of images, or an extortioner." In the first, speaking of pagans, your translator nameth " idolater" ac cording to the text ; but in the latter part, speaking of Christians, you translate the very selfsame Greek word " worshipper of images." Why eiSaiXoXd- so ? Forsooth, to make the reader think that St Paul speaketh here not T'"'Sl only of pagan idolaters, but also of catholic Christians that reverently kneel in prayer before the cross, the holy rood, the images of our Saviour Christ and his saints, as though the apostle had commanded such to . be avoided. Fulke. The reason is, because we count idolaters and Fulke, 8. worshippers of images to be all one. But " it is a marvellous wilful corruption," that in one sentence, 1 Cor. v., we call the pagans idolaters, and the Christians worshippers of images, and yet the same Greek word in both. If this were a fault, it were but of one translation of the three, for the Geneva Bible hath "idolater" in both, the other "worshipper of idols" in the latter place. And we think the latter to be understood of idolatrous papists, which worship idols made with hands of men, as crosses, roods, and other images, to 188 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. as great dishonour of God and danger of their souls as pagans did. So that if it had been "worshippers of images'* in both, the translation had not been amiss. Martin, 9. Martin. Where if you have yet the face to deny this your malicious and heretical intent, tell us why all these other words are translated and repeated alike in both places, " covetous," " fornicators,'' " extortioners," both pagans and Christians, and only this word " idolaters " not so, but pagans " idolaters," and Christians " worshippers of images." At the least you cannot deny but it was of purpose done to make both seem all one, yea, and to signify that the Christians doing the foresaid reverence before sacred images (which you call worshipping of images) are more to be avoided than the pagan idolaters : whereas the apostle, speaking of pagans and Christians that committed one and the selfsame heinous sin whatsoever, commandeth the Christian in that case to be avoided for his amendment, leaving the pagan to himself and to God, as having not to do to judge of him. Fulke, 9. Fulke. I think the cause was, that Christians might understand who was an idolater, and what the word "idolater" , signifieth, which was used in the former part of the sentence. And if the translator's purpose was by this exphcation to. dissuade the readers from worshipping of popish images, I see not what cause he hath to be ashamed thereof, seeing the Greek word signifieth as much as he saith: not as though idols were proper only to the gentiles, and images to Christians; for in other places he useth the name of images,, speaking both of the pagans and the Christians, 1 Cor, viii. Although for my part, I could wish he had used one word in both places, and either called them both idolaters or both worshippers of images. Martin, Martin. But to this the answer belike will be made, as one of them }?• hath already answered in the like case, that in the English bible ap- confutat'of pointed to be read in their churches it is otherwise, and even as we let, fol. 3& would have it corrected ; "and therefore," saith he, "it had been good before we entered into such heinous accusations, to have examined our grounds that they had been true." As though we accuse them not truly of false translation, unless it be false in that one bible which for the present is read in their churches ; or as though it pertained not to them how their other English bibles he translated; or as though the people1 read not all indifferently without prohibition, and may be abused by. every one of them ; or as though the bible which now is read (as we Bib. 1577. think) in their churches, have not the like absurd translations, yea, more absurd, even in this matter of images, as is before declared ; or as Ill | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 189 though we must first learn what English translation is read in their church (which were hard to know, it changeth so oft), before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation ; or as though it were not the same bible that was for many years read in their churches, and is yet in every man's hands, which hath this absurd translation whereof we have last spoken, Fulke. Mine answer was framed to Howlet's reason, Fulke, who would prove that our service was naught, because the 10* scriptures were therein read in false and shameless transla tions, example of which he bringeth, 1 John v. : " Children, keep yourselves from images." To whom mine answer was apt, when I said, "In the Bible appointed to be read in the service it is otherwise," and as he himself saith it ought to be; which answer as though it were made to the general accusation of our translations, you with many supposings, as though this, as though that, would make it seem to be un- sufficient; whereas, to Howlet's cavil, it was not only sufficient, but also proper. And therefore this is a vain supposal, "as though we accuse them not truly of false translation, unless it be false in that one bible which for the present is read in their church." For we grant you not the other to be false, because this is true, and so are all the rest. "As though it pertained not to them how their other English bibles be translated." It pertaineth so far that, if there were a fault in the former, we have amended it in the latter. But in that text, for which I answered, I acknowledge yet no fault, neither is that mine only answer ; for I prove that "image" and "idol" with the apostle signifieth the same thing. "Or as though the people read not all without prohibition, and may be abused by every one of them." There is no such false translation in any of them, that the people can be abused thereby to run into heresy. Yet again: "Or as though the bible, which now is read (as we think), have not the like absurd translations, yea, more absurd, even in this matter of images, as is declared before." As though you have proved whatsoever you prate of. Once again : " Or as though we must first learn, what English translation is read in their church (which were hard to know, it changeth so often), before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation." If you will accuse that translation which is read in our church, as Howlet doth, reason would you should first learn 190 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH; which it is; and that is no hard matter, seeing there was never more appointed than two, as oft as you say we change. "Or, (at last,) as though it were not the same bible, that was for many years read in their churches, and is yet in every man's hands, which hath this absurd translation, whereof we last spake." As though I could prophesy, when I an swered Howlet for the bible appointed to be read in the church, in 1 John v., that you would find fault with an other text in that translation, that sometime was read in the church, and yet is in many men's hands: which, although it be well altered in that point, which you quarrel at, in the two later translations, yet I see no absurdity in the first, which for one Greek word giveth two English words, both of one signification, yea, and the latter being plainer, explicating the former, which to Enghsh ears is more obscure and less understood. Martin, Martin. Surely the bible that we most accuse, not only in this point, "• but for sundry other most gross faults and heretical translations, spoken Bib. 1562. of in other places, is that bible which was authorised by Cranmer, their archbishop of Canterbury, and read all king Edward's time in their churches, and (as it seemeth by the late printing thereof again, anno 1562) a great part of this queen's reign. And certain it is, that it was so long read in all their churches with this venomous apd corrupt trans lation of "images" always instead of "idols," that it made the deceived people of their sect to despise, contemn, and abandon the very sign and image of their salvation, the cross of Christ, the holy rood, or crucifix, representing the manner of his bitter passion and death, the sacred images of the blessed virgin Mary, the mother of God, and of St John John xix. 26. Evangelist, representing their standing by the cross at the very time of his passion. Insomuch that now by experience we see the foul incon venience thereof, to wit, that all other images and pictures of infamous harlots and heretics, of heathen tyrants and persecutors, are lawful in England at this day, and their houses, parlours, and chambers, are garnished with them; only sacred images, and representations of the holy mystery of our redemption, are esteemed idolatrous, and have been openly defaced in most spiteful manner, and burned, to the great dis honour of our Saviour Christ and his saints. Fulkk, Fulke. That bible perhaps you mislike more than the -11- other translations, because archbishop Cranmer allowed it by his authority. But howsoever it be, (as I think there be more imperfections in it than in the other,) it is not your accusation, without due and substantial proof, that can make III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 191 it less esteemed with any indifferent or wise man. if it have caused the people to contemn and abandon all popish idols, there is cause that we should give God thanks for it. Albeit not the translation only, but preaching of the gospel, and Christ crucified especially, by which Christ hath been 'truly and lively painted forth unto them, and even crucified among them, hath made them contemn, yea, and abhor all carnal and human devices of the image of our salvation, or representation of his passion by vain and dead images, to be any helps of faith, rehgion, or the worship of God. Where you say it is "seen by experience, that all other images of infamous harlots and heretics, of heathen tyrants and persecutors, are lawful in England, to garnish houses, when sacred images are esteemed idolatrous, defaced, and burned," I know not well your meaning. For if you have any true images of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, or other holy persons, I think they be as lawful to garnish private houses as the other you speak of. Yea, the stories of the whole bible painted, both of the Old Testament and the New, are hot forbidden, but in many places used: provided always, that in the places appointed for the pubhc service of God such things are not lawful, for danger of idolatry, nor in private places to to be abused, as they are of papists ; but rather, though they were as ancient and as goodly monuments as the brasen serpent was, which no images at this day can be, it is to the great honour of God that they should be despised, defaced, burned, and stamped to powder, as that was, which sometime was erected by the commandment of God, by which not only great miracles were wrought, but the wonderful mystery of our salvation through faith in Christ was prefigured. Martin. And as concerning the bible that at this day is read in their Martin, churches, if it be that of the year 1577, it is worse sometime in this "¦ matter of images than the other. For where the other readeth " covet- col. iii. 5. ousness, which is worshipping of idols," there this latter (whereunto they appeal) readeth thus : " covetousness, which is worshipping of ihiages." And Ephes. v. it readeth as absurdly as the other : "Aw. Fulke, covetous man, which is a worshipper of images1." Lo, this is the En- 35. [x "Covetousness, which is worshipping of images," edit. 1668. " Covetousness, which is idolatry," 1579. Col. iii. 5. " A covetous per son, which is a worshipper of images," Ephes. v. 5. edit. 1668. " Nor covetous person, which is an idolater," edit. 1570.] 192 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Fol. 3«. glish bible, which thev refer us unto, as better translated and as correcting Bib. 1579. the fault of the former. But because it is evident by these places, that this also is partly woree and partly as ill as the other, therefore thb great confuter of master John Howlet fleeth once more to the Geneva English bible, saying, "Thus we read," and, "so we translate;" to wit, " A covetous person, which is an idolater." Where shall we have these good fellows, and how shall we be sure that they will stand to any of their translations ? From the first read in their churches they flee to that that is now read, and from this again to the later Geneva English bibles, neither read in their churches (as we suppose,) nor of greatest authority among them ; and we doubt not but they will as fast flee from this to the former again, when this shall be proved in some places more false and absurd than the other. Fulke, Fulke. It pleaseth you worse, perhaps, that less favour-* eth your pelting distinction of images and idols; but it is never the worse to be liked of them that be wise and learned, which know that e'mwv and e'lSwXov in Greek do signify the same thing, which you cannot deny. And where you say, in your scornful mood, " Lo, this is the bible, which they refer us unto, as better translated and as correcting the fault of the former," you follow your accustomed vein of lying. For I acknowledge no fault of the former in this point of images, but confute the frowardness of that foolish reason, which accuseth our service of reading the. bible in shameless translations, in that text, 1 John v. ; whereas in the bible appointed for the service it is not as he saith, but even as he would have us to say. I fly not therefore (as it pleaseth your wisdom to say) from that translation also to the Geneva bible, neither do I allege the Geneva translation for that cause you pretend, but to shew, that albeit we translate in such words as you cannot mislike, yet your venomous slandering pens and tongues can never give over your peevish quarrelling. In the place by you quoted, I defend both as true, and answerable to the Greek, and of one sense and meaning, where the sound of words only is diverse, the signification of matter one and the same, And yet you must have your foolish flourish in rope-ripe terms: "Where shall we have these good fellows," &c? You shall have us, by the grace of God, ready to justify all our translation from shameless falsification and heretical corruptions, which is your impudent charge agamst us. And HI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 193 if in matter of lesser moment you can descry the least error in any or in all of our translations, we shall be willing to confess the same, and ready to reform it. For truth is dearer to us than credit; although we think it better credit to reform a fault, than, being admonished, wilfully to continue it or defend it. Martin. But what matter is it how thev read in their churches, or Maktin, * 13 how they correct their former translations by the later; when the old corruption remaineth still, being set of purpose in the top of every door within their churches, in these words : " Babes, keep yourselves i John v. from images4"? Why remaineth that written so often and so con spicuously in the walls of their churches, which in their bibles they correct as a fault ? Their later bibles say, " Keep yourselves from idols :" their church walls say, " Keep yourselves from images." St John, speaking to the lately-converted gentiles, biddeth them beware of the idols from whence they were converted : they, speaking to the old- instructed Christians, bid them beware of the sacred image of Christ our Saviour, of the holy crucifix, of the cross, of every such represen tation and monument of Christ's passion and our redemption. And therefore in the very same place where these holy monuments were wont to stand in catholic times, to wit, in the rood-loft and partition ofthe church and chancel, there now stands these words as confronting and condemning the foresaid holy monuments : "Babes, keep yourselves from images." Wliich words whosoever esteemeth as the words of scripture, and the words of St John, spoken against Christ's image, is made a very babe indeed, and sottishly abused by their scribbled doors and false translations, to count that idolatry, which is indeed to no other purpose, than to the great honour of him whose image and picture it is. Fulke. Still you harp on the old untuneable string, Fulke, that the former is a corruption, which saith, " Babes, keep 13- yourselves from images ;" which sentence sore grieveth you, to be written in the top of church doors, or in place where the rood-loft stood. And you ask why it remaineth on the walls, which we correct as a fault in the bibles? But who told you that they correct it as a fault in the bibles? Is every alteration with you a correction? The one ex- plicateth the other, that idols of which St John speaketh be images abused in rehgion. Not that all images be idols, (as the word idol in the English speech is taken,) nor that all idols be images, but as images that are worshipped. But r* TeKvia, vXd£aTe eavrovs dirb tcov el8o>Xa>v. 1 John v. 21.] r l 1S [FULKE. J 194 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. St John (you say), speaking to the converted gentiles, bid- deth them beware of the idols, from whence they were converted. That is true, but not only from them, but from all other idols. Except perhaps you think, that Christians by that text should not abhor the images of Simon Magus, and Selene, and the images of the Valentinians, and Gnosticks, and other hereticks, which worshipped the image of Christ irenams, lib. and of St Paul, as Irenasus1 and Epiphanius* do testify. And f 'i hanius ** seemeth, you so think in deed. For you say soon after, u!>H1."27?m' "Whosoever esteemeth those words as the words of scripture (if images be put for idols,) spoken agamst Christ's image, is made a very babe." Such babes were Irenseus and Epipha- nius, that they condemned this worshipping of images for heresy. Such a babe was Epiphanius, that finding the image of Christ painted in vail hanging in a church at Anablatha, he judged it to be contrary to the scriptures, and rent it in pieces. Such a babe was Tertulhan3, that, speaking of that very text of St John, " Little children, keep yourselves from idols," he writeth : Non jam ab idololatria quasi ab officio, sed ab idolis, id est, ab ipsa effigie eorum. Indignum enim ut imago Dei vivi imago idoli et mortui fiat. " He biddeth them take heed, not now from idolatry, as from the service, but from the idols themselves, that is to say, from the very images or shapes of them. For it is un worthy that the image of the living God should be made the image of an idol, and that being dead." Finally, such a babe was your vulgar translator, that he saith: Filioli, [' Contemnere autem et idolothyta, et nihil arbitrari, sed sine aliqua trepidatione uti eis: habere autem et reliquarum operationum usum indifferentem, et universse libidinis. Utuntur autem et hi ma- gia, et imaginibus, et incantoribus, et invocationibus, et reliqua uni- versa periergia: nomina quoque qusedam affingentes quasi angelorum, annuntiant hos quidem esse in primo ccelo, hos autem in secundo; et deinceps nituntur CCCLXV. ementitorum ccelorum et nomina, et prin- cipia, et angelos, et virtutes exponere. Irenaei, Lib. i. cap. 23. Opera, p. 102. edit. Venet. 1734.] rj* Ti fie dXXo q irdarav dppqrovpyiav Kal rqv adeptrov irpa£iv r\V ov Beptrbv iirl UToparos (pepetv, ovtoi irpdrrovo-i ; Kal nav elbos dv&po- fiao-iwv, Kai Xayvio-repav opiXuov irpbs yvvaiKas iv eKao-Tco pepei o-dpn- tos, payelas re Kal (frappaKeias Kal elScoXoXarpeias iKTeXowres. Epiphani adv. Haer. Lib. i. Tom. n. 27. Opera, p. 105. edit. Paris. 1622.] [3 De Corona, edit, de la Cerda. p. 678.] HI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 195 custodite vos a simulacris, which is all one, as if he should have said ab imaginibus, (as I have plentifully proved,) " Children, keep yourselves from images." As for the pur pose you pretend to have in honouring Christ by images, contrary to his commandment, is indeed nothing but dis honouring of him and destruction of yourselves. Martin. But the gay confuter with whom I began, saith for further Martin, answer, "Admit that in some of our translations it be, 'Children, 14- keep yourselves from images,' (for so he would have said, if it were Wj'p 35.lke' truly printed) what great crime of corruption is here committed?" And when it is said again, this is the crime and fault thereof, that they mean by so translating to make the simple believe that idols and images are all one, which is absurd ; he replieth, " that it is no more absurdity, than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification." And upon this position he granteth that, according to the property of the Greek word, a man may say, " God made man according to his Gen. i. idol," and that generally idolum may as truly be translated an " image," Kara tiju as Tyrannus, a "king," (which is very true, both being absurd;) and 6 a" here he cited many authors and dictionaries idly, to prove that idolum eUm\ov. may signify the same that image. elKtiv. Fulke. But this scornful repher, with whom I have Fulke, to do, is so accustomed to false and unhonest dealing, that he can never report any thing that I have written truly, and as I have written, but with one forgery or another he will clean corrupt and pervert my saying. As here he shameth nothing to affirm, that I grant that, according to the property of the Greek word, a man may say, God made man according to his idol. I will report mine own words, by which every man may perceive how honestly he dealeth with me : "But admit that in some translation it be as you say, ' Children, keep yourselves from images :' what great crime of corruption is here committed? You say, that it is to make simple men believe that idols and images are all one, which is absurd. This is no more absurdity, than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification. But you reply, that then, where Moses saith that God made man according to his own image, we should consequently say, that God made man according to his idol. I answer, howsoever the name of idols in the Enghsh tongue, for the great dishonour that is done to God in worshipping of images, 13—2 196 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. is become so odious that no christian man would say, that God made man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his lawful prince * a tyrant,' yet according to the Greek word, e'tSwXov may be as truly translated an image, as Tvpavvos a king." Here, if I were disposed to give the rein to affection, as you do often, being unprovoked by me, were sufficient occasion offered to insult against your falsehood. But I will forbear, and in plain words tell you, that if you be so simple, that you cannot understand the difference of these two propositions, e'iSwXov, wheresoever it is read in Greek, may be truly translated " an image ; " and this, wheresoever the word image is used in Enghsh, you may use the word idol; you are unmeet to read a divinity lecture in England, howsoever you be advanced in Rhemes. If not of ignorance, but of mahce, you have perverted both my words and meaning, let God and all godly men be judge between you and me. My words are not obscure nor ambiguous, but that every child may understand my meaning to be no more but this, that this English word idol is by use restrained only to wicked images. The Greek word e'iSwXov signifieth generally all images, as Tvpawos did all kings, until kings, that were so called, became hateful for cruelty, which caused even the name tyrannus to be odious. Mabtin,15. Bom. viii. Imagini. 1 Cor. xv. Imaginem. 2 Cor. iii. Heb. x. Col. i. 2 Cor. iv. Martin. But I beseech you, Sir, if the dictionaries tell you that ei8a>Xov may, by the original property of the word, signify " an image/' (which no man denieth,) do they tell you also, that you may commonly and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signification thereof? or do they tell you that "image" and "idol" are so all one, that where soever you find this word "image," you may truly call it "idol"? For these are the points that you should defend in your answer. For an example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus? "God hath predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of his Son." And again, "As we have borne the idol of the earthly (Adam,) so let us bear the idol ofthe heavenly" (Christ). And again, "We are transformed into the same idol, even as our Lord's spirit." And again, " The law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very idol of the things." And again, " Christ who is the idol of the invisible God." Is this, I pray you, a true translation ? Yea, say you, according to the property of the word: but "because the name of idols in the English tongue, for the great dishonour done to God in worshipping of images, is become odious, no christian man would say so." m. J translations of the bible. 197 Fulke. No man denieth (you say) that e'tSwXov may, Fulke, by the original propriety of the word, signify an image. It is well, that being convicted by all dictionaries, old and new, you will at length yield to the truth. But you demand, whether the dictionaries do tell me that I may commonly and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signifi cation thereof. Sir, I meddle only with the translations of the scripture ; and the dictionaries tell me that so it usually signifieth, and therefore so I may translate in the scripture, or any other ancient Greek writer, that useth the word according to the original propriety thereof. Peradventure some later Greek writers, restraining it only to wicked images, may so use the term, as the general signification thereof will not agree to the meaning in some odd place or other. But that is no matter to plead against our translation of the scripture, when in that time it was written the word was indifferent, to signify any image. Further than this, you ask of me, if the dictionaries do tell me, that image and idol are all one, and wheresoever I find the word imago, I may truly call it idol? No, forsooth, Sir, they teach me no such thing : neither do I say that the word image and idol may be confounded; but the clean contrary, if your mastership had not mistaken me, because it was not your pleasure to take me either according to my words, or according to my meaning. Why, Sir, "these are the points you should defend in your answer : for an example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus, 'God hath predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of his Son' ? and again, ' We have borne the idol of the earthly,' &c." I pray you, Sir, pardon me to defend that I never said nor thought : you yourself confess in the end, that I say, that no christian man would say so : wherefore when you say that I affirm, this is a true translation according to the propriety of the word ; can I say less ? Then you he like a popish hypocrite. Martin. First, note how foolishly and unadvisedly he speaketh here, Martin, because he would confound images and idols, and make them falsely 16. to signify one thing : when he saith the name of " idol " is become odious in the English tongue because of worshipping of images, he should have said, the dishonour done to God in worshipping idols made the 198 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [uH. name of idols odious. As in his own example of " tyrant" and " king,'' he meant to tell us that "tyrant" sometime was an usual name for every king; and because certain such tyrants abused their power, there fore the name of tyrant became odious. For he will not say, I trow, that for the fault of kings the name of tyrant became odious. Likewise the Romans took away the name of Manlius for the crime of one Man- lius, not for the crime of John at Nokes, or of any other name. The name of Judas is so odious, that men now commonly are not so called. Why so ? because he that betrayed Christ was called Judas ; not because he was also Iscariot. The very name of " ministers" is odious and con temptible. Why? because ministers are so lewd, wicked, and unlearned; not because some priests be naught. Even so the name of "idol" grew to be odious, because of the idols of the Gentiles, not because of holy images. For if the reverence done by Christians to holy images were evil, (as it is not,) it should in this case have made the name of images odious, and not the name of idols. But, God be thanked ! the name of images is no odious name among catholic Christians, but only among heretics and image-breakers, such as the second general council of Nice hath condemned therefore with the sentence of anathema : no more than the cross is odious, which to all good Christians is honourable, because our Saviour Christ died on a cross. Fulke, Fulke. Nay, first note how falsely, and then how foolishly, and yet how impudently, he continueth a slander agamst me of his own devising, that I would confound those English words, "images" and "idols." For first he will teach me to speak Enghsh, that where I said the name of idol is become odious in the Enghsh tongue, because of worshipping of images, I should have said, "the dishonour done to God in worshipping of idols made the name of idols odious." And what, I pray you, were those idols, the worshipping of which made the name odious, but images? May I not be so bold, under your correction, to use the general name images, which you say are not idols, until they be abused ? When the image of Jupiter, king of Crete, was first made, and nothing else done unto it, would you call it an image, or an idol? Sure I am, you caUed the brasen serpent first an image, and then an idol. Even so I trust I may, without offence of Englishmen, say, that the abuse of images, called first without note of infamy e'ilwXa, "idols," made the name of idols to be odious, and therefore not applied, but to such abused images : and the example I brought of tyrannus, which first did signify a king, is very plain and like, but that you are disposed III. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 199 to play the peevish quarreller. And trow you, I will not say, that for the fault of kings the name of tyrant became odious ? Yes, verily, I will not spare to say, and so I said before, that for the fault of such cruel kings, as were called tyranni, though the name itself first signified not so, that name of tyrant became odious. As for your fombhtudes1 of Manhus and Judas, two proper names, compared with image, and idol, king, and tyrant, which be common names, I will not vouchsafe to answer them. But the name of " ministers" (you say) is odious, for the faults of ministers, and not for the faults of priests. Popish priests are odious enough for their own faults ; so that they need not be charged unjustly with the faults of our evil ministers : wliich I would wish were fewer than they be ; but I trust there are not so many evil of them, as your popish priests have been, and are daily found to be. And whosoever of our ministers hath been found worst, I think there may be found, not a priest, but a pope, of your side as evil, or worse than he. But if reverence done by papists, (which you call Christians,) to images had been evil, (say you,) it should have made the name of images odious also. No, Sir, that followeth not, so long as that reverence was ac counted good and lawful; and now that it is found to be abominable, the people having the other odious word of idols in use, need not abandon the name of images, except they had another to signify lawful and good images. The curse of the idolatrous Council of Nice the second, no christian man regardeth, which knoweth that by God's own mouth in the scriptures all makers and worshippers of idolatrous images are accursed. Martin. But to omit this man's extraordinary and unadvised speeches, Martin, which be too many and too tedious, (as when he saith in the same sentence, ' " Howsoever the name ' idol ' is grown odious in the English tongue," as though it were not also odious in the Latin and Greek tongues, but that in Latin and Greek a man might say according to his fond opinion, fecit hominem ad idolum swum, and so in the other places, where is imago,) to omit these rash assertions, I say, and to return to his other words, where he saith, that though the original property of the words hath [} Danish, famler, to hesitate, stammer, falter : this word of Fulke's is deduced from fumble. Or is it a misprint for similitudes ?] 200 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. * that signification, yet "no christian man would say, that God made man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his lawful prince a tyrant :" doth he not here tell us that which we would have, to wit, that we may not speak or translate according to the origi nal property of the word, but according to the common, usual, and accustomed signification thereof? As we may not translate Phalaris tyrannus, "Phalaris the king," as sometime tyrannus did signify, and in ancient authors doth signify; but " Phalaris the tyrant," as now this word tyrannus is commonly taken and understood : even so we may Ab idoiis. not now translate, " My children, keep yourselves from images," as the arrb toiv el- wor(j may, and doth sometime signify, according to the original pro- 1 Joh. v. perty thereof; but we must translate, " Keep yourselves from idols," according to the common use and signification of the word in vulgar speech, and in the holy scriptures. Where the Greek word is so noto riously and usually peculiar to idols, and not unto images, that the holy fathers of the second Nicene council (which knew right well the signi fication of the Greek word, themselves being Grecians) do pronounce anathema to all such as interpret those places of the holy scripture, that concern idols, of images, or against sacred images, as now these Calvinists do, not only in their commentaries upon the holy scriptures, but even in their translations of the text. Fulke, Fulke. We cannot yet be rid of this man's extraordinary ¦^ and unadvised surmises, which are too many and tedious; as where I say the name idol is odious in the Enghsh tongue, he gathereth, that I mean it to be odious only in the Enghsh tongue, and not in the Latin and Greek. I have shewed before, that in Tully's time it was not odious in Latin ; and it is not long since Master Martin confessed the Greek word, according to the original propriety, to signify as generally as ekwv, " an image," which is not odious. Although in later times, among Christians, both of the Greek and the Latin church, the name of idolum became odious, as well as the word ' idol' in Enghsh. Therefore it is not my fond opinion, but M. Martin's foolish collection, that a man may say in Latin, fecit hominem ad idolum suum : and yet I am charged with rash assertions, when nothing is reproved that I affirm, but that which he himself doth imagine. But now you will return to those words of mine, where I say, that though the original propriety of the words hath that signification, yet no christian man would say, that God made man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his lawful prince a tyrant. These words, you say, do tell us, that we may not speak or translate HI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 201 according to the original propriety of the word, but ac cording to the common, usual, and accustomed signification thereof. For speakmg, I grant, as the words are used in our time : but for translating, I say you must regard how the words were used in time of the writer, whose works you translate. As if you would translate out of Euripides, tis 7»}s Tvpdvvos, would you say, "Who is tyrant of this land"? or rather, "Who is king"? or in Aristophanes, Zijva Qewv Tvpavvov, would you translate, " Jupiter, tyrant of the gods," or "king of the gods" ? I think, not. But in St John, seeing at that time that he wrote etowXov signified an image generally, it may- be translated an image generally ; and seeing he speaketh of the unlawful use of images, it may also be translated an idol, as the word is now taken to signify. How the late petty prelates of the second Nicene Council were disposed to use the word, to colour their blasphemous idolatry, it is not material. The ancient dic tionaries of Suidas, Phavorinus, Hesychius, with the examples of Homer, Plato, and other ancient Greek authors, are of more credit for the true and ancient signification of that word. Martin. This then being so, that words must be translated as their Martin, common use and signification requireth, if you ask your old question, • what great crime of corruption is committed in translating, "keep your- Loco citato. selves from images," the Greek being e'MXcov, you have answered yourself, that in so translating, " idol" and "image" are made to signify one thing, wliich may not be done, no more than "tyrant" and "king" can be made to signify all one. And how can you say then, that "this is no more absurdity, than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification"? Are you not here contrary to yourself? are "idol" and "image," "tyrant" and "king," of one signification? Said you not, that in the English tongue "idol" is grown to another significa tion than "image," as "tyrant" is grown to another signification than "king"? Your false translations, therefore, that in so many places make "idols" and "images" all one, not only forcing the word in the holy scriptures, but disgracing the sentence thereby, (as Ephes. v. and Eph. v. a co- _,...» , , . .,' , -, vetousman Col. in.) are they not in your own judgment very corrupt ; and, as your is a worship- own consciences must confess, of a malicious intent corrupted, to disgrace andCoi. i±' thereby the church's holy images, by pretence of the holy scriptures that £°wSip?" speak only of the pagans' idols ? P™a|°£ Fulke. Again I repeat, that words must, or may be Fulke, translated according to that signification they had in time 202 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. of the writer whom you translate. And to my question, what absurdity is it in that text of St John, for e'lc'wXov to translate " image "; you answer, by that means idol and image are made to signify one thing. But that is not so; for image signifieth more generally than idol in Enghsh, and " image" answereth properly to the Greek word e'lc'wXov, " idol" to the meaning of St John, that is, of wicked images ; so that the translation is good: even as Tvpawos may be translated " a king," generally, according to the word ; and if the author mean of a cruel king, it may be trans lated " a tyrant." For king is a general word, apphed to good kings and to evil, as image is to lawful and un lawful images. Therefore our translations, that for eilwXov say an image, are not false, much less any malicious cor ruptions. And if the translators, in so doing, intended to disgrace popish images, I think they did well, and according to the meaning of the Holy Ghost; who, forbidding generally all images, that may be had in rehgious reverence, did not restrain the signification of the word e'iSwXov to the wicked idols of the gentiles, but left it at large, to comprehend all such images, and all kinds of worshipping them, as are contrary to the law and commandment of God. Martin,19. ttj Baa\, subaud. o-njX?;. Num. xxii. to dioire- Tes. Martin. But of the usual and original signification of words (whereof you take occasion of manifold corruptions) we will speak more anon, if first we touch some other your falsifications against holy images ; as, where you affectate to thrust the word "image" into the text, when there is no such thing in the Hebrew or Greek, as in that notorious example1, 2 Par. xxxvi. (Bib. 1562.) " Carved images that were laid to his charge:" again, Rom. xi., " To the image of Baal2;" and Acts xix., [> "Kal Ta Xoiira tSjv Xoycov 'Icoaxlp Kal ra irdvra a iiroiqcrev, owe l8ov raira yeypappiva, &c. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8. " Reliqua autem ver- borum Joakim, et abominationum ejus, quas operatus est, et quae inventa sunt in eo, continentur in libro Begum, &c." Vulg. "The rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and carved images that were laid to his charge, behold, they are written, &c." Bible 1562. "And his abominations which he did, and that which was found upon (found in, Authorised version) him," Geneva Bible, 1660.3 [2 olnves ovk eKap^rav yqcri, vaovs dpyvpovs 'AprepiSos. Kal irws evi vaovs dpyvpois yevecrdai ; Xo-as ds Kifidpia piKpd. Acts xix. 24. Horn. xiii. Edit. Savilii. iv. 845.] HI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 205 namely in the first commandment, where there is no word of image or imagery ; but indeed in the second command ment we translate the Hebrew word pesel "a graven image." ^D3 You say it signifieth a graven thing, not including the word image. I answer, you are not able to bring a place in the bible, where it signifieth any other graven thing, but only an image: and yet it is derived of a verb, that signifieth to grave, or hew ; as the word pisilim, Jud. hi. taken for D^DB quarries of stone, doth declare. Beside this, the word next following, signifying a simihtude or image, sufficiently sheweth that it is not taken generally for any graven work, but for such, wherein the likeness or shnihtude of God, or any creature, is meant to be resembled : and the same doth also the Greek word e'lSwXov testify. As for the cherubins, oxen, brasen serpent, or any thing which God commandeth, [it] is not forbidden by this precept ; but that which man maketh of his own head, to honour as God, or. to worship God by it. Wherefore, very absurdly, to cloke such abominable idolatry, you say that this commandment, Non facies seulptile, doth concur with those words, " Thou shalt have none other Gods but me." By which, not only two several commandments are confounded, but also a vain tautology committed : or else that added for interpretation, which is more obscure than the text interpreted. Touching the cross, that stood sometimes in the queen's chapel, whereof you speak your pleasure, as also of her majesty's counsellors, it is not by and by idolatry, whatsoever is against that commandment; neither is the having of any images in the church (which are had in no use of religion) contrary to this commandment. And although we will not accuse the Lutherans of idolatry, neither can we, because they worship no images; yet will we not excuse them for suffering of images to be in their churches, whereof may ensue danger of idolatry, but that in some part they go against this commandment, deceived in their judgment, and of us not to be defended in their error. After you have railed a fit, with 'fie for shame !' and such like rhetoric, you seem to make the prohibition of images none other, but such as the prohibition of marriage and other conversation with the gentiles, which was only for fear of idolatry. But when you can shew the hke absolute commandment, to forbid mar riage and conversation with the heathen, as this is for images 206 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [(3H. in rehgion and worshipping of them, we may have some regard of your simihtude : otherwise the meaning of this commandment is generally to forbid all images of God, and of his creatures, to honour God by them; for to honour them as Gods is a breach of the first commandment, as properly as of the second. Martin, 21. Hebr.Teraphim. Matsebah.Temunah.Maschith. Pesel. Tselamim. Tabnith.Hamanim. Sarniel.Massecah. Nesachim. Gillulim. Miphletseth.Or.€Jld(n\a. dydXpara.yeipoiroi-IJTO. yXv-n-Ta. P-opfn- CLKOHJ. ITTTJXaL. (TTuXoi.¦yuivevTa, All image and images, in their translations. Fulke, 21. Martin. This being a thing so plain as nothing more in all the holy scriptures, yet your itching humour of deceit and falsehood for the most part doth translate still "images," "images," when the Latin, and Greek, and Hebrew, have divers other words, and very seldom that which answereth to " image.'' For when it is "image" in the Latin, or Greek, or Hebrew texts, your translation is not reprehended ; for we also translate sometimes "images," when the text of the holy scrip ture requireth it. And we are not ignorant that there were images which the pagans adored for their gods ; and we know that some idols are images, but not all images idols. But when the holy scriptures call them by so many names, rather than images, because they were not only images, but made idols; why do your translations, like cuckoo birds, sound continually "images," "images," more than "idols," or other words equivalent to idols, which are there meant ? Fulke. Indeed there is nothing more plain in all the holy scriptures, than that the worshipping of images of all sorts is forbidden ; but that our " itching humour of deceit and falsehood," (as it pleaseth you to speak,) hath corrupted the text, to establish any false opinion of the use of images, it is not yet proved. But now you set upon us with thirteen Hebrew words, and nine Greek words at once, which we for the most part do translate still "images," "images :" and you say we "sound with cuckoo birds continually, 'images, images,' more than 'idols' or other words equivalent to idols." How many times the word image is sounded, I never had care to seek, and now I have no leisure to number; but I am sure idols and idolatry, in that translation in which least, are named above forty or fifty times. But to a conscience guilty of worshipping of images, contrary to the express commandment of God, the very name of images must needs sound unplea santly. That we have no greater change of words to answer so many of the Hebrew tongue, it is of the riches of that tongue, and the poverty of our mother language, which hath but two words, image and idol, and them both borrowed of the Latin and Greek: as for other words equivalent, we HI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 207 know not any, and we are loth to make any new words of that signification, except the multitude of Hebrew words of the same sense coming together do sometimes perhaps seem to require it. Therefore as the Greek hath fewer words to express this thing than the Hebrew, so hath the Latin fewer than the Greek, and the English fewest of all, as will appear if you would undertake to give us Enghsh words for the thirteen Hebrew words : except you would coin such ridiculous inkhorn terms, as you do in the New Testament, azymes, prepuce, neophyte, sandale, parasceve, and such like. Martin. Two places only we will at this time ask you the reason Martin, of : first, why you translate the Hebrew and Greek that answereth to I ¦ „ „ , n -*r, , . , • , Matsebah. statua, "image, so often as you do 5 Whereas this word m the said ot>j\jj. tongues is taken also in the better part ; as when Jacob set up a stone Gen. xxviii. and erected it for a title, pouring oil upon it; and the prophet saith, " Our Lord's altar shall be in Egypt, and his title beside it." So that isai. xix. 19. the word doth signify generally a sign erected of good or evil, and there fore might very well, if it pleased you, have some other English than "image." Unless you will say that Jacob also set up an image, and our Lord's image shall be in Egypt ; which you will not say, though you might with more reason than in other places. Fulke. Seeing you ask, why we translate the Hebrew Fulke, word matsebah so often an image ; it had been reason you " should have told us how often we do so, or at least noted some place, where it cannot signify an image. We know the word, being derived of the verb jatsab that signifieth to stand, may be taken for something erected, that is no image, but a pillar, or (as your Latin text calleth it) a title, in both the places by you noted, Gen. xxviii., Esai. xix. and elsewhere, Gen. xxv., 2 Sam. xviii. But whensoever we translate it an image, the circumstance of the place so re- quireth, as 2 Kings x. where it is said, that Baal's images were taken out of his temple, broken and burnt. For they were images of Baal, that were worshipped in his temple, and not titles or pillars. Likewise, 2 Kings xvii. where it is said, that " the Israelites made unto themselves staiuas, images, and groves under every high hill and under every thick tree :" as appeareth by Ezechiel vi. where they be called gillulim, idols, which had the similitude of men, as Baahm and such other. 208 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. Mahtin,23. Ofthe year 1570. Pesilim. Massechoth. eldtaXa. I3 ^>S T yXvirTovoti eyXv- i]/av avTo X^vevpa.Of the year 1579. Fulke, 23. Martin. Secondly, we demand why your very last English bible hath (Esai. xxx. 22) for two Hebrew words, which are in Latin sculp- tilia and conflatilia, twice, "images," "images;" neither word being Hebrew for an "image," no more than if a man would ask, what is Latin for an "image"? and you would tell him seulptile; whereupon he seeing a fair painted image in a table, might happily say, Ecce egre- gium seulptile ; which every boy in the grammar school would laugh at. Which therefore we tell you, because we perceive your translations endeavour, and as it were afiectate, to make sculptUe and " image" all one; which is most evidently false, and to your great confusion ap- peareth Abac. ii. 18', where for these words, Quid prodest seulptile, quia sculpsit illud fictor suus, confiatile et imaginem falsam ? which is according to the Hebrew and Greek, your later English translation hath, "What profiteth the image ? for the maker thereof hath made it an image, and a teacher of Lies." Fulke. If it had said, " the graven images of silver, and the molten or cast images of gold," I know not what advan tage it had been to you, or loss to us. But neither word (you say) is Hebrew for an image. Alack ! this is poor sophistry, when all the world of Hebricians know, they are Hebrew for nothing else, but for graven or cast images, and by the figure synecdoche are taken generally for images, of what making or matter soever they be. And the question is not, by what art images are made, but to what use and how they be used, that they may be condemned for unlawful. This I take to be the cause, why the interpreter neglected the difference of the Hebrew words, which sometimes is not observed, and in Enghsh impossible always, and unprofitable to be kept. As for your own conceit, whereat you think boys might laugh, I leave it to yourself. For if we were asked, what is Latin for an image, we could answer somewhat else than seulptile. But if a boy should ask [what] pesilim or massecath in this place of Esay doth signify, we would not answer a graven thing, or a molten thing, lest he might shew us the mantel-tree of a chimney, and a brass pot hang ing over the fire, and demand further whether Esay in this Q1 Ti cocfieXet yXvirrbv, on i'yXvyjrav alro ; eirXao-ev avrb ^tiveviut, cbavTao-lav ifrevbij, oti neiroiBev 6 irXdo-as eirl rb irXdo-pa avrov, tov iroiqo-ai e'lbcoXa Kcocpd. Habakkuk ii. 18. "Quid prodest seulptile, quia sculpsit illud fictor suus, confiatile, et imaginem falsam? quia speravit in figmento fictor ejus ut faceret simulacra muta," Vulg. The English version is given from the Bishops' bible in loco.] IH-] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 209 text spake of them, and all such things as they are. But it is most evidently false (you say) that seulptile and image are all one, and this appeareth to our great confusion, Abacuc the second, &c. But I say, to your shame it will appear by this very text, that pesel and massecah signify one and the same thing, and that most evidently. For thus the text is: "What profiteth the image {pesel,) for his maker (iotsero) hath made it, or (as you will have it) hath graven it (pesah:)" what followeth now, but massecah, an image ? you had rather say confiatile, a molten image. But then you must remem ber, that the maker of it by graving made it a molten image ; which is a strange piece of work, except you will say, that first he did cast it, and then he did grave it : but say which way you will, the same image is called pesel and massecah, without difference. The last words are umoreh shaker, "and a teacher of lies;" for which words your translation hath imaginem falsam, " a false image," whereas moreh never sig nifieth an image. But of that afterward. Martin. I would every common reader were able to discern your Martin, falsehood in this place. First, you make sculpere seulptile, no more than " to make an image" : which being absurd, you know, (because the painter or embroiderer making an image cannot be said sculpere seulptile) might teach you that the Hebrew hath in it no signification of image, no more than sculpere can signify " to make an image ;" and therefore seulptile. the Greek and the Latin precisely (for the most part) express neither yXuWT'"'- more nor less than a thing graven; but yet mean always by these words "a graven idol," to which signification they are appropriated by use of holy scripture, as simulacrum, idohtm, confiatile, and sometime imago. In wliich sense of signifying "idols,'' if you also did repeat "images" so often, although the translation were not precise, yet it were in some part tolerable, because the sense were so ; but when you do it to bring all holy images into contempt, even the image of our Saviour Christ crucified, you may justly be controlled for false and heretical translators. Fulke. I would "every common reader were able to dis- Fulke, cern" your foolish malice in this place. For first, while you ' cavil at the etymology of the words, which the prophet re- gardeth not, you make him say, that the fashioner thereof hath graven a graven thing, a molten thing. Secondly, where you say, that the Hebrew word pesel hath no signi fication of an image in it, leaning to the bare derivation from. r l U [fulke.J 210 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ch. the verb pasal, you control the only use of it, which is to signify an image or idol, whether it be graven or molten, or by what workmanship soever it be made, which you con fess to be the sense of it. But when we do it (you say) to bring all holy images into contempt, we may justly be controlled for false and heretical translators. First, we know no holy images, made with hands, at this time so accounted, but they are all profane and abominable idols. Secondly, if the translator's purpose were evil, yet so long as the words and sense of the original tongue will bear him, he cannot justly be called a false and heretical translator, albeit he have a false and heretical meaning ; as you papists have in your late translation of the New Testament ; yet where you trans late, either according to the words, or according to the sense, no equity can condemn you for false translators. Martin, Martin. As in this very place (which is another falsehood like to the other) confiatile you translate "image", as you did seulptile, and so Hab. H. here again in Abacuck (as before in Esay is noted) for two distinct words, each signifying another diverse thing from " image," you trans late "images," "images." Thirdly, for imaginem falsam, "a false image," you translate another thing, without any necessary pretence either of Hebrew or Greek, avoiding here the name of "image," be cause this place telleth you that the holy scripture speaketh against (pavrao-iav false images, or as the Greek hath, " false phantasies," or as you trans- ¦qreyori. j^ t^e jjeDreW) " such images as teach lies," representing false gods icor. yiii. which are not, as the apostle saith, idolum nihil est; and non sunt Dii qui manibus fiunt. Which distinction of false and true images you will not have, because you condemn all images, even holy and sacred also; and therefore you make the holy scriptures to speak herein accord ingly to your own fancy. Fulke, Fulke. Seeing the prophet regardeth not the etymology of the words, but useth both for one and the same image, no, nor regardeth the matter whereof it is made, as appeareth in the next verse, where he calleth this idol wood and stone, which cannot be molten ; every reasonable man may see, that the word massecah doth in this place signify generally an image, which is made to be a teacher of hes. And whereas you repeat, that the two words do "signify each another diverse thing from image," because the one signifieth a graven thing, the other a molten thing, you speak without HI.] TBANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 211 all shame and sense of honesty : for pesel signifieth not every graven, carved, or hewn thing, but only an image. For who would say, that a morter or a gutter of hewn stone were in Hebrew to be signified by the word pesel, or a pewter pot or a dish by the word massecah? Seeing the use of the Hebrew tongue therefore hath appropried these names only to images, it is great frowardness, and no learning, to quarrel about the etymology or derivation of them. As this name building, in Enghsh, is taken only for houses : as when we say, Here are goodly buildings; which if a man would extend according to the derivation, and shewing nothing else but walls of brick or other matter, praise them for goodly build ings, he should be thought to speak strangely in our tongue, and yet, according to the derivation, building may signify anything that is builded. But for imaginem falsam, a false image, you charge us to "translate another thing, without any necessary pretence, either of Hebrew or Greek." Such af firmations will make us think meanly of your knowledge in the Hebrew tongue. For what, I pray you, else can moreh fTYlD in this place signify, but a teacher ? or where is it ever taken for an image, as your Latin text hath, or a fantasy, as the Greek readeth? Turn over your dictionary and Hebrew concordance, and see if you can find it used for an image or an idol. At leastwise, give credit to Isidorus Clarius, who thus writeth in his notes upon the text : Quod ait imaginem falsam, in Heb. est docens, vel annuncians menda- cium. " That he saith a false image, in the Hebrew it is teaching or shewing forth a he." The distinction you make of true and false images, is vain for this purpose : for all images that are used in religion are false, and teachers of falsehood, which you with Gregory say are laymen's books ; but what shall they teach, saith Abacuc and Jeremiah, Hab. ii. but lies and vanity ? Where note, that Jeremiah calleth the image wood, by synecdoche, signifying all images made with hands, of any matter. Again he saith, "Every artificer is con founded in his image, because it is false which he hath made, and there is no breath in it." In which verse it is to be observed, that he useth first the word pesel, saying mippasel, bppD and afterward nisco, for the same image made by the arti- •j^qj ficer, without distinction of graving or melting, at leastwise for the sense, though the words be diverse. Even so your 14—2 212 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. vulgar Latin translator useth seulptile, confiatile, imaginem et simulacrum, for one and the same thing. The scripture therefore telhng us that aU images are false, because they, being void of life, are set up to represent the living, it is not our fantasy, but the authority of God's word, that causeth us to reject your fantastical distinction of true and false images. Martin, 26. Dan. xiv. 4. Bib. 1562. 1577- Fulke, 26. Martin. Wherein you proceed so far, that when Daniel said to the king, "I worship not idols made with hands," (e'iStoXa x^porroiqTa,) you make him say thus, "I worship not things that be made with hands1," leaving out the word " idols" altogether, as though he had said, "nothing made with hand were to be adored;" not the ark, the propi tiatory, no, nor the holy cross itself, that our Saviour shed his blood upon. As before you added to the text, so here you diminish and take from it at your pleasure. Fulke. That "thing" is put for idol, I confess it to be a fault in some translations; but in the Geneva bible it is reformed. Contempt of the authority of that apocryphal chapter (as it seemed) did breed that negligence. Where you write, that he should by saying, " I worship not things made with hands," have denied the ark and the propitiatory to be worshipped, it is very true ; for neither of both was to be worshipped, as they were made with hands ; but God was to be worshipped where they were, and those things to be reverently esteemed, as the sacraments of God's presence. As for the cross whereon Christ died, I see no cause why it should be worshipped, if it were to be had ; but rather, if it were to be worshipped, it should be served as the brasen serpent was. None of the apostles made any account of it : Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, if there had been any matter of rehgion in it, might have preserved it, and not have suffered it to be buried in the earth with the two other crosses, as the story of the invention saith, if it be true. At the finding whereof, Helena, as St Ambrose writeth, Begem adoravit, non lignum utique, quia hie gentilis est error et vanitas L"1 The story of Bel and the Dragon. " Because I may not worship tilings that be made with hands," v. 4. edit. 1568. " Because I may not worship idols made with hand," v. 5. ed. 1579. " Because I may not worship things that be made with hands," 1562. (1584, Bishops' bible.)] HI.] TBANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 213 impiorum : " She worshipped the lung, not the tree verily ; for this is an heathenish error, and vanity of ungodly men." De obit. Theodosii'- '. Martin. But concerning the word "image," which you make to Martin, be the English of all the Latin, Hebrew, and Greek words, be they 27, never so many and so distinct, I beseech you, what reason had you to translate yXvirrd " images" ? Wisd. xv. 13. Doth the Greek word so sig nify ? doth not the sentence following tell you that it should have been translated, "graven idols"? for thus it saith, "They judged all the idols of the nations to be gods3." Lo, your images ! or rather, lo, the true names of the pagans' gods, which it pleaseth you to call " images", " images." Fulke. I think you are not able to prove that we make Fulke, " image " the English to all the Hebrew words, though you 2?- boldly affirm it. But in the place by you mentioned, I sup pose they translated the Greek word " graven or carved images," rather than idol, because the writer in that place, Wisd. xv. 13. speaketh of the first framing and fashioning of those images, which, though the purpose of the workman be never so wicked, yet cannot properly be called idols, before they be abused by them that worship them. Martin. But, to conclude this point : you might, and it would have Martin, well becomed you, in translating or expounding the foresaid words, to have followed St Jerome, the great famous translator and interpreter of the holy scriptures, who telleth you two senses of the foresaid words; the one literal, of the idols of the gentiles; the other mystical, of heresies and errors. "Seulptile," saith he, "and confiatile, I take to be perverse opinions, comment. which are adored of the authors that made them. See Arius, that graved ™ Hab' "' to himself this idol, that Christ was only a creature, and adored that wliich he had graven. Behold Eunomius, how he molted and cast a false image, and bowed to that which he had molten4." Suppose he had [2 Opera, Vol. n. p. 1211.] r3 Ovtos yap irapd irdvras oiSev on dpapravei, vXqs yed>8ovs eii- 6pavo-Ta crKevq Kal yXvirrd 8qpiovpycov. Sapient. Solomonis, xv. 13. "Now he that of earth maketh frail vessels and images, knoweth himself to offend above all other," Bishops' bible 1584, Cranmer 1562 Geneva 1560. "On irdvra rd e'ihcoXa tcov idvcov e\oyitravro 8eovs. Ibid. xv. 15. " For they judge all the idols of the heathen to be gods," Bishops' bible.] [4 " Seulptile" et " confiatile" reor dogmata esse perversa, qu« ab his a quibus facta sunt adorantur. Vide Arium sculpsisse sibi idolum 214 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. Fulke,28. exemplified of the two condemned heretics, Jovinian and Vigilantius also ; had he not touched your idols, that is, the old condemned heresies, which you at this day adore ? Fulke. It becometh us best in translation to follow the original text, and, as near as we can, the true meanmg of the Holy Ghost. As for the two senses which Jerome telleth, [they] stand whole and untouched for our translation. There is a difference between a translation and a commentary. In commenting upon the text, they that see it convenient may apply the idols of the gentiles and the worship of them to the heresies of our times, of the papists, anabaptists, libertines, and such like, as the apostle doth by similitude to covetous ness. As for old condemned heresies, which you charge us to worship as idols, you are able to prove none, whatsoever you babble of Vigilantius and Jovinian : neither of both do we follow in any error, much less in any heresy. Martin, Martin. These only (I mean heresies and heretics) are the idols 29- and idolaters (by the ancient doctors' judgment) which have been among Christians since the idolatry of the gentiles ceased, according to the Zech. xiii. prophets. Therefore St Jerome saith again : " If thou see a man that Loco citato'. wiJ1 not yield tQ the trutllj hut when the falsehood 0f his opinions is once shewed, persevereth still in that he began ; thou mayest aptly say, Hos. xi. sperat in figmento suo, and he maketh dumb or deaf idols2." And again, " All heretics have their gods ; and whatsoever they have forged, they adore the same, as seulptile and confiatile ; that is, 'as a graven and Hos. xii. molten idol3.' " And again, " He saith well, I have found unto myself an idol; for all the forgeries of heretics are as the idols of the gentiles; creature, et adorasse quod sculpsit. Cerne Eunomium conflasse ima ginem falsam, et conflationi suae curvare cervicem. Comment. Hie ronymi in Abacuc. ii. 18. Opera, Vol. in. p. 1615.] \} Sive haec idola, de quibus apostolus loquitur (1 Tim. iv. 1, 2.). Sicut enim idola fiunt manu artificis; ita haereticorum perversa doc- trina, quodcunque simulaverit, vertit in idolum; et facit Christo adorari antichristum. Comment. Hieronymi in Zachar. xiii. Opera, Vol. in. p. 1787.] P Si quando videris aliquem nolle credere veritati, et ostensa su- orum dogmatum falsitate in caepto studio perseverare, congrue poteris dicere, Sperat in figmento suo, et facit simulacra muta vel surda. Comment. Hieronymi in Abacuc. ii. Opera, Vol. in. p. 1615.] [3 Singuli enim haereticorum habent deos suos: et quodcunque simulaverint, quasi seulptile colunt atque confiatile. Comment. Hie ronymi in Osee. xi. Opera, Vol. in. p. 1311.] IH-] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 215 neither do they much differ in impiety, though in name they seem to differ4." And again, " Whatsoever according to the letter is spoken In Amos. v. against the idolatry of the Jews, do thou refer all this unto them, which under the name of Christ worship idols, and forging to themselves per verse opinions, carry the tabernacle of their king the devil, and the image of their idols. For they worship not an idol, but for variety of their doctrine they adore divers gods. And he put in very well, ' which you made to yourselves ;' for they received them not of God, but forged them of their own mind5." And of the idol of Samaria he saith, "We in Amos. viii. always understand Samaria (and the idol of Samaria) in the person of heretics, the same prophet saying, ' Woe be to them that despise Sion, chap. vi. and trust in the mount of Samaria.' For heretics despise the church of God, and trust in the falsehood of their opinions, erecting themselves against the knowledge of God, and saying, when they have divided the people (by schism), ' We have no part in David, nor inheritance in the son of Jesse6'." Fulke. Not these only, but the idols of the Simonists, Fulke, Valentinians, Gnostici, Carpocratits, Collyridians, and such like, made with hands, of Christ, and his mother, of Paul, and Simon, and Selene, and Pythagoras, &c. and such other, were idols of false Christians, since the idolatry of the gentiles gave place, by the judgment of Irenseus, Epiphanius, and other ancient doctors. And whatsoever you cite or can cite out of St Jerome against the idols of heresies, agreeth most [" Et pulchre, Inveni, ait, idolum mihi: omnia enim haereticorum figmenta idola sunt et simulacra gentilium: nee multum difierunt in impietate, licet in nomine discrepare videantur. Comment. Hieronymi in Osee. xii. Opera, Vol. in. p. 1321.] [5 Quidquid autem juxta litteram dicitur contra populum Judae- orum, hoc omne refer ad eos qui sub nomine Christi venerantur idola, et prava sibi dogmata confingentes portant tabernaculum regis sui diaboli, et imaginem statuarum et idolorum suorum. Non enim ununi colunt idolum: sed pro varietate doctrinae diversos adorant deos et sidus dei sui. Comment. Hieronymi in Amos. v. Opera, VoL hi. p. 1422.3 £8 Deficientibus autem virginibus, et adolescentes deficient, qui prius vicerant mundum : et idcirco deficient, quia jurant in idolo Samariae, quam in haereticorum persona semper accipimus, dicente hoc eodem propheta: Vce qui despiciunt Sion, et confidunt in monte Samaria. Despiciunt enim haeretici ecclesiam Dei, et confidunt in falsitate dogmatum suorum, erigentes se contra scientiam Dei, et scisso populo ejus dicentes : Non est pars nobis in David, neque hmreditas in Jilio Jesse. Comment. Hieronymi in Amos. viii. Opera, Vol. in. pp. 1444, 1445.] 216 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. aptly to yourselves, the papists, who worship not only idols made with hands, but also the idols of your brains, which are abominable heresies. Martin, 30. Fulke, 30. Martin. Thus the reader may see, that the holy scriptures which the adversaries falsely translate against the holy images of our Saviour Christ and his saints, to make us idolaters, do in deed concern their idols, and condemn them as idolaters ; which forge new opinions to themselves, such as the ancient fathers knew not, and adore them, and their own sense and interpretation of scriptures, so far and so vehemently, that they prefer it before the approved judgment of all the general councils and holy doctors, and for maintenance of the same corrupt the holy scriptures at their pleasure, and make them speak according to their fancies, as we have partly shewed, and now are to declare further. Fulke. Thus the reader may see, that when you have cavilled, quarrelled, falsified, and slandered, as much as you can, to charge us with false translation of the scripture con cerning images, you can find nothing worth the noting : but if some small oversight, through negligence, or perhaps the printer's fault, hath escaped, you make a great matter of it, although it be corrected by ourselves in other translations; and when all other matter faileth, you return to your ac customed vein of railing and reviling, which in no wise man's judgment deserveth answer, because it is so general. IV. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 217 CHAPTER IV. The Ecclesiastical use of Words turned into their Original and Profane signification. Martin. We spake a little before of the double signification «f Martin, 1. Words ; the one according to the original property, the other according to the usual taking thereof in all vulgar speech and writing. These words (as by the way we shewed before, upon occasion of the adversaries' chap. iii. grant) are to be translated in their vulgar and usual signification, not See also it.' as they signify by their original property. As for example: major in sw'anafuie' the original signification is "greater." But when we say, "the mayor this book," of London," now it is taken and soundeth in every man's ear for such f^'l&c'Snuch an officer; and no man will say, "the greater of London," according ™°[°e°fthis to the original property of it. Likewise episcopus, a Greek word, in the original sense is "every overseer," as Tully useth it, and other pro fane writers; but among Christians, in ecclesiastical speech, it is "a bishop ;" and no man will say, " My lord overseer of London," for "my lord bishop." Likewise we say, "seven deacons, St Stephen a deacon:" no man will say, "seven ministers, St Stephen a minister;" although that be the original signification of the word " deacon." But by ecclesiastical use and appropriation being taken for a certain degree of the clergy, so it soundeth in every man's ear, and so it must be translated. As we say, "Nero made many martyrs ;" not, "Nero made many witnesses :" and yet "martyr" by the first original property of the word is nothing else but a "witness." We say, "baptism is a sacrament ;" not, " washing is a sacrament :" yet " baptism" and " washing," by the first original property of the word, is all one. Fulke. We have also answered before, that words must Fulke, 1. not be always translated according to their original and general signification, but according to such signification, as by use they are appropried to be taken. We agree also, that words taken by custom of speech into an ecclesiastical meaning are not to be altered into a strange or profane sig nification. For such vanities . and novelties of words the apostle prohibiteth ; whereof the popish translation of the New Testament is fraught full. Notwithstanding our meaning is not, that if any Greek terms, or words of any other language, have of long time been usurped in our Enghsh language, the true understanding of which is unknown at this day to the common people, but that the same terms 218 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. may be either in translation or exposition set out plainly, to inform the simphcity of the ignorant, by such words as of them are better understood. Also when those terms are abused by custom of speech, to signify some other thing than they were first appointed for, or else be taken ambigu ously for divers things ; we ought not to be superstitious in these cases, but, to avoid misunderstanding, we may use words according to their original signification, as they were taken in such time as they • were written by the instruments of the Holy Ghost. As for example, if 'a bishop' be mistaken by the people, either for such an idol as the papists used to make of their St Nicolas' bishops, or else for a great lord only, that rideth about in a white rochet ; they may be told, that the name of a bishop describeth his office, that is, to be an overseer of the flock of Christ committed to his charge. Likewise if the word ' deacon' be taken for such an one, as at a popish mass standeth in a disguised tunicle, holding a patten, or some other idolatrous bauble used of them ; the people must be taught, that this name signifieth a minister, which was ordained not to serve the popish altar, but the poor men's tables, that is, to provide for the poor, and to see the church's alms bestowed upon them. Also if the name of ' martyrs' be not understood, but taken only for them that are tormented and rent in body, as the common speech is to say, of men and beasts, that they are martyred, when their bodies are wounded and mangled ; here it is needful to shew, that the saints that suffered for Christ had their name of their witness or testimony, not of their pains and torments. The name of 'baptism'' is so common to Christians, that it need not to be changed into washing : but yet it may and ought to be explicated unto the unlearned, what this word doth signify, which is no profane signification, but a true and general understanding of the word, which is used of the evangelist for other washings than the sacrament of baptism, and so you are enforced to translate it, Mark vii. Martin, 2. Martin. Now then to come to our purpose, such are the absurd translations of the English bibles, and altogether like unto these : namely, when they translate "congregation" for "church," "elder" for "priest," "image" for "idol," "dissension" for "schism," "general" for "catho- «Seechap. lie," "secret" for "sacrament," "overseer" for "bishop," "messenger" aniia,T|an(i for "angel*," "ambassador" for "apostle," "minister" for "deacon," and IV-J TEANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 219 such like : to what other end be these deceitful translations, but to con- chap. xxi. ceal and obscure the name of the church and dignities thereof, mentioned num' in the holy scriptures ; to dissemble the word " schism" (as they do also "heresy" and "heretic*") for fear of disgracing their schisms andGai.y. heresies; to say of "matrimony," neither "sacrament," which is the lc'or.xi. Latin, nor "mystery," which is the Greek, hut to go as far as they can possibly from the common usual and ecclesiastical words, saying, " This is a great secret," in favour of their heresy, that matrimony is no Eph. v. 32. sacrament1 ? Fulke. Absurd translations of the Enghsh bibles, you say, Fulke, 2. are "congregation'" for "church," "elder" for "priest,11 "image" for "idol," and such like. The word "church" being ambigu ously taken of the people for the place of assembly, and the assembly itself, it was as lawful for us to call congregation, as for you to call it assembly. Acts vh. This word "priest" commonly taken for a sacrificer and the same that sacerdos, and so by you translated, there was good occasion to use the word elder, for which you use senior, or ancient, in your translation, wliich is a name of authority, as overseer is of diligence, minister of service, pastor of feeding ; all which names set forth a true bishop, pastor, and elder, and if you will needs have it, of a true priest. Of " image" for idol is said enough in the next chapter before. "Schism" I know not how Englishmen should understand, except it were Enghshed by dissension, division, rending, or some such like. Of "general" for cathohc, we shall speak anon. " Secret" for sacrament we use, because we would retain the ecclesiastical use of this word sacrament, which is to signify the seals of God's pro- Q1 8tx°crTaa-iai, aipecreis. Gal. v. 20. " Dissensiones, sectae," Vulg. "Dissensions, sects," Wiclif, Rhemish. "Sedition, sects," Tyndale, Cranmer. "Sedition, heresies," Geneva, Authorised. AlpenKov avdpamov. Tit. iii. 10. "Haereticum hominem," Vulg. "A man heretic," Wiclif. "A man that is given to heresy," Tyn dale. " A man that is an author of sects," Cranmer 1539, 1562. " Him that is an heretic," Geneva. "A man that is an heretic," Bishops' bible 1584, Rheims, Authorised. 8el yap Kal aipecreis iv vpXv eivai. 1 Cor. xi. 19. "Nam oportet et haereses esse," Vulg. " For it behoveth heresies to be," Wiclif. " For there must be sects among you," Tyndale, Cranmer 1539, 1562. " Fpr there must be even heresies among you," Geneva. "For there must be heresies also," Rheims. "For there must be also heresies," Bishops', Authorised.] 220 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. mises, and not confound it with every holy or unholy secret thing. The Greek word "mystery," which you would enjoin us to use, was in the time of the first translation more un known, than that we could well have used it, except we would have followed your vein in vanity and novelty of terms, prepuce, neophyte, gratis, depositum, 8rc, or else made general and common the proper use of this ecclesiastical term " sacrament" to every mystery, and called the sacrament of preaching, of publishing the gospel to the gentiles, of the seven stars, as you do, and yet in the sacrament of the whore of Babylon you leave it and call it mystery, Rev. xvii. 7, as you should be enforced to do, if you would translate the Old Testament out of Latin, Dan. ii., divers times, except you would call Nabuchadonozor's dream a sacrament, and Dan. iv., where the king saith, that to Daniel no secret is impossible, meaning unknown or not understood, you would say no sacrament, and Tob. xii., you would translate sacra- mentum regis absconder e bonum est, " It is a good thing to hide the king's sacrament," where you should say secret, and where the English phrase would hardly bear you to say the king's mystery. Of the other terms, in the places by you quoted it shall be sufficient to speak. But I have ren dered reasonable causes of these terms hitherto, so that no man, but mad with mahce, would think we conceal the name of church and dignities thereof in hatred of them, or do dissemble the names of schism and heresy in favour of those abominations, wliich are as well set forth to their detestation in the terms of dissension and sects. As for the name sacra ment, we find [it] not in the Greek ; but mysteriwm we trans late "a secret" or "a mystery," as the word signifieth, which nothing favoureth the pretended sacrament of matrimony. Martin, 3. Martin. St Paul saith as plain as he can speak1, " I beseech you, l Cor. i. w. brethren, that you all say one thing, and that there be no schisms among P liapaKaXco 8e vpds, d8eX(j>ol, 8id tov ovoparos tov JLvplov qpav 'Iqcrov XflicrTOt), iva to avrb Xeyqre irdvres, Kal pq jj iv bplv o-\io-- para. 1 Cor. i. 10. "Obsecro autem vos, fratres, per nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ut idipsum dicatis omnes, et non sint in vobis schismata." Vulg. " I beseech you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak one thing, and that there be no dissension among IV.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 221 you." They translate for " schisms" " dissensions ;" wliich may be in profane and worldly things, as well as in matters of religion. But schisms are those that divide the unity of the church, whereof they know themselves guilty. St Paul saith as plainly as is possible, " A Tj'- >"¦ , man that is an heretic, avoid after the first and second admonition :" civdpwirov . they translated in their bible of the year 1562, " A man that is an author of sects." And where the Greek is " heresy," reckoned among damnable alpeaeis. sins, they say " sects ;" favouring that name for their own sakes, and dissembling it, as though the holy scriptures spake not against " heresy" or "heretics," "schism" or "schismatics." Fulke. St Paul indeed speaketh plainly in Greek ; but Fulke, 3. if you speak Enghsh and say schisms, forty thousand of the people in England will swear they understand you not. But schisms (you say) are those "that divide the unity of the church : dissensions may be in profane and worldly things." Verily, all schisms divide not the church, for they were not all the church, of whom it is said in St John ix., " There was a schism among them :" for I think the best of the Pharisees were scarce good members of the church. Again, where St Paul doth say, "lest there should be a schism in the body," 1 Cor. xii., he speaketh of the natural body, where unto he compareth the church. St Paul also saith, as plainly as he can speak in Greek, 1 Cor. xi. 18., "I hear that there be schisms among you :" yet your vulgar Latin trans lator is bold to say scissuras, cuttings or rendings, where you are bold to go from your Latin text and call them schisms. And for explicating the Greek name of heresy by sects, why should we be more blamed, than the vulgar Latin translator, who commonly translateth it sectas, and namely Gal. v., 2 Pet. ii., Acts xxiv. divers times, xxvi. and xxviii., in all which places you yourselves translate "sects" ? Is it because he or you favour heresies and heretics ? Will you never leave this foohsh wrangling, which always turneth you to the greater discredit ? Martin. As also they suppress the very name " catholic," when it Martin, 4. is expressly in the Greek, for malice toward catholics and catholic reli gion, because they know, themselves never shall be called or known by that name. And therefore their two English bibles, accustomed to be An. 1562. read in their church, (therefore by like most authentic,) leave it clean you," Tyndale, Cranmer 1539, 1562, Geneva, Bishops' 1584. "And that there be no divisions among you," Authorised Version.] 222 A BEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cff. Euseb. lib. ii. out in the title of all those epistles, which have been known by the cap. '22. in name of Catholicee Epistola; ever since the apostles' time : and their later fine'iS79. English bible (dealing somewhat more honestly) hath turned the word " catholic" into " general," saying, " The General Epistle of James, of Peter," &c. As if a man should say in his creed, " I believe the general church," because he would not say, " the catholic church ;" as the Lu theran catechisms say for that purpose, " I believe the christian church." Lind. in nu- So that bv this rule, when St Augustine telleth that the manner was in bitant. J cities where there was liberty of religion, to ask, Qua itur ad catholicam ? we must translate it, " Which is the way to the general ?" And when St Jerome saith, " If we agree in faith with the bishop of Rome," ergo catholid sumus ; we must translate it, "Then we are generals." Is not this good stuif ? Are they not ashamed thus to invert and pervert all words against common sense, and use, and reason? Catholic and general or universal (we know) is by the original property of the word all one : but according to the use of both, as it is ridiculous to say, "A catholic council," for "A general council;" so is it ridiculous and impious to say "general" for "catholic," in derogation thereof, and for to hide it under a bushel. Fulke, 4. Fulke. I do not know where the name of " cathohc" is once expressed in the text of the bible, that it might be suppressed by us, which are not like to bear malice to the catholic church or rehgion, seeing we teach even our young children to believe "the holy catholic church." But not find ing the word catholic in the text, you run to the title of the seven epistles, called as commonly canonical as cathohc or general. But Eusebius belike testifieth that they have been so called ever since the apostles' time, lib. 11. cap. 22.1 I marvel you are not ashamed to avouch such an untruth. Eusebius, speaking of his own time, saith they are so called ; but that they have been so called ever since the apostles' time, he saith not. And so far off he is from saying so, that he pronounceth the epistle of St James in the same place to be a bastard, and speaketh doubtfully of the epistle of St Jude8. But whereas in one translation we use the Q1 See the passage quoted before, p. 16.] [2 Jacobus, qui appellator frater Domini, cognomento Justus, ut nonnulli existimant, Josephi ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, Mariae sororis matris Domini, cujus Johannes in libro suo meminit, Alius, post passionem Domini statim ab apostolis Jerosolymorum episcopus ordinatus, unam tantum scripsit epistolam, quae de septem catholicis est; quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur. Hieronymi Catal. Scrip. Eccles. 11. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 101. IV.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 223 word " general" for cathohc, you make a great maygame of it, shewing your wit and your honesty both at once. For these five of James, two of Peter, one of Jude, and the first of John, which are properly and rightly so entitled, have that title, because they are not sent to any particular church or persons, but to all in general, as the Greek schohast truly noteth. CEcumenius before the epistle of St James saith expressly, Catholicce, id est, universales dicuntur hce, fyc3. " These epistles are called cathohc, that is to say, univer sal or general, because not distinctly to one nation or city (as St Paul to the Romans, or Corinthians) this company of our Lord's disciples doth dedicate these epistles, but generally to the faithful, or to the Jews that were dispersed, as also Peter, or else to all Christians living under the same faith." Eor otherwise, if they should be called catholic in respect of the soundness of the doctrme contained in them, what reason were there more to call them so, than to call all the epistles of St Paul ? Wherefore in this title, which yet is no part of the holy scripture, it is rightly translated " general." The other translators, seeing seven to be called general, where only five are so in deed, and seeing them also called canon ical, which should seem to be a controlling of St Paul's epistles, left out that title altogether, as being no part of the text and word of God, but an addition of the stationers or writers. Martin. Is it because they would follow the Greek, that they turn Martin, 5. Ka86XiKq "general"? Even as just as when they turn e'iScoXov "image," Catholics. wapd8oo-iv "instruction," biKaicopa "ordinance/' crxlo-pa "dissension," alpeo-iv "sect," pvo-Tqptov "secret," and such like; where they go as far from the Greek as they can, and will be glad to pretend for answer Jacobus, Petrus, Johannes, Judas, Apostoli, septem epistolas edi- derunt tarn mysticas quam succinctas, et breves pariter et longas: breves in verbis, longas in sententiis, ut rarus sit qui non in earum lectione caecutiat. Hieron. Epist. 11. ad Paulinum. Opera Vol. iv. p. 574. See answer to preface, p. 33.] L KaBoXiKal Xeyovrai avrai, oiovel iyKvicXioi. ov yap dcpcopicrpevcos eSvei evl q irdXel, (cos 6 8eios TLavXos ro'ts 'Pcopaiois q Kopivdlois) irpocrc\>covei ravras rds imcrroXas 6 twv tolovtcov tov Kvplov paBqrcov Biacros, dXXd KaddXov rois iticttois, tJtoi 'lov8alois toIs iv rfj 8tao-iropa, cos Kal 6 Tlerpos, q Kal iracri rots W rqv avrqv iricrnv Xpicrnavois TeXovo-iv. CEcumenii Argument. Cathol. Jacobi Epist. Opera, Vol. n. p. 439. Edit. Lutet. Paris. 1631.] 224 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. of their word " sect," that they follow our Latin translation. Alas ! poor shift for them that otherwise pretend nothing but the Greek, to be tried by that Latin which themselves condemn. But we honour the said text, and translate it " sects" also, as we there find it, and as we do in other places follow the Latin text ; and take not our advantage of the Greek text, because we know the Latin translation is good also and sincere, and approved in the church by long antiquity, and it is in sense all one to us with the Greek : but not so to them, who in these days of controversy about the Greek and Latin text, by not following the Greek, which they profess sincerely to follow, bewray themselves that they do it for a malicious purpose. Fulke, 5. Fulke. It is because we would have the Greek under stood, as it is taken in those places, when we turn " cathohc1' general, idolum, image, TrapdSoow, instruction, SiKalw/ua, or dinance, o^tapa, dissension, a'ipeoiv, sect, u.voTr\piov, secret, and such hke. And where you say, we would be glad for our word "sect" to pretend to follow your Latin translation, it is a fable. For in translating " sect," we follow the Greek as truly, as your Latin translation doth ; which if it be true and sincere, as you confess, what devilish madness possess- eth your malicious mind to burden us with such purposes, as no reasonable man would once imagine or think of, that we should use that term in favour of heresy and heretics, whom we think worthy to suffer death, if they will not repent, and cease to blaspheme or seduce the simple? ?¦J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 225 CHAPTER V. Heretical Translation against the Church, Martin. As they suppress the name "catholic," even so did they Martin, 1. in their first English bible the name of " church" itself; because at their first revolt and apostasy from that that was universally known to be the only true catholic church, it was a great objection against their schismatical proceedings, and it stuck much in the people's consciences, that they forsook the church, and that the church condemned them. Whereupon very wilily they suppressed the name "church" in their English translation, so that in all that bible so long read in their con- gib. 1562, gregations we cannot once find the name thereof. Judge by these places, which seem of most importance for the dignity, preeminence, and autho rity ofthe church. Fulke. How can we suppress the name "cathohc," which Fulke, 1. the holy scripture never useth ? As for the name of church, I have already shewed divers times, that for to avoid the ambiguous taking of that term, it was at the first less used, but never refused for doubt of any objection of the cathohc church against us : the profession of which, being contained in our Enghsh creed, how could we relinquish, or not ac knowledge to be contained in the scripture, in which we taught that all articles of faith necessary to salvation are comprehended ? But we are content to be judged "by those places which seem of most importance for the dignity, pre eminence, and authority of the church." Martin. Our Saviour saith, "Upon this rock I will build my church; Martin, 2. and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it1." They make him to Matt. xvi. say, "Upon this rock I will build my congregation." Again, "If he Matt. xviii. hear not them, tell the church ; and if he hear not the church, let him be to thee as an heathen and as a publican ;" they say, " congregation2." Q1 oiKoSopqcrco pov rqv eKKXqcriav. Matt. xvi. 18. "I will build my congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops' bible. " I will build my church," Wiclif, Rhemish, Authorised.] rj" elire t% eKKXqcria. Matt, xviii. 17. " Tell it unto the congrega tion," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva. "Tell it to the church," Wiclif, Bishops' bible, Rhemish, Authorised version.] r i 15 [fulke.J 226 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Again, who would think they would have altered the word "church" in the Epistle to the Ephesians? Their English translation for many Eph. v. years read thus : "Ye husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the congregation, and cleansed it to make it unto himself a glorious congre- 1 Tim.iiL gation without spot or wrinkle." And, " This is a great secret, but I speak of Christ and of the congregation." And to Timothy, " The house of God, which is the congregation ofthe living God, the pillar and ground of truth." Here is no word of " church," which in Latin and Greek is, Ecclesia Dei vivi, columna et firmamentum veritatis. Likewise to the Eph. i. Ephesians again, " He hath made him head of the congregation, which Heb. xi .23. is his body." And to the Hebrews they are all bold to translate : " The congregation" of the first-born," where the apostle nameth "heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God," &C.1 Fulke, 2. Fulke. In the first Enghsh bible printed, where it was thus translated, Matt. xvi. "Upon this rock I will build my congregation2," the note in the margin is thus : " Upon this rock, that is, as saith St Augustine, upon the con fession which thou hast made, knowledging me to be Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my congregation or church3!" Was not this translator, think you, sore afraid of the name of " the church" ? What other thing should he understand by the word "congregation" in all places by you noted, or in any like, but the church, as he doth here ex pound himself? And this translation, almost word for word, doth the bible you call 1562 follow. Q1 The versions of Tyndale and Cranmer render iKKXqcria at Eph. v. 23, 24, 25, " congregation :" those of Wiclif, Geneva, Bishops' bible, and Authorised, render it "church." And also the same translation of eKKXqo-ia is given by these several versions respectively at 1 Tim. iii. 15. Tyndale and Cranmer also translate the word "congregation" at Ephes. i. 22. : all the other versions render it " church." At Hebrews xii. 23, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, and the Bishops' bible, have it "congregation:" Wiclif, Rhemish, and Authorised version, "church."] r_a Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram cedificabo ecclesiam meam; ut super hunc intelligeretur quem confessus est Petrus, dicens, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi; ac sic Petrus ab hac petra appellatus perso nam ecclesiae figuraret, quse super hanc petram aedificatur, et accepit claves regni ccelorum. Non enim dictum est illi, Tu es petra, sed, to es Petrus. Petra autem erat Christus; quem confessus Simon, sicut eum tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. Augustini Retractio- num, Lib. i. c. 21. Opera, Vol. i. pp. 67, 68. edit. Bened. Paris. 1836.] I3 Matthew's Bible 1537.] *•] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 227 Martin. So that, by this translation, there is no more church mili- Martin, 3. tant and triumphant, but congregation, and he is not head of the church, but of the congregation; and this congregation, at the time of the making of this translation, was in a few new brethren of England, for whose sake the name " church" was left out of the English bible, to commend the name of " congregation" above the name of " church." Whereas St Augustine telleth them, that the Jews' synagogue was a in Ps. .lxxxi. congregation, the church a convocation ; and that a congregation is of ™„™ymy>/. beasts also; a convocation, of reasonable creatures only; and that the iKKXrio-ia*. Jews' congregation is sometime called "the church," but the apostles never called the church " congregation." Do you see then what a goodly change they have made, for "church" to say "congregation," so making themselves a very synagogue, and that by the property of the Greek word; which yet (as St Augustine telleth them most truly) sig nifieth rather a " convocation" ? Fulke. A strange matter, that the church militant and Fulke, 3. triumphant should be excluded by using the word congre gation, when by it nothing is signified but the congregation or church militant and triumphant; and that Christ should no more be head of the church when he is head of the congregation, where the difference is only in sound of words., not in sense or meaning. Tour vain and ridiculous surmise, why the name of church should be left out of the bible, I have before confuted, shewing that in every bible it is either in the text, or in the notes. But St Augustme telleth us (say you) that the Jews' synagogue was a congregation, the church a convocation ; and that a congregation is of beasts also, a convocation of reasonable creatures only. But St Luke in the person of St Stephen telleth us, (and Augustine telleth us as much,) that the synagogue of the Jews is caUed also ecclesia, which signifieth the church and congregation. [* The LXX. read in the first verse of the eighty-second Psalm, 6 0ebs e'crrq ev crvvaycoyjj 6eS>v, which is translated by the Vulgate, "Deus stetit in synagoga deorum." Upon these words Augustine speaks as follows: "In synagoga populum Israel accipimus; quia et ipsorum proprie synagoga dici solet, quamvis et ecclesia dicta sit. Nostram vero apostoli nunquam synagogam dixerunt, sed semper ecclesiam; sive discernendi caus% sive quod inter congregationem unde synagoga, et convocationem unde ecclesia nomen accepit, distet aliquid; quod scilicet congregari et pecora solent, atque ipsa proprie, quorum et greges proprie dicimus; convocari autem magis est uten- tium ratione, sicut sunt homines. Augustini Enarratio in Psalmum lxxxi. 1.] 15—2 228 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. That congregatio, the Latin word, may be of beasts also, it skilleth not ; for the church of Christ is called also a flock, and sheep of his pasture. But he that should say in Enghsh "a congregation of beasts," might be taken for as wise a man, as he that said "an audience of sheep." And whereas St Au gustine telleth you, that the Jews' congregation is sometime called the church ; what is the cause that you do translate it "the assembly," Acts vii., even as you do "the congregation of the idolatrous Ephesians," Acts xix.? But further (you say) Augustine telleth us, that the apostles never called the church " congregation." It is a world to see what foolish fetches' you have to deceive the ignorant. Augustine sayeth, the apostles never called our assembly synagoga, but always ecclesia : and yet he is a little deceived ; for St Paul calleth our gathering together unto Christ eirtovvaywyri, but congre gatio, " a congregation," he saith not. And although he make a nice distinction between the words " congregation" and "convocation," yet all men which know the use of these words, will confess no necessity of a Jewish synagogue to be im plied in the word "congregation" more than in the word eKKXtjola, which of the Holy Ghost is used for an assembly or gathering together, either of Jews, Christians, or Gentiles. And therefore, it seemeth, the translator used the word "con gregation," which is indifferent for all, even as the word ecclesia is used both in the Greek and vulgar Latin. Martin, 4. Martin. If they appeal here to their later translations, we must obtain of them to condemn the former, and to confess this was a gross fault committed therein; and that the catholic church of our country did not ill to forbid and burn such books which were so translated by Tyndal and the like, as being not indeed God's book, word, or scripture, but the devil's word. Yea, they must confess that the leaving out of this word "church" altogether was of an heretical spirit against the catholic Roman church, because then they had no Calvinistical church in any like form of religion and government to theirs now. Neither will it serve them to say after their manner, " And if a man should trans- Confut. of late ecclesiam 'congregation,' this is no more absurdity, than instead foi. as. of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification." This, we trow, will not suffice them in the judgment of the simplest indifferent reader. Fulke, 4. Fulke. We need not to appeal to the later transla tions for any corruption or falsification of the former, no, V.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 229 nor for any mistranslation. For seeing the Spirit of God (as I have said) useth the word ecclesia generally for a com pany of Christians, Jews, and Gentiles, the translator hath not gone from the truth and use of the scriptures, to use the word " congregation," which signifieth indifferently all three. Wherefore there needeth no condemnation, nor confession of any gross fault herein committed; except you will count it a gross fault in St Luke, to use the word eKKXrja'ia without any scrupulosity for all three, as the trans lator doth the word " congregation," and you in two signifi cations the word " assembly." Neither can your heathenish and barbarous burning of the holy scriptures so translated, nor your blasphemy in calling it the devil's word, be excused for any fault in translation which you have discovered as yet, or ever shall be able to descry. That stinking cavil of leaving out of the bible this word " church" altogether, being both foohsh and false, I have answered more than once already. It is not left out altogether, that in con tents of books and chapters, and in notes of explication of this word " congregation1," is set down. Neither could there be any purpose against the cathohc church of Christ in them that translated and taught the creed in English, pro fessing to believe "the holy catholic church." As for our hatred of the mahgnant antichristian church of Rome, we never dissembled the matter, so that we were afraid openly to profess it : what need had we then after such a fantas tical manner (as is fondly imagined) to insinuate it ? Martin. But, my masters, if you would confess the former faults Martin, 5. and corruptions never so plainly, is that enough to justify your corrupt dealing in the holy scriptures ? Is it not an horrible fault so wilfully to falsify and corrupt the word of God, written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost ? May you abuse the people for certain years with false translations, and afterward say, " Lo, we have amended it in our later translations" ? Then might the heretic Beza be excused for translating see his New instead of "Christ's soul in hell," his "carcase in the grave:" and 0f the year because some friend told him of that corruption, and he corrected it in oy^Slrt* the later editions, he should nevertheless in your judgment be counted a l^tsa'.'^01" right honest man. No, be ye sure, the discreet reader cannot be so abused ; but he will easily see that there is a great difference in mending some oversights which may escape the best men, and in your gross false P Congregation. See No. 2.] 230 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. translations, who at the first falsify of a prepensed malice, and afterwards alter it for very shame. Howbeit, to say the truth, in the chiefest and principal place, that concerneth the church's perpetuity and stability, you have not yet altered the former translation, but it remaineth as before, Matt. xvi. is. and is at this day read in your churches thus, " Upon this rock I will build my congregation." Can it be without some heretical subtilty, that in this place specially, and (I think) only, you change not the word " congregation" into " church" ? Give us a reason, and discharge your credit. Fulke, 5. Fulke. You are very hardly, and in very deed mah- ciously, bent agamst us, that you will accept no confession of faults escaped, never so plainly made. As for corrupt dealing in the holy scriptures, and falsifying of the word of God, you are not able, no, not if you would burst your self for malice, to convict us. And therefore look for no confession of any such wickedness, whereof our conscience is clear before God, and doth not accuse us, As for Beza's correction of his former translation, Acts ii. 27, if your dogged stomach will not accept, he shaU notwithstanding with ah godly learned men be accounted, as he deserveth, for one who hath more profited the church of God with his sin-. cere translation and learned annotations, than all the popish seminaries and seminarists shall be able to hinder it, jangle of gross and false translations as long as you will. But "the chiefest and principal place, that concerneth the church's perpetuity," is not yet reformed to your mind. For in the bible 1577, we read still, Matt, xvi., "Upon this rock I will build my congregation." If Christ have a perpetual congregation, "builded upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, himself being the corner-stone," his church ia in no danger ever to decay. Yet you ask, whether it can be without some heretical subtilty, that in this place spe-, cially, and (as you think) only, the word "congregation" is not changed into "church." It is an homely, but a true proverb: The good wife would never have sought her daughter in the oven, had she not been there first herself. You are so full of heretical subtilties and traitorous devices, that you dream of them in other men's doings, whatsoever cometh into your hands ; yea, where you yourself can have no pro bable imagination what to suspect. And therefore we must give you a reason in discharge of our credit. For my part, V.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 231 I know not with what special reason the translator was moved; but I can give you my probable conjecture, that he thought it all one, (as indeed it is,) to say "my congre gation," or "my church." For what is Christ's congregation, hut his church ? or what is Christ's church, but his congre gation ? And yet, to put you out of all fear, the Geneva trans lation hath the word " church," that you make so great ac count of, as though it were not an indifferent word to the true church of true Christians and the false church of malignant heretics; being usurped first to signify the congregation of Christians, by a metonymy of the place containing for the people contained. For the etymology thereof is from the Oreek word KvpiaKq, which was used of Christians for the place of their holy meetings, signifying "the Lord's house ;" therefore in the northern, which is the more ancient Enghsh speech, is called by contraction kyrke, more near to the sound of the Greek word. Martin. What shall I say of Beza, whom the English bibles also Mahtin, 6. follow, translating actively that Greek word, (which in common use, and by St Chrysostom, and the Greek doctors' exposition, is a plain passive,) to signify, as in his annotations is clear, that Christ may be without his church, that is, a head without a body. The words be these in the heretical translation: "He gave him to be the head over all Eph. i, 21. 23. tov irXt]- poupeyou '. [} The following extract from Beza's New Testament will serve to explain the matter in dispute in this and the two succeeding num bers : "Htis icrrl to ocopa abrov, to irXqpwpa toO irdvra ev irdo~t wXqpovpevov. Ephes. L 23. Rendered by Beza, "Quas est corpus ip- sius, et complementum ejus qui omnia implet in omnibus:" upon which he has this note: Complementum, irXqpcopa, give supplementum. Is enim est Christi in ecclesiam amor, ut quum omnia in omnibus ad plenum prsestet, tamen sese veluti mancum et membris mutilum caput existimet, nisi ecclesiam habeat sibi instar corporis adjunctam. Hinc factum ut Christus interdum collective pro tota ecclesia capiti suo adjuncta ac- cipiatur, ut 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13, et Gal. iii. 16. Hinc etiam illud "in Christo," toties repetitum; quod multo expressius aliquid significat quam cum Christo, vel per Christum. Hinc factum ut diceret apo stolus se in Christo, et Christum in se vivere, Gal ii. 20. Hinc ilia Christi vox, Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris? Quo etiam pertinet quod scriptum est, Col. i. 24. Hinc denique nostra spes omnis et consolatio proficiscitur. Qui implet, rob irXqpovpevov. Chrysostomus passive accipit, ut sit sensus, Christum prorsus impleri in omnibus, 232 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. things to the church, which (church) is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." " St Chrysostom," saith Beza, (he might have said, all the Greek and Latin ancient fathers,) "taketh it passively in this sense, that Christ is ' filled ' all in all, because all faithful men as members, and the whole church as the body, concur to the fulness and accomplish ment of Christ the head. But this," saith he, "seemeth unto me a forced interpretation." Why so, Beza ? Fulke, 6. Fulke. That Beza translateth the participle, tov itXn- povfxevov, actively, it is plain, both in the text of his transla tion, and in his annotations : but that he doth it to signify, that Christ may be without his church, that is, a head with out a body, it is a shameless slander. His words, upon which you weave this cobweb, are these : Omnino autem hoc addidit apostolus, ut sciamus Christum per se non imdir gere hoc supplemewto, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus remra ; nedum ut suppleatur a quoquam, nisi quatenus pro immmsa sua bonitate ecclesiam dignatur sibi quasi corporis instar adjungere. " This the apostle hath added altogether for this end, that we may know that Christ of himself hath no need of this supply, as he which worketh in truth ' all things in all ;' so far it is, that he should be supphed by any body, but that of his infinite goodness he vouchsafeth to adjoin his church unto himself as his body." Who but the devil would find fault with this godly and catholic saying ? wherein it is affirmed, that Christ, which according to the perfec tion of liis divine nature needeth no supply, yet of his in finite mercy vouchsafeth to become head of his church, as of his body ; so that he will not be counted perfect with out it. Is this to say, Christ may be a head without a body ? or is it for his benefit, or the benefit of his church, that he is the head thereof? But the more to lay open this malicious slander and impudent falsifying of Beza's words and meaning, I will set down liis saying, going im- id est, singulos fideles conferre ad Christi complementum, uti corpus ipsum ex singulis membris est compactum. Mihi videtur coacta ista interpretatio, [qui potius active istud accipio, edit. 1582, p. 231.] quum to irXqpovcr8ai pro nXqpovv Xenophon usurparit, Lib. vi. Hellen. et o-vpifXqpovcrdai pro crvpirXqpow Plato in Timaeo. Omnino autem hoc addidit apostolus, ut sciamus Christum per se non indigere hoc sup- plemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus revera; nedum ut sup pleatur a quoquam, nisi quatenus pro immensa sua bonitate ecclesiam dignatur sibi quasi corporis instar adjungere. Edit. 1656, p. 249.] V.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 233 mediately before, upon the word irXypw/ua, which he calleth complementum sive supplementum, " a fulfilling or supplying :" Is enim est Christi in ecclesiam amor, &c. " For such is the love of Christ toward his church, that whereas he performeth all things to all men unto the full ; yet he esteemeth him self as an imperfect head, and maimed of the members, unless he have his church adjoined to him, as his body. Hereof it cometh, that Christ is taken sometime collectively for the whole church, adjoined to her head, as 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13, and Gal. iii. 16. Hereof cometh also that phrase ' in Christ,' so often re peated, which signifieth something more expressly than with Christ, or by Christ. Hereof that voice of Christ, ' Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me ?' Whither also pertaineth that which is written, Col. i. 24. Finally, hereof proceedeth all our hope and consolation." How think you? is not this man willing to separate the church from Christ, the head from the body ? 0 monstrous mahces of godless papists ! His exposition of the place being such, as you see, let us now examine what can be said against his translation : for a man must not translate falsely to make a true sense. It is alleged against him, that Chrysostom and all the Greek and Latin fathers take the participle passively. Beza con fesseth it of Chrysostom, whom the later Greek writers commonly do follow. But the participle, being derived of the mean verb, may have either passive or active signifi cation. But why doth Beza say, that the exposition of Chrysostom is " forced," wliich taketh it passively? He saith not in respect of Chrysostom's sense, which he himself fol loweth, and it is contained in the word irXijpwp.a, but in respect of the grammar, that irdvra should be put abso lutely without any word to govern it, seeing the participle of the mean verb may be taken actively, and govern iravra, being the accusative case. Martin. Mark his doctors whom he opposeth to the fathers, both Martin, 7. Greek and Latin. " Because Xenophon" saith he, "in such a place, and Plato in such a place, use the said Greek word actively." I omit this miserable match, and unworthy names of Xenophon and Plato, in trial of St Paul's words, agamst all the glorious doctors ; this is his common custom. I ask him rather of these his own doctors, how they use the Greek word in other places of their works ? how use they it most com monly ? yea, how do all other Greek writers, either profane or sacred, 234 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. use it? What say the Greek readers of all universities? Surely, not only they, but their scholars for the most part, cannot be ignorant, thaj irXripoii- the use of this word and the like is passive, though sometime it may also signify actively: but that is so rare in comparison of the other, that no man lightly will use it ; and I am well assured it would be counted a fault, and some lack of skill, if one now in his writings that would express this in Greek, " God filleth all things with his blessing," should say, irXqpovTai ndvra : and, " The wine filleth the cup," o oivos irXqpoi- rai rb irorqpiov. Ask them that have skill, and control me. Contrariwise, if one would say passively, " All things are filled with God's blessing," " The cup is filled with wine," " Such a prophecy is fulfilled ;" what mean Grecian would not say, as St Chrysostom here expoundeth this word, irXqpovrai, using it passively ? Fulke, 7. Fulke. Mark how malice carrieth this man almost into madness. For who but a madman would think, that Beza opposeth profane writers to ecclesiastical doctors for un derstanding of the scripture? The mean verb 7rXnpovnai, which the meanest grammarian in the world knoweth to be taken both actively and passively by the grammar rule Be verbo medio, Beza proveth out of Xenophon and Plato that it is and may be used actively. Why not therefore in this place of St Paul, where both the sense requireth it, that one thing be not repeated twice without necessary cause, and the construction of the word irdvTa calleth for it, which other wise is left at random without any government? Seeing therefore we have the common rule of grammar, and the example of eloquent writers for use, I marvel what M. Martin meaneth to waste so many words about so1 clear a matter. No man that knoweth any thing doubteth, but that irXnpovpai may be, and is often, taken passively : but seeing it is also found to be a verb mean, who need to be afraid to use it actively (having Xenophon and Plato for his warrant), yea, even in those examples you put, of God's blessing filling all things, or the wine filling the cup, if any man would speak so. But if, because the word is more usually taken passively, men would refrain so to speak ; yet why should we think that St Paul did not use it actively ? when the active signification is more agreeable, both with his words and with his meaning. But lest you should think Beza is alone, which taketh it actively, what say you to Phihppus Montanus, one of your own profession ? which in his animadversions upon Theophyr lact's translation, by him corrected, saith , upon this .place ; V.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 235 irXnpov/uevov qui adimplet, vel admpletur, verbum enim est medium, passive autem videtur accipere Theophylactus: "Which filleth, or which is filled ; for it is a verb of indifferent signification, active or passive, but Theophylact seemeth to take it passively." What say you to Isidorus Clarius, who although in his text he readeth passively, yet in his note confesseth it may be taken either passively or actively ? For this is his note : Plenitudo ejus"] per omnia enim membra adimpletur corpus Christi, quia omnia in omnibus implet, dum ipse agit in omnibus, vel per omnes homines ha?c implet membra. Sive plenitudinem et complementum omne swum habet ipsa ecclesia ab illo, quia omnia in omnibus adimplet1: "That is the fulness of him] for by all the members the body of Christ is filled, because he filleth all in all, while he worketh in all, or throughout all men filleth these members. Or else, the church herself hath all her fulness and accomplishment of him, which filleth all in all." These men, both papists, were as good Grecians (I warrant you) as M. Gregory Martin is, or ever will be ; by whom if he will not be controlled, it were folly to press him with the judgment of our " Greek readers," which he requireth. Martin. "Yet," saith Beza, "this is a forced interpretation, because Martin, 8; Xenophon forsooth and Plato," once perhaps in all their whole works, " use it otherwise." Oh, heretical blindness, or rather stubbornness, that calleth that forced, which is most common and usual ; and seeth not that his own translation is forced, because it is against the common use of the word ! But no marvel : for he that in other places thinketh it no forced interpretation to translate 8e£acr8ai " to be contained," which Becipere. neither Xenophon nor Plato nor any Greek author will allow him to do, and ^rvx^" "carcase," and irpoyvcocriv "providence," and perdvoiav Animam, "them that amend their lives," may much more in this place dissemble tiamf'er his forced interpretation of ireirXqpovpevov. But why he should call St £ni!ten" Chrysostom's interpretation forced, which is the common and usual in terpretation, that hath no more reason than if a very thief should say * - to an honest man, " Thou art a thief, and not I." Fulke. I have shewed how it is enforced, because in Fulke, 8. taking the participle passively you must either be enforced to admit a plain solecism, where none needeth ; or else you must hardly understand the preposition Kara to govern the accusative irdvra, as Montanus telleth you in Theophylact, Q1 Critici Sacri, Vol. vii. Pars n. p. 98.] 236 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. and as CEcumenius doth, and the sense will be no more than is contained in the word complementum: whereas by taking it actively, the wonderful goodness of Christ shineth toward his church ; who although he needeth nothing to make him perfect, as Chrysostom saith, but suppheth "all things in all things,'" yet it is his gracious pleasure to account himself imperfect without his church, which he hath united to him as his body, in which he is not perfect without all his members. As for your vain and tedious repetition, hke the cuckoo's song, of Beza's misprisions, I will not stand so often to an swer, as you are disposed to rehearse them : only I must admonish the reader of a piece of your cunning, that in repeating the participle you change the tense, and for irXrjpov/nevov you say ireirXripovpevov, as though it were the preterperfect tense, which cannot be taken but only passively. I know the printer shall bear the blame of this oversight, but in the mean time it maketh a httle shew to a young Grecian, that considereth it not. Martin, 9. Martin. Is it forced, Beza, that Christ " is filled all in all" by the church ? Doth not St Paul in the very next words before call the church Eph. i. the fulness of Christ, saying, " Which is the fulness of him that is filled all in all" ? If the church be the fulness of him, then is he filled or hath his fulness of the church, so that he is not a maimed head without a body. This would St Paul say, if you would give him leave ; and this he doth say, whether you will or no. But what is the cause that they will not suffer the apostle to say so? "Because," saith Beza, "Christ needeth no such complement." And if he needeth it not, then may he be without a church, and consequently it is no absurdity, if the church hath been for many years not only invisible, but also not at all. Would a man easily at the first imagine or conceive, that there were such secret poison in their translation ? Fulke, 9. Fulke. You should urge Beza with a Latin epistle, seeing you are so earnest in the matter. I have told you that the sense of Chrysostom is true, but not flowing easily from the words of St Paul. That Christ hath his fulness of the church, it is granted by Beza upon the word plenitude or complementum, as you cannot be ignorant, if you have read Beza's annotations, as you pretend. But you charge Beza to say, that "Christ needeth no such complement." Beza's words are, as I have set them down before, ut sciamus V.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 237 Christum per se non indigere hoc supplemento, " that we may know that Christ of himself needeth not this supply." Is this all one with that you report him to say ? No, his saying was too long for your thievish bed, and therefore you cut off per se, "of himself," or "by himself." What say you? Dare you affirm that Christ of himself, in respect of his divine nature, hath need of any complement ? That Christ hath had always a church since the beginning of the world, and shall have to the end, Beza doth plainly in an hundred places confess : neither can it be otherwise proved by this trans lation, nor yet by Beza's words "that Christ of himself is perfect and needeth no supply," but that it pleaseth him to become the head of the church, as of his body; which his divine and merciful pleasure seeing it is immutable, Christ cannot be without his church, nor the church without him. Yea, as Beza in plain words affirmeth, this is " our whole hope and consolation," that Christ esteemeth himself an imperfect head, and maimed of his members, except he have his church adjoined to him as his body. Martin. Again, it cometh from the same puddle of Geneva, that in Martin, their bibles (so called) the English Bezites translate against the unity of 10- the catholic church. For whereas themselves are full of sects and dis- Blb' 1579- sensions, and the true church is known by unity, and hath this mark given her by Christ himself, in whose person Salomon speaking saith, Una est columba mea, that is, " One is my dove," or, " My dove is one ;" Cant. vi. 8. therefore instead hereof the foresaid bible saith, " My dove is alone ;" Pla ' neither Hebrew nor Greek word having that signification, but being as *"J? proper to signify one, as unus in Latin. Fulke. He that hath any nose may smell that this cen- Fulke, sure cometh from the stinking puddle of popish mahce. For 10* he that saith "my dove is alone," Cant. vi. 8, doth a great deal more strongly avouch the unity of the church, than he that sayeth " my dove is one." For whereas Salomon sayeth in the verse going immediately before, " There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and of the damsels without T1 Mia io-rl irepio-Tepd pov. Canticles vi. 8. "Una est columba mea," Vulg. "One is my dove, one is my darling," Cranmer 1562, Bishops' bible. "My dove, my 'undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her," Au thorised version. "My dove is alone," Geneva, 1560.] 238 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. number ;" if you add thereto " my dove is one," it may be thought she is one of those last mentioned. But if you say, as the Geneva bible doth, but " my dove is alone, and my undefiled is the only daughter of her mother ;" now the church is excepted from all the rest of the queens, concu bines, and damsels. And where you say, the Hebrew hath not that signification, I pray you go no further but even to the same verse, and tell me whether the sense be, that she is one of her mother's daughters, or the only daughter of her mother ? Here therefore (as almost everywhere) you do nothing, but seek a knot in a rush. Mahtin, Martin. But we beseech every indifferent reader, even for his soul's health, to consider that one point specially before mentioned, of their abandoning the name of " church" for so many years out of their Enghsh bibles, thereby to defeat the strongest argument that might and may possibly be brought against them and all other heretics; to wit, the authority of the church, which is so many ways and so greatly recom mended unto all Christians in holy scriptures. Consider, I pray you, what a malicious intention they had herein: first, that the name " church" should never sound in the common people's ears out of the scriptures ; secondly, that as in other things, so in this also, it might seem to the ignorant a good argument against the authority of the church to say, " We find not this word ' church' in all the holy scrip tures." For as in other articles they say so, because they find not the express word in the holy scripture ; so did they well provide, that the word " church" in the holy scriptures should not stay or hinder their schismatical and heretical proceedings, as long as that was the only English translation that was read and liked among the people ; that is, so long till they had by preaching taken away the catholic church's credit and authority altogether among the ignorant, by opposing the scriptures thereunto which themselves had thus falsely translated. Fulke, Fulke. We trust every indifferent reader will consider, 11- that they which translated the Greek word ecclesia, "the con gregation," and admonished in the notes that they did by that word mean " the church ;" and they which in the creed might have translated ecclesiam catholicam, " the universal con gregation," taught all children to say, " I believe the cathohc church," could have no such devilish meaning as this malicious slanderer of his own head doth imagine. For who ever heard any man reason thus : This word "church" is not found in the scripture, therefore the church must be despised, &c. ? Rather it is like (beside other reasons before alleged) that V.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 239 those first translators, having in the Old Testament out of the Hebrew translated the words cahal hadath, and such other for " the congregation" (where the papists will npt translate "the church," although their Latin text be ecclesia, as appeareth Acts vii., where they call it "assembly"), thought good to retain the word "congregation" throughout the New Testament also, lest it might be thought of the ignorant, that God had no church in the time of the Old Testament. Howsoever it was, they departed neither from the word nor meaning of the Holy Ghost, nor from the usage of that word ecclesia, which in the scripture signifieth as generally any assembly, as the word "congregation" doth in Enghsh. 240 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. CHAPTER VI. Heretical Translation against Priest and Priesthood. Martin, 1. Martin. But because it maybe, they will stand here upon their later translations which have the name "church," (because by that time they saw the absurdity of changing the name, and now their num ber was increased, and themselves began to challenge to be the true church, though not the catholic; and for former times when they were not, they devised an invisible church;) if then they will stand upon their later translations, and refuse to justify the former; let us demand of them concerning all their English translations, why and to what end they suppress the name "priest," translating it "elder" in all places where the holy scripture would signify by presbyter and presbyteriwm the " priests" and " priesthood " of the New Testament ? Fulke, 1. Fulke. If any error have escaped the former transla tions, that hath been reformed in the later, all reasonable men ought to be satisfied with our . own corrections. But because we are not charged with oversights and small faults committed either of ignorance or of neghgence, but with shameless translations, wilful and heretical corruptions, we may not acknowledge any such crimes whereof our conscience is clear. That we " devised an invisible church," because we were few in number, when our translations were first printed, it is a lewd slander. For being multiplied, as we are, (God be thanked!) we hold still that the cathohc church, which is the mother of us all, is invisible, and that the church on earth may at some times be driven into such straits, as of the wicked it shall not be known. And this we held always, and not otherwise. Now touching the word pres byter and presbyterium, why we translate them not " priest and priesthood of the New Testament," we have given suf ficient reason before : but because we are here urged afresh, we must answer as occasion shall be offered. Martin, 2. Martin. Understand, gentle reader, their wily policy therein is this: to take away the holy sacrifice of the mass, they take away both altar and priest ; because they know right well that these three, priest, sacri fice, and altar, are dependents and consequents one of another, so that they cannot be separated. If there be an external sacrifice, there must be an external priesthood to offer it, an altar to offer the same upon. VIJ TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 241 So had the Gentiles their sacrifices, priests, and altars ; so had the Jews; so Christ himself, being a priest according to the order of Melchisedec, had a sacrifice, his body; and an altar, his cross, upon the which he offered it. And because he instituted this sacrifice to continue in his church for ever, in commemoration and representation of his death, therefore did he withal ordain his apostles priests at his last supper, there and then instituted the holy order of priesthood and priests (saying, Hoc facite, " Do this,") to offer the self-same sacrifice in a mystical and Luke xxii. unbloody manner, until the world's end. In denying the blasphemous sacrifice of the Fulke, 2. popish mass, with the altar and priesthood that thereto be- longeth, we use no wily policy, but with open mouth at all times, and in all places, we cry out upon it, The sacrifices, priests, and altars of the gentiles were abominable. The sacrifices of the Jews, their priests, and altars, are all accom plished and finished in the only sacrifice of Christ, our high priest, offered once for all upon the altar of the cross : which Christ our Saviour, seeing he is a priest according to the order of Melchisedec, hath an eternal priesthood, and such as passeth not by succession, Heb. vii. Therefore did not Christ at his last supper institute any external pro pitiatory sacrifice of his body and blood, but a sacrament, joined with the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving : which sacrament being administered by the ministers thereto appointed, the sacrifice is common to the whole church of the faithful, who are all spiritual priests, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, as much as the minister of the word and sa craments. Martin. To defeat all this, and to take away all external priesthood Martin, 2. and sacrifice, they by corrupt translation of the holy scriptures make them clean dumb, as though they had not a word of any such priests, or priesthood, as we speak of. Their bibles, we grant, have the name of priests very often, but that is when mention is made either of the priests of the Jews, or of the priests of the Gentiles (specially when they are reprehended and blamed in the holy scriptures); and in such places our adversaries have the name " priests" in their translations, to make the very name of "priest" odious among the common ignorant people. Again, they have also the name " priests," when they are taken for all manner of men, women, or children, that offer internal and spiritual sacrifices ; whereby our adversaries would falsely signify that there are no other priests, as one of them late freshly avoucheth, directly whitaker's, against St Augustine, who in one brief sentence distinguisheth priests F' m r i 16 [fulke.J 242 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [(5H. properly so called in the church, and priests as it is a common name to all Christians. Lib. xx. de Civit. Dei, cap. 10. * This name then of "priest" and "priesthood" properly so called, as St Augustine saith, which is an order distinct from the laity and vulgar people, ordained to offer Christ in an unbloody manner in sacrifice to his heavenly Father for us, to preach and minister the sacraments, and to be the pastors of the people, they wholly suppress in their translations ; and in all places where the holy scripture calleth them presbyteros, there they never translate "priests," but "elders." And that they do observe so duly and See the Puri- so warily, and with so full and general consent in all their English bibles, p. 159, and' as the puritans do plainly confess, and M. Whitgift denieth it not, that a Defence s man would wonder to see, how careful they are that the people may not puritans p once hear the name of any such "priest "in all the holy scriptures. 722.Fulke, 3. Fulke. Now you have gotten a fine net to dance naked in, that no ignorant blind buzzard can see you. The masks of your net be the ambiguous and abusive significations of this word "priest"; which indeed, according to the original deri vation from presbyter, should signify nothing else but an " elder," as we translate it, that is, one appointed to govern the church of God according to his word, but not to offer sacrifice for the quick and the dead. But by usurpation it is commonly taken to signify a sacrificer, such as \epevs is in Greek, and sacerdos in Latin ; by which names the minis ters of the gospel are never called by the Holy Ghost. After this common acceptation and use of this word "priest," we call the sacrificers of the Old Testament, and of the gen tiles also, because the scripture calleth them by one name, cohanin, or \epe1s '. but because the scripture calleth the minis ters of the New Testament by divers other names, and never by the name of lepels, we thought it necessary to observe that distinction which we see the Holy Ghost so precisely hath observed. Therefore, where the scripture calleth them irpeo-f&vrepovs, we call them, according to the etymology, "elders," and not priests : which word is taken up by common usurpation to signify -sacrificers of Jews, gentiles, or papists, fj1 Quod autem cum dixisset, In istis secunda mors non habet potestatem; adjunxit atque ait, Sed erunt sacerdotes Dei et Christi, et regnabunt cum eo mille annis : non utique de solis episcopis et presbyteris dictum est, qui proprie jam vocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes ; sed sicut onmes Christianos dicimus propter mysticum chrisma, sic omnes sacerdotes, quoniam mem bra sunt unius Sacerdotis. Augustin. de Civitat. Dei. Lib. xx. c. 10. Opera. Vol. vi. p. 944.] Tl.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 243 or else all Christians in respect of spiritual sacrifices. And although Augustine, and other of the ancient fathers, call the ministers of the New Testament by the name of sacerdotes, and lepeis, which signify the ministers of the Old Testament ; yet the authority of the Holy Ghost, making a perfect dis tinction between these two appellations and functions, ought to be of more estimation with us. The fathers were content to speak in Latin and Greek, as the terms were taken up by the common people newly converted from gentility ; but yet they retained the difference of the sacrificing priesthood of the one, and the ministerial office of the other. This may suffice therefore to render a reason, why we use not the word "priest" for "nxinisters" of the New Testament : not that we refuse it in respect of the etymology, but in respect of the use and common signification thereof. Martin. As for example in their translations, when there fell a Martin, 4. question about circumcision, " They determined that Paul and Barnabas TrpetrfivTe- should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this Prabyteros. question." Acts xv2. And again, " They were received of the congrega te In Acts xv. 4, tcov dnoo-ToXcov mi tcov irpecrflvTepcov is ren dered, in the Vulgate, "ab apostolis et senioribus:" also, in verses 20, 22, 23. In verse 41, seniorum is used, though there is not any corresponding clause in the Greek. See also chap. xvi. 4. irpbs robs dwocrToXovs Kal irpeo-fivrepovs, Acts xv. 2, is rendered thus in the different versions: "To the apostolis and preestis," Wiclif, 1380. "To the apostles and elders," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, and Authorised. dire8ex8qcrav imb rrjs eKKXqwias Kal rS>v dirocrroXav Kal tcov irpecr- fivrepcov. Acts xv. 4. " They werun resceyued of the chirche, and of the apostlis, and of the elder men," Wiclif. " They were received of the congregation, and of the apostles and elders," Tyndale, Cranmer. " They were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders," Geneva version, and Authorised. "2,vvqx8qcrav 8e oi dirdoroXoi Kal oi irpecrfivTepoi. Acts XV. 6. " And the apostlis and elder men camen 'togidre," Wiclif. "And the apo stles and elders came together," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Autho rised. "And the apostles and ancients assembled," Rhemish version. Tote e8o£e rois diroaroXois Kal rots irpeo'fivTepois crvv &Xr) 777 «- KXqo-ia. Acts xv. 22. " Thanne it plesid to the apostles and to the elder men with alle the chirche," Wiclif. "Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer. " Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church," Geneva, Authorised version. °' 16—2 244 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. bibles reSi tion,* and of the apostles and elders." Again, " The apostles and elders "church." came together to reason of this matter." Again, "Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole congregation to send," &c. Again, "The apostles and elders send greeting," &c. Again, "They delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and Acts xvi. elders." If in all these places they had translated " priests," as indeed they should have done according to the Greek word, it had then disad vantaged them this much, that men would have thought both the dignity of priests to be great, and also their authority in councils, as being here joined with the apostles, to be greatly reverenced and obeyed. To keep the people from all such holy and reverent cogitations of priests, they put " elders," a name wherewith our holy christian forefathers' ears were never acquainted in that sense. Fulke, 4. Fulke. In all those places by you rehearsed, Acts xv. and xvi., your own vulgar Latin text hath seniores, which you had rather call " ancients" (as the French Protestants call the governors of their churches,) than " elders," as we do. That popish priests should have any dignity or authority in councils, we do flatly deny : but that the seniors, ancients, elders, or priests (if you will) of the New Testament, should have as much dignity and authority as God's word doth afford them, we desire with all our hearts. That " our christian forefathers' ears were not acquainted with the name of 'elders,' " it was because the name of priest in their time sounded ac cording to the etymology, and not according to the cor ruption of the papists: otherwise I think their ears were as much acquainted with the name of " elders," which- we use, as with the name of " ancients," and " seniors," that you have newly taken up, not for that they differ in signification from elders, but because you would differ from us. Oi airocrToXoi Kal 01 irpecrfivTepoi Kal oi d8eX(f)ol rots Kara rqv 'Avnoxeiav Kal Svplav xafalv- Acts xv. 23. " Apostlis and elder britheren," Wiclif. "The apostles, elders and brethren, send greet ings," Tyndale, Cranmer. " The apostles and the elders and the bre thren send greetings," Geneva. " The apostles and elders and brethren," Authorised version. irape8l8ovv abrois (pvXdcrcreiv to Soypara rd KeKpipeva virb Tcov diroo-ToXaiv Kai tcov irpecrfivTepmv tcov iv 'lepovcraXqp. Acts xvi. 4. " They dehvered them the decrees for to keep ordained of the apo-, sties and elders," Tyndale, Geneva. "They delivered them the de crees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders," Cranmer, Authorised version.] V'J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 245 Martin. But let us go forward. We have heard often and of old Martin, 5. time, of making of priests ; and of late years also, of making ministers ; but did ye ever hear in all England of making "elders" ? Yet by these men's translations it hath been in England a phrase of scripture this thirty year; but it must needs be very strange, that this making of "elders" hath not all this while been practised and known, no, not among themselves in any of their churches within the realm of England. To Titus they make the apostle say thus: "For this cause left I thee in Tit. i. Creta, that thou shouldst ordain elders in every city," &c. Again, of Paul and Barnabas : " When they had ordained elders by election in mis irpee- every congregation." Acts xiv.1 If they had said plainly, as it is in the f J^S^J; Greek, and as our forefathers were wont to speak, and the truth is, Bib. an. 1562. " Titus was left in Creta to ordain priests in every city ;" and, " Paul and Barnabas made priests in every church ;" then the people would have understood them : they know such speeches of old, and it had been their joy and comfort to hear it specified in holy scriptures. Now they are told another thing, in such newness of speeches and words, of " elders" to be made in every city and congregation, and yet not one city nor congregation to have any elders in all England, that we know not what is profane novelty of words, which the apostle willeth to be avoided, if l Tim. vi. this be not an exceeding profane novelty. Fulke. When you have gotten a bauble, you make more Fulke, 6. of it than of the Tower of London; for you have never done playing with it. It must needs be a clerkly argument that is drawn from the vulgar speeches of "making priests," and "making ministers." Those priests or ministers that are made among us, are the same " elders" that the scripture in Greek calleth irpecrfivTepovs, and the bishop's letters of orders, testi fying of their ordination, call them by none other name, but by the name of presbyteri, which the scripture useth : which term though in Enghsh you sound it priests, elders, ancients, seniors, or niinisters, which is the common people's word, P koi KaTacrrqcrrjs Kara ir6Xiv irpeo-fivTepovs. Titus i. 5. " And prdeyne preetis by citees," Wiclif. "And shouldest ordain elders in every city," Tyndale, Cranmer, 1539, 1562, Bishops' bible, 1514, Geneva ; Authorised version. XeipoTOvqo-avres 8e abrbis irpearjivTepovs Kar iKKXqcriav. Acts xiv. 23. "Et cum constituissent illis per singulas ecclesias presbyteros," Vulg. v. 22. "And whanne thei hadden ordeyned preestis to him bi alle citees," Wiclif. "And when they had ordained them elders by elec tion in every congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer. "And when they had ordained them elders by election in every church," Geneva. "And when they had ordained them elders in every church," Au thorised version.] 246 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. it is the same office which is described by the Holy Ghost, Tit. i., and in other places of scripture. As for the "profane novelty," wherewith this word "elder" is changed, we will con sider of it in the next section. Martin 6. Martin. That it is novelty to all English christian ears, it is evident And it is also profane, because they do so English the Greek word of vetpoTo- ordaining (for of the word presbyter we will speak more anon), as if vetv. they should translate Demosthenes or the laws of Athens concerning their choosing of magistrates, which was by giving voices with lifting up their hands. So they do force this word here, to induce the people's election; and yet in their churches in England the people elect not xeipo-rovij- ministers, but their bishop. Whereas the holy scripture saith, they o-ai/Tes ordained to the people ; and whatsoever force the word hath, it is here spoken ofthe apostles, and pertaineth not to the people; and therefore KaTao-Ttj- in the place to Titus it is another word which cannot be forced further f£'i than to " ordain and appoint." And they might know, if malice and heresy would suffer them to see and confess it, that the holy scriptures, and fathers, and ecclesiastical custom, hath drawn this and the like words from their profane and common signification to a more peculiar and ecclesiastical speech: as episcopus, an "overseer" in Tully, is a " bishop" in the New Testament. Fulke, 6. Fulke. The name " elders," used in our translation, is neither more novel to Enghsh ears, nor more profane to godly ears, than the name " ancients," which your translation useth. And yet I think the apostle, 1 Tim. vi., spake not of novelty to Enghsh ears, but of that which was new to the ears of the church of God. But the word " elders" (I ween) must be profane, because we "English the Greek word of ordaining, as if we should translate Demosthenes or the laws of Athens concerning the choosing of magistrates." Doth not this cavil redound more against the Holy Ghost, to accuse his style of profaneness, which useth the same words for the ordering of priests, that Demosthenes or the laws of Athens P XeipoTOvqcravres 8e avTols irpecrfivrepovs KaT ixicXqcrtav. Actsxiv.23. "And when they had ordained them elders by election in every congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer. "In every church," Bishops' bible, Geneva, Authorised version. " Priests in every church," Rhemish version. Kal KaracrTqcrrjs Kara iroXiv wpeo-^vrepovs. Titus i. 5. "Ordain elders," all the versions, except the Rhemish, which has, "Ordain priests."] VI.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 247 might use for choosing of their magistrates ? But this word we "enforce (you say) to induce the people's election, and yet the bishop, not the people, elect our ministers." We mean not to enforce any other election than the word doth signify. Neither doth our bishops (if they do well) ordain any ministers or priests without the testimony of the people, or at least wise, of such as be of most credit where they are known. Where you urge the pronoun uvtoIs, " to them," as though the people gave no consent nor testimony, it is more than ridicu lous; and beside that, contrary to the practice of the primitive church for many hundred years after the apostles ; as also that you would enforce upon the words KaTao-Tfjcrai, used by St Paul, Tit. i., as though that word of "constitution" did ex clude election. That the word ¦^eipoTovia by the fathers of the church since the apostles hath been drawn to other signi fication than it had before, it is no reason to teach us how it was used by the apostles. Election is an indifferent thing : the election of bishops, elders, or priests, is an holy thing, the holiness whereof is not included in the word -^eiporoveiv, but in the holy institution of Christ, and authority by his appointment dehvered by imposition of the hands of the eldership. Martin. And concerning xelP0T0V"l> which we now speak of, St. Martin, 7. Jerome8 telleth them in chap, lviii. Esai. that it signifieth clericorum Greg. Nazian. ordinationem, that is, "giving of holy orders," which is done not only i.^^a'/ierd by prayer of the voice, but by imposition of the hand, according to St •"i" To5 Paul unto Timothy, manus dto nemini imposueris, " Impose or put hands ZoVy"Z0e. quickly on no man :" that is, be not hasty or easy to give holy orders, -rovtav, and Where these great etymologists, that so strain the original nature of this lZe*p°™* word to profane stretching forth the hand in elections, may learn i")0»j. ignat. another ecclesiastical etymology thereof, as proper and as well deduced o/irishops, of the word as the other, to wit, putting forth the hand to give orders ; /3<"rT'&01'- and so they shall find it is all one with that which the apostle caUeth yovo-i, x«- " imposition of hands," 1 Tim. iv. 2 Tim, i.; and consequently, for f»™»««. p Plerique nostrorum xilPmovua't id est, ordinationem clericorum, quse non solum ad imprecationem vocis, sed ad impositionem impletur manus; ne scilicet, ut in quibusdam risimus, vocis imprecatio clan- destina clericos ordinet nescientes. Comment. Hieronymi in Isaise c. lviii. Opera, Vol. ni. p. 432.] [3 Gregor. Nazian. Edit. Paris. Morell. 1630. 1. 6. 7. The titles quoted are from 1 and 7.] 248 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH fcff. rovo-i. ^ " ordaining elders by election," they should have said, " ordaining or See™"*' makmg priests by imposition of hands;" as elsewhere St Paul, 1 Tim, v. ™i/ x«- and the Acts of the Apostles, Acts vi. and xiii., do speak in the ordain- <"""' ing of the seven deacons, and of St Paul and Barnabas. Fulke, 7. Fulke. The testimony of St Jerome, whom you cite; m isai. iviii. yOU understand not ; for speaking there of the extension of the finger, which the Septuaginta translate ¦yeiporoviav, " and God requireth to be taken away," he saith : " Many of our interpreters do understand it of the ordination of clerks, which is performed not only at the imprecation of voice, but also at the imposition of hands, lest (as we have laughed at in some men) the secret imprecation of the voice should ordain clerks, being ignorant thereof." And so proceedeth to inveigh against the abuse of them that would ordain clerks of their basest officers and servitors, yea, at the request of foohsh women. By which it is manifest, that his purpose is not to tell what yeipoTov'ia properly doth signify, but that imposition of hands is required in lawful ordination, which many did understand by the word yeiporovia, although in that place it signified no such matter. And therefore you must seek further authority to prove your ecclesiastical etymology, that ^eiporovia signifieth putting forth of the hands to give orders. The places you quote in the margin, out of the titles of Nazianzen's sermons, are to no purpose, although they were in the text of his homilies. For it ap- peareth not, although by synecdoche the whole order of making clerks were called ^eiporovia, that election was ex cluded, where there was ordination by imposition of hands. As for that you cite out of Ignatius, [it] proveth against you,- that ^eipoTovelv differeth from " imposition of hands ;" be cause it is made a distinct office from ^etpoOeTetv, that signi fieth to "lay on hands": and so ^etpoTovia and emdeais twv %eipwv by your own author do differ. Martin, 8. Martin. But they are so profane and secular, that they translate the Greek word irpeo-fivrepos in all the New Testament, as if it had the old profane signification still, and were indifferent to signify the "ancients of the Jews," "the senators of Rome," "the elders of Lacedsemonia," and ¦roos wpea- "the christian clergy." Insomuch that they say, "Paul sent to Ephesus, vTepovs. ^ caiie(j the elders of the church," Acts xx. ; and yet they were such as ?*•] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 249 had their flocks and cure of souls, as followeth in the same place. They make St Paul speak thus to Timothy: "Neglect not the gift," (so they x?P"rp«. had rather say than "gi'ace," lest holy orders should be a sacrament,)*77. ' "given thee with the laying on of the hands of the eldership," or, "by TOc Tpeo.. the authority of the eldership1." 1 Tim. iv. What is this company of fivrepiov. "eldership"? Somewhat they would say like to the apostle's word ; but they will not speak plainly, lest the world might hear out of the scrip tures, that Timothy was made priest or bishop even as the use is in the catholic church at this day. Let the fourth council of Carthage speak can. 3. in the for both parts indifferently, and tell us the apostle's meaning : "A priest where!'. Au- when he taketh his orders, the bishop blessing him and holding his gU^tand hand upon his head, let all the priests also that are present hold their subscribed. hands by the bishop's hand upon his head." So do our priests at this day, when a bishop maketh priests ; and this is the laying on of the hands of the company of priests, which St Paul speaketh of, and which they translate, "the company of the eldership." Only their former translation of 1562 in this place (by what chance or conside ration we know not) let fall out of the pen, "by the authority of priesthood." Fulke. We desire not to be more holy in the Enghsh Fulke, 8. terms, than the Holy Ghost was in the Greek terms : whom if it pleased to use such a word as is indifferent to signify the " ancients of the Jews," " the senators of Home," " the elders of Lacedsemonia," and " the christian clergy," why should we not truly translate it into Enghsh ? P Mq dpeXel tov iv crol yapeVjuaTOf, t i868q croi 8id irpocpqTetas ft€Ta emdetrecos tcov xa?^v T°v irpecrfivTepiov. 1 Tim. iv. 14. "Noli negligere gratiam, quae in te est, quae data est tibi per prophetiam," Vulg. " The grace which is in thee," Wiclif. " Despise not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee through prophecy, and with laying on of the hands of an elder," Tyndale, 1534. " Despise not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee through prophecy, with the laying on of hands by the authority of the priesthood," Cranmer, 1539, 1662. "Despise not that gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands by the eldership," ¦ Geneva Test. 1557. "Despise not the gift, &c. with the laying on of the hands of the company of the eldership," Geneva bible, 1560. " Despise not the gift, &c. with the laying on of hands by the au thority of the eldership," Bishops' bible, 1584. "Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which is given thee by prophecy, with impo sition of the hands of priesthood," Rheims. 1582. " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying pn of the hands of the presbytery," Authorised version. "Despise not the gift," Edit. 1579, 1568.] 250 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. But I pray you in good sadness, are we so profane and secular, Acts xx., in calhng those whom Saint Paul sent for out of Ephesus, " elders "? What shall we say then of the vulgar Latin text, which calleth them majores natu, as though they obtained that degree by years, rather than by anything else ? And why do you so profanely and secularly call them the " ancients of the church "? Is there more pro- faneness and secularity in the Enghsh word " elders," than in the Latin word majores natu, or in your French-English term, "ancients"? Surely you do nothing but play with the noses of such as be ignorant in the tongues, and can perceive no similitude or difference of these words, but by the sound of their ears. But now for the word irpeo^vTepiov, used by St Paul, 1 Tim. iv., which we call the " eldership," or " the company of elders," I have shewed before, how it is used by St Luke in bis gospel, chap, xxii., and Acts xxii. Tou say, we "will not speak plainly, lest the world should hear that Timothy was made priest or bishop even as the use is in the catholic church at this day." And then you tell us, out of the council of Carthage, 4 chap, that all the priests present should lay their hands on the head of him that is ordained, together with the bishop. We know it well, and it is used in the church of England at this day. Only the term of " eldership" displeaseth you, when we mean thereby the com pany of elders. But whereas the translators of the bible, 1562, called it " priesthood," either by priesthood they meant the same that we do by " eldership ;" or if they meant by "priesthood" the office of priests, or elders, they were de ceived. For irpecrfivTepiov signifieth " a company of elders," as it is twice used by St Luke, and oftentimes by the ancient writers of the church, both Greeks and Latins. Martin, 9. Martin. Otherwise in all their English bibles all the bells ring one note1, as, " The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour." p Oi KaXas irpoecrrcoTes irpecrpvTepoi SiirXrjs npqs d£iovcr8ao-av. 1 Tim. v. 17. " Qui bene praesunt presbyteri, duplici honore digni ha- beantur," Vulg. "The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour," Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539, 1562; Bishops' bible, 1584, Geneva, 1560. " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour," Authorised version. " The priests that rule well, let them be esteemed worthy of double honour," Rheims. VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 251 And, "Against an elder receive no accusation, but under two or three witnesses," 1 Tim. v. And, " If any be diseased among you, let him to&s irpeo-- call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, and P"Y£kkX - anoint him with oil," &c. Jacob, v. Whereas St Chrysostom out of o-i'as. this place proveth the high dignity of priests in remitting sins, in his sacerdotio. book entitled, " Of Priesthood," unless they will translate that title irepl Upu>- also, " Of Eldership." Again, they make St Peter say thus : " The elders <7"'"'s- which are among you I exhort, which am also an elder, feed ye Christ's flock, as much as lieth in you," &c. 1 Pet. v. In these three texts you triumph not a httle, Fulke, 9. because your vulgar Latin text hath the Greek word pres byter. "The high dignity of priests, or elders, in remitting sins," we acknowledge with Chrysostom, in bis book entitled " Of Priesthood :" which seeing it is irepl \epwovvns, we will never translate " eldership." But we may lawfully wish, that both Chrysostom and other ancient writers had kept that distinction of terms, which the apostles and evangelists did so precisely observe. In the last text, 1 Pet. v., your vulgar Latin saith, seniores and consenior, yourselves in Enghsh, " seniors," and " fellow senior." What trespass then have we committed, in saying " elders," and " fellow elder," or an elder also ? Martin. Where if they will tell us, as also in certain other places, Martin, that our Latin translation hath seniores, and majores natu : we tell them, as heretofore we have told them, that this is nothing to them, s- ^ifj™1 ' ' ° ' readeth, who profess to translate the Greek. Again we say, that if they meant fresbyteros 6£T0 compres- no worse than the old Latin translator did, they would be as indifferent byter, Ep.as. as he to have said sometime "priests" and "priesthood," when he hath in i. ad Gal. proving the Kara irpecr^VTipov Karqyoptav pq irapadexov. 1 Tim. V. 19. "Ad- versus presbyterum accusationem noli recipere," Vulg. "Against an elder receive none accusation," Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops' bible, Geneva, Authorised version. " Against a priest receive not accusation," Wiclif, Rheims. irpocrKaXecrdcrda) robs irpeo-fivrepovs Tqs i/CKKqcrlas. James V. 14. "Inducat presbyteros ecclesiae," Vulg. "Let him call for the elders of the congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer. " Let him call for the elders of the church," Geneva, Bishops' bible, 1684. Authorised version. "Let him bring in the priests of the church," Rheims. Upeo-^vrepovs robs iv iipiv irapaKaXco 6 ovpirpco-fHrepos. 1 Pet. v. 1. " Seniores ergo, qui in vobis sunt, obsecro, consenior," Vulg. " The elders which are among you, I exhort, which am also an elder," Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops' bible, Geneva, Authorised version. " The seniors therefore that are among you, I beseech, myself a fellow senior with them," Rheims, 1582.] 252 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. dignity of the words presbyteros and presbyterium; as we are indifferent in our yethiGaUv. translation, saying "seniors" and "ancients," when we find it so in our accordtagto Latin; being well assured that by sundry words he meant but one Latintext tnmg> ^ m Greek it is but one, and as both Erasmus and also Beza vobis roEo1 himself always translate it, keeping the name presbyter and presbyteri; consenior et 0f whom by reason they should have learned, rather than of our Latin ipse. Where- J J ' byitisevi- translator, whom otherwise they condemn. And if they say they do dent, that se- ' J J J J niorhere.and follow them, and not him, because they translate not senior and is a priest, ' major natu, but the word presbyter, or irpeo-fivrepos, an " elder," in all trary, pres- " places; we tell them, and herein we convent their conscience, that they elder? an d° it ^ take away the external priesthood of the New Testament, and to suppress the name " priest," against the ecclesiastical, and (as now since Christ) very proper and usual signification thereof, in the New Testament, councils, and fathers, in all common writing and speaking; specially the Latin presbyter, which grew to this signification out of the Greek, in the foresaid places of holy scripture. Fulke, Fulke. I have told you already, and you could not but know that it should be told you, that seeing we translate none otherwise than your vulgar Latin translator, we are no more to be blamed of falsehood, corruption, profaneness, novelty, than he is, who professed to translate the Greek as much as we do. But if we had meant no worse (say you) than he, we would have been as indifferent to have said some times " priest" and " priesthood," where he hath the word presbyteros and presbyterium. I answer, presbyterium he hath but once, and for that you have " priesthood" once, as you confessed before. And if the name " priest" were of the same understanding in common Enghsh that the word presbyter is, from whence it is derived, we would never have sought more words for it, than we do for the words "bishop," "dea con," and such like. The words presbyter and presbyterium you confess that Beza doth always use : and so do we, when we write or speak Latin ; but we cannot use them in Enghsh, except we should be as fond as you in your gratis, depositum, and such fantasies. And to tell you plainly, as our conscience beareth us witness, we will never dissemble, that we avoid that word '*' priest," as it is used to signify a sacrificer, because we would shew a perfect distinction between the priesthood of the law and the ministry of the gospel, between sacerdos and presbyter, a sacrificer and a governor of the church, And I appeal to your own conscience, whether, if the English ?!•] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 253 word " priest" were as indifferent as presbyter, and sounded no more towards a sacrifice than either presbyter or your own Enghsh words " ancient" and " senior," whether (I say) you would make so much ado about it, for to have it in all places of the New Testament, where irpecrfivTepos is in the Greek ? But seeing your popish sacrificing power, and blasphemous sacrifice of your mass, hath no manner ground at all in the holy scriptures, either in the original Greek, or in your own Latin translation, you are driven to seek a silly shadow for it in the abusive acception and sounding of the English word " priest" and " priesthood." And therefore you do, in the second section of this chapter, in great earnest affirm, that " priest, sacrifice, and altar" are dependents, and consequents, one of another, so that they cannot be separated. If you should say in Latin sacerdos, sacrificium, altare, or in Greek lepevs, 9vcria r\ irpoarcpopa, Kal QvoiacrTnpiov be such consequents, we will also subscribe unto you : but if you will change the word, and say presbyter, sacrificium, altare, or irpeafivTe- pos, Ovcria, Qvo-iao~TT\piov, every learned man's ears will glow, 'to hear you say they are dependents and consequents in separable. Therefore we must needs distinguish of the word " priest" in your corollary : for [if] you mean thereby sacerdo- tem, we grant the consequence of sacrifice and altar ; but if you mean presbyterium \_presbyterum\, we deny that ever God joined those three in an unseparable band; or that presbyter, in that he is presbyter, hath any thing to do with sacrifice or altar, more than senior, or major natu, or ancient, or elder. Martin. Insomuch that immediately in the first canons and councils Mabtin, of the apostles and their successors, nothing is more common than this distinction of ecclesiastical degrees and names, si episcopus, vel presbyter, Apostconci, vel diaconus1, &c. : " If any bishop, or priest, or deacon" do this or that. iJnat. cone. Which if the protestants or Calvinists will translate after their manner ^ 'lPet'vf** thus, " If a bishop, or elder, or deacon," &c, they do against themselves, which make presbyter or " elder" a common name to all ecclesiastical persons, and not a peculiar degree next unto a bishop. So that either they must condemn all antiquity for placing presbyter in the second degree after a bishop; or they must translate it "priest," as we do; or they must make "elder" to be their second degree, and so put "minister" out of place. [} Aut, not vel, in Labbe, Vol. i. p. 52.] 254 A DEFENCE OF THB ENGLISH [CH. Fulke, 11. Fulke. The distinction of episcopus and presbyter to signify several offices, we grant to be of great antiquity; albeit we may not admit the counterfeit canons of the apostles, nor the epistles of Ignatius, for such men's writings as they bear the name to be. We make presbyter, or " elder," a common name to all ecclesiastical persons, none otherwise than you do this word " priest :" for deacons with us are not called presbyteri, or "elders." As for the distinction of bishops' and elders' names, which the scripture taketh for the same, doth no more " condemn all antiquity" in us, than in you, who acknowledge that the scripture useth those names with out distinction, in your note upon Acts xx. v. 28, where they are called " bishops," which before, v. 17, are called irpecrfiv- Tepoi, which you translate "ancients," and expound "priests ;" and thus you write : " Bishops or priests (for those names were sometimes used indifferently), governors of the church of God, and placed in that room and high function by the Holy Ghost." But it seemeth you have small regard to' defend your own notes, so you might find occasion to quarrel at our words. Martin, 12. oWkoi/os. Diaconus. S. Tim. iii. Bib. 1577. 1679. Prebstre.Prete. Martin. And here we must ask them, how this name "minister'' came to be a degree distinct from a deacon, whereas by their own rule of translation, "deacon" is nothing else but a "minister;" and why keep they the old and usual ecclesiastical name of " deacon" in trans lating diaconus, and not the name of " priest" in translating presbyter ? Doth not "priest" come oi presbyter as certainly and as agreeably as "deacon'' of diaconus? Doth not also the French and Italian word for "priest" come directly from the same? Will you always follow fancy and not reason, do what you list, translate as you list, and not as the truth is, and that in the holy scriptures, which you boast and vaunt so much of? Because yourselves have them whom you call bishops, the name "bishops" is in your English bibles; which otherwise by your own rule of translation should be called an "overseer" or "superin tendent :" likewise " deacon" you are content to use as an ecclesiastical word so used in antiquity, because you also have those whom you call "deacons." Only "priests" must be turned contemptuously out ofthe text of the holy scriptures, and " elders" put in their place, because you have no priests, nor will none of them, and because that is in con troversy between us. And as for elders, you have none permitted in England, for fear of overthrowing your bishops' office and the Queen's supreme government in all spiritual things and causes. Is not this to follow the humour of your heresy, by Machiavel's_politic rules, without any fear of God ? VI-] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 255 Fulke. Here I must answer you, that we have no Fulke degree of ministers distmct from deacons, but by vulgar and 12< f popular use of speaking, which we are not curious to control. ( Otherwise, in truth, we account bishops, elders, and deacons, all ministers of the church. It is no more, therefore, but the common speech of men, which useth that word, which is common to all ecclesiastical persons, as pecuhar to the elders, or priests. Why we keep the name of " deacons" in translating diaconus, rather than of "priests" in translating presbyter, I have told you often before. The name " priest" being by long abuse of speech applied to signify sacrificers of the Old Testament, called lepels, we could not give the same name to the ministers of the New Testament, except we had some other name, whereby to call the ministers of the Old Testa ment : wherein we follow reason, and not fancy ; for it is great reason we should retain that difference in names of the ministers of both the testaments, which the Holy Ghost doth always observe. But you follow fancy altogether, imagining that " priests" only are put out of the text, because we have no priests : whereas we have priests as well as we have bishops and deacons ; and so they are called in our Book of Common Prayer indifferently "priests," or "ministers." And where you say, we "have no elders permitted in England," it is false ; for those that are commonly called bishops, ministers, or priests among us, be such " elders" as the scripture com- mendeth unto us. And although we have not such a con sistory of elders of government, as in the primitive church ) they had, and many churches at this day have; yet have we also elders of government to exercise discipline, as arch bishops, and bishops, with their chancellors, archdeacons, commissaries, officials; in whom if any defect be, we wish it may be reformed according to the word of God. Martin. "Apostles" you say for the most part in your translations (not Martin, always), as we do, and "prophets," and "evangelists," and "angels," and 13- such like ; and wheresoever there is no matter of controversy between you and us, there you can plead very gravely for keeping the ancient ecclesias tical words ; as your master Beza, for example, beside many other places Beza in cap. where he bitterly rebuketh his fellow Castaleon's translation, in one place 25, &e.' writeth thus: "I cannot in this place dissemble the boldness of certain in^cap.' men, which would God it rested within the compass of words only ! JJat- num- These men therefore, concerning the word baptizing, though used of Baptizo. 256 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. Baptism. Baptizo.Mediator. sacred writers in the mystery or sacrament of the new testament, and for so many years after, by the secret consent of all churches, consecrated to this one sacrament, so that it is now grown into the vulgar speeches almost of all nations, yet they dare presume rashly to change it, and in place thereof to use the word " washing." Delicate men forsooth, which neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so many ages, nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speech can be brought to think that lawful for divines, which all men grant to other masters and professors of arts; that is, to retain and hold that as their own, which by long use and in good faith they have truly possessed. Neither may they pretend the authority of some ancient writers, as that Cyprian saith tingentes for baptixantes, and Tertullian in a certain place calleth sequestrem for mediatorem. For that which was to those ancients as it were new, to us is old : and even then, that the selfsame words which we now use were familiar to the church, it is evident, because it is very seldom that they speak otherwise. But these men by this novelty seek after vain glory," &c. Fulke,13. Fulke. If in any place we use not the name of the "apostles," "prophets," "evangelists," "angels," and suchlike, we are able to give as sufficient a reason why we translate those words according to their general signification, as you for translating sometime baptismata, "washings," and not bap tisms ; ecclesia " the assembly," and not the church, with such like. Therefore as Castaleo and such other heretics are justly reprehended by Beza for leaving (without cause) the usual ecclesiastical terms ; so when good cause or necessity requireth not to use them, it were superstition, yea, and almost madness sometimes, in translating to use them; as to call the Pharisees' washings " baptisms," or the assembly of the Ephesian idolaters " the church ;" yet both in Greek and Latin the words are baptismata, ecclesia. Martin, 14. etdtoXov. Confut. of the Reas. fol. 35. pe-rdvoia.fieh-avoelv, Martin. He speaketh against Castaleon, who in his new Latin trans lation of the bible changed all ecclesiastical words into profane and heathenish ; as angelos into genios, prophetas into fatidicos, templum into fanum, and so forth. But that which he did for foolish affectation of fineness and style, do not our English Calvinists the very same, when they list, for furthering their heresies ? When the holy scripture saith " idols," according as Christians have always understood it, for false gods, they come and tell us out of Homer and the lexicons, that it may signify an image, and therefore so they translate it. Do they not the like in the Greek word that by ecclesiastical use signifieth " penance," and " doing penance," when they argue out of Plutarch, and by the profane sense thereof, that it is nothing else but changing of the mind or amendment VI-J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 257 of life ? Whereas in the Greek church poenitentes, that is, they that were in the course of penance, and excluded from the church, as catechumeni and energumeni, till they had accomplished their penance, the very same are called in the Greek oi iv peTavoia ovres. Fulke. That Castaleo " did for foohsh affectation of fine- Fulke, ness," you slander us to do "for furthering of heresy." And 14- here again with loathsomeness you repeat your rotten quarrel H!er.ycap.C3. of idols translated " images," which was to discover your abo minable idolatry, cloaked under a blind and false distinction of images and idols. The word peTavoia we translate "re pentance ;" as you do sometimes, when you cannot for shame use your popish term " penance," by which you understand satisfaction for sin, which in divers places you are enforced to give over in the plain field, and to use the term "repentance ;" as in the fifth of the Acts8 : "This Prince and Saviour God hath exalted with bis right hand to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins3 ;" likewise Acts xi., where the scripture speaketh of God giving "repentance to the gentiles." And when you speak of Judas, you say also " repenting him4 :" so that the repentance of Judas, and that which God gave to Israel and to the gentiles, is uttered in one term ; whereas else you have almost everywhere "penance," and "doing of penance." Where you say we make repentance nothing but changing of the mind, or amendment of life, you speak un truly ; for not every changing of the mind is godly repent ance, neither is only amendment of life all repentance : but there must be contrition and sorrow for the hfe past. That in the Greek church they that were catechumeni, and ener- Q1 Martin appears to have had the following passage of the 19th Canon of the Council of Laodicea in his mind, when he wrote this : " Mera to i^eXdeiv robs Karqxovpevovs, tcov ev peTavoia rqv ebxqv ytvecrffai. Quibus (catechumenis) egressis, orent etiam hi qui in pcenitentia sunt constituti." Ed. 1559. p. 34.] P Sovvai perdvoiav tco 'icrpaqX Kal acpecriv dpapncov, Acts V. 31. " To give repentance to Israel and remission of sins," Rhemish Version, 1582.] p* "Apaye Kal rots edvecriv 6 Bebs rf/v perdvoiav ehcoKev els faqv, Acts xi. 18. "God then to the Gentiles also hath given repentance unto life," Rhemish version, 1582.] r4 on KareKpidq, perapeXqdels, Matt, xxvif. " Seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself," Rhemish version.] r 1 17 [fulke. J 258 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. gumeni, were called ev peTavoia ovtcs, " such as are in re pentance," it maketh nothing against the true use of the Greek word, as it is used in the scriptures. We know the discipline of the church appointed an outward exercise of praying, fast ing, and other humbling, for a trial and testimony of true and hearty repentance, which was sometimes called by the name of repentance by a metonymia signi ; which he that will enforce by that name to be parts of true and inward re pentance, is as wise as he that will contend the ivy-bush to be a part of wine, because some men, seeing it hang over the house, will say, Lo, here is wine. Martin, Martin. They therefore leaving this ecclesiastical signification, and 15- translating it according to Plutarch, do they not much like to Castaleo \ Do they not the same against the famous and ancient distinction of Latria. latria and dulia, when they tell us out of Eustathius upon Homer, and Bezahi 4. Aristophanes the grammarian, that these two are all one ? Whereas we Mat. num. 10. prove out 0f st Augustine1 in many places, the second council of Nice, and Xa- Venerable Bede, and the long custom of the church, that according to Bcripture> 'ai- ^e ecclesiastical sense and use deduced out of the scriptures they differ most always very much. Do they not the like in mysterium and sacramentum, which service and honour pro per to God. civitfiieifii. [' Hie est enim divinitati vel, si expressius dicendum est, deitati debitus cultus, propter quem uno verbo significandum quoniam mihi satis idoneum non occurrit Latinum, Graeco ubi necesse est insinuo quid velim dicere. Aarpeiav quippe nostri, ubicumque sanctarum scrip- turarum positum est, interpretati sunt servitutem. Sed ea servitus, quse debetur hominibus, secundum quam prsecepit apostolus servos dominis suis subditos esse debere, alio nomine Grece nuncupari solet : Xarpela vero, secundum consuetudinem qua locuti sunt qui nobis divina eloquia condiderunt, aut semper, aut tarn frequenter ut paene semper, ea dicitur servitus quae pertinet ad colendum Deum. Augustini de Civitate Dei, Lib. x. c. i. Opera, Vol. vii. p. 381.] [a Upon the 33rd verse of the 23rd chapter of Exodus, Augustme thus speaks : Hie Graecus CovXevo-gs habet, non XaTpevcrrjs. Unde intelli- gitur, quia et SovXela debetur Deo tanquam Domino, Xarpeia vero non- nisi Deo tanquam Deo. Quaestiones in Exodum. xciv. Opera, Vol. ni. p. 711. This distinction between the two words is frequently alluded to by Augustine: for instance, in his treatise against the sermon of the Arians, he says, " Et tamen, si apertissime legerent in Sanctis scripturis Salomonem regem lignis et lapidibus jussu Dei templum struxisse Spi- ritui Sancto, Deum esse Spiritum Sanctum dubitare non possent, cui tanta religionis servitus, quae latria dicitur, legitime exhiberetur in X. c. l. VI-J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 259 they translate a secret in the profane sense; whereas they know how these Bib. an. i«h. words are otherwise taken, both in Greek and Latin, in the church of God ? Did they not the like in the word ecclesia, when they translated it nothing else but "congregation"? Do they not the like in xeLP0TOVla> which they translate, ordaining by election, as it was in the profane court of Athens ; whereas St Hierom telleth them, that ecclesiastical writers take it for giving holy orders by imposition of hands ? Do they not the like in many other words, wheresoever it serveth their heretical purpose? And as for profane translation, is there any more profane than Beza himself, that so often in his annotations reprehendeth the old translation by the authority of Tully and Terence, Homer and Aristophanes, and the like profane authors ? yea, so fondly and childishly, that for olfactum, which Erasmus useth, as Pliny's word, he will needs say odoratum, because it is Tully 's word. Fulke. In translating the scripture, we use the word " re- Fulke, pentance" in the same signification that the scripture useth 15- /jieTdvota. In other ecclesiastical writers, we can neverthe less understand it as they mean it. Concerning that un learned distinction of latria and dulia, we do rightly to shew out of profane writers that it is vain, and that the terms signify all one ; and you yourself confess in your marginal note, that sometimes in the scripture XaTpevw and Xarpeia populo Dei, ut illi etiam templum fabricaretur; cum Dominus dicat, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies : quod in Graeco est, Xarpevo-eis." Cap. xx. also cap. xxix. Opera, Vol. vm. pp. 980 and 987. • Again, in his treatise on the Trinity, cap. xiii. he says, " Maxime vero illo loco satis claret, quod Spiritus Sanctus non sit creatura, ubi jubemur non servire creatura, sed creatori : non eo modo quo jubemur per caritatem servire invicem, quod est Graece SovXeveiv, sed eo modo quo tantum Deo servitur, quod est Greece Xarpeveiv." (Opera, Vol. vnr. p. 1164.) Other passages of a similar kind may be quoted ; but these are sufficient to shew the opinion of Augustine. On the other hand may be produced the following passages of scrip ture, to shew that it is doubtful whether there exists this nice distinction betwixt the two words. SeeMatt. vi. 24. Luke xvi. 13. Romans vii. 25 ; xvi. 18. Col. iii. 24. Gal. iv. 8. 1 Thess. i. 9. in which places SovXevco is used for serving God. The two words are frequently used promis cuously in scripture : Xarpeba is applied to the service of men, as well as God. Compare Deut. xxviii. 48. Lev. xxiii. 7, where Xarpevco is used in a servile sense. In the whole of the 4th chapter of Galatians BovXeico is applied to the worship of God. Nonnus interprets Xarpeia by Sov- Xocrivq and SovXos : for, says Casaubon, that unsound distinction which confines Xarpeia to God, and bovXoo-vvq to angels, had not arisen. 17—2 260 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. do not signify the service and honour that is proper to God: as for SovXevw, [it] is in more than an hundred places used for the service and honour proper to God. St Augus tine, you confess afterward, knew well but one tongue ; and therefore he is no meet judge of distinction of Greek words. Bede followeth Augustine's error. The idolaters of the second Nicene council were glad of a cloak for the rain, con trary to the property of their tongue ; as is proved by Eustatbius, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Suidas, and by later writers, no protestants, Laurentius Valla, and Ludovicus Vives. Mysterium we translate a "secret," or a "mystery," in differently ; the word signifying no more an holy secret, than a profane and abominable secret, as the " mystery of iniquity," "the mystery of Babylon." For the words ecclesia, and XeipoTovla, we have said sufficiently, and very lately. To use Tully's words, when they answer the Greek as properly as any barbarous words, or less commendable words, I know not why it should be counted blame-worthy in Beza, or in any man, except it be of such a sycophant as liketh nothing but that which savoureth of his own spittle. Mahtin, Martin. But to return to our English translators : do not they the like to profane Castaleo, and do they not the very same that Beza their master so largely reprehendeth, when they translate presbyterum "an elder ?" Is it not all one fault to translate so, and to translate, as Castaleo doth, baptismum washing ? Hath not presbyter been a peculiar and usual word for a priest, as long as baptismus for the sacrament of regeneration, which Castaleo altering into a common and profane word, is worthily reprehended 1 We will prove it hath, not for their sake, who know it well enough, but for the reader's sake, whom they abuse, as if they knew it not. Fitlke, Fulke. If it be as great a fault in us to translate pres byterum, "an elder," as for Castaleo to translate baptismum " washing ;" your vulgar translator must be in the same fault with us, which so often translateth presbyteros, seniores, or majores natu, which signify "elders," and not "priests:" it is a vain thing therefore that you promise to prove, that "pres byter hath been a pecuhar and usual word for a 'priest,' as long as baptismus for the sacrament of regeneration." For peculiar you can never prove it, seeing it is used in the scripture so often for such elders and ancients as you your- V1-J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 261 self would not call priests. So that, if you did translate the whole bible out of your own vulgar Latin, you must translate presbyter thrice an " elder" or " ancient," for once a "priest." Martin. In the first and second canon of the apostles we read thus : Mabtin, Episcopus a duobus aut tribus episcopis ordinetur. Presbyter ab una episcopo ordinetur, et diaconus, et alii clerid1 : that is, " Let a bishop be fcrlLtrfsS" consecrated or ordained by two or three bishops." " Let a priest be ^j1^* made by one bishop." See in the fourth council of Carthage the diverse ^l<*' time, manner of consecrating bishops, priests, deacons, &c. where St Augus- Can. 2, 3, 4. tine was present and subscribed. Again, Si quis presbyter contemnens Can A t episcopum suum, &c. : " If any priest contemning his bishop," make a 32- several congregation, and erect another altar, that is, make a schism or heresy, let him be deposed. So did Arius, being a priest, against his bishop Alexander. Again, " priests and deacons, let them attempt to do can. 40.* nothing without the bishop." The first council of Nice saith : " The holy can. 3.3 synod by all means forbiddeth, that neither bishop, nor priest, nor deacon, &c, have with them any foreign woman, but the mother, or sister, &c, in whom there is no suspicion." Again, " It is told the holy council, can. i4.< that in certain places and cities deacons give the sacraments to priests. This neither rule nor custom hath delivered, that they which have not authority to offer the sacrifice, should give to them that offer the body of Christ." The third council of Carthage, wherein St Augustine was, and to the which he subscribed, decreeth, "That in the sacraments of can. 245. the body and blood of Christ, there be no more offered than our Lord himself delivered, that is, bread and wine mingled with water." Wliich the sixth general council of Constantinople repeating and confirming, addeth : " If therefore any bishop or priest do not according to the order el ™ olv given by the apostles, mingling water with wine, but offer an unmingled » wp€a.Bi-' sacrifice, let him be deposed," &c. But of these speeches all councils be Tepos6. full : where we would gladly know of these new translators, how presby ter must be translated, either an " elder," or a " priest." Fulke. I think you have clean forgotten your promise Fulke, so lately made. That this word presbyter hath always been '• pecuhar for a "priest," you bring many testimonies, some coun terfeit, some authentical, in which the name of irpeofivTepos and presbyter is found ; but that in all them it is pecuhar Q1 Vel tribus Episcopis. Et reUqui cleri. Canon xxx. Concilia edit. Labbe, Vol. i. p. 26, not. xxxii.] [2 Can. xxxviii. Edit. Labbe.] [3 Can. iii. Vol. n. p. 28.] £* Can. xviii.] [6 Vol. n. p. 1170.] [" Can. xxxii. Vol. vi. p. 1157.] 262 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. for a " priest," you shew not at all. Some colour it hath of that you say, in the 14th canon of the Nicene council, and Carth. iii. c. 24, repeated Const, vi., where mention is made of sacrifice and offering ; for so they did improperly call the administration of the Lord's supper, in respect of the sacri fice of thanksgiving that was offered therein. After which phrase also, they called the ministers lepels and sacerdotes, "sacrificers." So they called that which indeed was a table of wood, an altar, and the inferior ministers Levites ; by which it appeareth they did rather allude to the names used in the Old Testament, than acknowledged a sacrificing priest hood, that might as properly be so called, as the priesthood after the order of Aaron was. Sometime they used the name of " sacrifice" and sacerdos generally, for rehgious ser vice, and the minister of rehgion, as the gentiles did. And hereof it is, that we read often of the sacrifices of bread and wine ; and in the canon of Carthage by you cited, Nee amplius in sacrificiis offeratur quam de uvis et frumentis1 : "And let no more be offered in the sacrifices, than that which is made of grapes and corn." This was bread and wine, not the natural body and blood of Christ. Wherefore these improper speeches prove not a sacrificing priesthood, whereby the natural body and blood of Christ should be offered in the mass, which is the mark you shoot at. Mahtin, 18. Ep. 2. ad Trallianos.to irperr- Bwrepiov. ol irpeffSv- ¦repot.Comment.in c. 7. Mi- chea. Ep. 85. ad Evangelum. Epitaph. Ne- potiani, c. 9. Martin. Do not all the fathers speak after the same manner, making always this distinction of "bishop" and "priest/' as of the first and second degree? St Ignatius, the apostle's scholar, doth he not place presbyterium, as he calleth it, and presbyteros, "priests," or the "college of priests," next after " bishops," and " deacons" in the third place, re peating it no less than thrice in one epistle, and commending the dignity of all three unto the people ? Doth not St Jerome the very same, saying, " Let us honour a bishop, do reverence to a priest, rise up to a deacon2 1" And when he saith, that as Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the temple, so are bishops, priests, and deacons in the church, for place [' Vol. n. 1170."] [2 Nolite credere in ducibus, non in episcopo, non in presbytero, non in diacono, non in qualibet hominum dignitate. * * • * * Honoremus episcopum, presbytero deferamus, assurgamus diacono ; et tamen non speremus in eis : quia hominis vana, et certa spes est in Domino. Com ment. Hieronymi in Michaeae, u. vii. Opera, Vol. m. p. 1549.] VI'J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 263 and degree* ; and in another place, speaking of the outrages done by the Vandals and such like, "Bishops were taken, priests slain, and diverse of other ecclesiastical orders; churches overthrown, the altars of Christ made stables for horses, the relics of martyrs digged up," &c.4 when he saith of Nepotian, fit clericus, et per solitos gradus presbyter ¦ordinatur ; "he becometh a man of the clergy, and by the accustomed degrees is made," what? a "priest," or an "elder"? when he saith, Mihi antepresbyterum sedere non licet, &c, doth he mean he could not sit above an elder, or above a priest, himself as then being not priest ? When he and Vincentius, as St Epiphanius writeth, of reverence to the degree, Ep. 60. apud were hardly induced to be made presbyteri, did they refuse the eldership ? What was the matter, that John the bishop of Jerusalem seemed to be so much offended with Epiphanius and St Jerome ? was it not because Epiphanius made Paulianus, St Jerome's brother, priest within the said Ep. 1. ad John's diocese? Fulke. Before the blasphemous heresy of the popish Fulke, sacrifice of the mass was established in the world, the fathers 18, did with more liberty use the terms of "sacrifice" and " sacri ficing priests ;" which improper speeches, since they have given occasion in the time of ignorance to maintain that blasphemous heresy, there is good reason that we should beware how we use any such terms, especially in translation of the scriptures. All the rest of the authorities you cite in this section, and five hundred more such as they are, speak of presbyter or irpecrfivTepos, which words we embrace : but of the English word "priest," as it is commonly taken for a sacrificer, or against this word " elder," they speak nothing ; for in all those places we may truly translate for presbyter an " elder." Martin. When all antiquity saith, Hieronymus Presbyter, Cecilius Mabtin, Presbyter, Ruffinus Presbyter, Philippus, Juvencus, Hesychius, Beda, "• presbyteri ; and when St Jerome so often in his Catalogue saith, such a man, presbyter; is it not for distinction of a certain order, to signify that they were priests, and not bishops ? namely, when he saith of St Chry- £3 Et ut sciamus traditiones apostolicas sumtas de veteri testamento, quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levitse in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi epis- copi et presbyteri et diaconi vendicant in ecclesia. Hieronymi Epist. c. i. ad Evangelum. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 803.] [4 Capti episcopi, interfecti presbyteri, et diversorum officia cleri corum. Subversse ecclesise, ad altaria Christi stabulati equi, martyrum effoss* reliquiae. Hieronymi, Epitaph. Nepotiani. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 274.] 2U A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. FULKK,19. sostom, Joannes presbyter Antioehenus, doth he not mean he was as then but a priest of Antioch ? Would he have said so, if he had written of him after he was bishop of Constantinople ? Fulke. All this while here is nothing for the Enghsh word "priest," in that respect we avoid it in translation ; nor against the word "elder," which we use, by which we mean none other thing than the scripture doth give us to under stand by the word irpecfivTepos. As for the distinction of episcopus and presbyter, which came in afterward, you your self confessed, as we heard of late, that it is not observed in the scriptures ; but the same men are called episcopi, which before were called presbyteri. And according to that dis tinction, you can allow but one bishop of one city at once : yet the scripture in divers places speaketh of many bishops of one city, as Acts xx., the bishops of Ephesus, called before presbyteri, " elders ;" also he saluteth the bishops and deacons of Philippi, Phil, i., where your note saith, that in the apostle's time there were not observed always distinct names of either function of bishop and priest. Would you have us to translate the scripture with distinction of names which the Holy Ghost maketh not, nor your vulgar Latin observeth, nor you yourself for shame can observe ? And if we should have translated for "elders" "priests," that distinction taken up after the apostle's times, or the writing of the scripture, had been never the more confirmed. Mabtin, Martin. But of all other places, we would desire these gay transla- 20, tors to translate this one place of St Augustine, speakmg of himself a inter Episto- bishop, and St Jerome a priest: Quanquam enim secundum honorum 97. in fine. ' vocabula, qua jam ecclesia usus obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major sit; tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est. Is not this the English thereof? " For although according to the titles or names of honour, which now by use of the church have prevailed, the degree of bishop be greater than priesthood, yet in many things Augustine is less than Jerome." Or doth it like them to translate it thus, "The degree of bishop is greater than eldership," &c. ? Again, against Julian the heretic, when he hath brought many testimonies of the holy doctors, that were all bishops, as of St Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Nazianzene, Chrysostom ; at length he cometh to St Jerome, who was no bishop, and saith, Nee sanctum Hieronymum, quia presbyter fuit, eontemnendum arbitreris; that is, "Neither must thou think that St Jerome, because he was hut a priest, therefore is to be contemned ; whose divine eloquence hath shined to us from the east even to the west, like a lamp ;" and so Lib. 1. c. 2. in line. VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 265 forth to his great commendation. Here is a plain distinction of an infe rior degree to a bishop, for the which the heretic Julian did easily con temn him. Is not St Cyprian full of the like places ? Is not all antiquity so full, that whiles I prove this, jmethinketh I prove nothing else but that snow is white ? Fulke. Of all other importune and unreasonable judges Fulke, you are one of the worst, that would enforce us to translate ¦ the scriptures, which you confess observeth not the distinction of bishops and priests, according to the fathers, which do almost always observe it. If we should translate those sen tences of St Augustine, we might use the word " priest" for presbyter, and "priesthood" for presbyterium; and if we use the words " elders" and " eldership," what offence I pray you were it, when by these names we understand notliing, but the same function and minister which Augustine doth ? That episcopus, a " bishop," was of very old time used to signify < a degree ecclesiastical higher than presbyter, an " elder" or "priest," we did never deny; we know it right well. We know | what St Jerome writeth upon the epistle to Titus, chap. i. Idem est ergo presbyter, qui episcopus1. " The same man is presbyter, or an ' elder,' or ' priest,' which is episcopus, a 'bishop.' And before that, by the instinct of the devil, factions were made in rehgion, and it was said among the people, ' I am of Paul, I of Apollo, and I of Cephas,' the churches were governed by common— counsel presbyterorum, ' of the elders.' But afterward, when every one thought those whom he had baptized to be bis own, and not Christ's, it was de creed in the whole world, that one de presbyteris, ' of the elders,' being elected, should be set over the rest, to whom all the care of the church should pertain, and the seeds of schisms should be taken away." This, and much more to this effect, writeth St Hieronyme of this distinction, in that place, and in divers other places; which nothing proveth that we [} Idem est ergo presbyter qui episcopus: et antequam diaboli in- stinctu studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi presbyterorum consilio ecclesise gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptiza- verat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur ceteris, ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur. Comment. Hiero nymi in Titum, c. i. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 413.] 266 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. are bound to translate presbyter in the scripture a " priest," and least of all, that we are bound in terms to keep that distinction, which the scripture maketh not, and the papists themselves cannot observe in their most partial translation. Martin, Martin. In all which places if they will translate "elder," and yet make the same a common name to all ecclesiastical degrees, as Beza 1 Pet. v. defineth it, let the indifferent reader consider the absurd confusion, or rather the impossibility thereof: if not, but they will grant in all these places it signifieth " priest," and so is meant ; then we must beat them Beza's words wjth Beza's rod of reprehension against Castaleon, that " we cannot above aiieg- dissemble the boldness of these men, which would God it rested within the custom of words only, and were not important matter concerning their heresy! These men therefore, touching the word 'priest,' though used of sacred writers in the mystery of the New Testament, and for so many years after, by the secret consent of all churches, consecrated to this one sacrament, so that it is now grown to be the proper vulgar £reIf ; speech almost of all nations ; yet they dare presume rashly to change Priest. it, and in place thereof to use the word ' elder.' Delicate men, forsooth !" (yea, worse a great deal, because these do it for heresy, and not for deli cacy,) "which neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so many ages, nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speech can be brought to think that lawful for divines, which all men grant to other masters and professors of arts ; that is, to retain and hold that as their own, which by long use, and in good faith, they have truly possessed. Nei ther may they pretend the authority of any ancient writer," (as that the Presbyter, old Latin translator saith senior and seniores;) "for that which was to for a priest. Baptismus, them as it were new, to us is old ; and even then, that the selfsame words mentof bap- which we now use were more familiar to the church, it is evident, be cause it is very seldom that they speak otherwise." Fclke, Fulke. I see no impossibility, but that in all places where we read presbyter, we may lawfully translate "elder," as weU as " priest," and make it still, in scripture, a common name to all ecclesiastical degrees, (at least, to as many as the scripture maketh it common,) without any absurdity or confusion. And albeit in the fathers we should translate \ it " priest," because they understood by the name presbyter a distmct degree from episcopus; yet the saying of Beza against Castaleo could not by any wise man be apphed to us. For Castaleo changed the name of the sacrament bap tismus, by which both the scriptures and the fathers uni formly did use to signify one and the same sacrament : , whereas the name of presbyter in the scripture signifieth one thing, and in the fathers. another. For in the scripture VI.] TBANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 267 it is taken indifferently for episcopus, and episcopus for , presbyter : but in the fathers these are two distmct degrees. Therefore he is worthy to be beaten in a grammar-school, that cannot see manifest difference between the use of the word baptismus, which, being spoken of the sacrament, in the scriptures and fathers is always one, and of presbyter, which in the scriptures is every ecclesiastical governor, in the fathers one degree only, that is subject to the bishop. Martin. Thus we have repeated Beza's words again, only changing Maetin, the word "baptism" into " priest," because the case is all one: and so unwittingly Beza, the successor of Calvin in Geneva, hath given plain sentence against our English translators in all such cases, as they go from the common received and usual sense to another profane sense, and out of use : as, namely, in this point of "priest" and "priesthood." Where we must needs add a word or two, though we be too long, because their folly and malice is too great herein. For whereas the very name "priest" s^,mj whit" never came into our English tongue, but of the Latin presbyter, (for against the thereupon sacerdos also was so called only by a consequence,) they ply, p. 721, translate sacerdos " priest," and presbyter, not priest, but "elder," as wisely firmeth that and as reasonably, as if a man should translate Prcetor Londini, " Mayor \ri^ °om- of London," and Major Londini, not " Mayor of London," but " Greater ^f^aoy- of London ;" or Academia Oxoniensis, " the University of Oxford," and ^fhe'word Universitas Oxoniensis, not "the University," but "the Generality of sacerdos. Oxford ;" and such like. Fulke. Beza's words agree to us, as well as German's Fulke, lips, that were nine mile asunder. For if this Enghsh word " priest," by custom of speech, did signify no more than the Greek word irpeafivTepos, we would no less use it in our trans lations, than " bishops" and " deacons :" which offices though they be shamefully abused by the papists, yet the abuse of the words maketh no confusion between the ministers of the law and of the gospel, as this word " priest" doth, by which the Jewish sacrificers are rather understood, than preachers of the gospel and ministers of the sacraments. But whereas the etymology of this Enghsh word "priest" cometh from presbyter, you charge us with great folly and mahce, that for sacerdos we translate " priest," and for pres byter " elder." To this I answer, We are not lords of the common speech of men ; for if we were, we would teach them to use their terms more properly : but seeing we cannot change the use of speech, wc follow Aristotle's counsel, which 268 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. is to speak and use words as the common people useth, but to understand and conceive of things according to the nature and true property of them. Although, for my part, I like well of the French translation, which for lepe7s, or sacerdotes, always translateth sacrificateurs, "sacrificers;" and for presbyteri, where they signify the ministers of the word and sacraments, prestres, " priests." But this diversity being only of words, and not of matter or meaning, reasonable men will take an answer ; fools and quarrellers will never acknow ledge any satisfaction. Martin, Martin. Again, what exceeding folly is it, to think that by false 33- and profane translation of presbyter into "elder," they might take away the external priesthood of the new testament, whereas their own word sacerdos, which they do and must needs translate "priest," is as common and as usual in all antiquity as presbyter; and so much the more, for that it is used indifferently to signify both bishops and priests, which presbyter lightly doth not but in the New Testament. As when Constantine the Great said to the bishops assembled in the council Buffln. lib. 1. °f Nice : Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, &c. " God hath ordained you c- 2- priests, and hath given you power to judge of us also." And St Ambrose : Epist 32. ad " When didst thou ever hear, most clement prince, that laymen have numi'mp'r judged bishops ? Shall we bend by flattery so far, that forgetting the Juris saeerdo- right of our priesthood, we should yield up to others that which God telis- hath commended to us?" And therefore doth St Chrysostom entitle his six books, De Sacerdotio, Of Priesthood, concerning the dignity and in Apolog. calling not only of mere priests, but also of bishops : and St Gregory orats"iafug' Nazianzene, handling the same argument, saith, "that they execute XpKr™ priesthood together with Christ." And St Ignatius saith : " Do nothing eivE^-t'i vvithout the bishops; for they are priests, but thou the deacon of the adHieronem. priests." And in the Greek liturgies or masses, so often : ° lepevs, "Then lepeus. the priest saith this and that," signifying also the bishop when he saith StdKovos mass; and * St Denys saith sometime, Archisacerdotem cum sacerdotibus, iepdpxriv "The high priest or bishop with the priests ;" whereof come the words arbv -rols iepareveiv, lepovpyelv, iepdrevpa, iepareia, iepovpyia, in the ancient Greek •^."mera. fathers, for the sacred function of priesthood, and executing of the same. c. 3. Martin, Martin. If then the heretics could possibly have extinguished 24- priesthood in the word presbyter, yet you see it would have remained still in the words sacerdos and sacerdotium, which themselves translate "priest" and "priesthood;" and therefore we must desire them to trans late us a place or two after their own manner. First, St Augustine Lib. 8. c. 27. speaking thus : Quis unquam audivit sacerdotem ad altare stantem etiam De Civ. Dei. SUpgr rgHguias martyrum dkere, Offero tibi, Petre, et Paule, vel Cypriane?1 [} The passage of Augustine here referred to is incorrectly quoted. In the Paris reprint of the Benedictine edition it stands thus : " Quis VI. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 269 " Who ever heard that a priest standing at the altar, even over the relics of the martyrs, said, I offer to thee, Peter, and Paul, or Cyprian" ? So, we trow, they must translate it. Again, Nos uni Deo et martyrum et Li^22- civ- nostra sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrifidum sicut homines Dei suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote invocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrificat, quamvis in memoria sacrificet eorum, quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum. Ipsum vero sacrifidum corpus est Christi2. We think they will and must translate it thus : " We offer sacrifice to the only God both of martyrs and ours, at the which sacrifice, as men of God they (martyrs) are named in their place and order ; yet are they not invocated of the priest that sacrificeth. For he sacrificeth to God, So as he said and not to them, though he sacrifice in the memory of them, because to thee', Peter, he is God's priest, and not theirs. And the sacrifice itself is the body of &c" Christ." Fulke. Nay, " what exceeding folly is it to think" that Fulke, an external sacrificing office can be estabhshed in the New ' Testament (which never calleth the ministers thereof sacer dotes, or lepels), because men of later time have improperly transferred those terms unto, the "elders" or "priests" of the New Testament ! Certainly among so many names as the scripture giveth them, if sacrificing for the quick and the dead had been the principal part of their function, as by you papists hath been accounted, is it credible, that the Holy Ghost would never have caUed them lepels, as well, yea, and rather than the " sacrificers" of the old testament ? Seeing therefore the Holy Ghost had made such a broad difference between their names and offices, those ancient fathers that confounded those names, which the Spirit of God would have to be distinct, cannot be excused ; although they autem audivit aliquando fidelium stantem sacerdotem ad altare etiam super sanctum corpus martyris ad Dei honorem cultumque constructum, dicere in precibus, Offero tibi sacrificium, Petre, vel Paule, vel Cypriane ? Augustini Opera, Vol. vn. p. 349. Edit. Paris. 1838.] [2 This quotation also, as here given, differs from the Benedictine edition, where it stands thus : " Sed uni Deo et martyrum et nostro ; ad quod sacrificium, sicut homines Dei, qui mundum in ejus confes- sione vicerunt, suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote, qui sacrificat, invocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrificat, quam vis in memoria sacrificet eorum; quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum. Ipsum vero sacrificium corpus est Christi, quod non offertur ipsis, quia hoc sunt et ipsi." p. 1073. At 'nostro' there is a various reading with this remark: "Hie editi addunt, sacrificium immolamus: quod abest a manuscriptis." V. Lectiones Variantes, p. 1288, upon the passage.] 270 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ell. never dreamed of the mischief that followed, that the altar of the cross being overthrown, and the only and sufficient sacri fice, which Christ our "high sacrificer" offered once for all, being judged imperfect, a new " altar," a new " sacrifice," and a new " sacrificing priesthood" should be set up in the stead of it. Wherefore the improper speeches of the ancient writers are no warrant for us, either to translate the scripture ac cording to their improper speaking, or to set up a new sacrifice and function of sacrificing contrary to their mean ing. They named " sacrifice" and " offering," but they meant not propitiatory sacrifice, but only of prayers, or praises and giving of thanks. They named lepe'is and sacerdotes, but they meant, according to the general etymology of those words, such as were occupied in distributing holy things ; not such as should verily sacrifice the body of Christ again to his Father, but offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, which after a certain manner, E?ist. 23. Bo- as St Augustine saith, is called the body of Christ, when indeed seer, 'distinct, it is the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And 2 CAD IlOC ek et'giossa it i8 called the " sacrificing" of the body of Christ, not in ibidem eceles- © ^ *»'¦ truth of the thing, but a signifying mystery, as Gracian citeth out of Jerome. Maktin, Martin. Likewise when St Ambrose saith, " The consecration (of ' the body of Christ) with what words is it, and by whose speech ? Of c. 4. our Lord Jesus. For in the rest that is said, there is praise given to God, prayer made for the people, for kings, and others; but when it sacerdos. cometh that the venerable sacrament must be consecrated, now the priest useth not his own words, but he useth the words of Christ2." And St [} Si enim sacramenta quamdam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina acci piunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est; ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Nihil est autem aliud credere, quam fidem habere. Augustini Epist. ad Bonifacium. Epist. xcvui. c. ix. ordo novus. Opera, Vol. n. p. 400.] [2 Consecratio autem quibus verbis est, et cujus sermonibus? Domini Jesu. Nam reliqua omnia qua? dicuntur in superioribus, a sacerdote dicuntur, laudes Deo deferuntur, oratio petitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro ceteris; ubi venitur ut conficiatur venerabile sacramentum, jam non suis sermonibus utitur sacerdos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi. Ambrosii de Sacramentis, Lib. iv. c. iv. Opera, Vol. n. p. 368.] VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 271 Chrysostom in very many places saith: " The sacred oblation itself, Hom. s. in whether Peter, or Paul, or any meaner priest whatsoever offer it, is sacerdos. the very same that Christ gave unto his disciples, and which now the Sacer ote' priests do make or consecrate. Why so, I pray thee ? because not men do sanctify this, but Christ himself, which before consecrated the same3." And again : " It is not man that maketh the body and blood of Christ, but he that was crucified for us, Christ ; the words are uttered by the sacerdotis. priest's mouth, and by God's power and grace are the things proposed consecrated. For this, saith he, ' is my body V With this word are the things proposed consecrated." Fulke. These testimonies are heaped up without any need, Fulke, for the improper usage of these words [epevs, or sacerdos, in the ancient writers we do acknowledge : but in the holy scripture you are not able to bring one place where presby teri of the New Testament are called sacerdotes, or iepels- Wherefore of the improper applying of these names to the ministers of the New Testament, can follow no consequence of external " sacrifice," or " altar," which you urge, except " sacrifice" and " altar" be likewise used improperly, as where the table is called " an altar," the bread and wine " a sacri fice," as in Irenasus5, lib. iv. cap. xxxii. where also he saith, that the " sacrifices" do not sanctify the man, but the con science of the man being pure sanctifieth the " sacrifice," and causeth God to accept it as of a friend, cap. xxxiv. : |_3 'H irpoo-cjjopd q avTq icrn, Kav 6 rvxcbv irpocreveyKy, Kav IlaiiXos, Kav HeTpos, q avrq ecrnv, qv 6 Xpiorbs rols pa8qrais edcoKe, Kal qv vvv oi iepels iroiovcriv ovdev avrq eXarrcov eKeiVqs, on Kal Tavrqv ovk avSpcoiroi dyiafovcriv, aXX avrbs 6 Kal iKeivqv dyiacras. Chrysost. in 2 Epist. ad Timoth. c. i. Hom. ii. Opera, Vol. xi. p. 671. Edit. Mont- faucon, Par. 1734.] r* Oufie yap av8pcoiros ecrnv 6 iroicov rd irpoKe'ipeva yevecrdai crcopa Kal aipa Xpicrrov' aXX abrbs 6 crravpcodeis virep qpatv Xpicrrds. crxqpa irXqpcov eo-rqKev 6 lepevs, rd pqpara (j>8eyyopevos iKeiva' q be Sivapis Kal q X^PLS ro" ®eo" ^aTl- rovrd p>u eorl Tb crcopa., cpqcri. Chrysost. de Proditione Judse, Hom. i. Opera, Vol. n. p. 384.] J7 Quoniam autem non indigens Deus servitute eorum, sed propter ipsos quasdam observantias in lege praceperit, plenissime prophetse indicant. Et rursus quoniam non indiget Deus oblatione eorum, sed propter ipsum qui offerat hominem, manifeste Dominus docuit, quem- admodum ostendimus. Irenaei, Lib. iv. Contra Hseres. c. xvii. Opera, p. 247. Igitur ecclesise oblatio, quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo mundo, purum sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum, et acceptum est 272 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. which cannot in anywise be true of the natural body of Christ. Martin, Martin. And so by these places, where themselves translate sacerdos Presbyteri. a " priest," they may learn also how to translate presbyteros in St Jerome, saying the very same thing, " that at their prayers the body and blood of our Lord is made ;" and in another place, " that with their sacred mouth they make our Lord's body." Likewise when they read St Ambrose ' against the Novatians, that God hath granted licence to his Sacerdotibus. priests to release and forgive as well great sins as little, without excep tion; and in the Ecclesiastical History2, how the Novatian heretics taught that such as were fallen into great sins, should not ask for remission of Sacerdote. the priest, but of God only : they may learn how to translate presbyteros in St Jerome3, and in the Ecclesiastical History, where the one saith thus : Sozom. lib. 7. Episcopus et presbyter, cum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus socrat. lib. 6. sit, qui solvendus ; and the other speaketh, de presbytero ptenitentiario, of an extraordinary priest, that heard confessions and enjoined penance, who afterward was taken away, and the people went to divers ghostly fathers, as before. And especially St Chrysostom4 will make them ei: non quod indigeat a nobis sacrificium, sed quoniam is qui offert, glorificatur ipse in eo quod offert, si acceptetur munus ejus. Irensei, Lib. iv. Contra Hsereses. c. xviii. p. 250. Edit. Paris, 1710.] Q1 Similiter impossibile videbatur per poenitentiam peccata dimitti; concessit hoc Christus apostolis suis, quod ab apostolis ad sacerdotum officia transmissum est. Ambrosii de Poenitent. Lib. n. c. ii. Opera, Vol. n. p. 419.] [z Sed aiunt se, excepfis gravioribus criminibus, relaxare veniam levioribus. Non hoc quidem auctor vestri erroris Novitianus, qui ne- mini pcenitentiam dandam putavit ; ea scilicet contemplatione, ut quod ipse non posset solvere, non llgaret, ne ligando sperari a se faceret solutionem. In eo igitur patrem vestrum propria damnatis sententia, qui distinctionem peecatorum facitis, quse solvenda a vobis putetis, et quas sine remedio esse arbitremini: sed Deus distinctionem non facit, qui misericordiam suam promisit omnibus, et relaxandi licentiam sacer dotibus suis sine ulla exceptione concessit. Ambrosii de Poenitent. Lib. i. c. iii. Opera, Vol. n. p. 393.] P Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur : vel spiritualis ilia atque divina, de qua ipse dixit, Caro mea vere est dbus, et sanguis meus vere potus; et, Nisi manducaveritis carnem meum, et sanguinem meum biberitis, non habebitis vitam eeternam: vel caro et sanguis, quae crucifixa est, et qui militis effusus est lancea. Comment. Hieronymi in Epist. ad Ephes. c. i. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 328.] T4 Eiyo? i^ovcriav oi tcov '\ov8aicov iepels- Kal olcrda ircos irepipdxqrov qv to tcov lepecov Tore ; ovtoi de ov Xeirpav crcoparos, aXX' aKaBapmav yjrvxqs, ovk diraXXayelcrav &oKipd£eiv, aXX' diraXXdrTeiv iravreXcos eXafiov e^ovcriav. coore oi tovtoiv imepopcovres 7roXA<3 Kal tcov irepl Aa6civ eicv yI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 273 understand what these presbyteri were, and how they are to be called in English, who telleth them in their own word, that sacerdotes, " the Lib. 3. de Sa- priests of the new law, have power, not only to know, but to purge the filth of the soul ; therefore whosoever despiseth them, is more worthy to be punished than the rebel Dathan and his complices." Fulke. Where St Jerome useth the word presbyteri, we Fulke, will make no great curtesy to translate "priests ;" knowing 26- that when he saith, at their prayers "the body and blood of Christ is made," he meaneth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, as he himself saith in another place : Du- pliciter sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur ; " The blood and flesh of Christ is understood two manner of ways," either that spiritual and divine, whereof he himself said, ' My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed; and except ye shall eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have eternal life ;' or else the flesh and blood which was cruci fied, and which was shed by the spear of the soldier." This and such other places teach us to understand St Jerome, if he speak any where obscurely or improperly of the mystery of our Lord's supper. We grant with Ambrose, that God hath given authority to all the ministers of the word to remit all sins that be remissible. But this do not you grant; for you reserve some to the bishops, and some to the pope alone to remit: wherein you go clean against Ambrose, who favoureth you not so much by the term sacerdos, which you say he useth, as he condemneth your partial and popish reservation of cases, when he alloweth every priest to for give as well great sins as httle, without exception. St Jerome you cite at large, as it seemeth, to insinuate auricular confession : but the whole saying you hked not, because it sheweth how they forgive sins. It is written in Matt. Lib. in. cap. 16. upon those words spoken to Peter, " Unto thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven," &c. Istum locum episcopi et presbyteri non mtelligentes5, &c. "This place ivayecrrepoi, Kal pei&vos a£ioi npcopias. Chrysost. de Sacerdotio, Lib. in. Opera, Vol. i. p. 284.] [5 Istum locum episcopi et presbyteri non intelligentes, aliquid sibi de Pharisseorum assumunt supercilio : ut vel damnent innocentes, vel solvere se noxios arbitrentur; quum apud Deum non sententia sacer1 dotum, sed reorurn vita quseratur. Legimus in Levitico de leprosis, ubijubentur, ut ostendant se sacerdotibus ; et si lepram habuerint, tunc r 1 18 [fulke.J 274 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. bishops and priests not understanding, take upon them some what of the pride of the Pharisees : so that they think they may either condemn the innocents, or loose the guilty persons : whereas with God, not the sentence of the priests, but the life of the persons accused is inquired of. We read in Levi ticus of the lepers, where they are commanded to shew themselves to the priests; and if they have the leprosy, then by the priest they are made unclean : not that priests make lepers and unclean persons, but that they may have know ledge of him that is a leper, and him that is no leper ; and may discern who is clean or who is unclean. Therefore even as the priest doth there make the leper clean or unclean ; so here also the bishop and priest doth bind or loose, not them that be innocent or guilty, but according to his office, when he shall hear the variety of sinners, he knoweth who is to be bound, and who is to be loosed." But where you say, the people went to diverse ghostly fathers, as before, when that extraordinary penitentiary priest was taken away for the adultery of a deacon at Constantinople1; you speak beside the book, to make the ignorant believe that the people went to auricular shrift. For in Constantinople, where this privy confession was taken away, the people were left to their own consciences. At Rome, the same time, great offenders did open penance, neither were there any such diverse ghostly fathers, as you speak of. That Chrysostom saith, Lib. m. de sacerdotio, we receive it, being so understood, as it be not contrary to that I cited even now out of Jerome. But what maketh all this agamst translating presbyter " an elder" ? Martin, Martin. Now then, to conclude this point, seeing we have such a Hei>. xii. cloud of witnesses, as the apostle speaketh, even from Christ's time, that testify not only for the name, but for the very principal functions a sacerdote immundi fiant : non quo sacerdotes leprosos faciant et immun- dos; sed quo habeant notitiam leprosi et non leprosi, et possint dis- cernere qui mundus, quive immundus sit. Quomodo ergo ibi leprosum sacerdos mundum vel immundum facit; sic et hie alligat vel solvit episcopus et presbyter, non eos qui insontes sunt vel noxii; sed pro officio suo, quum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, quive solvendus. Comment. Hieronymi in Matth. c. xvi. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 75.] (7 See Socrates, Eccl. Hist. lib. v. cap. xix. Sozomen. vn. xvi.] VI.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 275 of external priesthood, in offering the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, in remitting sins, and so forth; what a peevish, fmalicious, and impudent corruption is this, for the defacing of the testimonies of the holy scriptures tending thereunto, to seek to scratch advantage of the word presbyter, and to make it signify an " elder," not a " priest ;" presbyterium, "eldership," rather than "priesthood:" as if other new fangled companions, that would forge an heresy that there were no apos tles, should for that purpose translate it always "legates;" or that there were no angels, and should translate it always "messengers;" and that baptism were but a Judaical ceremony, and should translate it " wash ing ;" which Castaleo did much more tolerably in his translation than any of these should, if he did it only of curiosity and folly. And if to take away all distinction of "clergy" and "laity," the protestants should always translate clerum "lot" or "lottery," as they do translate it for cierus. the same purpose "parish" and "heritage;" might not Beza himself >InlpetiTi control them, saying, " that the ancient fathers transferred the name f^Nepotde cierus to the college of ecclesiastical ministers'' ? rim Ed's" c. 6.' Fulke. A cloud of testimonies indeed you have heaped Fulke, together, not, as the apostle did, to uphold the certainty of faith, but to obscure the light of truth. For our translation of ir pea (&\jt epos " an elder" is true, clear and plain, without ambiguity : insomuch as the vulgar Latin interpreter, who (as it seemeth) was a Grecian, and therefore useth gladly many Greek terms, doth yet translate this word almost twice as often senior, or major natu, as he doth presbyter, when he speaketh of the ministers of the gospel. How the ancient writers apphed unto them improperly the name of "sacrificer," as unto the sacrament the name of " oblation" or " sacrifice," I have spoken already sufficiently. Our translation therefore is nothing hke your vain silpposal of new-fangled companions, which to deny "apostles," "angels," and "baptism," would turn the words into "legates," "messengers," and "washing." Whereas we have no purpose to deny any office or function of the church appointed by Christ, but to distinguish in name, as bis Spirit in the scriptures doth always, the sacrificers of the Old Testament from the ministers of the New Testament. The word cierus, 1 Pet. v. which we translate "parish" or "heritage," yourselves in your notes of that place confess to comprehend in signification "all Christians," which you are not able to prove, that in St Peter's time it was transferred unto the "college of ecclesiastical ministers," as Beza saith it was afterward : wherefore it is one of your accustomed slan ders, to say we translate it so of purpose to take away 18—2 276 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. all distinction of clergy and laity; when all men know, that wheresoever our churches are established, we retain the distinction, and so think it necessary always. Martin, Martin. But, alas ! the effect of this corruption and heresy concern ing priests, hath it not wrought within these few years such contempt of all priests, that nothing is more odious in our country than that name ; which before was so honourable and venerable, and now is among all good men? If "ministry'' or "eldership" were grown to estimation instead thereof, somewhat they had to say : but that is yet more contemp tible, and especially "elders" and "eldership;" for the queen's majesty and her councillors will permit none in government of any church in England ; and so they have brought all to nothing else but profane laity. And no marvel of these horrible inconveniences: for as the sacrifice and priesthood go together, and therefore were both honourable together ; so when they had, according to Daniel's prophecy, abolished the daily sacrifice out of the church, what remained, but the contempt of priests and clergy, and their offices ? so far forth, that for the holy sacrifice' sake priests are called in great despite " massing priests," of them that little consider, or less care, what notable holy learned fathers of all ages since chap. vi. Christ's time this their reproach toucheth and concerneth, as by the testi monies before alleged is manifest, and whereof the reader, may see a peculiar chapter in the late Apology of the English Seminaries. Fulke, Fulke. A marvellous corruption, for us to call them 28- " elders," whom you in your translation call "ancients," and the vulgar Latin before us both called seniores! But what is come to pass, I pray you, by this wonderful corruption? The name of " popish priests" is so contemptible, that nothing is more odious in England. And good cause, why; both for their blasphemy against God, and traitorous practices against the honourable state of the realm, and our most gra cious queen. But " elders" and " eldership" (you ween) is more contemptible, because " the queen's majesty and her councillors will permit none in government of any churches in England, and so they have brought all to nothing else, but 'profane laity.' " This traitorous slander of yours is as true as all the rest : for although the queen's majesty and the council do not permit such consistories of elders for only discipline and government, as be in some other churches; yet do they not only permit, but also maintain and reve rence such elders, being signified by the Greek word irpeofivTepoi, as are necessary for the government of the church in doctrine, sacraments, and discipline, to the salva- VI j TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLEl 277 tion of God's people. The daily sacrifice mentioned in Daniel was the morning and evening sacrifice of the old law, whereunto your blasphemous sacrifice of the mass hath no resemblance. Tou may not therefore look to reeover the credit of massing priests by that sacrifice, which, being once instituted by God, was at length taken away by the only sacrifice of Christ's death ; against which all the apologies in the world shall never be able to defend your massing priesthood. As for the chapter of Allen's Apology, whereunto you refer us, [it] containeth certain quo tations* and a few sentences of the ancient writers, which have "been answered an hundred times, to justify massing priests ; but all in vain : for never shall he prove that any one, from the eldest which he named unto Beda, which is the youngest, was such a massing priest in all points, as those traitors are, which by the queen's laws and edict are proscribed and prohibited: I mean not, for their manners, but for their mass and all opinions incident thereunto. 278 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH CH. CHAPTER VII. Heretical Translation against Purgatory, Limbus Patrum, Christ's descending into Hell. Martin, 1. Martin. Having now discovered their corrupt translations for de facing of the church's name, and abolishing of priest and priesthood ; let us come to another point of very great importance also, and which, by the wonted consequence or sequel of error, includeth in it many erroneous branches. Their principal malice then being bent against purgatory, that is, against a place where christian souls be purged by suffering of temporal pains after this life, for surer maintenance of then- erroneous denial hereof they take away and deny all third places, saying that there was never from the beginning of the world any other place for souls after this life, but only two ; to wit, heaven for the blessed, and hell for the damned. And so it followeth by their heretical doctrme, that the patriarchs, prophets, and other good holy men of the Old Testament, went not after their deaths to the place called "Abra ham's bosom," or limbus patrum, but immediately to heaven : and so again by their erroneous doctrine it followeth, that the fathers of the Old Testament were in heaven before our Saviour Christ had suffered death for their redemption ; and also by their erroneous doctrine it fol loweth, that our Saviour Christ was not the first man that ascended and entered into heaven ; and moreover by their heretical doctrine it follow eth, that our Saviour Christ descended not into any such third place, to deliver the fathers of the Old Testament out of their prison, and to bring them triumphantly with him into heaven, because by their erro neous doctrme they were never there ; and so that article of the apostles' creed concerning our saviour Christ's descending into hell, must either be put out by the Calvinists, as Beza did in his confession of his faith, printed anno 1564 ; or it hath some other meaning, to wit, either the lying of his body in the grave, or (as Calvin and the purer Cal vinists, his scholars, will have it) the suffering of hell pains and distresses upon the cross. Lo the consequence and coherence of these errors and heresies ! Calvin's In- stitutiors, lib. % c. 16. sect. 10. and in his Cate chism. Fulke, 1. Fulke. We may be bold to say with St Augustine, We believe, according to the authority of God, that the kingdom of heaven is the first place appointed for God's elect, and that hell is the second place, where all the reprobate, and such as be not of the faith of Christ, shah suffer eternal punishment. Tertium penitus ignoramus, imo nee esse in scripturis Sanctis invenimus : "The third v".j TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 279 place we are utterly ignorant of, yea, and that it is not we find in the holy scriptures." But hereof it followeth say you, that the godly of the Old Testament went not after their deaths to Abraham's bosom, or limbus patrum, but immediately to heaven. Of limbus patrum, which is a border of the " pope's hell," I grant it followeth ; but of Abraham's bosom it followeth none otherwise than if I should say, "Gregorie Martin went into Cheapside," ergo, "he went not to London." That the fathers of the Old Testament were in heaven before our Saviour Christ had suffered death for their redemption, it is no inconvenience ; for his death was as effectual to redeem them that hved before he suffered actually, as them that hve since ; be cause in God's sight he is " the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world." And the fathers that were justified by faith in his blood, received the same crown and reward of righteousness that we do, being justified by the same means. And yet our Saviour Christ was the first man, that in his whole manhood ascended and entered into heaven, into the fulness and perfection of glory, which is prepared for all God's elect, to be enjoyed after the general resurrection. That our Saviour Christ descended into no prison' after bis death, we verily believe ; and yet we do also constantly beheve the article of our creed, that "he descended into hell," by suffering in soul the pains due to God's justice for the sins of all whom he redeemed, and by vanquishing the devil, and all the power of hell, in working the redemption of all the children of God. If Beza in bis confession had clean left out that article, (wliich is untrue,) he had been no more to be blamed than the authors of the Nicene creed, and many other creeds, in which it is not expressed, because it is partly contained under the article of his sufferings, partly it is in part of the effect and virtue of his death and redemption. Martin. These now being the heretical doctrines which they mean Maktin, 2. to avouch and defend, whatsoever come of it ; first, they are at a point not to care a rush for all the ancient holy doctors, that write with full consent to the contrary, as themselves confess, calling it their common Beza in l Pet. error; secondly, they translate the holy scriptures in favour thereof vin's institut. most corruptly and wilfully, as in Beza's false translation, who is Calvin's sect. 9. ' sucoessor in Geneva, it is notorious ; for he, in his New Testament of 280 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. the year 1556, printed by Robertas Stephanus in folio, with annotations, maketh our Saviour Christ say thus to his Father, Non derelinques cadaver meum in sepulchro ; " Thou shalt not leave my carcase in the Hiero. in Ps. grave," Acts ii. for that which the Hebrew, and the Greek, and the verso ex He- ° ' ' ' braio. Latin, and St Jerome, according to the Hebrew, say, Non derelinques tt>23 animam meam in inferno, as plainly as we say in English, "Thou shalt Sli*ty3 no* leaye my soul m hell." Thus the prophet David spake it in the : " Hebrew, Psal. xv. ; thus the Septuagint uttered it in Greek; thus the apostle St Peter allegeth it ; thus the holy evangelist St Luke, in the ^uxii" eh Acts of the Apostles, chap, ii., recordeth it ; and for this, St Augustine calleth him an infidel that denieth it: yet all this would not suffice to * See his An- make Beza translate it so, because of certain errors, ("as he heretically not. in 2. Act. Kenneth them,) which he would full gladly avoid hereby, namely, the catholic true doctrine of limbus patrum and " purgatory." What need we say more ? He translateth animam, " a carcase ;" so calling our Saviour Christ's body, irreverently and wickedly, he translateth inter num "grave.'' Fulke, 2. Fulke. That many of the christian fathers held this error, that the godly of the Old Testament were not in heaven before Christ's death, it is no cause why we should be afraid to confess the truth revealed to us out of the holy scriptures, to the glory of God. And if the wrong Vixttf or ambiguous translation of one Hebrew word, sheol, de ceived them that were for the most part ignorant of the Hebrew tongue ; what reason were it that we should not in translation reform that error? But as for Beza's first translation of the Greek word ^u^ " dead body," and cfStjs " grave," I have answered at large, cap. i. sect. 31. ; where also it is shewed, how vainly you take hold ofthe Enghsh word " carcase," to charge Beza with unreverent calling of our Saviour Christ's body, when it was dead, because he calleth it in Latin cadaver. Martin, 3. Martin. Need we take any great labour to prove this to be a foul corruption, or that it is done purposely, when he confesseth that he thus translateth, because else it would serve the papists 1 Which is as much to say, as, the word of God, if it be truly and sincerely translated, maketh indeed for them. For the first part, we will not stand upon it, partly because it is of itself most absurd, and they are ashamed of it ; partly because it shall suffice to confute Beza, that two other as famous heretics as he, Castaleo and Flaccus Illyricus, write against him in this point, and confute him ; partly also, because we speak not here universally of all heretical translations, but of the English corruptions specially; and therefore we may only note here, how gladly they also would say VH.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 281 somewhat else for " soul," even in the text, if they durst for shame : for in the margin of that English translation they say, " or life," " or Bib. an. 1579. person ;" hereby advertising the reader, that he may read thus if it please him, " Thou shalt not leave my life in the grave," or, " Thou shalt not leave my person." As though either man's soul or life were in the grave, or anima might be translated " person," which the self same English bible doth not ; no, not in tthose places where it is evident Acts vii. 14. that it signifieth " the whole person." For though this word " soul,'' by a figure, is sometime taken for "the whole man," yet even there they do not, nor must not translate it otherwise than "soul;" because our tongue beareth that figure as well as Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; but here, where it cannot signify "the whole person," it is wicked to translate it so. Fulke. If you take more labour than you are well Fulkb, 3. able to bear, yet shall you prove it no heretical corrup tion. As Castaleo and Illyricus, the one an heretic, the other a schismatic, have inveighed against Beza, so hath he sufficiently confuted them. But to our Enghsh trans lation, where in the margin they say "life," or "person," when in the text they say " soul ;" what doth this offend you ? They render the usual Enghsh word for the Greek word, but they admonish the reader that the word " soul" in this place signifieth not the soul separated from the body, but either "the life," or "the whole person;" because that, although the body only be laid in the grave, yet according to vulgar speech and sense the whole man is said to be buried, and his life seemeth to be inclosed in the grave, according to which popular and humane con ceit the prophet in that psalm speaketh; as appeareth in the latter part of that verse, which is all one in sense with the former, "neither wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption," where corruption, which is proper only to the body, is there spoken generally of the whole man. If this exposition please you not, yet you have no cause to find fault with the translation, which in that place is according to the common and ordinary signification of the Greek word yj/v^t], " soul ;" which, as it is some- -Acts »¦ time taken for the whole person, as you note, Act. vh. 14, so is it here, as the latter part of the verse doth most plainly declare1. J]1 "On ovk iyKaraXeiyjreis rqv ifrvxqv /uou els <}dov, Acts ii. 27. " Quo niam non derelinques animam meam in inferno," Vulg.] 282 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Mariin, 4. Martin. But as for the word "grave," that they put boldly in the text, to signify that, howsoever you interpret " soul," or whatsoever you put for it, it is not meant according to St Augustine and the faith of the whole catholic church, that his soul descended into hell, whiles his body was in the grave ; but that his soul also was in the grave, howsoever that is to be understood. So making it a certain and resolute conclusion, that the holy scripture in this place speaketh not of Christ's being in hell, but in the grave ; and that according to his soul, or life, or person, See Vigors' or, as Beza will have it, "his carcase or body;" and so "his soul in Sermons, pp. ,..„ ,-,-, . ., „ 1 . , , • i no. 115. and hell, as the holy scripture speaketh, shall be " his body in the grave," " as Beza plainly speaketh, and the Bezites covertly insinuate; and white shall be black, and chalk shall be cheese, and every thing shall be any thing that they will have it. And all this their evident false translation must be to our miserably deceived poor souls the holy scripture and God's word. Fulke, 4. Fulke. The Greek word ^>j? well beareth to be trans lated in some places " a grave," and here the latter part of the verse speaketh of corruption, which cannot be under stood to be but "in the grave;" and so doth St Peter under stand it, saying, " that David the patriarch died, and was buried, and his sepulchre remaineth with us unto this day:" and St Paul upon the same verse of the psalm saith, " he saw corruption." Both the apostles therefore interpreting this verse of the resurrection of Christ, we think it indeed a "resolute conclusion," that the scripture in this place speaketh not of Christ's being in hell, which we acknowledge in the article of our creed, but of bis burial and resurrection. Your trifling of "white and black," "chalk and cheese," may seem pleasant rhetoric to gross ears, whom you seek to fill with such vanities : but the wiser sort, that are acquainted with figura tive speeches, will think it nothing strange, if words be not always taken in their usual and proper signification. That 5^23 the Hebrew word nephesh, which the prophet in that verse of the psalm useth, is taken divers times in the scripture for " a dead body," I have before proved more plainly than ever you shall be able to deny : where you may, if you be disposed to sport yourself, use your figurative compari son of "white and black," "chalk and cheese ;" but you shall sooner of white make black, of chalk cheese, than you can possibly avoid the clear hght of those texts, which was seen even of your own vulgar Latin interpreters. VII. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 283 Martin. Where we cannot but marvel, why they are afraid to trans- Martin, 5. late the words plainly in this place, "of his soul being in hell ;" whereas in the creed they admit the words, and interpret them, that by suffering hell pains upon the cross, so " he descended into hell," and no otherwise, Why did they not here also keep the words for the credit of their trans lation; and afterward, if they would needs, give them that gloss for maintenance of their heresy ? This mystery we know not, and would gladly learn it of the puritan Calvinists, whose English translation perhaps this is. For the grosser Calvinists, being not so pure and precise in following Calvin as the puritans be, that have well deserved that name above their fellows, they in their other English bibles have in Bib. an. 1562. this place discharged themselves of false translation, saying plainly, an "Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell1." But in what sense they say » see Lind. so, it is very hard to guess ; and perhaps themselves cannot tell yet dublt' p' 19- what to make of it, as appeareth by M. Whitaker's answer to F. Cam- whitaker, pion. And he is now called a bishop among them, and proceeded doctor Si. Hues', bp. in Oxford, that could not obtain his grace to proceed doctor in Cam- °„ wafes?ph bridge, because he preached Christ's descending into hell; and the puritans in their second admonition to the parliament, p. 43, cry out against the politic Calvinists, for that in the creed of the apostles, (made in English metre, and sung openly in their churches, in these words3, " His spirit did after this descend, into the lower parts, to them that long [in darkness were, the true light of their hearts,") they favour his descending into hell very much, and so consequently may thereby build limbus patrum and "purgatory." And the puritans in their second reply against M. Whitgift's defence, p. 7, reprehend one of their chiefest Calvinistical martyrs for assuming, as they term it, a gross descending of our Saviour Christ into hell. Thus the puritans confess plainly their heretical doctrine, against Christ's descending into hell. [x " Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." Acts ii. 27. Edits. 1562, 1568. 1584. "Thou wilt not leave my soul in grave," 1560, 1579.] [2 William Hughes received his first education in Oxford, but sub sequently went to Christ College, Cambridge, where he took his degrees in arts, and holy orders ; and being soon after made chaplain to Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk, he attended him to Oxford in 1568, where he was incorporated bachelor of divinity, as he stood at Cambridge. The year after, says Wood, the said duke writing letters to Dr Laur. Hum phrey in his behalf, he was, by his endeavours made to the Vice-Chan- cellor and convocation, permitted to proceed in his faculty. He was promoted to the episcopal see of St Asaph in 1573. Wood's Athene Vol. n. 844.] [3 The lines in Sternhold and Hopkins, upon the twelve Articles of the Christian Faith, are these : " His soul did after this descend Into the lower parts, A dread unto the wicked sprites, But joy to faithful hearts."] 284 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Fulke, 5. Fulke. By confessing in our creed that Christ "descended into hell," you might know, (but that you had rather be igno rant, that you might marvel still,) that we purposed not in translating this place to deny that article, as you falsely slander us ; but because this place might seem unto the ignorant to confirm the error of Christ's descending into limbus patrum, as it doth not, if it be rightly under stood, it was thought good of some translators, that (seeing this verse must have the same sense in the Greek sermon of Peter, that it hath in the Hebrew psalm of David, and the Greek word aStjs, used by the evangelist instead of 7lNtp the Hebrew word sheol, may bear to signify a "grave," as the Hebrew word doth most usually,) by translating it the "grave," to shew that this verse in Greek maketh no more for that error of descending into limbus, than the same doth in Hebrew. As for your distinction of gross Calvinists and puritans, it may be packed up among the rest of your quar rels and slanders. What Master Whitaker hath written in his answer to friar Campion, he is able to explain unto you himself, if you do not understand him. That the bishop of Saint Asaph did once favour your error in some part, and for that was misliked of the University of Cambridge, it is as true, as that afterward, reforming his judgment at Oxford, where he proceeded, he was also incorporated doctor at Cambridge. The Enghsh metre upon the creed, except it be drawn to an allegory, in my judgment cannot be defended ; which judg ment I declared openly at Paul's cross, fourteen or fifteen years ago. Master Latimer's error of Christ suffering tor ments in hell, after his death, is justly reprehended, by whom soever it be.1 By all which I know not what may be rightly gathered, but that we flatter not one another in errors; but \} In Latimer's sermon on the Passion of Christ, we find him thus speaking, and affixing a different sense to the words, "He descended into hell,"from that which they have been generally considered to bear : "He descended into hell. I see no inconvenience to say, that Christ suffered in soul in hell. I singularly commend the exceeding great charity of Christ, who for our sakes would suffer in hell in his souL It sets out the unspeakable hatred that God hath to sin. I perceive not that it derogates from the dignity of Christ's death ; as in the garden when he suffered, it derogates nothing from that which he suffered on the cross."] VH-J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 285 if any among us be deceived, of what account or credit soever he be, we spare not to reprove bis error, preferring God's truth before all worldly and private respects of friendship, countenance, credit, and whatsoever. Martin. The truth is, howsoever the politic Calvinists speak or Mahtin, 6. write in this point, more plausibly and covertly to the people, and more agreeably to the article of our faith, than either Calvin, or their earnest brethren, the puritans, do, which write and speak as fantastically and madly as they think; yet neither do they believe this article of the apostles' creed, or interpret it as the catholic church and ancient holy fathers always have done, neither can it stand with their new profession so to do, or with their English translations in other places. It cannot stand with their profession ; for then it would follow that the patriarchs, and other just men of the Old Testament, were in some third place of rest, called "Abraham's bosom," or limbus patrum, till our Saviour Christ descended thither, and delivered them from thence; which they deny in their doctrine, though they sing it in their metres. Neither can it stand with their English translations; because in other places, where the holy scriptures evidently speak of such a place, calling it "hell," (because that was a common name for every place and state of souls departed in the Old Testament, till our Saviour Christ, by his resur rection and ascension, had opened heaven,) there, for " hell," they trans late "grave." Fulke. The truth is, howsoever you slander us with Fulke, 6. odious 'names of schism, and diverse interpretations, we all agree in the faith of that article, and in the true sense and meaning thereof. As also we consent against your errors of limbus patrum, or any descending of Christ into that fan tastical place. As for "Abraham's bosom," we account it no place of descent, or going down, but of ascending; even the same that our Saviour Christ upon the cross called "para dise," Luke xxiii. saying to the penitent thief, "This day thou shalt be with me in paradise;" which of St Paul is called "the third heaven," 2 Cor. xii., saying that he was "taken up into the third heaven, whether in the body, or out of the body, he knew not, but he was taken up into paradise, and there heard words that could not be uttered, which it is not law ful for a man to speak." And that "Abraham's bosom" is a place far distant from hell, that only text where it is named, Luke xvi., doth evidently declare. First, the angels carry the soul of Lazarus into Abraham's bosom: he might as well 286 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [(JH. have said hell, if he had meant hell. But angels use not to go down into hell. Secondly, it is a place of comfort; for Lazarus was there comforted. Thirdly, there is a great chaos, which signifieth an infinite distance, between Abraham and the rich glutton; which utterly overthroweth that dream of lim bus, which, signifying a border or edge, supposeth that place to be hard adjoining to the place of torments. Last of all, if the article of our faith had been of limbus patrum, or of "Abraham's bosom," we should have been taught to say, he descended into limbo patrum, or he descended into Abraham's bosom, which all christian ears abhor to hear. The word 7)>ttt> sheol, used in the Old Testament for a common receptacle of all the dead, signifieth properly a place to receive their bodies, and not their souls; and therefore most commonly in our translations is called "the grave." Maktin, 7. Martin. As when Jacob saith, Descendam adfilium meum lugens in Gen. xxxvii. infernum ; < Greek, and Latin? No doubt they do it to make the igno rant reader believe, that the patriarch Jacob spake of his body only, to descend into the grave to Joseph's body; for as concerning Jacob's soul, that was, by their opinion, to ascend immediately after his death to heaven, and not to descend into the grave. But if Jacob were to ascend forthwith in soul, how could he say, as they translate, " I will go down into the grave unto my son"? As if according to their opinion he should say, "My son's body is devoured of a beast, and his soul is gone up into heaven ; well, I will go down to him into the grave." Fulke, 7. Fulke. A proper quiddity you have found out of Jacob, supposing his son to be devoured of wild beasts : yet saith, "I will go down unto him mourning;" which you think cannot be [3 "I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning," Cran mer's Bible, edition, 1562. Bishop's Bible, 1584. Geneva, 1560. "Oti KaTafiqcropai irpbs tov vlov pov irevd&v els a8ov. Gen. xxxvii. 36.1 VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 287 into the grave, because he did not think he was buried. But you must remember, it is the common manner of speech, when men say in mourning, they will go to their friends departed, they mean they will die, although their friends perhaps were drowned in the sea, or their bodies burned, or perhaps lie in desolate places unburied. So Jacob's descend ing into the grave signifieth no more but death, by which he knew he should be joined to his son in soul, though he were not in body. The name of grave is used, because it is usual, that dead men are buried, though it be not universal. And that the grave is taken commonly for death, it appeareth by that phrase so often used in the scriptures, "he slept with his fathers, and was buried;" which being spoken indifferently of good men and evil, cannot be understood of one place of their souls, but of death, which is common to all, and is proper to the body, not unto the soul ; for the souls of the departed sleep not. The like is to be said of the phrase used in Genesis of Ismael, as well as of the godly patriarchs, "he was laid up to his people." And lest you should please yourself too much in your childish conceit of Joseph's being devoured, (whereof yet his father was not certain,) you shall hear how Isidorus Clarius translateth the same place in his bible, censured by the depu ties of Trent council, Descendam ad filium meum lugens in sepulchrum : " I will go down to my son, mourning into my grave." This is one of the places which he thought meet to be corrected, according to the Hebrew; and in other places, where he is content to use the old word, infernus, he signifieth in bis notes, that he meaneth thereby sepulcrum, " the grave." And indeed this word infernus signifieth generally any place beneath; as the Greek word ^tjs, which the Greek translators used for sheol, the Hebrew word, signifieth a place that is dark and obscure, where nothing can be seen, such as the grave or pit is, in which the dead are laid, which therefore of Job is called, "The land of darkness, and the shadow of Job x. death." Martin. Gentle reader, that thou mayest the better conceive these Martin, 8. absurdities, and the more detest their guileful corruptions, understand, as we began to tell thee before, that in the Old Testament, because there was yet no ascending into heaven, " the way of the holies" (as the apostle Heb. ix. 8. in his epistle to the Hebrews speaketh) " being not yet made open," Heb. x. 20. because our Saviour Christ was to dedicate and begin the entrance in 288 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [«!. his own person, and by his passion to open heaven ; therefore, we say, in the Old Testament the common phrase of the holy scripture is, even of the best men, as well as of others, "that dying they went down" ad inferos, or ad infernum: to signify, that such was the state of the Old Testament before our Saviour Christ's resurrection and ascension, that every man went down, and not up ; descended, and not ascended : by descending, I mean not to the grave, which received their bodies only, but ad inferos, that is, "to hell," a common receptacle or place for their souls also departed, as well of those souls that were to be in rest, as those that were to be in pains and torments. All the souls both good and bad, that then died, went downward; and therefore the place of both sorts was called in all the tongues by a word answer able to this word "hell," to signify a lower place beneath, not only of torments, but also of rest. Fulke, 8. Fulke. Where you reason that there was no ascending into heaven, "because the way of the holies was not yet made open, when the first tabernacle was standing," you abuse the reader and the scripture. For the apostle's meaning is, in that verse, to shew that to the great benefit of Christians that first tabernacle is fallen, because that now we have more Heb. iv. \u. familiar access unto God by Jesus Christ. For whereas the high priest only but once in the year, and then not with out blood, entered into the second most holy tabernacle, be cause the way of the holies, that isj unto the holiest, or sancta sanctorum, was not then opened; now our Saviour Christ having once entered into the holiest place by his own blood, and found eternal redemption, we have by bim, without any ceremonies, sacrifices, or mediation of any mortal priest, free Heb. *. in. access unto the throne of grace, even into the holy place, by the new and living way, which he hath prepared for us. But all this is to be understood of the clear revelation of the mercy of God in Christ, which was obscurely set forth unto the fathers of the Old Testament ; and not of the effect and fruit of his passion, which was the same for their salvation, that it is for ours. Neither have the souls of the faithful, since the coming of Christ, any other place of rest, than the Heb. xi. 40. fathers had before bis incarnation; God providing most wisely, that they without all the rest of their brethren, that shaU be unto the world's end, shall not be made perfect. And whereas you say, that all the souls of good and bad then went down ward, you are controlled by the wise man, Eccles. hi., where he speaketh in the person of the carnal man, doubting of VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 289 that which is not comprehended by reason, but beheved by faith : " Who knoweth whether the spirit of man ascend up ward?" — and more plainly in the last chapter of that book, where he exhorteth to repentance, shewing in the end, "that though dust return to the earth from whence it was, yet the spirit returneth to God that gave it." It returneth to God: therefore it goeth not down. For who would abide to hear this speech, The souls of the faithful went downward to God : yea, went into hell to God? nay, returned downward into heU to God that gave them ? That common receptacle there fore of the dead was the receptacle of their bodies, which all, first or last, returned to the earth from whence they were taken. And where you say, that place was called in all tongues by such a word as signifieth a lower place beneath, it is true of the common receptacle of their bodies, but not of their souls. For the soul of Lazarus was not carried by the angels into hell, but into Abraham's bosom ; which was not only a place of rest, but also of joy and comfort, contrary to torments ; between which and hell was an infinite distance. Who would call that a common receptacle, when there was an infinite distance unpassable from one to the other ? Martin. So we say in our creed, that our Saviour Christ himself Mahtin, 9. descended into "hell," according to his soul: so St Hierome, speaking Epitaph. Ne- of the state of the old testament, saith : Si Abraham, Isaac, Jacob pot' °' ' in inferno, quis in ccelorum regno ? that is, " If Abraham, Isaac, and Jaeob were in hell, who was in the kingdom of heaven ?" And again : Ante Christum Abraham apud inferos : post Christum latro in Paradiso : that is, " Before the coming of Christ, Abraham was in hell ; after his coming, the thief was in paradise." And lest a man might object, that Luke xvi. Lazarus, being in Abraham's bosom, saw the rich glutton afar off in hell, and therefore both Abraham and Lazarus seem to have been in heaven : the said holy doctor resolveth it, that Abraham and Lazarus see s. Au- " gust, in Psal. lxxxv. 13.1 P Aliam etiam opinionem dicam. Fortassis enim apud ipsos inferos est aliqua pars inferior, quo truduntur impii qui plurimum peccaverunt. Etenim apud inferos utrum in locis quibusdam non fuisset Abraham, non satis possumus definire. Nondum enim Dominus venerat ad infer- num, ut erueret inde omnium sanctorum prsecedentium animas ; et tamen Abraham in requie ibi erat. Et quidem dives cum torqueretur apud inferos, cum videret Abraham, levavit oculos. Non eum posset levatis oculis videre, nisi ille esset superius, ille inferius. Et quid ei respondit Abraham, cum diceret, Pater Abraham, mitte Lazarum, Sec. ? (Luke xvi. 22 — 26.) Ergo inter ista duo fortasse inferna, quorum in r 1 19 [fulkeJ 290 a defence of the enghsh [ch. also were in hell, but in a place of great rest and refreshing, and therefore very far off from the miserable wretched glutton that lay in torments. Fulkb, 9. Fulke. We say in our creed, that Christ " descended into hell ;" which being an article of our faith, must have relation to such benefit as we receive by his descending, namely, that thereby we are dehvered from the pains of hell. But that he should descend into limbus patrum, to fetch out the fathers, (which before you said were in prison, now you say in rest,) we neither say it in our creed, neither doth it pertain unto us. But Jerome is cited as a favourer of your opinion, who, I confess, in some part held as you do, but not altogether. For thus he writeth in Epitaph. Nepot1. After he hath given thanks to Christ for our redemption by bis death : Quid autem miserius homine, qui ceternce mortis terrore prostratus vivendi sensum ad hoc tantum acceperat utperiret, &c. "What was more miserable than man before, which being cast down with terror of eternal death, received sense of living for this end only, that he might perish. For ' death reigned from Adam unto Moses, yea, upon those which have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam.' If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in hell, who in the kingdom of heaven? If thy friends were under the pun- uno quieverunt animae justorum, in altero torquentur animae impiorum, attendens quidam orans hie, jam in corpore Christi positus, et orans in voce Christi, eruisse Deum animam suam ab inferno inferiore dixit, quia liberavit se a talibus peccatis per quae posset deduci ad tormenta inferni inferioris. Augustin. Enarrat. in Psalmum lxxxv. c. 18. Opera, Vol. iv. pp. 1303, 1304.] P Quis autem miserior homine ; qui seternse mortis terrore prostratus, vivendi sensum ad hoc tantum acceperat, ut periret? Regnant enim mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen, etiam super eos qui non peccaverunt in similitudinem prcevatieationis Ada;. Si Abraham, Isaac et Jacob in inferno, quis in ccelorum regno? Si amici tui sub poena offendentis Adam, et qui non peccaverant, alienis peccatis tenebantur obnoxii; quid de his credendum est, qui dixerunt in cordibus suis, non est Deus ? qui coiTupti et abominabiles facti sunt in voluntatibus suis? qui de- clinaverunt, simul inutiles facti sunt ; non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum? Quod si Lazarus videtur in sinu Abraham, locoque refrigerii ; quid simile infernus et regna ccelorum ? Ante Christum Abraham apud inferos: post Christum latro in paradiso. Et idcirco in resurrectione ejus multa dormientium corpora surrexerunt, et visa sunt in coelesti Jerusalem. Hieron. Epit. Nepot. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 267-] VII. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIDLE. 291 ishment of Adam2, and they which sinned not were held guilty by other men's sins ; what is to be thought of them which said in their heart, 'there is no God,' &c? And if Lazarus be seen in the bosom of Abraham and in a place of rest, what like hath hell and the kingdom of heaven ? Before Christ, Abraham in hell; after Christ, the thief in paradise." In these words Jerome after his rhetorioal manner, amplify ing the benefit of our redemption by Christ, doth rather touch this error, than plainly express it. For first, he maketh all men miserable before Christ, and cast down with terror of eternal death ; which is true, if ye consider them with out Christ, in wliich state are all men since Christ : but of all men that hved before the time of Christ's death, and yet embraced their redemption by bim, it is not true. As also, that there are some which have not sinned. But that all this is to be understood, specially of the death of their bodies, and allegorically of their souls, he addeth immediately, Et idcirco in resurrectione ejus multa dormientium corpora, &c. "And therefore at his resurrection many bodies of them that slept arose, and were seen in the heavenly Jerusalem." See you not, how he turneth all into an allegory, to set forth the virtue of Christ's redemption ? who brought all his elect by his death from hell, and the power of darkness, into the king dom of heaven. Furthermore, you bid us see Augustine in Ps. lxxxv. 13. Where in the beginning he professeth his ignorance in discussing the question of the nethermost hell. First, supposing this world in which we live to be infernum superius, and the place whither the dead go infernum in- ferius, from which God hath dehvered us, sending thither his Son, who to this infernum or "lower" place came by bis birth, Naseendo. to that by his death ; he addeth another opinion, Fortassis enim apud ipsos inferos est aliqua pars inferior, &c. " Per- adventure even in hell itself there is some part lower, in which the ungodly which have much sinned are dehvered. For whether Abraham had been now in certain places in hell, we cannot sufficiently define." And afterward when he hath spoken of the diverse places of Lazarus and the rich glutton, he concludeth as uncertainly as he began : Ergo inter istafortasse duo inferna, quorum in uno, &c. " Therefore per- adventure between these two hells, in one of which the souls of [J* Old edition, under the punishment. If Adam and — ] 19—2 292 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. the righteous rested, [in the other] the souls of the wicked are tormented, one attending prayeth in the person of Christ," &c. Here you may see, what an article of belief this was with St Augustine, when he hath nothing to define, but only bringeth his conjectural opinions and peradventures : also how he taketh infernum for any lower place, insomuch that he calleth this world infernum. Wherefore much more may infernum signify the " grave," and be so sometimes translated. Martin, Martin. His words be these in effect : " If a man will say unto me, that Lazarus was seen in Abraham's bosom, and a place of refresh ing " even before Christ's coming ; true it is, but what is that in com parison ? Quid simile infernus et regno ccelorum ? " What hath hell and heaven like ?" As if he should say, " Abraham indeed, and La zarus, and consequently many other, were in place of rest, but yet in hell, till Christ came, and in such rest as hath no comparison with the EpiSd"9t'nad J°ys °f heaven." And St Augustine1, disputing this matter sometime, Gen. ad lit. and doubting whether Abraham's bosom be called "hell" in the scrip ture, and whether the name of hell be taken at any time in the good part, (for of Christ's descending into hell, and of a third place where the patriarchs remained until Christ's coming, not heaven, but called [} Quanquam et illud me nondum invenisse confiteor, inferos appeUV tos, ubi justorum animae requiescunt. Et Christi quidem animam venisse usque ad ea loca in quibus peccatores cruciantur, ut eos solveret a tor- mentis, quos esse solvendos occulta nobis sua justitia judicabat, non immerito creditur. Quomodo enim aliter accipiendum sit quod dictum est, Quem Deus susdtavit ex mortuis, solutis doloribus inferorum, quia non poterat teneri ab eis, non video, nisi ut quorumdam dolores apud inferos eum solvisse accipiamus, ea potestate qua Dominus est, cui omne genu flectitur, ccelestium, terrestrium, et infernorum ; per quam potes- tatem etiam illis doloribus, quos solvit, non potuit attineri. Neque enim Abraham, vel ille pauper in sinu ejus, hoc est in secreto quietis ejus, in doloribus erat, inter quorum requiem et ilia inferni tormenta legimus magnum chaos firmatum ; sed nee apud inferos esse dicti sunt. Contigit enim, inquit, mori inopem ilium, et anferri ab angelis in sinum Abrahce : mortuus est autem et dives, et sepultus est ; et cum apud inferos in tormentis esset, et cetera. Videmus itaque inferorum mentionem non esse factam in requie pauperis, sed in suppliciis divitis. Proinde, ut dixi, nondum inveni, et adhuc quaero, nee mihi occurrit inferos alicubi in bono posuisse scripturam duntaxat canonicam: non autem in bono accipiendum sinum Abrahae, et illam requiem quo ab angelis pius pauper ablatus est, nescio utrum quisquam possit audire ; et ideo quo modo eam apud inferos credamus esse, non video. Augustini de Genesi ad litteram, Lib. xu. c. 63, 64. Opera, Vol. viii. pp. 509, 510. Vol. ni. p. 702. Edit. Froben. 1556.] VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 293 Abraham's bosom, he doubted not, but was most assured;) the same holy doctor in another place, as being better resolved, doubted not upon these words of the psalm, " Thou hast delivered my soul from the in ps. ixxxv. lower hell", to make this one good sense of this place, that the lower 13, hell is it wherein the damned are tormented, the higher hell is that wherein the souls of the just rested; calling both places by the name of'helP." Fulke. I have set down his very words indeed, which Fulkb, being well weighed, make nothing so clearly for your fancied 10- limbus, as you would have men ween. You say Augustine doubteth, whether Abraham's bosom in the scripture be called " hell," Ep. 99, et de Gen. ad lit. Lib. xu. cap. 33. But there he doth utterly deny it, and in Ps. lxxxv. as by his words cited before appeareth, he doubteth. So that where he -flatly denieth, with you he doubteth; and where he doubteth, with you he is better resolved. Wherefore this matter, of Abraham and the faithful being in hell, is no article of faith3; except you will say that St Augustine was not re solved in the articles of our faith, who touching the third place, whatsoever at divers times he speaketh doubtingly in his Hypognosticon, he affirmeth resolutely, that he findeth in the scriptures, that there is none. Martin. And surely, of his marvellous humility and wisdom, he Martin, would have been much more resolute herein, if he had heard the opinion ' '¦' of St Jerome, whom he often consulted in such questions, and of other fathers, who in this point speak most plainly, that Abraham's bosom, or the place where the patriarchs rested, was some part of hell. Ter- tullian, Lib. iv. advers. Marcion. saith, " I know that the bosom of Loco eitato. Abraham was no heavenly place, but only the higher hell, or the higher part of helL." Of which speech of the fathers rose afterward that other name, limbus patrum, that is the very brim or uppermost and outmost part of hell, where the fathers of the old testament rested. Thus we see that the patriarchs themselves were as then in hell, though they were there in a place of rest ; insomuch that St Jerome saith again4, L8 Quid his ergo praestiterit qui dolores solvit inferni, in quibus illi non fuerunt, nondum intelligo; praesertim quia ne ipsos quidem inferos uspiam scripturarum in bono appellatos potui reperire. Quod si nusquam in divinis auctoritatibus legitur, non utique sinus ille Abrahae, id est secretae cujusdam quietis habitatio, aliqua pars inferorum esse credenda. Augustini Epistola clxiv. c. 7. Opera, Vol. n. p. 860.] [3 This subject is fully discussed by Bishop Pearson on the 5th Article of the Apostles' Creed.] f4 Adde quod ante resurrectionem Christi notus tantum in Judaea 294 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Ante resurrectionem Christi notus in Judcea Deus, et ipsi qui noverant eum, tamen- ad inferos trahebantur : that is, " Before the resurrection of Christ God was known in Jury, and they themselves that knew ChristusTit nim> yet were drawn unto hell." St Chrysostom in that place of Esay, Deus, torn. 5. " j ^jjj Dreak the brasen gates, and bruise the iron bars in pieces, and will open the treasures darkened, &c. " So he calleth hell," saith inferaus ^e; "^or although it were hell, yet it held the holy souls, and pre cious vessels, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob '." Mark that he saith, "though it were hell," yet there were the just men at that time, till our Saviour Christ came to deliver them from thence. Fulke, Fulke. As wise and humble as he was, he was not ready to yield to every opinion of Jerome, as his epistles written to Jerome do declare. Neither was Jerome so re solute in this matter, whereof he speaketh under a cloud and in an allegory; as it is plain, where he saith the bodies that were raised at the resurrection of Christ were seen in the heavenly Jerusalem, whereas it is certain they were seen only in the earthly Jerusalem actually. But he meaneth, the effect of Christ's redemption was acknowledged either in the cathohc church, which is Jerusalem above in one sense; or else that they shall be seen in the new Jerusalem erat Deus ; in Israel magnum nomen ejus. Et ipsi qui noverant eum, tamen ad inferos trahebantur. Hieronymi Epitaphium Nepot. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 267. Utrum autem sinus ille Abrahae, ubi dives impius, cum in tor- mentis esset inferni, requiescentem pauperem vidit, vel paradisi cen- sendus vocabulo, vel ad inferos pertinere existimandus sit, non facile dixerim. De illo quippe divite legimus dictum esse, Mortuus est autem et dives, et sepultus est in inferno; et, cum apud inferos in tormentis esset. In pauperis autem morte vel requie non sunt inferi nominati : sed, Contigit, inquit, niori inopem ilium, et auferri ab angelis in sinum Abrahce. Deinde ardenti diviti dicit Abraham, Inter nos et vos chaos magnum fir- matum est; tanquam inter inferos sedesque beatorum. Non enim facile alicubi scripturarum inferorum nomen positum invenitur in bono. Augustini Epist. clxxxvii. c. 8. Opera, Vol. ii. pp. 1019, 1020.] P Nw Se irepcos 6 'Hcraias, irbXas xaXicds crvvSXdcrco, Kal poxXobs cnSqpovs crvvTptyco, Kal dvot^io croi Bqcravpovs crKoreivobs, diroKpvcpovs, dopdrovs dvadeigco croi, rbv abqv ovtco koXcov Et yap Kal adqs qv, aXXd ¦\jrvxds eKpdrei dyias Kal crKevq Tipia, rbv 'Afipadp, tov 'IcraaK, tov 'Iokb/3, Sib Kal Bqcravpobs eKaXeo-e' crKoreivobs 8e, eireiirep obSeirco 6 Tqs diKaio- crwqs qXios qv KaTaXdp\jras abrodi, obSe tovs irepl dvao-rdcrecos Kqpv^as Xdyovs. Chrysost. contra Judaeos et Gentiles quod Christus sit Deus. Opera, Vol. i. p. 564; Vol. vi. p. 626, edit. Savill.] VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 295 and blessed fehcity of the godly at the world's end ; whereof a testimony was given in that sight of their appearing and particular resurrection known at Jerusalem on earth. But you cite another place out of Tertulhan, Lib. iv. ad- versus Marcionem, and in the margin you say, loco citato ; but I wot not where. And these be Tertulhan's words, if you be an honest man : " I know that the bosom of Abraham was no heavenly place, but only the higher hell, or the higher part of hell." I see you will be as bold with the ancient doctors' works, as you are with my poor writings, whom you make to say even what you list. In the last section before you said, St Augustine, Epistol. 99, et de Gen. ad lit. Lib. xu. cap. 33. doubted whether Abraham's bosom were called "hell." Quod si nusquam, &c. "If it be never read in the holy scriptures {scilicet that hell is taken in the good part) verily that bosom of Abraham, that is the habitation of a certain secret rest, is not to be beheved to be any part of hell." And again, by reason of the in finite chaos, Satis ut opinor appareat, " It may appear, as I think, sufficiently, that the bosom of that so great feh city is not a certain part, and as it were a member of hell." In the other place he speaketh to the same effect, and upon the same ground, that he never findeth in the scriptures "hell" taken in good part; and cap. 34, where he proveth that paradise is heaven, he saith : Quanto magis ergo, "How much more then may that bosom of Abraham after this life be called paradise ?" This saith Augustine, and much more to this purpose ; wherein I thought to have forborne you, but that you come upon us still with new forgeries. Tertulhan in the book by you quoted, p. 274 of Frob. printed 1550, thus writeth : Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit, &c.2 " But Marcion driveth it another way, so forsooth, that [s Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit: scilicet utramque mercedem Creatoris, sive tormenti sive refrigerii, apud inferos determinat eis positam qui legi et prophetis obedierint; Christi vero et Dei sui ccelestem definit sinum et portum. Respondebimus, et hac ipsa scriptura revincente oculos ejus, quae ab inferis discernit Abrahae sinum pauperis. Aliud enim inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque sinus. Nam et magnum ait inter- cedere regiones istas profundum, et transitum utrinque prohibere. Sed nee allevasset dives oculos, et quidem de longinquo, nisi in superiora, et de altitudinis longinquo, per immensam illam distantiam sublimitatis 296 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. he determineth both the rewards of the Creator, either of torment or of refreshing, to be laid up for them in hell, which have obeyed the law and the prophets. But of Christ, and his God, he defineth an heavenly bosom and heaven. We will answer, and even by this self-same scripture, con vincing his blindness, which against hell discerneth this Abra ham's bosom to the poor man. For one thing is hell, (as I think,) and Abraham's bosom another thing. For a great depth, he saith, is between those regions, and that doth let the passage to and fro. But neither should the rich man have lifted up his eyes, and that truly from afar off, but into higher places, and that of an exceeding height, by that in finite distance of height and depth. Whereof it appeareth to every wise man, that hath ever heard of the Elysian fields, that there is some local determination, which is called Abra ham's bosom, to receive the souls of his sons, even of the gentiles; he being the father of many nations, to be accounted of Abraham's family, and of the same faith, by which Abra ham believed God under no yoke of the law, nor in the sign of circumcision. That region therefore I call the bosom of Abraham, and if not heavenly, yet higher than hell, which shall give rest in the mean season to the souls of the just, until the consummation of things do finish the resurrection of all with the fulness of reward." This is as much as I can find in Tertulhan touching Abraham's bosom, which is clean contrary to that you affirm him to speak. For by this say ing it is manifest, that your opinion is Marcion's heresy. Secondly, that Abraham's bosom is not hell, but higher by an infinite distance, although not in full perfection of heavenly glory. Thirdly, that it is not limbus patrum, but the re ceptacle of all the just souls to the end of the world. Ter- et profunditatis. Unde apparet sapienti cuique, qui aliquando elysios audierit, esse aliquam localem determinationem, quae sinus dicta sit Abrahae, ad recipiendas animas filiorum ejus, etiam ex nationibus; patris scilicet multarum nationum in Abrahae censum deputandarum et ex eadem fide, qua et Abraham Deo credidit, nullo sub jugo legis, nee in signo circumcisionis. Eam itaque regionem, sinum dico Abrahae, etsi non coelestem, sublimiorem tamen inferis, interim refrigerium prsebituram animabus justorum, donee consummatio rerum resurrectionem omnium plenitudine mercedis expungat. Tertull. Adv. Marcion, Lib. iv. Edit. Rigult. p. 559.] VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 297 tullian's authority therefore doth you small pleasure, and less honesty, unless you did cite him more truly. But I am unwise to look for plain dealing and sincerity at your hands. Well, your limbus patrum, the very brim, or uppermost, or outmost part of hell, wherein all the patriarchs should rest, we have now found from whence it came, even from your old acquaintance, the mouse of Pontus, Marcion the abomi nable heretic. The other saying of Jerome, but that the opinion of the fathers in hell had by that time taken some strength, might be understood of the mortality whereunto they were subject, and never should have been raised, but by the resurrection of Christ ; as it seemeth by that which he opposeth of all nations, since the passion and resurrection of Christ, acknowledged to speak like philosophers of the im mortality of the soul, and rejoicing in the resurrection of the dead, as the fathers mourned at their death. Chrysostom's place is more apparent for your error, although he also may be understood to speak allegorically of the effect of Christ's death and resurrection, by which all the patriarchs were dehvered from death, and hell was spoiled; not that they were in prison there, but that the justice of God had condemned them thither, if Christ's death had not redeemed them : but I will not stand to clear Chrysostom of this error, which it is sufficient for me to have found that Marcion the old heretic was the first author thereof, by Tertulhan's con fession; howsoever it came to pass, that many good men after ward, deceived by the words rf^s and infernus, did hold it. Martin. Therefore did Jacob say, " I will go down to my son unto Martin, hell." And again he saith : " If any misfortune happen to (Benjamin) Geni ^via. by the way, you shall bring my grey head with sorrow unto hell," whieh is repeated again twice in the chap. xliv. ; by which phrase the holy scripture will signify, not only death, but also the descending at that time of all sorts of souls into hell, both good and bad. And there- l Kings ii '. P Kal ov prj ddacoo-rjs abrbv, on dvqp crocpbs ei crb, Kal yvcocrg a iroiqcreis abrco, Kal Kard£eis rqv iroXidv abrov iv aijuan els abov. 1 Kings ii. 9. "Tu noli pati eum esse innoxium. Vir autem sapiens es, ut scias quae facies ei, deducesque canos ejus cum sanguine ab inferos," Vulg. "Deal with him therefore according to thy wisdom, and bring not his hoar head down to the grave in peace," Edit. 1562. " But thou shalt not count him as unguilty : for thou art a man of wisdom, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him, his hoar head thou shalt bring 298 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [dl. fore it is spoken of all sorts in the holy scripture, both of good and of bad. For all went then into hell; but some into a place there of rest, others into other places there of torments. And therefore St Jerome in cap. 13. saith, speaking of hell, according to the old testament : " Hell is a place Psal. ixxxv. wherein souls are included ; either in rest, or in pains, according to the 131. quality of their deserts2. Fulke, Fulke. Jacob said he would be joined to his son by death, as in the other text you bring it is more manifest than the sun at noon days. For Jacob, speaking of bis grey head, must needs mean of his body, and therefore of the grave, and not of hell. So in the 3 Reg. 2, which you quote, David chargeth Salomon, that he suffereth not the grey head of Joab to go- down to the grave in peace, and that he shall cause the hoar head of Shemei to go down to the grave with blood; which by no means can be understood of his soul going to hell, which goeth not with blood; although it is plain enough by the word " hoar head," that he meaneth his body in age, or bis old body. And this text Pagnine, in his die- to the grave with blood," Edit. 1584. " Therefore thou shalt cause his hoar head to go down to the grave with blood," Geneva, 1560. " But his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood," Autho rised version. Kal KaTeftqo-av avrol, Kal Sera icrrl abrcov £S>VTa els dSov. Numb. xvi. 33. " Descenderuntque vivi in infernum," Vulg. " They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit," Authorised version.] [* Et descenderunt ipsi, et omnia qucecumque sunt eis, viventes ad inferos. Notandum secundum locum terrenum dictos esse inferos, hoc est in inferioribus terras partibus. Varie quippe in scripturis et sub intellectu multiplici, sicut rerum de quibus agitur sensus exigit, nomen ponitur inferorum, et maxime in mortuis hoc accipi solet. Sed quoniam istos viventes dictum est ad inferos descendisse, et ipsa narratione quid factum fuerit satis apparet; manifestum est, ut dixi, inferiores partes terrae inferorum vocabulo nuncupatas, in comparatione hujus superioris terrse in cujus facie vivitur; sicut in comparatione cceli superioris, ubi sanctorum demoratio est angelorum, peccantes angelos in hujus aeris detrusos caliginem scriptura dicit tanquam carceribus inferi puniendos reservari. Augustini Quaestiones in Numeros, c. xxix. Opera, Vol. in. pp. 838, 839. Edit. Bened. Paris. 1836.] [2 Inter mortem autem et inferos hoc interest : mors est, qua anima separatur a corpore; infemus, locus in quo animae recluduntur, sive in refrigerio, sive in poenis, pro qualitate meritorum. Comment. Hiero nymi in Osee. c. xiii. Opera, Vol. m. p. 1329.] VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 299 tionary, thought necessary to be understood of the grave, although he make the word sheol indifferent to signify "hell," and the "grave." That all went to hell, some to rest, and some to torments, it was first devised by Marcion the heretic. But St Jerome is once again cited in Osea, cap. xiii. where he saith, " that hell is a place wherein souls are included," &c. : by which you see that he speaketh not of limbus, wherein souls were included before Christ, but of such a place wherein they are now included; taking the word infernus generally for any place that receiveth the souls of the departed, as he saith most plainly himself in the' same place : Quicquid igitur separat fratres, infernus est appellandus. "Whatso ever doth separate brethren, is to be called hell." Augustine is quoted to multiply a he, and for nothing else, as I have shewed before. Martin. And in this sense it is also often said in the holy scrip- Martin, tures, that such and such were gathered, or laid to their fathers, though *3' they were buried in divers places, and died not in the same state of The scrip- salvation, or damnation. In that sense, Samuel being raised up to speak another hen, to Saul, said, " To-morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me :" that the'damned" is, dead, and in hell, though not in the same place or state there : in this sense all such places of the holy scripture as have' the word "inferi," or "infernus," correspondent both to the Greek and Hebrew, ought to be, and may be most conveniently translated by the word "hell." As when it is said, " Thou hast delivered my soul from the lower hell," Ab inferno Psal. lxxxviii. 13, that is, as St Augustine expoundeth it, "Thou hast preserved me from mortal sins, that would have brought me into the lower hell, which is for the damned." Which place of holy scripture, and the like, when they translate " grave," see how miserably it soundeth : " Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave." Which they Bib- 16?9- would never say for very shame, but that they are afraid to say in any place, be the holy scriptures never so plain, that any soul was delivered or returned from hell, lest thereof it might follow by and by, that the patriarchs, and our Saviour Christ, were in such a hell. Fulke. That which is spoken indifferently of the elect Fulke, and reprobate, must needs be understood of that which is ' common to both, that is, corporal death. How can it be verified of their souls, that they were laid to the fathers, ¦ when between the godly and the wicked there is an infinite distance? but the earth, the grave, or pit, is a common receptacle of all dead bodies. That Samuel, which being raised up spake to Saul, might truly say of his soul, though 300 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. not of all his sons, that he should be with him in hell, (for it was the spirit of Satan, and not of Samuel, although coun terfeiting Samuel,) he might speak of the death of Saul and his sons. As for that verse of the eighty-fifth psalm1, where upon you do falsely so often allege St Augustine's resolution, what absurdity hath it, to translate it, "from the lowest grave," or "from the bottom of the grave" ? whereby David meaneth extreme danger of death that he was in by the mahce of his persecuting enemies, Saul and his accomplices. But we "are afraid to say in any place, that any 'soul was delivered and returned from hell' " We say that the souls of all the faith ful are dehvered from hell ; but of any which after death is condemned to hell, we acknowledge no return. And these words are spoken by David while he hved, and praised God for his deliverance; which might be not only from the "grave," but also from "hell," saving that he here speaketh of his pre servation from death. Martin, Martin. And that this is their fear, it is evident, because that in 14- all other places, where it is plain that the holy scriptures speak of the hell of the damned, from whence there is no return, they trans late there the very same word " hell," and not " grave." As for example, Prov. xv. 24. " The way of life is on high to the prudent, to avoid from hell beneath2." Lo, here that is translated " hell beneath," which before was translated " the lowest grave." And again, " Hell and destruction are before the Lord : how much more the hearts of the sons of men ?" But when in the holy scriptures there is mention of delivery of a soul from hell, Bib. 1579. then thus they translate : " God shall deliver my soul from the power inferi. of the grave, for he will receive me." Can you tell what they would say ? doth God deliver them from the grave, or from temporal death, T1 on r6 eXeos crov peya iir epe, Kal eppvcrco rqv ijrvxqv pov eg aBov KarcoTaTov. Psal. Ixxxv. 13. " Quia misericordia tua magna est super me ; et eruisti animam meam ex inferno inferiori," Vulg. " For great is thy mercy toward me ; and thou hast delivered my soul from the nethermost hell," Bishops' bible, 1584; Cranmer, 1562. "For great is thy meTcy toward me ; for thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave," Geneva version, 1560, 1579.] P 'OSol f- 15?!)- can be their meaning hereby, but to draw the reader from the com mon sense of our Saviour Christ's descending into hell, and conquering the same, and bringing out the fathers and just men triumphantly from thence into heaven? which sense hath always been the common sense of the catholic church and holv doctors, specially upon this place of See s. Hier. J „ ,, Comment, in the prophet. And what a kind of speech is this, and out of all tune, 13. Osee^. to make our Saviour Christ say, " O grave, I will be thy destruction" ? as though he had triumphed over the grave, and not over hell ; or over the grave, that is, over death ; and so the prophet should say " death" twice, and "hell" not at all. Fulke. St Jerome, whom you quote in the margin, to Fulke, prove that all the cathohc doctors understood this text of16- Osee, of Christ's descending into hell, and thereby reprove our translation, which for "hell" saith "grave," after he hath repeated the words of the apostle, 1 Cor. xv. upon this text, thus he concludeth : Itaque quod ille in resurrectionem interpretatus est Domini, nos aliter interpretari nee pos- sumus nee audemus. "Therefore that which the apostle hath interpreted of our Lord's resurrection, we neither can nor dare interpret otherwise." You see therefore by Jerome's judgment, that in this text, which is proper of Christ's re surrection, it is more proper to use the word of "grave," than of "hell." How vainly the same Jerome interpreteth the last words of this chapter, of spoihng the treasure of every vessel that is desirable, of Christ's delivering out of hell the most predous vessels of the saints, &c. I am not ignorant ; but we speak of translation of the 14th verse, which being un derstood of Christ's resurrection, it argueth, that the grave is spoken of, rather than hell. As for the repetition of Hell, where is thy victory ? The sting of death is sin," Tyndale, 1534. "Death is swallowed up in victory; death, where is thy sting? Hell, where is thy victory ? The sting of death is sin," Cranmer, 1539. Bishops' bible, 1584, with an interjection. "Death is swallowed up into victory. Death, where is thy sting ? grave, where is thy victory ? the sting of death is sin," Geneva, 1577. Authorised Version, 1611, with an interjection after. "Death is swallowed up in victory. Death, where is thy victory ! Death, where is thy sting, and the sting of death is sin," Rheims, 1582.] P Comment. Hieronymi in Osee, c. xiii. Opera, Vol. in. p. 1330.] 804 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [t'H. one thing twice for vehemency and certainty's sake, [it] is no inconvenient thing, but commonly used in the scriptures. Martin, Martin. Why, my masters, you that are so wonderful precise trans lators, admit that our Saviour Christ descended not into hell beneath, as you say, yet I think you will grant that he triumphed over hell, and was conqueror of the same. Why then did it not please you to suffer the prophet to say so at the least, rather than that he had con quest only of "death" and the " grave" ? You abuse your ignorant reader veiy impudently, and your own selves very damnably, not only in this, but in that you make " grave,'' and " death," all one ; and so, where the holy scripture often joineth together "death" and "hell," as things different and distinct, you make them speak but one thing twice, idly and superfluously. Fulke, Fulke. For our faith of Christ's triumphing over hell, I have spoken already sufficiently ; but of the prophet's meaning, beside the words themselves, the apostle is best expounder, who referreth it to the resurrection, and his victory over death, which he hath gained not for himself alone, but for all his elect. Where you say we make "grave" and "death" all one, it is false. We know they differ; but that one may be signified by the other, without any idle or superfluous repetition, in one verse, I refer me to a whole hundred of examples, that may be brought out of the Psalms, the Prophets, and the Proverbs, where words of the same, like, or near signification are twice together repeated, to note the same matter ; which none but a blasphemous dog will say to be done idly or superfluously. Martin, Martin. But will you know that you should not confound them, but that mors and infernus, which are the words of the holy scripture, in all tongues are distinct ; hear what St Jerome saith : or if you will not hear, because you are of them which "have stopped their ears," let the indifferent christian reader hearken to this holy doctor and great interpreter of the holy scriptures, according to his singular knowledge in all the learned tongues. Upon the aforesaid place of the prophet, after he had spoken of our Saviour Christ's descending into hell, and Hierom. in overcoming of death, he addeth : " Between death and hell this is the Osee. c. 13. i P Inter mortem autem et inferos hoc interest : mors est, qua anima separatur a corpore ; infernus, locus in quo animae recluduntur, sive in refrigerio sive in pcenis, pro qualitate meritorum. Hoc diximus, ut os- tenderemus id mortem facere, quod meretricem mulierem. Mors enim VH.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE* 305', difference, that death is that whereby the soul is ..separated from the body ; hell is the place where souls are included, either in rest, or else in pains, according to the quality of their deserts. And that death is one thing, and hell is another, the psalmist also declareth, saying : " There is not in death that is mindful of thee, but in hell who Psal. vi. shall confess to thee ?" And in another place : " Let death come upon them, and let them go down into hell alive." Thus far St Jerome. Fulke. He that by the grave understandeth a place Fulke, to receive the bodies of the dead, and figuratively death, 18- doth no more confound the words of "death" and the "grave," than he that by a cup understandeth a vessel to receive drink properly, and figuratively that drink which is con tained in such a vessel. Therefore that you cite out of Jerome maketh nothing against us; for he himself, although deceived by the Septuagintes, or rather by the ambiguity of the word a$?js, which they use, in the signification of the Hebrew word VtXty, yet by infernus understandeth them that be in inferno, and the dead, as we do by the word "grave" oftentimes. As for his opinion of the godly souls in happy hell before Christ's death, or his interpretation of any other part of scripture, we profess not to follow in our translations, but as near as we can, the true signifi cation of the words of holy scripture, with such sense (if any thing be doubtful) as the proper circumstances of every place will lead us unto, that we may attain, to the meaning of the Holy Ghost, ' Martin^ By which differences of "death" and "hell," whereof we Martin, must often advertise the reader, are meant two things : death, and the 19- going down of the soul into some receptacle of hell, in that state of the old testament, at what time the holy scriptures used this phrase so often. Now, these impudent translators in all these places translate it " grave," 3iu. 1579. of purpose to confound it and " death" together, and to make it but one thing, which St Jerome sheweth to be different, in the very same sense that we have declared. dividit fratres, hoc et mulier facit. In fratribus, omnem intellige ca- ritatem: quod et mater dividatur a filia, et pater a filio, et frater a fratre. Quod autem aliud sit mors, et aliud infernus, et Psalmista demonstrat, dicens : Non est in morte qui memor sit tui ; in inferno autem- quis confitebitur' tibi ? et in alio loco : Veniat mors super eos, et descendant iji infernum viventes. Hieronymi Comment, in Osee. c. xiii. Opera, in. p. 1329.] r 1 20 [fulke.J 306, A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [' CH. Fulke, 19. Fulke. The difference of mors and infernus, which Jerome maketh, cannot always stand; as I have shewed of the hoar heads of Jacob, Job, and Shemei, (which none but mad men will say to have descended into a receptacle of souls,) beside other places of scripture, where sheol must of necessity signify a place for the body. And even those places of the Psalms, that St Jerome calleth to witness, do make against his error. For where David saith, Psalm vi.1 " In hell who shall confess unto thee ?" how can it be true of the souls of the faithful, being in that holy hell, Abra ham's bosom? Did not Abraham confess unto God, and acknowledge his mercy? Did not Lazarus the same? did not all the holy souls departed confess God in Abraham's bosom ? Were all those blessed souls so unthankful, that being car ried into that place of rest and comfort, none of them would confess God's benefits? It is plain therefore, to the con fusion of your error, that sheol in that place of David must needs signify the " grave," in which no man doth confess, praise, or give thanks unto God, of whom in death there is no remembrance. Therefore he desireth life and restoring of health, that he may praise God in his church or congre gation. Likewise in the 54th psalm2, where he prophesieth unto the wicked a sudden death, such as befel to Chore, Dathan, and Abiram, wliich went down quick into the "grave;" not into "hell," whither come no bodies of men living, but the souls of men that are dead. Martin, Martin. But, alas ! it is the very nature of the Hebrew, Greek, or ft£ Latin, that forceth them so much to English it "grave," rather than Sixty "hell." We appeal to all Hebricians, Grecians, and Latinists in the Infernus/ world : first, if a man would ask, What is Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin for " hell" ? whether they would not answer these three words, as the very proper words to signify it, even as panis signifieth " bread." Se xtos, condly, if a man would ask, What is Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin, for "Qk! a "grave"? whether they would answer these words, and not three. Sepuichrum. other, which they know are as proper words for "grave,'' as lac is, for "milk." P 'Ev be no dbrj tis i^opoXoyqcreral croi ; Paal. vi. 5. " In inferno. autem quis confitebitur tibi," Vulg.] Q3 'EXfcVrto 8dvaros eV abrobs, Kal KaTaftqTcocrav els abov (avres. Psal. liv. 15. "Veniat mors super illos: et descendant in infernum viventes," Vulg. Psal. Iv. 15.] ^H.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 307 Fulke. The very nature of the Hebrew word bwv Fulke, is most properly to signify a " grave", or receptacle of dead bodies, as all that be learned in that tongue do know. About the Greek and Latin terms is not our question, and therefore you deal deceitfully to handle them all three together : although neither ifSrjs nor infernus are so proper for "hell," but that they may be taken also sometimes "for the grave," and so perhaps were meant by the Greek and Latin translators in divers places. You speak, therefore, as one void of all shame, to say they are as proper for " hell," as panis for " bread." Where you ask what is Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, for " hell," you must understand, that if you speak of a proper word for those invisible places, wherein the souls departed are either in joy or torments ; I answer, there is no proper word for those places, either in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. For that which of all these tongues is translated "heaven," is the proper word for the sensible sky, in which are the sun, moon, and stars ; and by a figure is transferred to signify the place of God's glory, in which he reigneth with the blessed spirits of angels and men, above this sensible world. "Paradise" and "Abraham's bosom," who is so childish not to acknowledge them to be borrowed words, and not proper ? So for the receptacle of the reprobate souls, in the Hebrew tongue topheth or gehinnom, which properly are the names of an abominable place of idolatry, are used ; and sheol sometimes figuratively may signify the same. In Greek and Latin, gehenna is used for the same, wliich is borrowed of the Hebrew. Sometimes also the word 9&7S, in Greek, is taken for the place of the damned and the kingdom of darkness. The Latin word infernus is any low place. Wherefore I cannot marvel sufficiently at your impudency, which affirm these three words, b"\iW, 43ns and infernus, to be as proper for our Enghsh word " hell," as panis is for " bread." That there be other words, beside these in all the three tongues to signify a "grave," I marvel to what purpose you tell us, except you would have ignorant folk suppose that there cannot be two Hebrew, Greek, or Latin words for one thing. Martin. Yea, note and consider diligently what we will say. Let Martin, them shew me out of all the bible one place, where it is certain and agreed among all, that it must needs signify "grave"; let them shew 20—2 "SOS JV. DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH !jcH. me in any one such place, that the holy scripture useth any of those former three words for "grave." As when Abraham bought a place Gen. xlix. of burial, whether he bought " infernum " ; or when it is said the kings of Israel were buried in the monuments or sepulchres of their fathers, whether it say, in infernis patrum suorum. So that not only divines by this observation, but grammarians also and children may easily see, that the proper and natural signification of the said words is in English " hell," and not " grave." Fulke, Fulke. We note well your foohsh subtilty, that will have us to shew you one place, where it is certain and agreed among all, that sheol must needs signify "grave." I am persuaded that you and such as you are, that have sold your selves to antichrist, to maintain his heresies with all impudency, will agree to nothing that shall be brought, though it be never so plain and certain that it must needs so signify. I have already shewed you three places, where the hoary head is said to go down into sheol, that is, into the "grave." For whither should the hoary head go but into the grave? Nothing can be more plain to bim that will agree to truth, that sheol in all such places is taken for the "grave." But to omit those places, because I have spoken of them already ^ what say you to that place, Numb, xvi., where the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the rebels with their tents, and all their substance of cattle, and whatsoever they had ? where the text saith, " They went down, and all that they had, alive, sheolah, into the pit or grave." God made a great grave or hole in the earth, to receive them all. Where no man will say that either the bodies of these men, pr their substance of tents, cattle, and stuff, went into "hell," as it is sure their souls went into torment. And if authority do weigh more with you than good reason, hear what St Augustine writeth upon the same text, and how he taketh your inferos or infernum, which in the Hebrew is sheol, qucest. super Num. Lib. iv. c. 29 : Et descenderunt ipsi et omnia qucecunque sunt eis viventes ad inferos. Notan- dum secundum locum terrenum dictos esse inferos, hoc est, &c. "And they themselves descended, and all that they had, alive unto inferos, the lower parts. It is to be noted, that inferi are spoken of an earthly place, that is, in the low parts of the earth. For diversely and under manifold understanding, even as the sense of things which are in hand VII. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 309 requireth, the name of inferi is put in the scriptures, and especially it is wont to be taken for the dead. But foras much as it is said that those descended alive ad inferos, and by the very narration it appeareth sufficiently what was done ; it is manifest, as I said, that the lower parts of the earth are termed by this word inferi, in comparison of this upper part of the earth in which we hve. Like as in com parison of the higher heaven, where the dwelling of the holy angels is, the scripture saith, that the sinful angels being thrust down into the darkness of this air, are reserved as it were in prisons of a lower part, or hell, to be punished." St Augustine here doth not only understand this place of the grave, or receptacle of bodies ; but also sheweth that the Latin word inferi or infernus doth not always signify " hell," as you made it of late as proper for " hell," as panis for "bread." But because you shall not complain of the singu larity of this example, although you require but one, I will add out of the Psalm cxli., where the prophet saith, "Our. bones are scattered at the very brink or mouth of sheol, 'the grave'." l How can you understand him to speak of hell? For the grave, and not hell, is a place for dead men's bones: as he speaketh of the faithful, by the wicked counted as good as dead and rotten, consumed to the bones. By these and many other examples it is manifest, that the proper significa tion of sheol in Enghsh is a "grave," and not " hell." Martin. And therefore Beza doth strangely abuse his reader more Martin, than in one place, saying that the Hebrew word doth properly signify r" "errave," being deduced of a verb that signifieth to crave or ask, be- Actsii.25, 27 . , , a j.c i_ j.,. i and in 1 Cor. cause it craveth always new corses. As though the grave craved more xv. 55. than hell doth, or swallowed more, or were more hardly satisfied and p*1'7^ XXX. IS, 163*. P 'ilcrel ir&xos yqs bieppdyq eirl Tqs yqs, biecrKopirlcr8q rd dcrrct ^pmv irapd tov abqv, Psal. cxl. 7. " Sicut crassitudo terrae erupta est super terrain, dissipata sunt ossa nostra secus infernum," Psal. cxli. 7. Vulg.] ra Karairlapev be abrbv cocrirep ahqs £coVTa, Prov. i. 12. "Deglutia- mus eum sicut infernus viventem," Vulg. " We will swallow them up alive like a grave even whole," Geneva bible, 1560. " We shall swal low them up like the hell," Cranmer, 1562. "Let us swallow them up like the grave," Bishops' bible, 1584. Authorised version, 1611.] • Qs "Abqs Kal epos yvvaiKos, Prov. xxx. 16. " Infernus et os vulvae," Vulg. " The grave and the barren womb," Bishops' bible, 1560, Auhorised version. "The grave, a woman's womb," Cranmer, 1562.] 310 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. filled than hell; for in all such places they translate "grave." And in one such place they say, " The grave and destruction can never be full1." Whereas themselves a little before translate the very same words Prov. xv. n. "hell and destruction2;" and therefore it might have pleased them to have said also, " hell and destruction can never be full," as their pew- fellows do in their translation : and again, " We shall swallow them up like hell." " The devil," we read, " goeth about continually like a roar ing lion, seeking whom he may devour :" who is called in the Apo calypse " Abaddon," that is, " destruction." And so very aptly " hell" and "destruction" are joined together, and are truly said never to be filled. What madness and impudency is it then for Beza to write thus : Beza, before " Who is ignorant that by the Hebrew word rather is signified a "grave," for that it seemeth after a sort to crave always new carcases?" Prov. xxvii. 20. Bib. 1562. 1577.Prov. i. 1 Pet. v. Kev. ix. 11. Fulke, 22. Fulke. Beza doth not abuse his reader, to tell him that sheol is derived of a verb that signifieth " craving " or " asking ;" but you do unhonestly abuse Beza, as you do every man, when you take in hand to affirm that he standeth only upon the etymology of sheol, to prove that it signifieth " the grave." Martin, 23. Annot. in Acts ii. 24. Martin. And again, concerning our Saviour Christ's descending into hell, and delivering the fathers from thence, "it is marvel," saith Beza, "that the most part of the ancient fathers were in this error; whereas with the Hebrews the word sheol signifieth nothing else but 'grave'." Before, he pleaded upon the etymology or nature of the word ; now also he pleadeth upon the authority of the Hebrews them selves. If he were not known to be very impudent and obstinate, we Q1 "Abqs Kal dncoXeia ovk epiripirXavrai, Prov. xxvii. 20. " Infernus et perditio nunquam implentur," Vulg. " The grave and destruction can never be full," Geneva, 1560. " Hell and destruction are never full," Cranmer, 1562. Bishops' bible, 1584. Authorised version.] [2 'Abqs Kal dirdXeia, Prov. xv. 11. "Infernus et perditio," Vulg. "Hell and destruction are before the Lord," Bishops' bible, 1584. Geneva, 1560. Authorised version. " Hell and perdition are known unto the Lord,'' Cranmer, 1562.] L~3 Fateor tamen etiam de profundissimis illis subterraneis locis idem vocabulum interdum dici, quos alibi scriptura vocat abyssum, unde etiam port* inferorum nominantur, Matt. xvi. 18. et dives ille apud inferos collocatur in summo cruciatu, Luc. xviii. 23. et rogant dsemones ne mittantur in abyssum, Luc. viii. 31. Sed quid quisque locus ferat, diligenter animadvertendum. ••••*• Dico igitur VlKttf (scheol) hoc in loco (Act. ii. 27.) propria significatione accipiendum pro sepulchro, et "animam meam" vel loco pronominis me accipi, sicut vulgo dici- jnus ma personne, etc. Nov. Test. Edit. Beza, 1582, pp. 415, 416.] • vn0 TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. '311 would easily mistrust his skill in the Hebrew, saying that among the Hebrews the word signifieth "nothing else but grave." Nihil aliud. Fulke. Beza saith that the word sheol properly signi- Fulke, fieth nothing but "the grave:" nevertheless he saith it is 23* taken figuratively for " tribulation," wliich is near to ex treme destruction, yea, and sometime for the " bottomless pit of hell." Martin. I would gladly know what are those Hebrews. Doth not Mahtis, the Hebrew text of the holy scripture best tell us the use of this word? Do not themselves translate it "hell" very often? do not the Septuaginta always ? If any Hebrew in the world were asked, how he would turn these words into Hebrew, Similes estis sepulchris dealbatis, "You are like to whited graves;" and, Sepulchrum ejus apud vos est, " His grave is among you" : would any Hebrew, I say, translate it by this Hebrew word which Beza saith among the Hebrews signifieth Sheolim. nothing else but "grave"? Ask your Hebrew readers in this case, and see what they will answer. Fulke. The best of the Hebrews, that either interpreted Fulke, scriptures, or made dictionaries, Jews or Christians, do ac-24' knowledge that sheol doth properly signify "the grave." That the Septuaginta do always translate it $otis, it proveth not that it always signifieth "hell;" for qSqs signifieth not always " hell," as in the place of Numb. xvi. As for the turning of Latin into Hebrew, is not our controversy, but of translating Hebrew into Enghsh: sheol may signify "the grave," " the hole," " the pit," as fovea, though it be not all one with the Latin word sepulchrum. And yet rabbi ' Salomon, whom you boldly cite in the 27th section, saith in Gen. xxxvii* plainly, that the true and proper interpretation of sheol is keber, which you say is as proper for " grave," as lac is for *' milk." Martin. What are those Hebrews then that Beza speaketh of? For- Martin, sooth, certain Jews or later rabbins, which, as they do falsely inter- * pret all the holy scriptures against our Saviour Christ in other points tantsininter- - ,,.„.,.. . , , . , pretationof or our belief, as against hia incarnation, death, and resurrection; so do scriptures they also falsely interpret the holy scriptures against his descending iate Jews, into liell, which those Jewish rabbins deny, because they look for {L ancient another Messias that shall not die at all, and consequently shall not aposto'iuSl after his death go down into hell, and deliver the fathers expecting his ™urdu coming, as our Saviour Christ did. And therefore those Jewish rabbins hold, as the heretics do, that the fathers of the old testament were in S12 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH? 'few. Isai. vii. heaven before' our Saviour's incarnation. And these rabbins are they wliich also pervert the Hebrew word to the signification of "grave," in such places of the holy scriptures as speak either of our Saviour Christ's descending into hell, or of the fathers going down into hell; even in like manner as they pervert other Hebrew words of the holy scripture, as namely, alma to signify a young woman, not a virgin, against our Saviour's birth of the blessed Virgin Mary. Fulke, 25. Fulke. Beza speaketh of the holy men of God which did write the scriptures, and so use that- word- sheol, as it cannot be taken to signify any thing properly, but " the grave" or " pit." And as for the Jewish rabbins, what reason is there why we should not credit them in the inter pretation of words of their own tongue, rather than any ancient Christians ignorant of the Hebrew tongue ? And although they do sometimes frowardly contend about the signification of a word or two, against the truth of the gospel, that is no sufficient cause why they should be discredited in all words, - But beside them, Beza hath also the best Hebricians that have been in this last age among the Christians, not only protestants, but papists also, namely Pagninus, and Masius, in their dictionaries. Martin, Martin. And if these later rabbins be the Hebrews that Beza meaneth, and which these gay English translators follow, we lament that they join themselves with such companions, being the sworn enei mies of our Saviour Christ. Surely the christian Hebrews in Rome and elsewhere, which of great rabbins are become zealous doctors of Christianity, and therefore honour every mystery and article of our christian faith concerning our Saviour Christ, they dispute as vehe mently against those other rabbins as we do against the heretics; and I Sam. xxiii. -.among other things, they tell them that Saul said, " Raise me up Samuel ;" and that the woman said, " I see gods ascending out of the earth," and, "An old man is ascended or come up;" and that Samuel said, "Why hast thou disquieted me, that I should be raised up?" and, " To-morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me." And the book pf Eccl. xlvi. 23. Ecclesiastieus saith, that Samuel died, and afterward " lifted np his voice out of the earth," &c. All which the holy scripture would never have thus expressed, whether it were Samuel indeed or not, if Saul and the Jews then had believed that their prophets and patriarchs had been in heaven above. And as for the Hebrew word, they make it, as every boy among the Jews doth well know, as proper a word for "hell, as panis is for "bread," and as unproper for a grave; though so it .may be used by a figure of speech, as cymba Charontis is Latin for "death." .VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 313 Fulke. If we followed the Jews in exposition of the Fulke, scriptures against Christ, we were not so much to be pitied * as to be abhorred : but if we be content to learn the propriety of Hebrew words of the learned rabbins, as Jerome was glad to do of his rabbin, who (as it appeareth by his scholar in some places) was not excellently learned; there is no cause why any man should pity us, but them rather, that, to cloke their ignorance in the Hebrew tongue, pretend as if it were more unlawful to learn Hebrew of the Hebrew rabbins, than Latin of Quintilian or Priscian, and Greek of Gaza, Suidas, and such like. That you tell us of the Romish rabbins converted from Judaism to papistry, is not worth a straw. For their argument of Saul's and a witch's opinion, that the dead might be raised, proveth nothing in the world that they were in hell: And the son of Sirach sheweth himself not to be directed by the Spirit of God, which affirm eth Samuel did hft up his voice after bis death out of the earth, contrary to the judgment of catholic doctors of the church. For that the scripture speaketh of Samuel raised by the witch, is meant of a wicked spirit counterfeiting the shape and similitude of Samuel. For the souls of the faithful, and holy prophets, be not at the commandments of witches, but at rest with God, where they cannot be disquieted. As for the authority of those unknown authors, that teach boys to say sheol is as proper for " hell," as panis for " bread," we may esteem it to be of as good credit as Charon's boat, Pluto's palace, and Cerberus's three heads, &c. Martin. But what speak I of these ? Do not the greatest and most Martin, ancient rabbins, (so to call them,) the Septuaginta, always translate the 27- JHebrew word by the Greek abqs, which is properly " hell ?" do not Geneb. lib. 3. the Talmudists, and Chaldee paraphrases, and rabbi Salomon Jarhi, handling these places of the psalms, "He will deliver my soul from the hand of sheol," interpret it by gehinum, that is, gehenna, " hell V -and yet the Calvinists bring this place for an example that it signifieth •" grave." Likewise upon this place, " Let all sinners be turned into sheol," the aforesaid rabbins interpret it by gehinum, "hell." Insomuch that in the Proverbs, and in Job, it is joined with " Abaddon." Where Prov. xv. rabbi Levi, according to the opinion of the Hebrews, expoundeth sheol to be the lowest region of the world, a deep place opposite to heaven, whereof it is written, " If I descended into hell, thou art present :'' and «o doth rabbi Abraham expound the same word in chap. ii. Jonae. Fulke, Although the Septuaginta do always translate 27. ' 314 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. sheol by the word aojjs, yet do they not thereby always understand " hell ;" as it is manifest in all those places; where the scripture speaketh of a receptacle of dead bodies. But now you will bear us down with rabbins, Talmudists, and Chaldee paraphrases. And first you say that all these, handling that verse of the 49th psalm, " He will deliver my soul from the hand of sheol," interpret it by gehinnom, that is, "hell." I grant that rabbi Joseph, using the liberty of a paraphrast, rather than a translator, interpreteth the word by gehinnom, that signifieth " hell-fire :" and so the sense is true ; for God dehvered David from eternal damnation : but rabbi David Chimchi, expounding the same place accord ing to the proper signification of sheol, saith, N'Oiil "|QN iniN13, &c. "The prophet said, when he saw the destruction of the souls of the wicked in their death, ' In the day in which my body shall go down to (sheol) the grave, God shall de liver my ,soul from the hand of (sheol) the grave, that my soul shall not perish with my body.' " You see, therefore, that all the rabbins be not of your side; no, nor rabbi Salomon Jarchi, whom you cite. For upon Genesis xxxvii. 35, where Jacob saith he will go down to the grave mourning) thus he writeth: '"Lll Kin "Dp ]wb KD1103D: rbltW ^N. Mourning to sheol: according to the plain and literal sense, the interpretation thereof is ' the grave,' in my mourning I will be buried, and I will not be comforted all my days : but after the midrash, or exposition, not according to the letter, it is ' hell.' This sign was delivered by hands, or by tradition, from the mouth of his power, (that is, from a divine oracle;) if not one of my sons shall die in my life-time, I had confidence that I should not see hell." By this saying it is manifest, that this rabbin acknowledged the true and proper translation of this word sheol was "to the grave;" although after figurative, and sometimes fond, expositions, it was inter preted for " hell." Likewise you say, but untruly, of this verse, Psal. ix. 18, " Let all sinners be turned to sheol;" for there the Chaldee paraphrast retaineth the word sheol, and doth not give any other word for it. David Chimchi inter preteth it according to the literal sense, "Up1? D^iiT) "QW\ "Let the wicked be turned into the grave;11 which is so strange with you to be answerable to sheol, although, as R. Salomon saith, it may be understood of their burial in hell. That slieolf in the. Proverbs and Job is joined with abaddon, it VII.] TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 315 hindereth it not to signify the grave, where is the destruction P">v. xv. Ot/ o job xxvi. and consumption of the body. And Proverbs xv. 11, the Chaldee paraphrast retaineth sheol, which Kabuenaki ex poundeth thus: ""1D*0, &c It is said of sheol and abaddon, that sheol is " the grave," ~12pn, and abaddon is " hell," which is deeper than the grave, &c." And although in Job rabbi Levi and others expound sheol for a secret place about the centre of the earth, which should seem to be hell ; yet they say not that this is the proper signification of the word sheol. For in Job xxi. 13, the Chaldee para phrast for sheol interpreteth kebureta, " the grave" ; and Xfin^p in the xiv. 13, beith kebureta, "the house of the grave;" ' '^^ and xvii. 12 and 15, "the grave." In both which places rabbi Abraham Peritsol joineth sheol and keber together, . V :' ' both .signifying " the grave" ; and in the latter verse he maketh Job to say to bis friends, "DODPI HI, the bars of lies with which. you comfort me, into the midst of the pit of the grave shall go down with me when I die." By all which testimonies it is manifest, that sheol is not the proper word for." hell," the receptacle of souls; but for "grave," the common dwelling-house of men's bodies. But you will press us yet further with the authority of rabbi Abraham upon Jonas ii. Indeed, in Abraham Aben Ezra I read as you say: but this is only his opinion of the figurative sense of that place ; for upon Hosee xiii. 14, he expoundeth btttW TD thus, " I have been a redeemer of thy fathers ; now I will be a destruction of death which is to thee." And so do R. Shelomo Jarchi, and rabbi David Chimchi : yea, so doth St Paul, more worth than all the rabbins that ever were, expound it. Martin. This being the opinion and the interpretation of the He- Martin, ¦brews, see the skill or the honesty of Beza, saying that sheol, with the 28, Hebrews, signifieth nothing but "grave." Whereas indeed, to speak skil fully, uprightly, and not contentiously, it may signify " grave" some time secondarily, but " hell " principally and properly, as is manifest ; for that there is no other word so often used, and so familiar in the scriptures to signify "hell," as this; and for that the Septuaginta do always interpret it by the Greek word abqs. Fulke. The opinion of the Hebrews being as I have Fulke, rehearsed out of their own words, "see the skill or honesty" 28< 316 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. Martin,29. Annot. in Acts ii. 27. Fulke, 29. of Martin, which dare open his mouth against Beza in this matter, and tell us that sheol may secondarily signify " a grave;" whereas it doth first and principally so signify, howsoever the Septuaginta do interpret it by qclris, which signifieth an obscure dark place under the earth, and not "hell" properly. Martin. The which Greek word is so notorious and peculiar for " hell," that the pagans use it also for " Pluto," whom they feigned to be god of hell, and not god of "graves ;" and if they would stand with us in this point, we might beat them with their own kind of reasoning out of poets and profane writers, and out of all lexicons. Unless they will tell us, contrary to their custom, that we Christians must attend the ecclesiastical use of this word in the bible and in christian writers, and that in them it signifieth "grave." For so Beza seemeth to say, that the Greek interpreters of the bible translated the Hebrew word aforesaid by this Greek word, as signifying " a dark place ;" whereas the Greek poets used it for that wliich the Latins called inferos, that is " hell." " Wliich ambiguity," saith he, " of the word made many err, affirming Christ's descending into hell. So was limbus huilded, whereunto afterward purgatory was laid." Fulke. That Pluto of the poets is feigned "to be the god of hell, it was hereof that they imagined hell to be a place under the earth, which was his palace, as earth was his kingdom ; or else, what becometh of the triple division of all the world, if Jupiter having heaven, Neptune the sea, Pluto should not have the earth? who had his name of the riches inclosed in the earth, and was also called 'AoV, or 'A'toys, as in Homer II. xv. Zebs Kal iyco, Tpiraros 8' 'Aibqs ivepoicriv dvdcrcrcov. " Jupiter and I, and Pluto the third that ruleth over the dead." Whereof it is put in the genitive case, after such prepositions as govern an accusative or dative, where oIkos "the house of Pluto" is to be understood. I might here cite divers places out of JSTonnus, the christian Greek poet, who seemeth to use dis and a't^ijs for " the grave," speaking of the resurrection of Christ, John ii. and of Lazarus, xi. But of the translation of the Greek word is not our question, but of the Hebrew word sheol, which the Septuaginta turning into etoV> mean a place generally to receive the dead, which sometimes is the "grave11 of the bodies, sometimes "heir' of the souls. VII. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE EIBLEi 317 Martin. I see Beza's wiliness very well in this point : for here the Martin, man hath uttered all his heart, and the whole mystery of his crafty meaning of this corrupt translation : that to avoid these three things, " Christ's descending into hell," limbus patrum, and purgatory, he and his companions wrest the foresaid words of the holy scriptures to the signification of " grave." But let the indifferent christian reader only consider Beza's own words in this place, point by point. Fulke. Beza useth no wiliness or craft at all; for he doth Fulke, 30 always openly detest the dreams of limbus and purgatory, and whatsoever may depend upon them. But let us see what you can gather out of his words. Martin. First he saith, that the Greek poets were wont to use the Martin, Greek word for " hell ;" secondly, that they which interpreted the bible ' out of Hebrew into Greek, used the very same word for that Hebrew word, whereof we have now disputed ; thirdly, that the ancient fathers, (for of them he speaketh, as a little before he expresseth,) understood the said Greek word for " hell," and thereby grew to those errors, as he Acts ii. 24. impudently affirmeth, of Christ's descending into hell, and of the place in hell where the fathers rested expecting the coming of our Saviour, &c. Whereby the reader doth easily see, that both the profane, and also the ecclesiastical use of the word is for " hell," and not for " grave." Fulke. I looked for some great matter, when you be- Fulkb, gan to consider so diligently from point to point: but I see we shall have nothing but this cold collection, "that both the profane and ecclesiastical use of this word aSr/s is for ' hell,' and not for the 'grave1.'1 That it is used for "hell," no man denieth : but that it is used only for "hell,11 Beza saith not, and I have proved that it is not. As also it may be proved by divers other places out of the apocryphal writings ; namely, Wisd. xvi. 13, where it is translated for "death" by your own Latin translator, being the same verse that is in the song of Anna, 1 Sam. ii., where sheol is used, and is repeated in that signification Tob. xiii. 12. Likewise Wisd. ii. 1, where the ungodly that profess the mortahty of the soul say, that none was known to return from etoV, the word can signify nothing but "grave." For "hell" it cannot signify in their speech, that believe no hell, and say plainly that their souls shall vanish like smoke or light air. Likewise in Baruch ii. it is taken for the "grave," where he saith the dead, which are in the §$>;?, shall not give honour to God; where it is cer- 318 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. tain, that by that word is meant the " grave," seeing the souls of the righteous that were in Abraham's bosom did praise God : and moreover, he maketh it plain that he speaketh of the dead bodies, when he saith, "their spirit is taken out of their bowels." Mabtin, 32. Infernus,inferi. Fulke,32. Martin. And for the Latin word, it is the like case for all the world; and if a man will ask but his child that cometh from the grammar, what is infernus, he will say "hell," and not "grave:" what is Latin for "grave"? he will answer, sepulchrum, or monumentum; but never infernus, unless one of these Calvinistical translators taught him so, to deceive liis father. Fulke. I hope they that be wise will believe St Augustine rather than you, that the word inferi, which is the same that infernus, hath diverse and manifold understandings in the scripture, as I have declared before, sect. 21. But with the Latin word infernus we have httle to do, which translate not out of Latin, but out of Hebrew or Greek. Martin, 33. •If they ob ject unto us some Catho lics, that translate it sepulchrum, as they do : it is a fault in them also, but so far less than in the protestants,as chance medley is in respect of wilful mur der. See their mar ginal annot. Jons ii. 2, Bib. 1577. Fulke,33. Martin. Now then, to draw to a conclusion of this their corruption also in their English translation : whereas the Hebrew and Greek and Latin words do most properly and usually signify "hell;" and both Greek and Latin interpreters precisely in every place use for the He brew word that one Greek word, and that one Latin word, which by all custom of speaking and writing signify " hell ;"* it had been the part of sincere and true-meaning translators, to have translated it also in English always by the word " hell ;'' and afterward to have disputed of the meaning thereof, whether and when it is to be taken for "hell," or "grave," or "lake," or "death," or any such thing. As in one place they have done it very exactly and indifferently, namely when Jonas saith, chap. ii. 2, out of the whale's belly, " Out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice1." So all translate it, and well, whatsoever it signify in this place. They think that "hell" here sig nifieth nothing else but the whale's belly, and the affliction of Jonas; and so the word may signify by a metaphorical speech, as when we say in English, " It is a hell to live thus ;" and therefore* no doubt they did here translate it so, to insinuate that in other places it might as well signify " grave," as here the " whale's belly." Fulke. Your conclusion is as good as your premises: because the Greek and Latin interpreters had before us translated amiss, which gave occasion to divers errors, there fore we also, knowing the true signification of the word, \j Genevan translation, 1560.] TII.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 319 must have followed them in wrong and doubtful transla tion, and afterward debated the meaning of the several places. But in the margin you tell us, that such catholics as have translated the word sheol for a "grave," have also done amiss. Pardon us, M. Martin; we take you for no such learned Hebrician, that you should control Pagninus, Isidorus Clarius, and all other Hebricians of this time upon such slender sleeveless reasons as you have brought hitherto. And you shew an intolerable proud stomach, that being a man so little seen in the Hebrew tongue (as you shew yourself to be), you should condemn such grave and learned persons of your own side, of rashness or ignorance. For you make them in the case of chance medley, that have trans lated sheol a "grave." Think you, the deputies of the council of Trent had no more discretion in perusing Isidorus Clarius' correction of the bible, than to suffer him to change life and safety into chance medley and manslaughter ? Tou may in time to come, if you apply your study, prove learned in that language, wherein as yet you are but a smatterer, not worthy to be heard against so many, so learned, so famous professors of the Hebrew tongue, Jews and Christians, pro testants and papists, authors of grammars, dictionaries, and translations. But in the second of Jonas it pleaseth you well that our Geneva bible translateth this word "hell,11 " out of the belly of hell," &c; but you hke not that they should interpret it a metaphorical hell, or the extremity of affliction whereinto the prophet was brought : where you make it no doubt what they would insinuate, you shew yourself more bold to affirm, than ready or able to prove. Martin. But then they should have translated it also " hell " in Martin, other places, as they did in this, and afterward have interpreted it "grave" in their commentaries; and not presumptuously to straiten and limit the word of the Holy Ghost to their private sense and interpreta tion, and to prejudice the ancient and learned holy fathers, which look far more deeply and spiritually into this prophecy, than to Jonas or the whale ; our Saviour himself also applying it to his own person, and Matt. xiL to his being in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. And therefore3 St Jerome saith : " This belly of hell, according to the story, comment, in 2 Ion a?. Q3 Ventrem autem inferi alvum ceti intelligamus, quae tantee fuit magnitudinis, ut instar obtineret inferni. Sed melius ad personam Christi referri potest, qui sub nomine David cantat in psalmo : Non 320 A defence of the English [ch/ is the whale's belly; but it may much better be referred to the person Psal. xxv. 0f Christ, which, under the name of David, singeth in the psahn. ' Thou In inferno. ¦ ° -, Psal. ixxxvii. shalt not leave my soul in hell,' who was in hell alive, and free among the dead." And that which our Saviour saith, " The Son of man shall be in the heart of the earth," he doth interpret of his soul in hell. " For as the heart is in the midst of the body, so is hell said to be in the midst of the earth." Fulke, Fulke. They have in other places translated it according 34, to the propriety of the word; and if in this place they had done so likewise, I see not what fault they had committed. Certain it is that the whale's belly did rather resemble a grave, wherein Jonas seemed to be buried, than hell, the receptacle of separated souls. It is the office of a trans lator not so much to regard what other have written upon the place he translateth, be they ancient, be they godly, be they learned, as what sense the interpretation of the words will best bear. Without prejudice therefore of any man's credit, the truth in this case must be sought put. That you report out of Jerome upon this place, sheweth that both the Hebrew word sheol, and the Latin infernus, are not proper and peculiar for " hell," as in other places you tell us. That St Jerome interpreteth the saying of Christ, Matt. xii. 40, of his being "in the heart of the earth," to be meant of his being in hell, which is said to be in the middle of the earth, it is confuted by the words of our Saviour Christ, who saith, that he shall be there " three days and three nights," that is, all the time of his death; which is true of his body in the grave, but not of his soul in hell: for both he said he would be that day in paradise, and you yourselves hold that he made no tarri- ance in hell. Beside that it is a fantastical opinion to limit hell into the midst of the earth, which is rather a place without the sensible world, than any dungeon within the earth.derelinques animam meam in inferno, nee dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem. Qui fuit in inferno vivens, inter mortuos liber. * * * • Porro per cor maris significatur infernus, pro quo in evangelio legimus, In corde terra. Quomodo autem cor animalis in medio est ; ita infernus in medio terrse esse perhibetur. Comment. Hieronymi in Jona? c. u. Ppera,Vol. iv. pp. 1481, 1482.] •VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 321 Martin. Thus then presupposing, as we must, that Jonas speaketh Maktin, in the person of our Saviour Christ, the principal sense is not of the whale's belly, but of that hell whither our Saviour Christ descended, and from whence he delivered the fathers of the Old Testament, him self ascending into heaven, as their king and general captain, before them, and opening the way of heaven unto them, as is signified in another prophet, and was the first that entered heaven. M;c. ii. 13. Fulke. That which Jonas spake was first true of his own Fulkb, person, and then of Christ, as Jonas was in this a re- ' semblance of bim. But by this simihtude of Christ remain ing so many days and nights in the heart of the earth, as Jonas did in the whale's belly, it is manifest that he speaketh of his body remaining in the " grave," not of his soul tarrying in "hell." Wherefore the descending of Christ into limbus patrum hath no manner of hold, either of the saying of Christ in the gospel, Matt, xii., or of Jonas in his prayer, Jon. ii. Martin. Against all which truths and every point thereof these Mahtin, translators are so watchful and wary, that where the apostle saith, Christ "began" and " dedicated" unto us the way into heaven, they say Heb. x. 20. in their English translations, with full consent, notliing else but, " he iniaavit. prepared1." Why are they falser here than their masters, Calvin, Beza, Illyricus, who read dedicavit? Is there nothing in the Greek word, but x"i°0T<""'a. bare "preparation"? Where be these etymologists now, that can strain /ieTa"0 & j , 7 diro xj7s bear with these tedious grammatications, fitter to be handled in Latin, vwepncpa- Dlrj. necessary in this case also; good for them that understand, and for Sid tov pe- the rest, an occasion to ask of them that have skill in the Greek tongue, Teapio-pdv whether we accuse our adversaries iustly, or no, of false translating the Hat. holy scriptures. Fulke, Fulke. And we, by the same authority, send you to Beza's answer, in his last edition of his annotations1. And yet the reader must know, that Beza did not simply deny that the preposition might have such sense : but he said, Non facile mihi persuaserim, I cannot easily persuade my self, that any example can be brought wherein diro is so used. And in all these examples that you have brought, it signifieth rather prce, which is viro, than propter, Sid, as your vulgar translator observeth the difference, 2 Mac. v. 21, [} Ex metu, diro rqs ebXafieias. Ergo quod ad totum ipsum dicendi genus attinet, si pro reverentia, ut omnibus adhuc placuisse video ; vel pro pietate, quod Erasmus annotavit, interpreteris ; non aliud declarabit pro quam propter vel secundum, vel aliquid denique ejusmodi quod significet quo respectu sit exauditus. Atqui non facile mihi persuaserim proferri posse ullum exemplum in quo dwb ita usurpetur. Bezae, Nov. Test. 1556, p. 219. Vide chap. i. numb. 29.] VII.] TRANSLATIONS of THE BIBLE. 329 translating prce superbia, and propter elationem mentis. But Beza requireth an example of diro taken for S«a, virep or Kara, that may answer to the vulgar Latin, pro reverentia. For who would translate in St Matthew, xiii. a7ro xaj°«s> pro gaudio, propter gaudium, or secundum gaudium, or ct7ro Trjs Xvirns, pro dolore, and so of the rest ? But of these let Beza himself give account. As for "these tedious grammati- cations," which you confess to have been "fitter to be handled in Latin," it seemeth you uttered in Enghsh, for that of many ignorant you might be thought to bring some great learning out of the Hebrew and Greek tongues against us; whereas the learned, if you had written in Latin, of other nations, as well as ours, might have been witnesses of your fond trifling and quarrelling against our translations. As for the necessary cause you pretend, that the unlearned may ask them that have skill in Greek, [it] is very ridiculous. For neither can they have at hand always such as be able to resolve them; neither if they be of your faction, will they ask any indifferent man's judgment, but only such as will avouch before the ignorant that all which you write is good and perfect. Martin. And we beseech them to give us a good reason, why they, pro- Martin, fessing to follow precisely the Greek, do not observe truly the Greek points 44- in such place as concerneth this present controversy. For the place in the Apocalypse, which they allege of our Saviour Christ's suffering from the beginning, (thereby to infer that the just men of the Old Testa ment might enter heaven then, as well as after his real and actual death,) according to the Greek points saith thus: "All that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the beast), whose names have not been written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world." Where it is evident that the Greek text saith not, "the Lamb slain from the beginning;" but that the names of those antichristian idolaters were not written in God's eternal book of predestination from the beginning; as it is also most plain without all ambiguity in the xviith chap. ver. 8. If in a place of no controversy they had not been curious in points of the Greek, they might have great reason sometime to alter the same. Fulke. How fain would you obscure the light of that Fulke, excellent testimony, even contrary to your own vulgar Latin • translation, that you might not have such a faithful witness against your limbus patrum ! You require a reason, why 330 a defence of the English [en. we keep not the Greek points, Apoc. xiii.1 I answer, we keep those points which the most ancient written copies have, which the Complutensis editio hath, and which the best Greek prints now have. If you would know a reason why we follow not them that point otherwise, I answer you, the composition of the words is against that pointing. For except St John had meant that the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world, he would not have placed those words, "from the beginning of the world," next to those words "the Lamb which is slain," but next the word "written." And therefore Aretus, that could not understand how the Lamb was "slain from the beginning of the world," is forced to imagine hyperbaton in this text, where none needeth, the sense being good and plain without it, as the words do lie : " Whose names are not written in the book of hfe of the Lamb that hath been slain since the beginning of the world." And although it be true that "the names of the antichristian idolaters were not written in God's eternal book of predesti nation from the beginning," as it is said, Apoc. xiii. 8 ; yet is that no reason why this also should not be true, that the Lamb was slain since the beginning of the world, seeing with out violence you cannot distract diro KaTaj3oXiqs kooiuov from "the Lamb slain," whom it doth immediately follow. Martin, Martin. But if in points of controversy between us, they will say, 45- divers pointing is of no importance, they know the contrary by the example of ancient heretics, which used this mean also to serve their false heretical purpose. If they say, our vulgar Latin sense pointeth it so, let them profess before God and their conscience that they do it of reverence to the said ancient Latin text, or because it is indifferent, and not for any other cause; and for this one place we will admit their answer. Fulke, Fulke. We say that wrong pointing may greatly alter ' the sense ; but good composition and placing of words in a sentence is a good rule to direct pointing, where it is either lacking, or falsely signed. We refuse not the testimony of the vulgar Latin, where it agreeth with the truth of the Greek or Hebrew; yea, before God and our consciences we reverence it as a monument of some antiquity, from which Q1 Kai irpocrKVvqcrovcriv avrbv irdvres oi KaroiKOVvres iirl Tqs yqs, cov ov yeypairTai to bvopa ev t& fiijikia, rqs £coqs tov dpviov tov ecrcbay- pevov diro KaraPoXqs Kocrpov, Apoc. xiii. 8.1 VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 331 we neither do, nor are willing to dissent, except the same dissent from the original text. Otherwise the truth of this assertion, that Christ was "slain from the beginning of the world," hath not only testimony of the ancient fathers, but also may be confirmed out of the scripture. For by the obedience of Christ, St Paul, Rom. v. teacheth that "many are justified," meaning all the elect of God; who, except Christ's death had been effectual to them, before he suffered actually on the cross, must have gone, not into limbo patrum, but into hell diabolorum, which is the place appointed for all them that are not "justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption of Christ Jesus, whom God before hath set forth to be a propitiatory in his blood," Rom. iii. 24, &c. The title of this chapter threateneth a discovery of heretical translations against purgatory especially ; but in the whole discourse thereof, which is a shameful long one, oontaining forty-five sections, there is not one place noted against purgatory. Amphora ccepit institui: currente rota cur urceus exit ? 332 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [dl. CHAPTER VIII. Heretical Translation concerning Justification. Martin, 1. Martin. About the article of justification, as it hath many branches, and their errors therein be manifold, so are their English translations accordingly many ways false and heretical. First, against justification by good works and by keeping the commandments, they suppress the very name of "justification" in all such places where the word signifieth the commandments or the law of God, which is both in the Old and New Testament most common and usual, namely in the books of Moses, in the psalm cxviii.1, that beginneth thus, Beati immaculati, in the psalm cxlvii. 192, 1 Mach. i. 513, and ii. 214, Luke i. 66, Rom. ii. 26". In all which TdoiKaim- places, and the like, where the Greek signifieth "justices" and "jus- paTa. tifications" most exactly, according as our vulgar Latin translateth Q1 MaKapiot dpcopoi iv obco. " Beati immaculati in via," Psal. cxix, 1. " Blessed are all those that be undefiled in the way of the Lord," Cranmer's bible, 1562. " Undefiled in the way," Bishops' bible, 1584. Authorised version, 1611. "Upright in their way," Genevan version, 1560. 'O0eXov KarevSwdeiqcrav ai Sboi pov, tov cbvXd£acr8ai ra biKai- mpard crov, Psal. cxix. 5. " Utinam dirigantur viae mea? ad custodiendas justificationes tuas,'' Vulg. " Keep thy statutes," Cranmer's bible, 1562, Geneva, 1560, Bishops' bible, 1584. Authorised version.] P ' AirayyeXXcov tov Xdyov abrov ra 'laKcofi, biKaicopara Kal Kpipara abrov tco 'lo-paqX. Psal. cxlvii. 19. " Qui annunciat verbum suum Ja cob, justitias et judicia sua Israel," Vulg. "His statutes and ordi nances unto Israel," Cranmer, 1562, Bishops' bible, 1584. "His statutes and his judgments unto Israel," Geneva, 1560. Authorised version 1611.] p Kal dXXdgai irdvra ra btKatcopara, 1 Mace. i. 49. Edit. Grabbe. "Change all the Qioly, Cranmer's bible, 1562] ordinances of God," Bishops' bible, 1584. " Change all the ordinances," Geneva, 1560, v. 51. Authorised version, 1611, v. 49.] [4 KaTaXiireiv vopov Kal btKaicopaTO, 1 Mace. ii. 21 . " Forsake the law and ordinances," Bishops' bible, 1584, Cranmer's Bible, 1562, Geneva, 1560, Authorised, 1611.] p riopeuo/nej/ot iv irdcrais rats ivroXais Kal biKaioipacri Toil Kvplov apepn-Toi, Luc. i. 6. " Incedentes in omnibus mandatis et justificatio- nibus Domini sine querela," Vulg. "Going in all the maundementis and justifyings of the Lord without plaint," Wiclif, 1380. " Laws and ordinances," Tyndale, Cranmer. "Commandments and ordinances," Geneva, Bishops' bible. Authorised version. "Commandments and justifications," Rhemish.] [« idv ovv q aKpoflvcrTia rd biKaiiipara toO vopov cbvXdcro-ri, Rom. ii. 26. " Si igitur praeputium justitias legis custodiat," Vulg. " If the VIII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 333 justitias et justificationes; there the English translations say jointly and with one consent, " ordinances," or, " statutes." For example, Rom. ii., "If the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall it not be Sucaitipa- counted for circumcision?" And Luke i. 6, "They were both righteous T?" before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Kal 6iKaim- Lord blameless." Why translate you it "ordinances," and avoid the /"""¦ term "justifications?" is it because you would follow the Greek? I beseech you, is not biKcuos " just," biKaiovodai "to be justified," biKaicopara "justifications," or "justices ?" In the Old Testament you might perhaps pretend that you follow the Hebrew word, and therefore there you ?|ia)"| translate " statutes," or " ordinances." But even there also are not the seventy Greek interpreters sufficient to teach you the signification of the Hebrew word; who always interpret it biKaicopara, in English "justifica tions?" Fulke. These matters were driven so thin in the first Fulke, 1. chapter, that you shall sooner press out blood than any more probable matter. For the Old Testament, which we translate out of the Hebrew, you yourself do set forth our answer, that we give the Enghsh of chukim, when we say, " ordinances" Cjpn or " statutes," and not of the Greek word SiKaiwfiaTa, which of the Septuaginta is used in the same sense for " precepts" and " commandments," as you yourself confess, cap. i. sect. 50, that very often in the scripture it signifieth " command ments." But the Septuaginta, you say, "are sufficient to teach us the interpretation of the Hebrew word, who always interpret it SiKaiw/xaTa." If they had always interpreted it so, it is not sufficient to teach us ; for then there needed none other translation : but according to theirs then must you depart from your vulgar translation, which in many things departeth from them. But where you say they always interpret the Hebrew word chukim by SiKaiw/xaTa, it is false. For Exod. xviii. 20 7, they translate it irpooTay- D^n paTa, prcecepta, which your vulgar translation calleth cere- monias, "ceremonies;" as it doeth also Gen. xxvi. 5, where the Septuaginta translate StKaiwuaTa ; by which you see uncircumcised keep the right things contained in the law," Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539, Geneva, 1557. " If the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law," Bishops' bible, 1584. " Therefore if the uncir cumcision keep the righteousness of the law," Authorised version, 1611. " If then the prepuce keep the justice of the law," Rhemish version, 1582.] p Kal biapapTvpy avrdis to irpoo-Tdypara tov Qeov, Exod. xviii. 20. "Ostendasque populo ceremonias," Vulg. 'Kal icfibXage rd irpoo-Tdy- pard pov, Gen. xxvi. 5. "Etcustodieritpraeceptaetmandata mea," Vulg.] 334 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. that "justification" is not always the English for the Greek word which the Septuaginta do use. Also Numb. ix. 3, for filpn chukoth they translate vopov, " the law," which the vulgar Latin calleth ceremonias, " ceremonies ;" and for the Hebrew ffEffitpp word misphatim they give ovyKpicriv, " comparation," the vulgar Latin "justification;" by which you may see how your translator useth even the Latin word, that you make so much ado about. Likewise in the fourteenth verse of the same ftpX} chapter, the Septuagint translate chukath, twice together, vo/mov, and that which the vulgar Latin calleth "justification of the passover," the Greek calleth ovvrd^iv, " the order of Dipi! the paschal." Deut. iv., your vulgar Latin turneth chukim thrice ceremonias, " ceremonies ;" and Deut. v. twice, and Deut. vi. twice, Deut. vii. once; and so commonly almost in every chapter. But in the chap. xi. 32, the Greek for D^pH chukim hath irpooTd'yixaTa, where as in the beginning of the chapter he had SiKaiwpara; the Latin in both ceremonias, " ceremonies." By which it is evident, what the Greeks and Latins meant by those words, chap. xx. for this Hebrew word; and in another the Greek hath nothing but ei/To\as, " commandments." So hath he, 1 Reg. ii. 3, for WpR, evro- Wpft Xds, " commandments." Also 1 Reg. viii. 58, for chukim BiBBttia ^e katii irpooTdy/iiaTa, and for misphatim he hath &/caiaI- ¦ T : ' /uaTa, as he hath it twice in the next verse, where Salomon prayeth that God will defend his cause, and the cause of his people Israel, as the cause shall require. More examples might I bring, but for tediousness, to convince the bold rashness of this quarreller; but these may suffice all indif ferent readers, and answer sufficiently for us. Within the New Testament, we translate (SiKaiwpaTa " ordinances," or " sta tutes," seeing it is proved both by the Septuaginta, which calleth the same Hebrew word not only " justifications," but often " commandments," " statutes," " precepts," " judg ments;" and the vulgar Latin interpreter, which commonly calleth it " ceremonies" or "precepts." Martin, 2. Martin. But be it that you may control them in the Hebrew, which none but fools will grant unto you : in the New Testament what pretence have you X do you there also translate the Hebrew word, or rather the Greek ? The Greek undoubtedly you should translate. What reason then can you have why you do not 1 None other surely, than that which Beza giveth for himself, saying, that he rejected the word " justi- VIII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 335 fication," (notwithstanding it expressed the Greek, word for word, not withstanding the seventy Greek interpreters used it to signify "the whole law," and in Latin it be commonly translated justificationes,) Annrt. in notwithstanding all this, "for this only cause (saith he) did I reject it, to avoid the cavillations that might be made by this word against justification by faith." As if he should say, This word truly translated, according to the Greek, might minister great occasion to prove by so many places of scripture, that man's justification is not by faith only, but also by keeping the law, and observing the commandments, which therefore are called, according to the Greek and Latin, "justifications," because they concur to justification, and make a man just, as by St Luke's words also is well signified, which have this allusion, that they were both just, because they walked in all the justifications of our Lord. Which they of purpose suppress by other words. Fulke. None but fools, considering what I have brought Fulke, 2. of the usage of that word, SiKaiw/xaTa, will judge that it signifieth only " justifications ;" and all wise men may see that we have good warrant to translate it otherwise in the Greek testament, where it must needs have another signi fication. The concurrence of works with faith to justification before God, which the apostle doth exclude, Rom. iii., we may not admit. But justification by works, as St James teacheth, we do acknowledge. I hope you will not say that your Latin translator, agamst justification by works, trans lated the word so often " ceremonies," or that ceremonies of the law do concur to justification by faith. , The command ments indeed are called "justifications," because the works of the law, if a man keep it wholly, are able to justify. Not that every ceremony or observation of any piece of the law is a justification, or maketh a man just ; which you may better say, upon the etymology of the word, than that every particular observation of the law, or good work, doth concur with faith unto justification. Martin. And hereof also it riseth, that when he cannot possibly Martin, 3. avoid the word in his translation, (as Apoc. xix. 8l, bissinum enim t« StKaioi- justifieationes sunt sanctorum, "The silk is the justifications of saints,") faTa- there he helpeth the matter with this commentary, "That justifications Beza; Annot. in Apoc. xix. R Tb yap ^vcrcrivov rd biKaiiopard icrn tcov dy'icov, Apoc. xix. 8. "Justifying of saints," Wiclif. "Righteousness of saints," Tyndale's, Cranmer's, Genevan, Bishops', Authorised version. "Justifications of saints," Rhemish, 1582.] 336 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. are those good works which be the testimonies of a lively faith." But our English translators have another way to avoid the word even in their translation. For they say here, " the righteousness of saints ;" because they could not say, " ordinances of saints ;" and they would not say, "justifications of saints;" knowing very well by Beza's own commen tary, that this word includeth the good works of saints ; which works if they should in translating call their "justifications," it would go sore against justification by only faith. Therefore do they translate instead thereof " ordinances," and " statutes," where they can, which are terms furthest off from justification ; and where they cannot, there they say, " righteousness," making it also the plural number, whereas the more proper Greek word for righteousness is ebdvrqs, Dan. vi. 22, which there some of them translate " unguiltiness," because they will not translate exactly, if you would hire them. Fulkb, 3. Fulke. When SiKaiw/xaTa, Apoc. xix., are translated justificationes, they signify " just works," as I have already proved the signification of the word to bear ; beside that it is so used by Aristotle in his Ethics1, who of justification before God, whereof we speak, understood never a whit. Therefore, if instead of "righteousness," which is the singular number, it were translated " righteous or just works," it were not amiss, in mine opinion. Although by "righteous ness" in that place, is nothing meant but " good or righteous works," as Beza's note doth tell you. Martin, 4. Martin. And therefore as for "justice," and "justifications," they yeari577,e say " righteousness," so for "just" they translate "righteous;" and by most approv- tnjg meanS) « Joseph was a righteous man2," rather than a just man ; Lukei's9 an^ Zacharias and Elisabeth "were both righteous before God3," rather than just ; because when a man is called just, it soundeth that he is so in deed, and not by imputation only ; as a wise man is understood to be wise in deed, and not only so imputed. Therefore do they more gladly and more often say "righteous men," rather than "just men ;" and when they do say "just men," (as sometime they do, least they might seem wilful p KaXeirai be to koivov pdXXov biKaicmpdyqpa- biKaicopa be, to eirav- opdcopa dbiKqparos. Arist. Ethic, v.] [2 'lacrqcb—btKaios cov, Matt. i. 19. " Joseph cum esset Justus," Vulg. " Joseph being a perfect man," Tyndale, 1534. "Joseph was a righteous man," Cranmer, 1539, Bishops', 1584. "Joseph was a just man," Genevan, Rhemish, Authorised versions.] r* rjcrav be bUaioi apcborepoi evcoiriov tov Genii, Luc. i. 6. " Erant autem justi ambo," Vulg. " Both were perfect before God," Tyndale, Geneva. " They were both righteous before God," Bishops' bible, 1584, Cranmer, Authorised. " Both just before God," Rheims.] VIII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 337 inexcusably,) there they understand " jusf'by imputation, and not in deed ; as is to be seen in Beza's annotations upon the Epistle to the Romans. Note also, that they put the word "just," when faith is joined withal, as Rom. i.,1 " The just shall live by faith," to signify that justification is by faith. But if works be joined withal, and keeping the commandments, as in the place alleged, Luke i., there they say "righteous," to sup press justification by works. Fulke. This is a marvellous difference, never heard of Fulke, 4. (I think) in the Enghsh tongue before, between " just" and " righteous," " justice" and " righteousness." I am sure there is none of our translators, no, nor any professor of justification by faith only, that esteemeth it the worth of one hair, whether you say in any place of scripture " just" or "righteous," "justice" or "righteousness;" and there fore freely they have used sometimes the one word, sometimes the other. Therefore it is a monstrous falsehood, that you feign them to observe this distinction, that they join "just" with "faith," and "righteous" with "works." Do they not translate, Rom. h. 13, "the hearers of the law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified5"? Have you not again, "the righteousness of God is made manifest without the law, &c, by the faith of Jesus Christ"? And where you read, " the just shall live by faith," have you not imme diately, " the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, The just shall live by faith"? Who then but the devil, which hath his name of slandering, would here invent a distinction of "just" and "righteous"? Martin. And certain it is, if there were no sinister meaning, they Mahtin, 5. would in no place avoid to say "just," "justice," "justification," where Ttjs liKaw- both the Greek and Latin are so, word for word ; as for example, 2 Tim. £ #'*",„ iv. 86. in all their bibles, " Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown Kpn-ifs of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at «^0^tt"r"> Q4 'O be bUaios iK irio-Tecos (qaeTat, Rom. i. 17. " Justus autem ex fide vivit," Vulg. " The just shall live by faith," Tyndale's, Cran mer's, Geneva, Bishops', Authorised versions. " The just liveth," &c, Rhemish.] £5 dXX' oi iroiqral rov vdpov biKaicoBqaovrcu, Rom. ii. 13. " But the doers of the law shall be justified," Rhemish, and all the versions.] f6 Xoiirbv, airoKenai poi 6 rqs biKaioavvqs crrecpavos, bv airobcocret poi 6 Kvpios ev iKeivji rjj qpepa, 6 bUaios Kpirqs. 2 Tim. iv. 8. " Co rona justitias," Vulg. "Crown of justice," Rheims. " Crown of righte ousness," all the other versions.] r l 22 | FULKE. j 338 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. ti7s SiKaias t]lat day.'- And again, 2 Thess. i., "Rejoice in tribulation, which is n $Uai6v token of the righteous judgment of God1, that you may be counted eo-T-i. worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye suffer. For it is a righteous oli yap dSi- thing with God, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you ; J?5- . . and to you that are troubled, rest with us, in the revelation of the Lord Non enim in- J ' ' justus est Jesus from heaven." And again Hebrews vi. 10, " God is not unrighteous to forget your good work and labour," &c.a These are very pregnant places to discover their false purpose in concealing the word "justice" in all their bibles. For if they will say, that " j ustice" is not an usual English word in this sense, and therefore they say " righteousness ;" yet, I trow, "just," and "unjust," are usual and well known. Why then would they not say at the least, in the places alleged, " God the just judge," " a token of the just judgment of God," "it is a just thing with God," " God is not unjust to forget," &c. ? Why is it not at the least in one of their English bibles, being so both in Greek and Latin ? Fulke, 5. Fulke. Certain it is, that no Englishman knoweth the difference between "just" and "righteous," "unjust" and " unrighteous," saving that " righteousness" and " righteous" are the more familiar English words. And that we mean no fraud between " justice" and " righteousness," to apply the one to faith, the other to works, read Rom. x. 4, 5, and 6', of the Geneva translation, where you shall see " the right eousness of the law," and the " righteousness of faith." Read also against this impudent he, in the same translation, [» ""Evbeiypa Tqs biKaias Kplcrecos to£ Oeoi, 2 Thess. i. 5. " Exem- plum justi judicii Dei," Vulg. " A token of the righteous judgment of God," all the versions, except the Rhemish, which has, "An example of the just judgment of God."] [s ob yap abiKOs 6 Oebs imXadecrSai tov epyov vpcov, &c. Heb. vi. 10. "Non enim injustus Deus," Vulg. "God is not unrighteous," &c, all the versions, except those of Wiclif and Rheims, which have "un just."] [3 " For Christ is the end of the law, to justify (els biKawo-bvqv) all that believe. For Moses describeth the righteousness (rqv biKaiocnivqv) which cometh of the law, in these words, that the man which doth these things, shall live thereby. But the righteousness (biKaiocrbvq) wliich cometh of faith speaketh on this wise," &c, Rom. x. 4, 6, 6. Genevan testament, 1557. "For Christ is the end of the law for righte ousness unto every one that believeth. For Moses thus describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth these things, shall live thereby," Geneva bible, 1560. Upon which pas sage is the following marginal note: "The end of the law is to justify them which observe it : therefore Christ having fulfilled it for us, is made our justice, sanctification," &c] "VIII-] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 339 Luke i., " Zachary and Elizabeth were both just4 :" cap. ii., " Simeon was just :" Matt, i., " Joseph a just man" ; and elsewhere oftentimes, and without any difference in the world from the word " righteous." Who ever heard a difference made between a " just judge" and a " righteous judge" ? This trifling is too shameful abusing of men's patience, that shall vouchsafe to read these blotted papers. Martin. Understand, gentle reader, and mark well, that if St Paul's Mautin, 6. words were truly translated thus, " A crown of justice is laid up for me, turcsmoot wliich our Lord the just Judge will render unto me at that day," and f^a^tion, so in the other places ; it would infer that men are justly crowned in jJSt only heaven for their good works upon earth, and that it is God's "justice" faith- so to do, and that he will do so because he is "a just judge," and because he will shew his "just judgment," and he will not forget so to do, because he is not unjust; as the ancient fathers, namely the Greek doctors, St Chrysostom, Theodoret, and CEcumenius upon these pjial- lvii- si places do interpret and expound. Insomuch that CEcumenius5 saith fructus justo, thus upon the foresaid place to the Thessalonians, opa on, &c. : "See Deusjuiti- cans eos in here, that to suffer for Christ procureth the kingdom of heaven accord- terra. ing to just judgment, and not according to grace." Which lest the KUTdSiKat- adversary might take in the worse part, as though it were only God's TaToiTuTd justice or just judgment, and not his favour or grace also, St Augustine X'V'"4- excellently declareth how it is both the one and the other; to wit, his grace, and favour, and mercy, in making us by his grace to live and believe well, and so to be worthy of heaven ; his justice and just judg ment, to render and repay for those works, which himself wrought in us, life everlasting. Which he expresseth thus : " How should he Aug. de gra. , ... ,,,n.. .„ etlib. arb. render or repay as a just judge, unless he had given it as a merciful c. 6. father V Where St Augustine urgeth the words of " repaying" as due, and of being " a just judge" therefore. Both which the said translators corrupt; not only saying "righteous judge," for "just judge;" but that he will " give a crown," which is of a thing not due, for that which is in the Greek, " He will render or repay," which is of a thing due and diroSuaei. deserved, and hath relation to works going before, for the which the crown is repaid. " He said not," saith Theophylact upon this place, " ' he [4 " Both were just (BiKaioi) before God," Geneva version, 1560. " Both were perfect before God," Geneva version, 1557, Luke i. 6. " This man was just and feared God : (bmaios Kal ebXa/Hqs), Luke ii. 25, Geneva version, 1557,1560, Tyndale, 1534. "Just and godly," Cran mer, 1539, Bishops' bible, 1584. "Just and devout," Authorised ver sion.] [5 opa be on rb virep Xpiorov irdcrxeiv Kara biKaioKpicrlav napexei rqv fiao-iXeiav tcov ovpavav, Kal ov Kara x^P1"- CEcumen. Comment.' in 2 Epist. ad Thessal. Vol. n. p. 189.] 22— 2 340 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. will give,' but, ' he will render or repay," as a certain debt. For he being just, will define and limit the reward according to the labours. The crown therefore is due debt, because of the judge's justice." So saith he. Fulke, 6. Fulke. Whatsoever you may cavil upon the words " just" and " justice," you may do the same, with as great advantage, upon the words " righteous" and " righteous ness." That God as a just judge rewardeth good works of them that are justified freely by his grace, by faith without works, with a crown of justice, it proveth not either justification by works, or the merit or worthiness of men's works ; but all dependeth upon the grace of God, who pro- miseth this reward of his mere mercy, and of the worthiness and merits of Christ, which is our justice; whereby we being justified before God, our works also, which he hath given us, are rewarded of his justice, yet in respect of Christ's merits, and not in respect of the worthiness of the works. Again, God is not unmindful of his promise to reward our works ; for then he should be unjust : he is just therefore to perform whatsoever he hath promised, though we nothing deserve it. Neither hath Chrysostom, or Theo- doret, any other meanmg. That you cite out of CEcumenius, a late writer in comparison1, is blasphemous against the grace of God; neither is St Augustine, that hved five hundred years before him, a sufficient interpreter of his m Ps. ixx2.3 saying to excuse him. With Augustine we say, " God crown- Q1 CEcumenius, bishop of Tricca in Thessaly, in the tenth century, wrote a Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St Paul, and the Cathohc Epistles. But the remarks are chiefly taken from Chrysostom, Cyril, and other preceding writers.] [2 Hanc ergo gratiam commendat nobis Deus et in isto psalmo : intueamur ilium, et videamus an ita sit, an forte ego aliter suspiccr. Etenim arbitror hunc eum habere affectum, et hoc omnibus prope suis syllabis resonare : id est, hoc nobis commendare, gratiam Dei gTatuitam, quse nos liberat indignos, non propter nos, sed propter se ; ut etiamsi non hoc dicerem, neque hoc praelocutus essem, quilibet mediocris cordis homo, attente audiens verba ejusdem psalmi, saperet hoc ; et forte ipsis verbis, si aliud habebat in corde, mutaretur, et fieret quod hie sonat. Quid est hoc ? Ut tota spes nostra in Deo sit, nihilque de nobis tam quam de nostris viribus praesumamus; ne, nostrum facientes quod ab illo est, et quod accepimus amittamus. Augustini Enarrat. in Psal. lxx. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 1027.] Q3 Ergo coronat te, quia dona sua coronat, non merita tua. Plus VIII.'] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 341 eth his gifts, not our merits." And as he acknowledgeth God's mercy, and also his justice, in rewarding our works, so do we. Where diroSwoei is translated " he will give," I confess it had been more proper and agreeable to the Greek to have said, " he will render," or " repay ;" which yet is wholly of mercy in respect of us or our deserving, but of justice in respect of his promises, and of Christ's merits, unto which is rendered and repayed that which he deserved for us. The crown therefore is due debt, because it is promised to us for Christ's sake, not because any works of ours are able to purchase it. Martin. Which speeches being most true, as being the express words Martin, 7. of holy scripture, yet we know how odiously the adversaries may and do misconstrue them to the ignorant, as though we challenged heaven by our own works, and as though we made God bound to us : which we do not, God forbid ! But because he hath prepared good works for us, as the apostle saith, to walk in them, and doth by his grace cause us Eph. ii. 10. to do them, and hath promised life everlasting for them, and telleth hs in all his holy scriptures, that to do them is the way to heaven; therefore not presuming upon our own works as our own, or as of our selves, but upon the good works wrought through God's grace by us, his seely4 instruments, we have great confidence, as the apostle speak- HeD- "• cth, and are assured that these works, proceeding of his grace, be so acceptable to him, that they are esteemed, and be, worthy and merito rious of the kingdom of heaven. Against wliich truth let us see further their heretical corruptions. Fulke. If you would abide by your first protestation, Fulkb, 7. we should not need to contend much about this question. But after you have in the beginning magnified the grace and mercy of God, and abased your own merits, you come back again with a subtle compass, to establish your own free will, the worthiness of your works, and your merit of omnibus illis laboravi, ait apostolus : sed vide quid adjungit, Non ego autem, sed gratia Dei mecum. Et post labores omnes exspectat ipsam coronam, et dicit, Bonum agonem certavi, cursum consummavi, fidem servavi : de cetero superest mihi corona justitiae, quam reddet Dominus in ilia die Justus judex. Quare? Quia agonem certavi. Quare? Quia cursum consummavi. Quare 1 Quia fidem servavi. Unde certasti? unde fidem servasti ? Non ego autem, sed gratia Dei mecum. Ergo et quod coronaris, illius misericordia coronaris. Augustini Enarrat. in Psalm, cii. Opera, Vol. iv. pp. 1592, 1593. Edit. Bened. Paris. 1835.] [4 Simple.] 342 a defp:nce of the English [ch. the kingdom of heaven. First, you say, God telleth us in all his holy scriptures, that "to do good works is the way to heaven." Indeed to fulfil the law, is to deserve heaven. But whosoever is guilty of sin, must seek another way than by good works to come to heaven, namely to Jesus Christ, who is the only way to heaven, the truth, and the hfe ; by whose blood when he is purged from his sin, and reconciled unto God, and the kingdom of heaven purchased for him, then he hath the way of good works appointed him to walk in toward the same. Secondly, you say, you "presume not upon your own works, as your own, or as of yourselves, but upon the good works wrought by God's grace, by you his seely instruments, you have great confidence." Thus while you would seem to fly from Pelagianism, you fall into flat Pharisaism. For you trust that you are righteous in your selves, though not as of yourselves. Such was the Pharisee of whom Christ telleth the parable ; which, ascribing ah his works to the grace of God, had confidence in them, that he was just before God by them. " God, I thank thee," saith the Pharisee. He acknowledgeth the grace of God, as author of all his works : yet against such as he was, Christ telleth that parable. And whereas you call the apostle, Heb. x., to witness of your error, you do him great wrong; for he speaketh not of any confidence to be had upon good works, wrought by the grace of God by us ; but in the new covenant of remission of sins, by the sacrifice of Christ's death, by whom we have access to God, that we may be acceptable to him, not for any meritorious works wrought by us, but by the only oblation of bis body once for all, by which "he hath made perfect for ever those that are sanctified." IX-] translations of the bible. 343 CHAPTER IX. Heretical Translation against Merits, or Meritorious Works, and the Reward for the same. Martin. When they translate Bom. viii. 18, thus, " I am certainly Mahtin, 1. persuaded, that the afflictions of this time are not worthy of the BiD- 15?7- glory which shall be shewed upon us1 ;" do they not mean to signify to the reader, and must it not needs so sound in his ears, that the tribula tions of this life, be they never so great, though suffered for Christ, yet do not merit nor deserve the heavenly glory % But in the Greek it is far otherwise. I will not stand upon their first words, "I am certainly \0y'cr\0. persuaded," which is a far greater asseveration than the apostle useth; pai2. "i and I marvel how they could so translate that Greek word, but that they were disposed not only to translate the apostle's words falsely against meritorious works, but also to avouch and affirm the same lustily, with much more vehemency of words than the apostle speaketh. Well, let us pardon them this fault, and examine the words following : 0" their English bibles, " The afflictions are not worthy of the glory," &c, ajga„. but thus, " The afflictions of this time are not equal, correspondent, or rondSue comparable to the glory to come ;" because the afflictions are short, the aj> futuram glory is eternal : the afflictions small and few in comparison, the glory §• chrysost. ¦,,,,, upon this great and abundant above measure. place. Fulke. Although an invincible argument against merits Fulke, 1. and desert of good works may be drawn out of this text ; yet the meaning of the translators is to shew no more than the apostle saith, that the heavenly glory is incompa rably greater than all the tribulations of this life. And this the apostle speaketh, not doubtingly, as our English [' Bishops' bible, 1584.] T2 Aoytfrpai yap on ovk a£ia rd isaBqpaTa tov vvv Kaipov irpbs rqv peX- Xovcrav bot-av diroKaXvcpdqvai els qpds, Rom. viii. 18. "And I deem that the passions of this time," &c, Wiclif. " For I suppose that the afflic tions of this life, Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539. "For I confirm that the afflictions of this life," Geneva testament, 1557. "For I count that the afflictions of this present time," Geneva bible, 1560. " For I think that the passions of this time are not condign to the glory to come," Bheims, 1582. " For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us," Authorised version, 1611.] 344 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. word " I suppose" doth signify, when a man may be deceived in his supposal; but he avoucheth it constantly, as a thing, which being well considered, with the reasons thereof, he concludeth of it with certainty. And so doth Xoyl^op.at signify in this place, and in divers other, by the judgment of better Grecians than Gregory Martin will be these seven years ; as Rom. iii. 28, where the apostle, having discussed the controversy of justification by faith or works, concludeth, as of a certain, Xoyi^dpeOa ovv, "we determine therefore, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law." Likewise, Rom. vi. 11, after he hath proved, that sanctification is necessary to all them that shall or have put on the justice of Christ, he saith with great asseveration unto the Romans, Xoyi^eoOe eavTovs, "Make you full account therefore, that you are dead to sin ;" and not uncertainly think or suppose it so to be. Therefore for the translation of Xoy'tfynat, in this place, we will accept no pardon of you ; it is better translated than your wit or learning serveth you to under stand. Now let us come to the other words, d^ia irpos Ttqv peXXovoav Sd^av, "are not worthy of the glory." Where you say, it should be "not equal," "correspondent," or " com parable," to the glory. Verily, those words we use have none other sense in this place, than the words which you supply us withal; but our words do express the most usual significa tion of the Greek word a^ia, even as your vulgar Latin doth, calhng it in the same sense condignce, which you in your own translation dare not render "equal," "correspondent," or "comparable," but "condign" ; lest following the sense, you might be accused to forsake the word : even so we think it best, where the usual signification of the word will bear the sense in our English, to retain the same, and not to change it. Martin, 2. Martin. This is the Greek phrase and the apostle's meaning, which we need not greatly to prove, because their own doctors, Calvin and Beza, do so interpret it : and therefore wonder it were that the Geneva English bibles also should forsake their masters, and follow the error of the other English bibles, but that they thought the more voices the better. In the mean time, the people seeth no other translation, and thinketh it is the apostle's very words. But Beza himself telleth them the contrary, translating thus : Statuo minime esse paria quce prcesenti tempore perpetimur, future? glorice nobis revelandcv: that is, " I am of this IX.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 345 opinion, that the things which we suffer in this present time, are not equal to the glories that shall be revealed to us." And in his commen tary thus : " St Paul's discourse and matter handled in this place declare, that he speaketh not of the value or price of the afflictions which we suffer for Christ ; but rather by comparing their quality and quantity with life everlasting, he gathereth that we shall be infinitely more happy with Christ, than we are miserable here. Therefore did he use the Greek word rightly and properly, which the grammarians say is spoken d&«. of such things as, being poised or weighed, are found of one weight." Thus far Beza1. Fulke. We contend not, as it seemeth, at this time Fulke, 2. about the meaning of the place, but about the true translation of the words. If you can prove therefore, that the Greek word afios doth not signify " worthy," or that this English word "worthy" cannot express the meaning of the apostle in this text, your accusation is just ; but if you can prove neither of both, you multiply words, as your manner is, without matter, to no purpose but to weary the reader. And wisely you translate Beza's Latin word statuo, " I am of opinion," which signifieth more truly, "I determine," or, as our transla tion- hath, " I am certainly persuaded," and not, " I am of an opinion," whereof there is no certain knowledge; for an opinion may be false, and is of uncertainties. Martin. If then a comparison only be signified, why do they not so Martin, 3. translate it in English, that it may be taken for a comparison in our English phrase ? For they know very well, that if a man should say in English, according as they translate, " Good works are not worthy of heaven ;" " this man is not worthy of my favour," " he is not worthy of such a living, of so great praises ;" every Englishman understandeth it thus, that they " deserve not heaven," and that such a man " deserv eth not this or that." Even so must the reader needs take it in this place, and they must needs have intended that he should so take it. For though the Greek phrase may signify a comparison, being so uttered, Pr°v- »'¦ C,5< yet not the English. And if it might, yet obscurely, and ambiguously : d^wv au- and if it might, yet here they do falsely translate so, because here the T"'8- Greek phrase is otherwise, and therefore should otherwise be Englished. For it is not al-ia Trjs bdgqs, which is as they translate, " worthy of the glory ;" but d^ia ispbs rqv bo^av, which cannot be so translated. For if it might, then these Greek phrases were all one, and might be used indifferently. And then I must desire them to turn me this into Greek, " He is not worthy of thanks :" and if they tum it by the apostle's phrase in this place, ovk a£ws icrn irpbs rqv x^-P1™, to all Grecians they Q1 Nov. Test. Bezse, p. 189, in Rom. viii. 18.] 346 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cB. shall be ridiculous. And yet this is as well turned out of English into Greek, as they have turned the other out of Greek into English. Fulke, 3. Fulke. Verily I cannot see, nor any wise man else, I think, what this English word "worthiness" doth signify, but a comparison of equahty in price, valour1, goodness, excel lency, or such hke. And even in those Enghsh phrases that you bring for example, " good works are not worthy of hea ven," the meaning is, there is not an equahty of excellency in good works and heaven ; or, good works compared to heaven are not equal in value. And even so, " this man is not wor thy of my favour ;" "the goodness of this man is not so great, as the goodness of my favour ;" and so of the rest. And where you say, "every Englishman understandeth it thus, that they deserve not heaven, and that such a man deserveth not this," &c. I grant they may of worthiness gather desert, in such as may deserve ; and so may they of the comparison of equality conclude desert in the like case. For to deserve is, by doing to make himself equal in good or evil to that reward or punishment which is valued with such doing. Therefore whether you say "worthy," or "equal," it is all'one. And in this text by either of both merit or desert is neces sarily excluded. For if the heavenly glory be incomparably greater than the afflictions of this life, it followeth of necessity, that the afflictions of this life deserve not, that is, make not an equahty of excellency with heavenly glory. But the Greek phrase, you say, is otherwise ; for d^ia is not joined with a genitive case, but with an accusative and a preposition. Indeed this latter construction of dfyos is not so usual, and doth more fully set forth the comparison ; but the same also is set forth by the genitive case, as you yourself cannot deny. Now our Enghsh phrase would not bear that we should say, "worthy to the glory;" and therefore we said, "worthy ofthe glory." But if that were good, you say, the " Greek phrases were all one, and might be used indifferently." I see no great difference between the Greek phrases ; and yet it followeth not that they may be used indifferently. For unusual phrases are not to be used as indifferently as common phrases. And therefore your example, of turning Enghsh into Greek, is not all one with turning Greek into English. If I translate out [l Valour: value.] IX.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 347 of Greek into Enghsh, I must observe the English phrase as near as I can ; and so, if I translate into Greek, must I have respect to the usual Greek phrase. And to speak of your ridiculous translation out of Enghsh into Greek ; I think he that should say d^ios ¦)(dpiTos, for "worthy of thanks," should deserve no great commendation: but he that should say, aj£ios irpos tj)i/ %a/Jti' tov ^aoiXe ws, for "worthy of the king's favour," though it be no usual phrase, I see not why he should be ridiculous. And if you should translate these words into Enghsh, Nepwv ovk d%ios r\v irpos ty\v fiacriXetav, would you not, or might you not, translate it thus, " Nero was not worthy of the kingdom" ? Therefore we have not done amiss to translate " worthy of the glory." Martin. Marry, if they would express a comparison of equality or Martin, 4. inequality between thing and thing, then this is the proper Greek phrase thereof, and much more proper for this purpose, than by agios and a genitive case. Which notwithstanding is often so used in scriptures by The Greek way of comparison, as Prov. iii., concerning the praise of wisdom: where nia'eftflom- St Augustine, to express the comparison, readeth thus : Omne pretiosum pa™™Luol, non est illi dignum ; and St Hierome, according to the Hebrew, thus : ouk d%wv Omnia quce desiderantur non valent huic comparari, or adcequari; and avTi9e°Jl- Eccles. xxvi. we have the very like speech proceeding of the said Greek t word agios. Omnis ponderatio non est digna continentis animce. Which D^Sn the English bibles thus, " There is no weight to be compared unto a sj£< mind that can rule itself, or, with a continent mind." Fulke. You cannot use the word d^ios but it will in- Fulke, 4. elude a comparison, whether it be with a genitive case, as in the examples you bring, or with an accusative, as in this text of St Paul. And even so the Enghsh word, " worthy," doth comprehend an equahty in good or evil. Wherefore the sense is all one, whether you say in this text " equal," or " worthy," but that the usual signification of d^tos is " worthy," as no man will deny that is not past all shame. Martin. And if agios with a genitive case signify a comparison, Mabtin, 5. and themselves so translate it in all their bibles, should not agios in the a&a irpos apostle's phrase much more be so translated ? I appeal to their own T''" "PC0"* consciences. Again, if here in Ecclesiastieus they say not according to the Greek words, " There is no weight worthy of a continent mind," a£ ios ey- because they would by an English phrase express the comparison ; is V*1""- us it not more than evident, that when they translate the apostle by the very same words, " worthy of the glory," &c. they know it cannot, and they mean it should not, signify a comparison 1 I cannot sufficiently 348 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. express, but only to the learned and skilful reader, their partial and heretical dealing. Briefly I say, they translate ovk agios iyKparobs ¦ the Greek. Fulke. In the canonical scripture, it seemeth, the trans- Fulkb, lators had a rehgious care, to keep both the property of " the words, and the true meaning of the Holy Ghost. In the apocryphal books they had a wise consideration, to trans late them according to the best meaning that their words would bear. Now, whether you say "worthy of God," or " meet for God," you must understand this meetness or wor thiness to be of grace, and not of merit; or else the saying is blasphemous against the grace of God. For merit is not necessarily included in worthiness. The king's son is worthy to succeed his father by right of inheritance, not by merit of virtue always. A stranger may be worthy of the king's service, which never deserved the king's entertainment, but for such good qualities as are in him. But after this tedious trifling, it would somewhat awake our spirits, if you could (as you threaten in the margin) prove the merit of good works plainly by the scriptures, either by the word "merit," which you can never do, or by anything that is equivalent unto it; and to "force us by our own translations to confess that it is found there, if not in the vulgar Latin, yet in the Greek." Martin. First, when they translate the foresaid place thus, "The Mahtin, afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glory to come," they mean *?^ j- . this, "deserve not the glory to come;" for to that purpose they do so trans late it, as hath been declared. Again, when it is said, " The workman is afios too worthy of his hire or wages," what is meant, but that he deserveth his nlmus'mer- wages ? And more plainly, Tob. ix., they translate thus : " Brother ™* Iro'con- Azarias, if I should give myself to be thy servant, I shall not deserve f&p* Provi- thy providence," and such like. If then in these places both the Greek and the Latin signify "to be worthy of," or "not to be worthy of," "to deserve," or " not to deserve ;" then they must allow us the same signifi cation and virtue of the same words in other like places. Namely, Apoc. v., of our Saviour's merits, thus: "The lamb that was killed is worthy to receive power, and riches," &c. What is that to say, but <*£ ">s "deserveth to receive?" For so I trust they will allow us to say of our "'"'""'• Saviour, that he indeed deserved. Again, of the damned, thus : " Thou Kev. xvi. hast given them blood to drink, for they are worthy," or, " they have «£">' ydp .deserved:" is it not all one ? ,, Lastly, ofthe elect, thus: " They shall walk e *"' 23—2 356 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Sri agiol with me in white, because they are worthy," Apoc. iii., that is, because Mgnrsunt. " they deserve it." And so in the place before by them corrupted, " God d£lom kav- found them worthy of him ;" that is, such as " deseived" to be with him Dignos se. in eternal glory. Thus by their own translation of agios, and dignus, are plainly deduced, " worthiness," " desert," and " merit" of saints, out of the scriptures. Fulke, Fulke. Your first foundation is false ; therefore all your 12- building faileth to the ground. For when we translate that text thus, " The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glory to come," we mean not thus, " Deserve not the glory to come," but even as you do, they are not equal or comparable : but thereof it followeth, that they deserve not ; for to deserve is to do a tiling equal unto the reward : the afflictions be not equal, therefore they deserve not. But when it is said, " the workman is worthy of his hire," we ac knowledge that he deserveth his wages ; yet we should not do well to translate it, that he deserveth his hire, because worthiness may be where there is no desert. Gold is worthy to be esteemed before silver, and yet there is no merit or desert of gold, if we speak properly. That of Tob. ix. is not in the Greek, but in some bibles translated out of Latin according to the usual phrase of Enghsh, rather than to the property of the word. Where it is said, Apoc. v. "The Lamb that was killed is worthy to receive power and riches," though Ave will not contend of the deserts of Christ, yet we may be bold to say, that in respect of the Godhead he was worthy of all honour and glory from everlasting, before he had created anything : and therefore worthiness doth not alway import desert, as no worthiness doth no desert. Like wise, when it is said of the wicked, Apoc. xvi., " They are worthy to drink blood," it is true that they deserved that plague, because their cruel works were justly recompensed with that punishment ; but yet some may be worthy of their punishment, that have not deserved it. The son of a traitor is worthy to bear the punishment of his father's attainder.; yet he hath not always deserved it by his own deeds. There fore it is not all one, " they are worthy," and "they have deserved." The infants of the reprobate, as soon as they have life, are worthy of eternal damnation; and yet they have not deserved the same by their own deeds. Therefore, where it is said of the elect, " They shall walk with me in X.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE; 357" white, because they are worthy," it is not meant that they have deserved by their own works to walk with Christ ; but because they are made worthy by Christ, who hath given them grace not to defile their garments, who also shall give them the reward of white garments, that is, of innocency, which no man can deserve, because no man is clear from sin, but only by forgiveness of sins in the blood of Christ. Therefore you have performed nothing less than your pro mise, which was to prove the equivalent of merit out of the scripture, and to force us, by our translation, to confess the same. For worthiness doth not always argue or enforce desert, as desert doth worthiness, worthiness being a more general word than merit or desert. Martin. But, to proceed one step further, we prove it also to be in Mahtin, the scriptures, thus. Themselves translate thus, Heb. x. 29. " Of how much sorer punishment shall he be worthy, which treadeth under d^itaSijvai, foot the Son of God ?" though one of their bibles, of the year 1502, very aC,me^_ falsely and corruptly leaveth out the words "worthy of," saying thus, vat, signify '.' How much sorer shall he be punished," &C.1 Fearing no doubt, by vocru] „;. translating the Greek word sincerely, this consequence that now I shall P°yos d£uo. infer, to wit, If the Greek word here, by their own translation, signify T,„m„"as. " to be worthy of," or, " to deserve," being spoken of pains and punish ment deserved ; then must they grant us the same word so to signify else where in the new testament, when it is spoken of deserving heaven and the kingdom of God, as in these places, Luke xxi.,2 " Watch therefore, 'ha /car- all times praying, that you may be worthy to stand before the Son of a«""e_'i're man," and chap, xx.,3 " They that are worthy to attain to that world, and 0i naTa%i- wSei/Tes. els TO ICCCT- P- Iloo-ffl boKevre xelpoms dgicoBqcrerai Tipapias 6 rbv vibv tow Scot; a^tm^tivai Karairarqa-as, Kal to aipa rqs biadqKqs Koivbv qyqardpevos iv co qyidcrBq, g^o-iA^'/as. Kal to livevpa rqs xfyvros ivvfipio-as ; Heb. x. 29. "How much sorer (suppose ye) shall he be punished, which treadeth under foot the Son of God, and counteth the blood of the testament, wherewith he was sanc tified, as an unholy thing, and doth dishonour to the Spirit of grace," Bible, 1562. "Shall he be counted worthy," Tyndale, Geneva. "Shall he be thought worthy," Authorised version.] P iva KaTagioiSiJTe eKcfrvyelv ravra irdvra rd peXXovra ytvecrdat, Luke xxi. 36. " That ye may obtain grace," Tyndale, Geneva. " Accounted worthy," Bheims, Bishops' bible, Authorised version.] f3 Oi be Karagicodevres tov alcovos iKelvov rvxeiv Kal Trjs avacrracrecos rrjs eK veKpcov ovre yapoiicriv otfre eKyapicrKovTca, Luke xx. 35. " Counted worthy," Cranmer, Geneva, Rheims. " Made worthy," Tyndale. " Ac counted worthy," Authorised version.] t 358 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. to the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are married," and 2 Thess. i.,1 " That you may be worthy of the kingdom of God, for wliich also ye suffer." Fulke,13. Qui digni habebuntur. Ut digni ha- beamini. Fulke. You think to have great advantage at our trans lation of the word d^twdqoeTai, Heb. x., " shall be worthy," which is true according to the sense, but not so proper for the word, which signifieth rather "to be judged" or "accounted worthy," whether he be worthy indeed or not. And so it should have been translated, if the nature of the word had been exactly weighed. But the translators looked rather to the purpose of the apostle, which is by all means to terrify such contemners and backsliders of whom he speaketh. The Greek word therefore doth not signify " to deserve," but " to be judged worthy ;" although it is true that those of whom the apostle there speaketh, deserved extreme pains of damnation. And even so it signifieth in all other places ; as Luke xx., KaTafywOevres, "they that shall be counted worthy to attain to that world;" and Luke xxi. "iva Kara- ^Lw8i]Te, "that you may be counted worthy," and 2 Thess. i. KaTaEtwQrjvai, " that you may be counted worthy." And so the word doth signify in other places, without controversy; as Luke vii. the centurion said, ovSe e/uavTov jj^iwaa, "I accounted not myself worthy," and 1 Tim. v. " The elders that govern well," d^iovoOwoav, "let them be counted worthy of double honour." For it is the imperative mood; therefore it is a fault in our translations to make it the indicative. For we cannot say, let them be worthy, or let them be made worthy ; but, let them be judged, reputed, or accounted worthy. Martin, 14. Martin. Thus you should translate in all these places, according to your translation of the former place to the Hebrews ; or at the leastwise you should have this sense and meaning, as the old vulgar Latin hath, translating in all these places, " counted worthy," but meaning "worthy in deed"; as when it is said, Abraham was reputed just, it is meant, he was just in deed. If you also have this meaning in your translations, which here follow the vulgar Latin; then we appeal to yourselves, whether, " to be counted worthy," and " to be worthy," and " to deserve," and "to merit," be not all one: and so here also "merit" is deduced. [' evbeiypa Tqs biKatas Kpicrems tov Beov, els rb KaragicoSqvai ipas rqs Pao-iXeias tov Oeov, virep qs Kal irdcrxere, 2 Thess. i. 5.] IX. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 359 But if you mean, according to your heresy, to signify by translating " counted worthy," that they are not in deed worthy ; then your purpose is heretical, and translation false, and repugnant to your translating the same word in other places; as is declared, and now further we will declare. Fulke. I have shewed you how we should translate Fulke, that word in any place, wheresoever it is read ; even as the vulgar Latin hath in the places by you noted, and in those three texts, Luke xx., xxi., 2 Thess. i. We mean not falsely counted worthy, but worthy in deed; as when it is said that Abraham was reputed just, we acknowledge that he was truly so reputed, and that he was just in deed. But where you appeal to our consciences, "whether 'to be counted worthy,' and 'to be worthy,' and 'to deserve,' and 'to merit,' be not all one," I answer you plainly, and according to my con science, they be not. But even as Abraham was reputed just, and was just in deed, not by desert, but by faith ; so in those three texts the faithful are counted worthy, and are worthy in deed, not by their merit and desert, but for Jesus Christ's sake. For herein your heresy is greatly de ceived, to imagine that he which is just by Christ, by faith, or by imputation, is not truly just, or not just in deed. For Christ, faith, and imputation are not contrary, or opposed to truth, but to merit or desert of the party that is just by Christ, by faith, or by imputation ; and so we say of them that are accounted worthy for Christ's sake, and not for their own merits. Martin. They whom God doth make worthy, they are truly and Martin, in deed worthy ; are they not 1 But by your own translation of the same word in the active voice, God doth make them worthy. Therefore in the JfJJ|{"' passive voice it must also signify " to be made," or "to be in deed worthy." T2r*A For example, 2 Thess. i. 1 1, you translate thus, " We also pray for to be made, you, that our God may make you worthy of this calling."2 According worthy. to which translation, why did you not also in the selfsame chapter, a ',".? VMas _ little before, translate thus, "That you maybe made worthy (and so KX}\o-ems. be worthy) of the kingdom of God, for which also you suffer 1" You *li ™BIT- know the case is like in both places, and in the Greek doctors you spe- iu(js T,-;s jdatriXeias. P els b Kal irpocrevxdpeSa iravrore irepl vpcov, "iva vpds agicocrq rqs KXqcrecos 6 Oebs qpcov, 2 Thess. i. 11. "Make you worthy of this call ing," Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops' bible, Geneva. " Count you worthy," Authorised version.] 360 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH; cially should know (by your ostentation of reading them in Greek) that they, according to this use of holy scripture, very often use also this d^iaa-ai. word, both actively and passively, "to make worthy," and "to be made," dEuoHrjvai. or «to be worthy." See the Greek Liturgies. Fulke, Fulke. They must needs be worthy, whom God maketh worthy; but then are they not worthy by their merits or deserts, but by his grace in Jesus Christ: and so our trans lators mean when they say, 2 Thess. i. 11, " That our God may make you worthy of this calhng" ; although the clearer translation had been, "that God may account you worthy," as the vulgar Latin hath, ut dignetur. For dignor is hot "to make worthy," but "to vouchsafe," or "to account worthy." Wherefore you do vainly here snatch at a word, contrary to the meaning both of the translator and of the text. For those whom God maketh worthy, are not worthy by their desert, but by his grace accepting them. How the Greek doctors use the word, it is not now the question, but how it signifieth in the scripture ; although I see not how you prove that the doctors use it, " to make worthy'", or " to be made worthy by desert." Martin, Martin. Which St Chrysostom, to put all out of doubt, explaineth *6- thus in other words, " That he make us worthy of the kingdom of Iva tipae heaven." Ser. i. de orando Deo1. And upon the epistle to Titus iii. in direpydo-tj- the same sense passively, " God grant we may all be made worthy (or be ™ tJ7s worthy) of the good things promised to them that love him2." And in ,"°\i"I!' another place of the said doctor it must needs signify, to be worthy, as ariw\)7]Vai. when he saith, in Col. i., " No man liveth such a trade of life, that he is (Sore /3ao-i- worthy of the kingdoni, but all is his gift3." For to say thus, "No man Xei<™ a£iaj- gQ hveth that he can be counted worthy of the kingdom of heaven," is r_i Tavra bet irdvra cpofiovpevovs qpas, irpoarevxais Kal vpvois del TeixiCeiv eavTobs, iva iravras 6 Oebs iXeqcras dglovs dwepydo-qrai Ttjs tcov ovpavcov fiacriXeias bia tov povoyevovs abrov viov. Chrysost. de Oratione, Sermo i. Opera, edit. Saville, Vol. vi. p. 758.] [2 'AXXa pq yevoiro ravra irepl qpcov elireiv, dXXd yevoiro irdvras qpas dgtoidrjvai Tcov eirqyyeXpevcov ayadcov rots qyairqK&criv abrbv iv Xpiorai 'ir/o-oS t<5 Kvplm qpav. Chrysost. Homil. in Titum iii. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 405.] P Aid t'i KXqpov KaXel ; beiKvbs on obbels diro KaTOpdcopdrcov oIkc'ioiv fiacriXeias rvyxaveC aXX cocrirep 6 icXijpoy iirirvxias pdXXov ecrnv, ovra bq Kal ivravda. ovbeis yap Toiavrqv iiribeiKwrai iroXireiav acne /3ao-tX«'as "dgiaSijvai, dXXd ttjs abrov bcopeds ecrn to irav. Chrysost. Hom. in Epist. Coloss. i. 12. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 98.] JX.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 361 false, is against the Protestants' own opinion, which say they are counted worthy, that are not. Again, to say, " No man so liveth that he can be made worthy," is false, because God can make the worst man worthy. It remaineth then to say, " No man so liveth that he is worthy" ; which a.little before he declareth thus: "No man by his own proper merits dirbKaTop- obtaineth the kingdom of heaven," that is, as his own, and of himself, ®">p-«-tuiv without the grace of God. And yet we must shew further out of the scriptures, that God maketh us worthy, and so we are in deed worthy ; and here also we must convince you of false and partial interpretation. Fulke. St Chrysostom putteth not the matter any Fulke whit out of doubt for your side. For he doth not expound 16- this text of 2 Thess. L, but only in the latter end of his ser mon prayeth, "that God, having mercy upon us all, will make .us worthy of his kingdom." Where you might have seen, if you had not been blind with frowardness, that God maketh us worthy by his mercy, not by our merits. That d^iwOrjvai in his prayer upon the 3rd of Titus is taken " to be made worthy," rather than " to be accounted worthy," you have no proof but your own -authority : although for God " to make worthy " by his mercy, and " to account worthy", is all one in effect. The third place, in Epist. ad Col. cap. i., is altogether against you. Where he saith, " No man liveth such a trade of life, that he may be judged or accounted worthy of that kingdom, but all is the gift of God ;" is not his meaning plain, that no man can be accounted worthy by works or merits, but altogether by the grace and gift of God? With this distinction therefore, which is plain, even by those words which you cite, that Chrysostom maketh, d^iwOtjvai without any inconvenience may signify in this place, "to be accounted worthy.'1 No man by his own proper merits obtaineth the kingdom of heaven, saith he, but even as a lot is rather by hap and chance, so it is here: meaning, that God giveth his kingdom no more according to man's deserts than lots do fall to men by chance, which yet God disposeth as it pleaseth him. Finally, the whole discourse of the doctor being against man's merits, using the word in the same place so often of God's dignation, vouchsafing, or accounting worthy, you had great scarcity of examples out of the doctors, that bring this place to prove, that dl;itd6r}vai signifieth " to be made worthy by merit,1' and not by mere mercy. 362 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cff. Martin, Martin. The Greek word Uavos, I pray you, what doth it signify 4 17- You must answer that it signifieth not only "meet," but also "worthy." ook eipi por g0 geza teacheth you, and so you translate, Matt. iii. 11, and viii. LKavoi. •* ' J ' ' and 1 Cor. xv. 9.1 " I am not worthy," in all three places. And why, I pray you, did you not likewise follow the old Latin interpreter one step ™ ixavoi- further, saying, " Giving thanks to God the Father, that hath made us o-avri worthy," but translating rather thus, "Which hath made us meet to be rifi/ peptSa. partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light ?" Here was the place Col. 1. 12. where you should have shewed your sincerity, and have said that God maketh us worthy of heavenly bliss ; because you know, if Uavbs be " worthy," then Uavdcrai is " to make worthy." But you are like to Beza your master, who (as though all interpretation of words were at Annot. in 3. his commandment) saith, "Here and here, and so forth, I have followed Test'i5S6. *he °ld Latin interpreter, translating it ' worthy;' but in such and such idoneumdi- a place> (meaning this for one,) I choose rather to say, 'meet.'" But cere maiui. tnat ^0^ ne an(j yOU sh0uld here also have translated " worthy," the Greek fathers shall teach you, if we be not worthy or able to control so mighty Grecians, as you pretend to be, when you crow upon your own dunghill, otherwise in your translations shewing small skill, or great malice. Fulke, Fulke. If you be not able to draw merit out of the word W- a%ios, which properly signifieth " worthy ;" you shall have somewhat ado to wring it out of the word 'iKavds, which properly signifieth "apt," or "meet," and sometime "suf ficient ;" according to which later signification Beza in three places translateth dignus, because sufficiens is no Latin word in that sense to be used. But now you ask, why we went not a step further, to translate tw 'iKavwoavTi, Col. i. 12, "which hath made us worthy." I answer you, first, there is no reason that a word which hath di verse significations should always be translated after one. Secondly, when a word hath one most usual signification, and two or three other significations not so usual, by translating it once or twice according to the sense of the place after one of the least " usual significations, we are not bound to give over the most common and usual significa- p ol ovk elpl Uavbs to virobqpaTa fiao-Tacrai, Matt. iii. 11. Kvpie, ovk elpl Uavbs "iva pov virb rqv crreyqv eio-e'X6'?;s, Matt. viii. 8. bs o£k elpl Uavbs KaXe~i)£iw- made us worthy to be ministers of thy holy altar4." And anon after, 6aXpbs 6vk elbe, eas els TeXos. Liturgia Basilii Magni. Opera, Vol. n. p. 974, edit. Paris, 1839.] j^1 ovk eiire, bovn, djrXas, aXX' UavcocravTi els rqv pep'iba tov KXqpov tcov ay lav iv tco cj>an' TovTecm, no KaTardgavn vpds perd rav dylav _ aXX obx arrXcos eiire, Kararagavn, dXXd Kal tcov abrcov airoXavaal irapea. XqKbn. Chrysost. Hom. in Epist. Coloss. c. i. v. 12. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 98.] £' Tipq ydp irapabeicrov, to toiovtov i'xeiv beatrorqv, cos Kal XrjarrjV agiov iroiqcrai rqs Tpvcp^s rijs iv rco irapabeicrco.. Kal ydp ore TeXdvas Kal iropvas eicrqyayev eis Tqv ficwiXeiav rav ovpavav, ovk dnpafav touto iiroiei, dXXa pdXXov erlpa, beiKvbs on toiovtos icrnv 6 Kvpios Trjs fiaai- Xelas tcov ovpavav, cos Kal iropvas Kal TeXcovas ovras ipydcracrdai bo- Ktpovs, cos dgiovs cpavijvai rijs eKeicre npqs Kal bapeds. Chrysost. Homil. in Crucem et Latronem. Opera, Vol. v. p. 570.] •IX.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 365 prayeth that God would account him worthy, or make him meet for the ministry. And if you should in both places translate, " that God maketh worthy," you cannot prove merit thereby ; but contrariwise it soundeth against merit, for God maketh us not worthy by our deserts, but by the worthiness of Christ. Chrysostom also, as I have shewed before up on this place, doth utterly condemn your opinion of merits ; for he saith, " Such are the things that are given, that he hath not only given them, but also made us able to re ceive them. Again, he hath not only given us the honour, but also strength to embrace it. What is our strength ? what is our ability to receive the gifts of God, but faith in the merits of Christ?" The place of Chrysostom, Mom. de cruce et latrone, is not to be understood of deserving by works, but by the grace of God, and remission of their sins, which maketh men meet and worthy of his glory ; as the example of the pubhcan, justified only by remis- Luke xviii. sion of his sins, and of the harlot saved by faith, which Luke vu. he useth, doth plainly declare. And yet sanctification, and the fruits of good life, are not excluded from the persons justified and saved, but only merit or desert of works; ac cording to which, as the same Chrysostom saith, in ep. Col. i. " we must* say we are unprofitable servants, when we have done all that is commanded us3." But this is no place to handle controversies of rehgion, but translations of the scrip ture. The word d^iwaat, except you bring us better evi dence than yet we see any, in all places where we read it, we may translate it dignari, which is, " to vouchsafe," or " account worthy." Martin. Thus we see, how the holy scripture useth equivalent words Maiitin, to signify "merit," which you suppress as much as you can. So 19> P Toiavrd ecrn rd bebopeva, cpqalv, cos pfj bovvai p&vov, dXXd Kal Icrxv- povs iroirjcrai irpos to Xafieiv. Chrysost. Homil. in 1. cap. Epist. ad Col. v. 12. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 98. Tovto ovv Kal ivravBa cpqaiv, on ov povov qp'iv ebaxe rqv npqv, dXXd Kal Icrxvpobs irpbs to Xafie'iv iiroiqae. Id. p. 98. Tlodev, cpqcrlv, ayios yeyovas, elire poi ; ir68ev mcrrbs KaXfi ; obx on btd tov 8avdrov qyiacrdqs tov Xpiarov ; obx. on f's Xpitrroi' wicrre vets ; ir68ev dbc-Xcpbs yeyovas ; ov yap iv epyco, ovbe ev Xoyco, obbe ev Karop- 6a pan iricrrbs. iojdvqs.,* Id., p. 90.] - 366 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. KaTa to epya aiiTov eupritrei.Xafleiv au8' tov tis eSai- Kev ?j eiroi- Tjtre. ebpeTv aT-e- Xeiav. Eccles. xvi. Psal. lxi. Rev. xxii. KaTa Ta epya aii Tov. e£ epyav. likewise we might tell you of other words and phrases that do plainly import and signify "merit." As when it is said, Eccles. xvi., "Every man shall find according to his works." Budee, both your master and ours in the Greek tongue, telleth us that the Greek word evpeaBai, " to find," is properly "to receive for that which a man hath given or laboured." And to requite you with some profane authority, because you delight much in that kind, the whole oration of Demosthenes irpbs Aeirnvqv will tell you the same. Now, " to receive for that which a man hath laboured or wrought," what doth it else presuppose, but "merit" and "desert"? It is a common phrase of the scripture, that " God will judge and reward or repay according to every man's works" : doth not this include " merit" and " demerit" of works ? But 1 wot not how, nor wherefore, in this case you translate sometime " deeds" for " works," saying, " Who will reward every man according to his deeds." And again, " You see then how that of deeds a man is justified, and not of faith only." Fulke, 19. Fvlke. We do not yet see, that the holy scriptures used any word equivalent to " merit," whereby it might be gathered, that we are justified or saved by merit of good works. But you have other words and phrases, that do plainly import and signify merit, as in Ecclesiastieus xvi. " Every man shall find according to his works." Where you put us in mind, what our Master Budee writeth of the proper signification of evpeodai, that is, "to deserve," bringing example therefore out of Demosthenes' oration irpos AeirTivriv. But I pray you, doth our said Master affirm this to be the only signification of that verb ? Where he bringeth you the example out of Gregory, of Saul, which, seeking his father's asses, (iaoiXeiav evparo, "found a kingdom," doth he mean that by seeking his father's asses he deserved a kingdom? Again, the example he bringeth out of St Luke, evpes ydp ^dpw irapd tw Qeip, "thou hast found favour," or "grace with God;" doth he underr stand that the virgin Mary deserved the grace of God? But you object, that " it is a common phrase of the scrip ture, that God will judge or reward, or repay to every man according to his works." It is true, but not to every one according to his merits; for then all should be damned, for all have deserved death ; and no man should be saved, for no man meriteth salvation. But God rendereth to the faithful according to their works, when he freely giveth for Christ's sake eternal life to them, that by the perseye- IX- J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 367 ranee of good works (as the apostle saith) seek glory, ho nour, and incorruption. Their works therefore are the fruits of his grace, not the "merits" or "deserts" of liis grace by which we are saved : Eph. ii. But here again you quarrel, that for "works" we say sometimes "deeds," as though they were not all one: or if they be not, why do you, 1 Cor. v. translate Qui hoc opus fecit, " that hath done this deed ?" Martin. I know you will tell us, that you use to say " deeds" or Mahtin, "works" indifferently; as also you may say, that you put no difference " between "just" and "righteous," "meet" and "worthy," but use both indifferently. To the ignorant this is a fair answer, and shall soon per suade them ; but they that see further must needs suspect you, till you give a good reason of your doing. For the controversy being of "faith" and "works," of "justice" and "justification" by works, ofthe "worthi ness" or value of works ; why do you not precisely keep these terms pertaining to the controversy, the Greek words being always pregnant in that signification ? Why should you once translate the Greek epya, "deeds," rather than "works"? You know it is properly "works," as irpdgeis, "deeds." It were very good in matters of controversy to be precise. Beza maketh it a great fault in the old vulgar Latin trans- Prefat. in no. lator, that he expresseth one Greek word in Latin divers ways : you es ' 5 chop and change significations here and there, as you list, and you think you satisfy the reader marvellous well, if sometime you say "idol," and not always "images;" sometime "just," and not always "righteous:" and if in other places you say " works," or if one bible hath " works," where another hath "deeds," you think this is very well, and will answer all the matter sufficiently. God and your conscience be judge herein, and let the wise reader consider ifrdeeply. The least thing that we demand the reason of, rather than charge you withal, is, why your church bible saith in the places before alleged, " The righteous judg- SiKawKpi- ment of God, which will reward every man according to his deeds," V' and, "man is justified by deeds, and not by faith only." Whereas you e£ epywv. know the Greek is more pregnant for us than so, and the matter of controversy would better appear on our side, if you said thus : " The just judgment of God, which will reward every man according to his works;" and, " man is justified by works, and not by faith only." Fulke. If you could tell us, what advantage our doc- Fulke, trine might have by translating "deeds" rather than "works," ' it might be suspected why some translations use the one, rather than the other : but seeing you cannot imagine, nor any man else, what it should avail us, to use the one rather than the other, it may be reasonably thought, that fhe translators meant no subtilty ; especially when in places 368 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cHi of like appearance for our assertion they use the word "deeds" also: as Gal. ii. 16. "A man is not justified by the deeds of the law, but by faith of Jesus Christ;" where the Greek word is epywv, as well as in St James. But where you say that irpd^eis is proper for " deeds," you were best call the second book of St Luke, The " Deeds " of the Apostles. The fault that Beza findeth with the vulgar Latin translation is, that in diverse places he translateth one word diverse ways, and them differing. For otherwise ' to translate for %'upos sometimes gladius, and sometimes ensis, it were no fault; no more than it is in us to use the words "justice" and "righteousness," "works" and "deeds," "faith" and " belief," " trust" and " confidence," &c. And you your selves in such words do often use the same liberty. MaUTIN, 21. 2. Epist. v. 8. a elpyd- cavile. epyd(ratr- Hai tov fiiov. epyd^ecrQe tjju fipijo- " nor yet St Jerome are sufficient to determine the ambiguity in this place, more than in an hundred other places where our translations depart from their judgment. But it is still free for men of every age to use the gift of knowledge, and interpretation of tongues, unto the exact finding out of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost in the scriptures. Neither do we join with them only for advantage, as you fondly charge us; but as I have shewed you reason in the example you bring, so is there reason also to be shewed wheresoever we either join with them or depart from them. Where you say, " we cannot abide holiness of places," it is false ; for we do acknowledge the holiness of all places which you can prove that God hath sanctified, as he did the ark, the temple, the tabernacle, &c. 24—2 372 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH, Martin, Martin. But you use, you say, the ambiguity of the Hebrew. 24- Take heed that your liberty in taking all advantages agamst the common and approved interpretation of the whole church, be not very suspicious. For if it do signify also " reward," as you know it doth very commonly, and yourself so translate it, Psalm xviii. 11, when you cannot choose ; and if the Septuaginta do here so translate it in Greek, Propter aeter- anfl St Jerome, in his Latin translation according to the Hebrew, and namretnbu- , tionem sci. the ancient fathers in their commentaries ; what upstart new; masters ut eam me- ' are you, that set all these to school again, and teach the world a new pere.perc translation? If you will say you follow our own great Hebrician, n comment. gancj.es Pagjvinus, why did you follow him in his [translation, rather than in his lexicon called Thesaurus, where he interpreteth it as the whole church did before him ? Why did you follow him, or Benedictus Arias either, in this place, and do not follow them in the selfsame case Ps. cxix. 112. a little before, translating that very Hebrew word which is in this place, 2pV propter retributionem, for "reward"? So that you follow nothing, neither judgment nor learning in Hebrew or Greek, but only your own error and heresy, which is, that we may not do well in respect " of reward," or " for reward ;" and therefore, because the holy prophet David said of himself the contrary, " that he did bend his whole heart to keep God's commandments for reward," you make him say another thing. Fulke, Fulke. If Sanctes Pagninus, Benedictus Arias, and Isi dorus Clarius, be " upstart new masters" in your judgment, because they depart here from the Septuaginta and St Jerome, we poor men must look for small favour at your hands. But because you say we "follow nothing, neither judgment nor learning in Hebrew or Greek, but only our own error and heresy," I will set down the judgment of Isi dorus Clarius upon this place, who translateth it as all the Hebricians of this age do, and yieldeth his reasons in these words : " Inclinavi cor meum. Accommodavi animum meum, ut opere prcestem prcecepta tua, cj-c. " I have in clined my heart. I have applied my mind, that in work or deed I might perform thy commandments, even unto the end of my life." For that word, proper retributionem, "for reward," the Hebrew words have not : and truly it is to be taken away; for it is too servile a thing, and not worthy of so great a prophet, to give diligence to God's- command ments for reward and hope of retribution. For that is the part of an hireling, and of him which is unworthy the name of a son ; neither can he be worthily called a christian man, that serveth Christ with this mind. For what if God should say so, that he would not reward us with any other IX. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 373 retribution, seeing for this one thing, that we are created by him, we can never satisfy this debt, shall we refuse to serve him? Therefore we are bound to serve him with our whole mind, although he had decreed to thrust us into hell fire, both for that which we owe him, and for that we hve only that time which we bestow in well doing; for they which give over themselves to all wicked works, by no means can be said to hve. Yet there may be an interpretation of the Hebrew words without such offence; so that it may be said, 'for ever is the reward,' as elsewhere we read, ' In keeping of them is great reward.' For by this means it is signified, that the fruit indeed of keeping God's law is very great, but yet that retribution is not the end and scope, but the love of God." Let all in different readers judge by this, what just cause you have thus to rail, not only upon our translators, but also upon all learned papists that have translated even so. And let the ignorant judge what knowledge you have in the Hebrew tongue, which urge the false translation of the Seventy against the opinion and translation of all the learned Hebricians of this age, both papists and protestants; although it were no hard thing to prove that the Greek text of the Psalms, which now we have, is none of the Seventy translation, as even Lindanus might teach you, de Opt. gen. Lib. in. c. vi. Martin. And to this purpose perhaps it is, (for other cause I cannot Martin, guess,) that you make such a marvellous transposition of words in your 25. translation, Matt, xix., saying thus : " When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his. majesty, ye that have followed me in the regene ration shall sit also upon twelve seats." Whereas the order of these words, both in Greek and Latin, is this : " You that have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in his majesty, you also shall sit upon twelve seats." To follow Christ in the regene ration is not easily understood what it should mean : but to sit with Christ in the regeneration, that is, in the resurrection, upon twelve seats, that is familiar, and every man's interpretation, and concerneth the great reward that they shall then have which here follow Christ, as the apostles did. Fulke. You look for faults very narrowly, that can Fulke, espy but a comma wanting, although it be no impious sense 25, to follow Christ in the regeneration ; for the world by Christ was after a sort renewed, when the cause of the restoration thereof was performed : as for the "reward," of which you 374 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. have such a servile care, [it] is expressed in sitting upon twelve seats to judge the tribes of Israel, Wherefore there was no need that you should fear the loss of your " reward" by this transposition. Martin, Martin. The like transposition of words is in some of your bibles, 26- Heb. ii. 9, thus: "We see Jesus crowned with glory and honour, ii ™ which was a little inferior to the angels, through the suffering of death1." Whereas both in Greek and Latin the order of the words is thus: " Him that was made a little inferior to angels, we see Jesus, through the passion of death, crowned with honour and glory." In this latter the apostle saith, that Christ was crowned for his suffering death, and so by his death merited his glory. But by your translation he saith, that Christ was made inferior to angels by his suffering death, that is, saith trtmoripos- Beza, "for to suffer death;" and taking it so, that he was made inferior to angels that he might die: then the other sense is clean excluded, that for suffering death he was crowned with glory; and this is one place among other, whereby it may very well be gathered that some see Calvin 0f you think, that Christ himself did not merit his own elorv and ex- in epist. ad . . . ° d Philip. altation. So obstinately are you set agamst merits and meritorious works. To the which purpose also you take away man's free will, as having no ability to work toward his own salvation. Fulke, Fulke. Whether we say, " Christ was crowned for his 26- suffering," or "Christ was made inferior to the angels through his suffering," the sense of either of both is good and godly, and may stand with the place ; neither doth the one of them exclude the other, although but one only can be the sense of the place. And if this be the " place by which you may gather, that some of us think that Christ merited not his own glory," it is not worth a straw. We hold that Christ for himself needed not to merit, because he was the Lord of glory : but that he merited for us, to be exalted in our nature, for our salvation, it is so far off that we deny, that our whole comfort resteth in his merits; and in his glory, which he hath deserved for us, we hope to be glorified for ever. When you make your transition to the next chapter, you say, we "take away man's free will, as having none ability to work:" by which it seemeth that you do not only allow to man the freedom of his will, but also power to work whatsoever he will ; so that he shall not only have a free will, but also a strength by the same to work towards his own salvation. [} This is not quite correctly given, the word " made" being omitted after " was"; as the cavil is taken at the later Genevan version.] X.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 375 CHAPTER X. Heretical Translation against Free Will. Martin. Against free will your corruptions be these: John i. 12a, Martin, 1. where it is said, " As many as received him, he gave them power to be ipova.iav, made the sons of God." Some of your translations say, he gave them ^b.Tc,t' "prerogative" to be the sons of God: Beza, " dignity ;" who protesteth that whereas in other places often he translateth this Greek word "power" and "authority," here he refused both indeed against free will, which, he saith, the sophists would prove out of this place, repre- ut hceret hending Erasmus for following them in his translation. But whereas {Hjjj? Del the Greek word is indifferent to signify " dignity" or " liberty," he that will translate either of these, restraineth the sense of the Holy Ghost, and determineth it to his own fancy. If you may translate " dignity," may not we as well translate it "liberty"? Yes, surely. For you know it signifieth the one as well as the other, both in profane and divine writers. And you can well call to mind abregovaios and rb avregovaiov, whence they are derived, and that the apostle calleth a man's Liberty of his own will igovcriav irepl tov Ibiov BeXqparos. 1 Cor. vii. 17. Now then, if "potestas" in Latin, and "power" in English, be words also indifferent to signify both " dignity" and "liberty," translate so, in the name of God, and leave the text of the scripture indifferent as we do : and for the sense, whether of the two it doth here rather signify, or whether it doth not signify both, as no doubt it doth, and the fathers so expound it, let that be examined otherwise. It is a common fault with you, and intolerable, by your translation to abridge the sense of the Holy Ghost to one particular understanding, and to defeat the exposition of so many fathers, that expound it in another sense and signification : as is plain in this example also following. Fulke. Seeing you confess that the Greek word sig- Fulke, 1. nifieth not only "power," but also "dignity," and that in this place it signifieth both, it can be no corruption, but the best and truest interpretation, to translate igovcriav "dignity;" for that includeth "power," whereas power may be severed from T3 "Ocroi be TXajiov abrov, ebaKev abrois igovaiav TeKva Qeov yeveadcu, John i. 12. "Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri," Vulg. "Quotquot autem eum acoeperunt, dedit eis hanc dignitatem ut filii Dei fierent," Beza. " To them gave he power," Cranmer, 1539, Authorised version, 1611. egovaia is rendered " power" in the Genevan, Rhemish, Tyndale's, and Wiclif 's versions.] 376" A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. dignity. Where you would have us use a word that is am biguous, when the sense is clear by your own confession, you bewray your own corrupt affection, which desire to have the scriptures so ambiguously or doubtfully translated, that the ignorant might receive no benefit of certain understanding by them. When a word hath diverse significations, a wise trans lator must weigh which of them agreeth with the text in hand, and that to use : but not to seek ambiguous words, that may bring the matter in doubt, when the meaning to him is certain. As here you say, "there is no doubt but it signifieth both," and yet you quarrel at our translation which comprehendeth both ; and urge the word of " power," from which dignity may be severed, whereas from " dignity" power, or ability, or license, cannot be divided. Mahtin, 2. Martin. The apostle, 1 Cor. xv. 10, saith thus, " I laboured more v %dpis abimdantly than all they, yet not I, but the grace of God with me1." too eeoo i| \yhich may have this sense, " not I, but the grace of God which is cruv epoi. * , , with me,' as S. Jerome sometime expoundeth it; or this, "not I, but the grace of God which laboured with me." And by this latter is most evidently signified, that the grace of God and the apostle both laboured together, and not only grace, as though the apostle had done nothing, like unto a block, forced only : but that the grace of God did so concur as the principal agent with all his labours, that his free will wrought withal. Against which truth and most approved interpretation of this place, you translate according to the former sense only, making it the very text, and so excluding all other senses and com mentaries, as your masters Calvin and Beza taught you ; who should not have taught you, if you were wise, to do that which neither they, nor you, can justify. They reprehend first the vulgar Latin inter preter for neglecting the Greek article, and secondly, them that by occasion thereof would by this place prove free will. By wliich their commentary they do plainly declare their intent and purpose in their translation, to be directly against free will. Fulke, 2. Fulke. St Jerome favouring this translation of ours, as he doth in divers places, lib. n. advers. Jovi. Gratia Dei quce, in me est; and hb. n. adver. Pelag. et ad Principem Gratia Dei quos mecum est, " The grace of God which is in me," or " which is with me ;" I marvel why you count p dXXd irepiacroTepov abrav icdvrav itcoirlacra"" ovk iya be, dXX' rj Xapis tov 8eoO rj abv ipoi, 1 Cor. xv. 10.] X'J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 377 it among heretical corruptions, except you take St Jerome for an heretic. By the latter you say it " is signified, that the grace of God and the apostle both laboured together :" although it be no proper speech to say, the grace of God laboureth, yet that you would have is expressed before, where St Paul saith, " I have laboured more than they all ;" which none but a block would understand, that he was forced like a block. The grace of God useth no violence, but frameth the will of man to obedience and service of God. But that St Paul had of himself no free will to perform this labour, but that it was altogether of the grace of God which gave him this will, he confesseth more plainly than that it can be denied, where he saith, "Not I." Whereby he meaneth, not that he was only helped by the grace of God, and did it not alone ; but that he did nothing by his own strength, but altogether by the grace of God, which made him willing, which of nature was unwilling, to set forth the gospel, yea, by froward zeal became a blasphemer and a persecutor thereof. Which grace gave him not only a will to promote the gospel, but inspired him also with divine knowledge, by revelation, without study or hearing of other men : which gave him also strength to overcome so many difficulties, that no labour, nor travail, nor persecution, nor continuance of time, did make him weary or faint in his labour. All this, I say, he doth ascribe wholly unto the grace of God. And this sense doth not make Paul a block, nor enforced by violence ; but a willing, prompt, and painful labourer. But if you mean that St Paul had a free will and strength of himself, which only was holpen by the grace of God; then is your sense abominable Pelagianism, heresy, worthy to be trodden under feet by all Christians, and of Calvin and Beza most justly reprehended, who are utter enemies to free will, that derogateth any thing from the grace of Christ, "without whom we can do nothing:" which j0hn xv. 5. text always choked the Pelagians, and so doth it their half- faced brethren, the papists. Martin. But concerning the Greek article omitted in translation, Maetin, 3. if they were but grammarians in both tongues, they might know ij x«'p'« >/ that the Greek article many times cannot be expressed in Latin, """ £A""* and that this is one felicity and prerogative of the Greek phrase 378 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. {witness.) (sins.) Bib. 1562. Nov. Test. 1580. hv ireTroL- dijaei did Ttl*i TTt- (TT6W5. tov Tvvev- [xaTos (tov) t) iriaTfs (-;)¦ above the Latin, to speak more briefly, commodiously, and signifi cantly by the article. What need we go to Terence and Homer, as they art wont ? Is not the scripture full of such speeches ; Jacobus Zebedcei, Jacobus Alphcei, Judas Jacobi, Maria Cleophce, and the like ? Are not all these sincerely translated into Latin, though the Greek article be not expressed ? Can you express the article, but you must add more than the article, and so add to the text ? as you do very boldly in such speeches throughout the New Testament; yea, you do it when there is no article in the Greek : as John v. 36, and 1 John ii. 2. Yea, sometime of an heretical purpose : as Eph. iii.1 : " By whom we have boldness and entrance with the confidence which is by the faith of him," or "in him," as it is in other your bibles. You say, "confidence which is by faith," as though there were no confidence by works : you know the Greek beareth not that translation, unless there were an article after "confidence," which is not ; but you add it to the text heretically : as also Beza doth the hke, Rom. viii. 2, and your Geneva English testaments after him, for the heresy of imputative justice ; as in his annotations he plainly deduceth, saying confidently, " I doubt not but a Greek article must be under stood," and therefore (forsooth) put into the text also. He doth the same in St James ii. 20, still debating the case in his annotations why he doth so ; and when he hath concluded in his fancy that this or that is the sense, he putteth it so in the text, and translateth accordingly. No marvel now, if they reprehend the vulgar Latin interpreter for not translating the Greek article in the place which we began to treat of, when they find articles lacking in the Greek text itself, and boldly add them for their purpose in their trans lation : whereas the vulgar Latin interpretation is in all these places so sincere, that it neither addeth nor diminisheth, nor goeth one iota from the Greek. Fulke, 3. Fulke. Concerning the omission of the Greek article, which Calvin and Beza reprove in the old translator, you make many words to no purpose : for they reprove him not for omitting it, where either it cannot or it need not be expressed, but in this place, where both it may, and meet it is that it should be expressed. But we, you say, to ex press the article, do add more than is in the text : yet in truth we add nothing but that which is necessarily to be understood ; as when we say, " James the son of Zebedee," where you had rather say, James of Zebedee, as though you were so precise, that for necessary understanding you would [' 'Ev CO exopev Tt)v irappqcrlav ml rqv irpocraycoyqv iv ireiroitTqaei bid Ttjs iricrreas abrov, Ephes. iii. 12. " In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him," Authorised version. J X.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 379 not add a word to the text ; and yet you do very often, yea, sometimes where no need is : as Acts viii.3 where the Latin is cwraverunt Stephanum, you translate it, " they took order for Stephen's funeral." Doth curare signify to take order for a funeral ? So hkewise Luke x., pceniterent, " they had done penance." But to answer for our own doings. John v. 363, where Christ saith, "I have a greater witness than John's witness," why may not the article tov be referred rather to papTvp'tov, that is of necessity to be understood, than to '[wdvvov? In the other place, 1 John ii. 24, the word "sins," must needs be understood in the pronoun adjective " ours." In the third text, where you accuse the translators of here tical purpose, the sense is all one whether you add the article or no. For when the apostle saith, "by Christ we have boldness and entrance with confidence by faith," how can you understand "confidence by works?" and whether there be con fidence by works or no, there can none be proved by this place. Where Beza understandeth an article, Rom. viii., whom our Enghsh translation doth follow, it is only to make that plain, which otherwise is necessarily to be understood. For there is no difference between these sayings : " The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus," and this, " The law of the spirit of life, which is in Christ Jesus, hath dehvered me from the law of sin and death." The article or relative therefore declareth no more but, "the law of the spirit of life is in Christ Jesus, which dehvereth us." For both the text saith, " in Christ Jesus," and it cannot be in any other to dehver us. For he saith not, the law of the spirit of life in us, but in Christ Jesus ; and the next verse following doth manifestly confirm the same, as every man may see that will consider it. Likewise James the second : " Wilt thou know, 0 thou vain Qa 'S.vveKdpiaav be rbv Sreqbavov avbpes ebXaj3eis, Kal iirotqaavro Koire- tov peyav eir avn}, Acts viii. 2. " Curaverunt autem Stephanum viri timorati, et fecerunt planctum magnum super eum," Vulg. " And devout men took order for Steven's funeral, and made great mourning upon him," Rhemish Test. 1582.] Q3 'gym be ex- " the Holy Ghost, which is in you." But you see the verb going before &c.) ' is rather repeated, " Not you speak, but the Holy Ghost that speaketh T0 wvcSpa in you." Even so, "Not I laboured, but the grace of God labouring T0 iv bp.lv. with me," or, " which laboured with me." So prayeth the wise man, Sap. ix. 10, " Send wisdom out of thy holy heavens, that she may be with me, and labour with me," as yourselves translate. Bib. 1577- Et mecum ^ laboret. Fulke. And I likewise appeal, not only "to all that have Fulke, 5. skill in Greek speeches and phrases," but to all them whose ears are accustomed to reasonable speeches, whether it be like that the apostle would understand that participle, whereof (perhaps) there is no verb; for where shall we read ovy- 382 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. icoiridw ? Secondly, whether he would understand the par ticiple of another verb adjective than went before; for before he said eKoiriacra. Thirdly, whether he were so desirous to set forth his own co-operation with the grace of God, that he would express it with two prepositions, one in apposition, the other in composition. Fourthly, whether he meant to attribute any thing to himself, when, as it were correcting that which he said of " labouring," he saith, " yet not I, but the grace of God." Fifthly, whether he purposed to challenge any merit of the labour to himself, or make his labour any thing separate or separable from the grace of God, when he said before, " by the grace of God I am that I am." Last of all, whether, his words being resolved, if this participle be added, they contain not a ridiculous tautology or vain repetition, " I have laboured more than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which laboured together with me hath laboured." To conclude in your example which you feign, because you can find none to answer your fancy : if the words were as you suppose, ov-fc v/iels eaTe oi XaXovvTes, aXXd to irvevpa tov iraTpos vfjuov to ev vfiiv, we would, and must, if we did well, translate it thus : " It is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost, which is in you," and so understand "speaketh." The saying of Philo, or whatsoever eloquent Jew that was which gathered that book of Wisdom, is not of such importance that we need to seek any interpretation thereof; although it is certain, that by " wisdom" he meaneth not the Son of God, the Wisdom of the Father ; but divine knowledge and under standing, which is a gift of his Spirit, whereof he speaketh by a rhetorical prosopopoeia, or fiction of person. Mabtin, 6. Martin. And so the apostle calleth himself and his fellow preachers eeoSawep- " God's coadjutors," "co-labourers," or such as labour and work with yol- God ; which also you falsely translate " God's labourers," to take away S. Augustme, . , . 0 cooperarii.et all co-operation ; and m some of your bibles most foolislilyand peevishly, crwepyovv- as though you had sworn not to translate the Greek, "We together Tesde. are God's labourers:" as well might you translate Rom. viii. 17, that Vbpoi nP0~ "we together be Christ's heirs," for that which the apostle saith "co- XpurTod. heirs," or "joint-heirs with him;" the phrase and speech, as you know, Eph. ii. 5. in Greek being all one. So doth Beza most falsely translate, Una vivi- ficavit nos per Christum, for that which is plain in the Greek, " He hath The English quickened us together with Christ." Wliere the English Bezites leave are ashamed also the Greek, and follow our vulgar Latin translation rather than X.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 383 Beza, who goeth so wide from the Greek, that for shame they dare not of then __ Hitter follow him. Fie upon such hypocrisy and pretensed honour of God, that you will not speak in the same terms that the holy scripture speaketh, but rather will teach the Holy Ghost how to speak, in not translating as he speaketh ! As though these phrases of scripture, " men are God's co adjutors," " co-workers with his grace," " raised with Christ," " co-heirs with him," "co-partakers of glory with him," were all spoken to the dishonour of God and Christ ; and as though these, being the speeches of the Holy Ghost himself, needed your reformation in your English translations. Otherwise, if you mean well, and would say as we say, that whatsoever good we do, we do it by God's grace, and yet work the same by our free will together with God's grace, as the mover and helper and directer of our will ; why do you not translate in the foresaid place of St Paul accordingly ? Fulke. St Paul saith, 1 Cor. hi. 91, that he and Apollos Fclke, 6. are Qeov ovvepyol, " joined together in the work and business of God:" he saith not that they are "helpers of God," for God needeth no help. A helper is of him that lacketh strength, which is blasphemous to say of God. Therefore even Faber Stapulensis, as Beza telleth you, reproveth that term adju- tores, which your vulgar translator useth, and you yourself in favour of your heresy of free will do not translate, but fly to the Greek word ovvepyol, and say " coadjutors," which if you would express in Enghsh, signifieth "fellow-helpers of God." The word cocperarii, which St Augustme useth, as Beza also telleth you, may be referred to the joint labour of the ministers in several offices of planting and watering. And although it be referred to God, that he, as the Lord p Qeov ydp iapev ovvepyol, 1 Cor. iii. 9. " Dei enim sumus adju- tores," Vulg. "Etenim Dei sumus administri," Beza. "For we are God's labourers," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva. " For we are God's coad jutors," Rhemish. " For we are labourers together with God," Autho rised version. Administri, ovvepyol, Augustinus et Erasmus, cooperarii. Ambro- sius, operis participes, Vulg. adjutores ; vocabulo, fateor, Latino, sed quod recte, ut opinor, reprehendit Stapulensis. Dicimur enim eum adjuvare cui vires non sufficiunt : quis autem hoc de Deo dicat ? Ei autem subservire nihil prohibet, cui opera nostra uti placeat in eo quod ipse solus, si velit, possit efficere. Sed in hoc opere, de quo hic disseritur, amplius «tiam aliquid considerandum est. Primum scilicet, istos qui Dei sunt administri, viribus uti non a natura insitis, sed a gratia collatis, ut apta et idonea fierent instrumenta; sicut significat apostolus infra xv. 10. et 2 Cor. iii. 6. ut nihil habeant ovvepyol de quo in sese glo- rientur. Beza in locum, p. 205.] 384 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ch. and Master, and they, as the servants, altogether by his grace and strength do work together, the sense is not evil, yet not proper for this place. Because the apostle doth not here set out the dignity of the ministers, but abaseth their labour, and submitteth all to God. For he had to do with them, that did attribute too much unto the ministers' work; with whom it was unseasonable to extol their labours, and make them "coadjutors" or "fellow-helpers of God." But con trariwise, he ascribeth the fruit of all their labours to God ; and to take away the schisms that were among them, by depending of one minister more than another, declareth that they altogether are " God's labourers," " God's husbandmen," &c. In the other place 2 Cor. vi. 1, ovvepyovvTes, it is more proper to say, that the apostles joined their labours unto Christ offering his grace, that it should not be received in vain : where, nevertheless, the strength of man's free will is not avouched; but the grace of God, who worketh by his minis ters, giving them strength to labour, and fruit to their labours. Next followeth an open outcry against Beza for false translation, and our translators for being ashamed to follow him. If we mislike Beza's translation, are we by and by ashamed to follow him? And if his translation be false, as you affirm, and we ashamed to follow him in falsehood, do we deserve to be defied as hypocrites, because we prefer the truth before the credit of our master, as you call him? 0 how glad you are, when you have never so small an occasion, to set abroad the sails of your railing and reviling oration! But let us see whether Beza deserve so much blame as you charge him withal. Beza having translated, as he thought, most near to the apostle's meaning, Eph. ii. 5\ in his annotation upon the place thus writeth : " Convivificavit, &c. The Vulgar and Erasmus translate, 'he hath quick ie1 ovvefaoiroiqcre ra Xpiorco, Ephes. ii. 5. " Convivificavit nos Christo," Vulg. " Una vivificavit nos per Christum," Beza. " Quick ened us together in Christ," all the versions, except the Authorised, which has " with Christ." " Convivificavit nos una cum Christo," Eras mus. Quam sententiam minime reprehendo. Sed nihil tamen rei ipsi detrahetur ; et magis fortassis apposite dici possit prsepositionem avv ad- hibitam esse, ut gentium ac Judeeorum in uno Christo coagmentationem declaret, quo modo etiam accipitur to ovvoiKobopeioBai, infra vers. 21. Nov. Test. Edit. Bezae, p. 249.] X.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 385' ened us together with Christ,' wliich sense I do in no wise reprehend. But yet nothing shall be detracted from the self-same matter, and perhaps it may be said more aptly, that the preposition avv, in this place, is used rather to de clare the uniting together of the gentiles and Jews in one Christ; after which manner the word ovvoiKoSo/melcrOai, which signifieth ' to be builded together,' is afterward used, verse 22." This is Beza's judgment, not contrary to the common translation and ours, but agreeing in the sense thereof, and comprehending a further matter, whereof the apostle in that chapter speaketh. But our translators thought best to follow the plain and common understanding, not for shame of Beza, or his translation, but for desire of sincerity and plainness. Contrariwise, where your vulgar translator is sometimes so barbarous, that his phrase hath no sense ac cording to the text, it may well be thought you were ashamed to follow him, lest you should have been ridiculous to all men. As you translate timoratus "rehgious" oftentimes. Non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum, which in Enghsh is, John xii. " not because of the poor it pertained to him ;" but you have translated, " not because he cared for the poor." Una Sab- John xxi. bati, " the first of the sabbath." Sabbati habens iter, Acts i. "having the journey of a sabbath," you translate, " distant Acts xiv. a sabbath's journey." Yea, you are bold to correct your text, and for Italia to say Attalia. Ad abluenda crimina, which Acts xxv. is, "to wash away the crimes," you say, " to clear himself of the crime." Cum multa ambitions, which is, " with much ima ambition," you say, " with great pomp." Exhortentur, 1 cor. xiv. which is a deponent, you translate, " may be exhorted :" ad reverentiam vobis, which is, " for reverence to you," 1 cor. xv. you say, " to your shame :" and such like. I do not blame you, that you are ashamed to follow your vulgar Latin text in these phrases ; but that you are not ashamed to allow that translation, as the only authentical text, which no man for shame will follow in many places. To conclude, our meaning for free will is, that we confess it at all times to be free from constraint, but never free to embrace that which is good indeed, but only when it is reformed by the grace of God : who also, in all good things that we take in hand, doth not only make us willing, but also giveth all the strength we have to perform them. If. this be your meaning, as I r l 25 [PULKE.J 386 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. am afraid it is not, by your terms of " working, and helping, and directing," "as though it could go alone with a httle help and direction," we join with you ; but if you think you can do anything that good is, without the grace of God, hke to Pelagius, Celestius, and other like heretics of the devil's black guard, we leave you. Martin, 7. Martin. You say moreover in some of your bibles, thus : " So lieth olfedfov- i^1 not tften m a man's will or running, but in the mercy of God1." What- Toi,Tpexov- soever you mean, you know this translation is very dissolute, and wide Ixe V fr°m *^e ap013*!6'8 words, and not true in sense ; for salvation is in willing Aug. senn. and running, according to that famous saying of St Augustine, " He that Apostoli. ' made thee without thee will not justify thee without thee; " that is, against 2 Tim. ii. thy will, or, unless thou be willing. And the apostle saith, " No man is i cor. ix. crowned, unless he fight lawfully." And again, " So run that you may Bom. ii. obtain." And again, " The doers of the law shall be justified." And our Matt. xix. Saviour, " If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." We see then, that it is in willing, and running, and doing : but to will, or run, or do, are not of man, but of God's mercy. And so the apostle speaketh : " It is not of the wilier, nor runner, but of God that hath mercy." And it is much to be marvelled, why you said not, " It heth not in the wilier, nor in the runner," which is near to the apostle's words ; but so far off, " in a man's will and running.'' Fulke, 7. Fulke. The translation you reprehend, I grant, is not proper for the words, and therefore is reformed in the later translations : yet in sense it is all one ; for salvation heth not in the will, or running of man, but in the mercy of God ; even as St John saith : "The children of God are not made of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but they are born of God." But thus you reason against it. We are not saved, except we will, and run ; ergo, salvation Heth in willing and running. I deny your argument, which is as good as this : we are not saved from sin, except we have committed sin ; ergo, salvation from sin heth in commifr ting sin. The " famous place of Augustine" is a famous cor ruption of papists, to establish the strength of free will, clean contrary to St Augustine's mind, where a point in terrogative is changed into a period ; for in ancient written copies, it is read with interrogation : Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te justificat sine te ? " He therefore that made thee p dpa ovv ov tov BeXovros, ovbe tov rpexovTos, dXXd tov iXeovvros Oeov, Rom. ix. 16. " So then [election] is not of the wilier, nor of X.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 387 without thee, doth he not justify thee without thee ?" And the whole discourse of that father, both before and after, requireth that reading. For thus he writeth : Si hominem te fecit Deus, et justum tu te fads ; melius aliquid fads, quam fecit Deus. Sed sine te fecit te Deus. Non enim adhibuisti aliquem consensum, ut te faceret Deus. Quo modo consentiebas qui non eras f Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te justificat sine te? Ergo fecit nescientem, jus- tificat volentem. Tamen ipse justificat, ne sit justitia tua?. " If God have made thee a man, and thou makest thyself a just man, thou makest some better thing than God hath made : but God made thee without thee, for thou gavest no consent that God should make thee : how didst thou consent, which wast not ? He therefore that made thee without thee, doth he not justify thee without thee ? There fore he hath made thee not knowing; but he justifieth thee, being willing : yet it is he that doth justify thee, that it should not be thy justice." The meanmg of St Augustine is, that we have no more free will to be justified, before we be prevented by the grace of God, than we had will to be created. For it is God's grace that maketh us willing to be justified and saved, not the strength of man's free will; as he proveth at large throughout the whole homily. Now to the texts of scrip ture which you cite, I answer, there is not one that proveth any strength or sway of man's free will toward the true goodness, before, of an ungodly man and enemy of God, he be reconciled by the grace and mercy of God, and made an obedient child in some part, willing to do the will of his Father. First, those texts of "fighting and rumiing" prove that fighting and running is necessary for them that are exhorted thereto ; but not that fighting or running are in the free will of man, or that salvation lieth in them. Eating and drinking are necessary for the life of man ; yet the life of man lieth not in eating and drinking. Where the apostle saith, " the doers of the law shall be justified," he meaneth them that fulfil the law ; and doth our Saviour Christ, an- the runner ; but of God that taketh mercy," Bishops' bible, 1584. " So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy," Authorised version, 1611.] [2 Augustin. Sermo. clxix. Opera, Vol. v. p. 1178.] 25—2 Joh. xiv. 388 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. swering to the question of him that asked, "what he should do to obtain life ?" declare, " that there is no way to enter into life by doing, but only by doing of God's command ments : for the man that doth them shall live by them." But if he were asked, " which is the way to eternal life ?" as he was by Thomas, he will answer, " I am the way, the truth, and the life." Those texts therefore declare not, how a man that is a transgressor of the law may be saved ; but that to obtain salvation by works, it is necessary for a man to keep the whole law and commandments of God, or else he is accursed. Martin, 8. Martin. Again, touching continency and the chaste single life, you oi irdvTes translate : "All men cannot receive this saying," Matt. xix. 11. Now Marvellous you wot well, that our Saviour saith not, "All men cannot," but, "all latfon e trans" men ^° not receive it:" and that therefore, as St Augustine saith, "be- pe grat. et cause all will not." But when our Saviour afterward saith, " He that lib. arb. c. 4. , 6 Suvdpevos can receive it, let him receive it ;" he addeth another Greek word to X<"pew, express that sense 1 : whereas by your fond translation he might have said, 6 xaPav xcuP£'T0>' And again, by your translation, you should translate these his latter words thus : " He that can or is able to receive it, let him be able to receive it." For so you translate x^P^" before, as though it were all one with bvvaoBai x«>p*iv. Do you not see your folly, and falsehood, and boldness, to make the reader believe that our Saviour should say, "Every man cannot live chaste, it is impossible for them, and therefore no man should vow chastity, because he knoweth not whether he can live so or no ? " Fulke, 8. Fulke. The Greek word ^wpelv doth signify " to be able to hold, or contain;" and so it is used, Mark ii., wore /xjjKeVi ¦^oope'iv firjoe irpos Ttjv Qvpav : which you trans late, "so that there was no place, no, not at the door." Do you not mean, that the place about the door was not able to hold that multitude ? Your vulgar Latin is, Ita ut non caperet neque ad januam, in barbarous words, but in sense as I have said before. So John ii., the six pots, [^ *0 be etirev avrols, ov irdvres x^P^voi tov Xoyov tovtov, dXW ots beborai, Matt. xix. 11. 'O bvvdpevos ya>pai< xemo, y. 12. " He said unto them, All men cannot away with that saying, save they to whom it is given," Tyndale. " He said unto them, All men cannot comprehend this saying, save they to whom it is given," Cranmer, Bishops' bible. " Cannot receive," Authorised version. " And he said unto them, AU men receive not this speech, save they to whom it is given," Geneva Bible, 1557.] X.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 38.9 when they were empty, are said ^wpovaai, "able to receive every one of them two or three measures." Likewise, John, xxi., where the word is -^wpiioai, you yourselves translate " not able to contain." Seeing the word therefore signifieth not only " to receive," but also " to be able to receive," it is rightly translated, Matth. xix. ; and according to the mean ing of our Saviour Christ, " all men cannot receive this saying, but they to whom it is given ;" which he doth after evidently confirm, when he addeth the participle d Swdpievos, " he that is able to receive it, let bim receive it :" which were vainly said, if all men were able that would, and if it were given to all that would; for then he should say, "all men do not receive this saying, but they that will, let them receive it." Where you call Augustine to witness of your foolish gloss, you do him shameful injury : for he saith not, " all men do not, because aU will not;" but these are his words in the place by you quoted: Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed quibus datum est: quibus enim non est datum, aut nolunt, aut non irnplent quod volunt; quibus autem datum est, sic volunt ut impleant quod volunt2. " All men receive not this word, but they to whom it is given : for they to whom it is not given, either they will not, or else they fulfil not that which they will ; but they to whom it is given, do so will, that they fulfil that which they will." Augustine is plain to the contrary, that it is not in every man that will to be continent, but it is the special gift of God that any both will, and be able to perform it ; for which he citeth also the saying of the wise man, Sap. viii., which with you is canonical scripture : " When I knew that otherwise I could not be continent, except God should give it, and this same was wisdom to know whose gift it is, I went unto the Lord and prayed to him3." These things considered, our translation is justified, both according to the word, whieh signifieth sometime " to be able to receive ;" and according to the sense, which here must needs require that it should be so translated. Wherefore it is impossible for any man to [2 Augustin. de Gratia et Lib. Arb. c. 4. Opera, Vol. i. 1236.] [3 Emit enim et eximit in se sperantes, non suis viribus quod acce- perint tribu entes. Et hoc ipsum enim est sapientim, scire cujus est donum. Augustin. Senno clx. Opera, v. 1118.] in Genes. 390 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. live chaste, except he have the gift of God ; whereof unless a man be certain, he doeth foolishly and presumptuously, to vow that which he knoweth not whether he shall be able to perform. Martin, 9. Martin. Again, in some of your bibles, Gen. iv. 7, where God saith Bib. 1579. plainly, " that Cain should receive according as he did, well or evil, be cause sin was subject unto him, and he had the rule and dominion thereof," evidently declaring his free will ; you translate it thus : " If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou dost not well, sin lieth at the door: and also unto thee his desire shall be subject, and thou shalt rule over him." By which relatives, falsely put in the mas culine gender, you exclude the true antecedent, sin, and refer them to Abel, Cain's brother; as though God had said, not that sin should be in his dominion, or subject unto him, but his brother Abel. But that this is most false and absurd, we prove many ways. First, St Augustine Lib. 19. c. 7. saith directly the contrary: Tu dominaberis illius: nunquid fratris? o.ua?st. Heb.' absit ; cujus igitur nisi peccati ? " Thou shalt rule," saith he, " over what? over thy brother? Not so; over what then, but sin?"1 St Jerome also explicateth this place thus : " Because thou hast free will, I warn thee that sin have not dominion over thee, but thou over sin2." More over, the text itself, if notliing else, is sufficient to convince this ab surdity. For where this word, " sin," goeth immediately before in the same sentence, and not one word of Abel his brother in that speech of God to Cain ; how is it possible, or what coherence can there be in saying, as you translate, " Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt have dominion over him," that is, "thy brother?" But if we say thus, "Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt have dominion thereof;" it hath this direct and plain sense : " If thou dost ill, sin lieth at the door ready to condemn thee, because it is in thee to overrule it." Fulke, 9. Fulke. The relatives be the masculine gender in the Hebrew tongue, and therefore referred to Abel, and not to sin, which is of the feminine gender. Again, sin hath no appetite to Cain, but rather Cain to it : therefore, even as it was said to Eve, Thy appetite shall be to thy husband ; so it is said of Abel, His appetite shall be to thee. St Augustine follow eth the corrupt translation of the Septuaginta, which for p Augustin. Opera, Vol. vn. p. 615.] [2 Ait enim Dominus ad Cain: Quare irasceris? et quare concidit vultus tuus? Nonne si bene egeris, dimittetur tibi; et si non bene egeris, ante fores peccatum tuum sedebit? et ad te societas ejus: sed tu magis dominare ejus. Hieronymi, Liber Quajst. Hebraic, in Gene- sim. Opera. Vol. ii. p. 511.] X.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 391 " appetite" read " conversion ;" and therefore there is the less account to be made of his authority, being also igno rant in the Hebrew tongue, and not regarding the Greek relative to be also of the mascuhne gender. Jerome also in that place interpreteth not " appetite," but " society," and fantasieth that chataoth is the masculine gender, and not j-ixt2n the feminine ; whereas it is never read but in the feminine gender, out of this place of controversy. But "the text itself," you say, "is sufficient to convince this absurdity, because in this speech of God to Cain there is no word of Abel." It is somewhat that you say, if this that Moses reporteth were all that God said to Cain; but seeing it is certain that God at large discoursed with him of the cause of his envy against his brother, we may easily understand in this speech two arguments to reprove Cain's envy, the one of the person of God, the other of the person of Abel. For God doth re prove his envy by his own justice, and by Abel's innocency : which latter argument your false translation doth utterly suppress. But that a relative is referred to an antecedent, which in the same verse is not expressed, it is no strange thing to them that read the scripture. Examples I will give you, Job xxvi., v. 6, 11, and 12, and cap. xxvii. v. 9 and 10. Yea, it is very usual, when the antecedent may be easily understood, as here, both by the gender, and also by manner of speech, which, being the same that was spoken of Eve's infirmity and subjection to her husband, must needs here have the same sense of Abel toward Cain, his elder brother. Martin. Now if against the coherence of the text, and exposition Mahtin, of the holy doctors and of the whole church of God, you pretend the w- Hebrew grammar forsooth, as not bearing such construction : not to trouble the common reader that cannot judge of these things, and yet fully to satisfy every man, even of common understanding, we request here the adversaries themselves to tell us truly according to their knowledge and skill, whether the Hebrew construction or point of n»ron grammar be not all one in these words, "Sin lieth at the door;' and T.~ in these, "the desire thereof shall be subject to thee, and thou shalt "I r ' rule over it." If they say, as they must needs, that the Hebrew con- 'T/X struction or syntax is all one, then will it follow, that the Hebrew 1'rv^mn beareth the one as well as the other: and therefore, when the selfsame • i J-. : translation of theirs maketh no scruple of grammar in the former, but - T : v translate as we do, " Sin lieth at the door ;" a blind man may see, that 392 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. in the latter words also the Hebrew is but a foolish pretence, and that the true cause of translating them otherwise proceedeth of an heretical humour, to obscure and deface this so plain and evident scrip ture for man's free will. Fvlke Fulke. I have shewed before the cause of the change 10. of the gender in the word robets to be, for that by sin is cap. 1. sect, meant the punishment of sin. Sanctes Pagninus taketh the ' yy-) word "sin " for " an oblation for sin :" and for the punishment of sin it is taken, Zach. xiv. 19. The Septuaginta also do plainly refer these relatives unto Abel ; and therefore they are in the masculine gender, ovtov, "the conversion of him pertaineth to thee, and thou shalt rule over him." Martin, Martin. And as for the Hebrew grammar in this point, were it not for troubling the reader, we could tell them that the word "sin" in Hebrew is not here of the feminine gender, as they suppose, but Q. Hebr. in of the masculine : so saith St Jerome expressly upon this place1, who had as much knowledge in the Hebrew tongue, as all these new doctors. Aben Ezra also, the great rabbin, in his Hebrew commentaries upon this text saith, " It is a mere forgery and fiction to refer the mascu line relative otherwise than to the word 'sin:' which, though else where it be the feminine gender, yet here it is a masculine, according to Qiiirquarbo- that rule of the grammarians, that the doubtful gender must be dis cerned by the verb, adjective, pronoun, or participle, joined with the same:" as the said Hebrew doctor doth, in the word " paradise," Gen. ii., which there by the pronouns he pronounceth to be a feminine, though elsewhere a masculine. Lastly, if the word "sin" were here, and always, only a feminine, and never a masculine ; yet they have little skill in the Hebrew tongue, that think it strange to match mas culines and feminines together in very good and grammatical construc tion : whereof they may see a whole chapter in Sanctes Pagninus with this title, Fazminea masculeis juncta, that is, " Feminines joined with masculines." Fulke, Fulke. Not only the Hebrew grammar, but the same 11- phrase used before, maketh plainly for our translation. That St Jerome saith, the Hebrew is of the masculine gender; as great an Hebrician as he was, he may not carry the matter away with his authority, except he bring an instance, where [' Quod autem in septuaginta interpretibus fecit errorem, illud est : quia peccatum, id est, attath, in Hebraeo generis masculini est, in Grseco feminini. Et qui interprotati sunt, masculino illud (ut erat in Hebrseo) genere transtulerunt. Hieronymi, Liber Qusest. Hebraic, in Genesim. Opera. Vol. ii. p. 511.] X.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 393 it is of the masculine gender. The Jewish rabbins, patrons of free will, as ignorant of the grace of God, err in this place, as they do in a thousand more, and are forced, to invent strange applications of the word "appetite" to make their sense probable. How the gender of Hebrew words may be found out, we are not now to learn; which because you bave but lately learned, you think all men ignorant thereof, but yourself. By the chapter of Pagninus, where he sheweth that feminines are joined to masculines, you might learn that chataoth is the feminine gender, although it DNIOn be joined with a participle of the masculine gender. Who also might have taught you the difference of nouns ending in he, prcecedente comets, to be this, that feminines have the accent in the last syllable, masculines in the last save one ; and therefore chataoth in this place, having the accent in MUra et the last syllable, notwithstanding the participle, which is r^jon mascuhne, must needs be of the feminine gender. Martin. Now for the last refuge, if they will say all this needed Maktin, not, because in other their bibles it is as we would have it : we tell 12, them, they must justify and make good all their translations, because the people readeth all, and is abused by all, and all come forth with privilege, printed by the Queen's printer, &c. If they will not, let them, confess the faults, and call them in, and tell us which transla tion or translations they will stand unto. In the meantime they must be content to hear of all indifferently, as there shall be cause and occasion to touch them. Fulke. We tell you that we may not justify any fault Fulke, committed in our translations, but we have reformed them, 12- if any were espied, in the later. Nevertheless those faults are not so great, that we need call in all the bibles in which is any fault : it is sufficient that we admonish the reader in our later editions of such faults as are escaped in the former ; especially when the faults are such, about which men are not agreed, as in this place you should rather commend our equity, that suffer such translations to be in the people's hands, in which is some colour of maintaining your errors against us. But if you be so rigorous, that a book of scripture may not be read in which there is any fault, I charge you call in your translation of the new testament; for therein are shameful faults, and such as you cannot de- 394 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ell. fend or excuse, except it be by the fault of the printer, where of yet you have not admonished the reader. I will give you a taste of some, and let all men judge whether they be not intolerable faults ; for they are no less than detract ing and taking away from the word of God. As 1 Cor. xiv. 38, where both the Greek and the Latin is, "If they wiU learn :" your translation is, " If they learn any thing." Likewise Acts v. 4, where both the Greek and Latin is, " Festus answered that Paul is kept at Csesarea :" you translate, "Festus answered that Paul is in Cssarea;" leaving out the word "kept,'1 as before you left out the word "will" or " desire," which altereth the sense very much. But in a place of greater moment, and in a matter of some con troversy, of God's particular preordination and fore-appoint ment, you leave out a whole clause, Acts x. 41. For where it is both in the Greek and in the Latin, "that God made the resurrection of his Son manifest, not to all the people, but to the witnesses chosen before of God, to us which did eat and drink with him," &c. your Enghsh translation hath no more but thus : " Not to aU the people, but to us, who did eat and drink with him," &c. — leaving clean out that which is in your Latin text, Testibus prmordinatis a Deo. Also in the epistle to the Hebrews, cap. vii. 28, where both the Greek and your vulgar Latin hath, " The law appointeth priests, men that have infirmity," leaving out homines, a word very material in this place, to observe the opposition between the priesthood of men and the priesthood of the Son of God. These faults in the New Testament being some of them which I by no diligent reading have observed, now you be admonished of them, we shall see whether you will call in your translation, or command your disciples to burn their books. If you will not, I pray you be good mas ter to us, and let our bibles go abroad still, for any faults we have ourselves amended, and admonished all diligent readers thereof by our later translations. And because you crack so much of "the exposition of the doctors and of the whole church of God1' against us, I must let the reader understand, that the whole Greek church, which for the most part knew none other text but the Septuagint, must needs expound the place of Abel as we do, because the Greek text is manifestly in the masculine gender. And so doth X-J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 395 Chrysostom, in Gen. Hom. xviii". expound the place in these words: " Neputes, inquit, licet tuum aversatus sim sacrificium obpravam mentem, fratrisque oblationem acceptam habuerim ob sanam intentionem, quod ideo primatu te destituam, et primogenitures dignitatem a te auferam. Nam licet honore ego ilium prosecutus fuerim, acceptaque fuerint illius dona, etc. " Think not, saith he, that although I have refused thy sacrifice for thy naughty mind, and have re ceived thy brother's oblation for his good and sound meanmg, that therefore I will deprive thee of the primacy, and take away from thee the dignity of the birthright. For although I have vouchsafed him of honour, and that his gifts have been received ; yet unto thee belongeth his conversion, and thou shalt rule over him. And this I per mit after thy sin, that thou mayest enjoy the privileges of thy birthright, and I command him to be under thy power and dominion." You were best now to rail upon Chrysostom, and charge him with heresy and schismatical exposition, " contrary to the holy doctors and the whole church of God," against free will of man. Which because it is your quarrel, you have St Ambrose also your enemy, De Caine et Abel, Lib. h. cap. 72: who although, as he read it in Latin, did think it must be referred to him, and not to his brother ; yet he expoundeth it not of the strength of free will, but chargeth Cain to be author of his own error : Culpce ipsius ad te conversio est. " The conversion of the C M17 vopioqs, Cpqolv, el Kal direaTpdcpqv oov rqv Bvoiav bid Trjv ovk bpdqv yvdpqv, Kal el to tov dbeXcf>ov bapov irpooebegdpqv bid rqv vyiij irpoaipeoiv, on tcov irpareiav oe airoorepa, Kal rqs dglas rav irpcoTOTOKav oe iKfidXXw qpapres' qovxaoov. E( ydp Kal Trjs irepl ipoii Tiprjs qgicorai, Kal evirpocrbeKTa avrov yeyove rd bapa, dXXd irpos oe q diroorpocpq abrov, Kal ov apgeis avrov. coore Kal perd rqv dpapriav Tavrqv exeiv dpxayyeXot, irdcrai al dXXai bvvdpeis. Ovras qpds Kal imxdpiTas iiroiqoe, Kal eavTco iradeivovs. 'Kmdvpqoei ydp, qSqoiv, 6 fiaoiXebs tov KaXXovs oov. Chrysost. HomiLin Ephes. Opera, Vol. in, p. 7G7. Edit. Savill.] 412 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cil. Martin, 8. Martin. And I would gladly know of the adversaries, if the like Greek words be not of that form and nature to signify so much as "to make worthy, to make meet ;" and whether he whom God maketh d£to~> * WflWv late accordm£ t0 Cnamee, Greek, and Latin, " Justice was found in ^o!.''6" me;" but they alter thus: "My justice was found out;" and other of "jbn Of them : " My unguiltiness was found out," to draw it from inherent :n'_...Jjustice, which was in Daniel. • Fulke. I can but wonder at your impudence and mahce, 'l'LKE' ' which say so confidently, that for this purpose they translated thus. Would any man by the justice or innocency that was in Daniel, or in any just man, fear lest any tiling should X,.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. be detracted from the justice of Christ, whereby Daniel, and all just men, are justified in God's sight? Well, let that purpose rest in God's judgment, as Daniel's justice did, when he was shamefully slandered. But what is the fault of the translation ? According to the Chaldee, Greek, and Latin, it should be, " justice is found in me." For Greek and Latin we will not contend, because we translate not Daniel out of Greek and Latin, but out of the Chaldee. But in good sadness, are you so deeply seen in Chaldee, that you will avouch the proper signification of ">b to be "in me?" A hundred boys in Cambridge know that it signifieth as well in Chaldee, as in Hebrew, " to me," rather than " in me." But most pro perly have our translators expressed the phrase in Enghsh, saying, " my justice" or " unguiltiness was found out ;" for of a virtue inherent Daniel speaketh otherwise, Dan. ih 30, to the king, -Q VPH *n HDDni ab, " not by wisdom, which N^ is in me." So that here your quarrel bewrayeth more spite PtDDrn than wit, more mahce than learning. MTN-^T r Martin. Again, it must needs be a spot of the same infection, that Mahtin, they translate thus : " As David describeth the blessedness of the man, 10- unto whom God imputeth righteousness," Rom. iv. 6 ; as though imputed y" TO" righteousness were the "description" of blessedness. They know the o-pbv too Greek doth not signify "to describe." I would once see them pre- dvvpohrov* eise in following the Greek and the Hebrew: if not, we must look to their fingers. Fulke. It must needs come of an high wit, to have Fulke, such deep insight into other men's intents and purposes. ' But why, I pray you, is not "righteousness imputed by God," &c, and so forth, as Paul saith, "a description of man's blessedness ?" If they had said " defineth," where they say, " describeth," you would have made much ado. But can you not allow this that the prophet saith, to be a " de scription" of man's blessedness ? Howsoever it is, Xeyw sig nifieth not " to describe," but " to speak," " to say," " to pronounce ;" and in effect there is nothing else meant by the word " describeth" here used, but that David pro- nounceth or setteth forth the blessedness of man in such words. You in your translation say " termeth," as " David termeth ;" which, if you mean it not scornfully, cometh as near a definition as " describeth," the word which wc use ; 414 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cil. and our " describeth" is as near the Greek Xeyei, as your " termeth" is to the Latin dicit. But " look to our fingers," and spare not to tell us where you see us go wide from the Greek or Hebrew : but if you do nothing but trifle and quarrel, as you have done hitherto, be sure we will be bold to beshrew your fingers, and hit you on the thumbs now and then also to your discredit. XII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 41' CHAPTER XII. Heretical Translation for Special Faith, Vain Security, and Only Faith. Martin. All other means of salvation being thus taken away, Martin, 1. their only and extreme refuge is, "only faith;'' and the same not the christian faith of the articles of the creed and such like, but a special faith and confidence, whereby every man must assuredly be lieve, that himself is the son of God, and one of the elect and predestinate to salvation. If he be not by faith as sure of this as of Christ's incarnation, he shall never be saved. Fulke. "All other means of salvation being taken away," Fulke, 1. and only faith apprehending the mercy of God in the re demption of Jesus Christ being left, we have great and sufficient cause to account ourselves happy, and assured of eternal hfe, because he that hath promised is faithful also to perform. But where you say, that our " only faith is not the christian faith of the articles of the creed," you lie with out measure impudently ; for that faith, and none other, do we believe, teach, and profess. And that faith is a special faith and confidence in the mercy of God, whereof every man that beheveth doth make a singular confession for him self, saying, " I beheve in God," &c. And of all things contained in that profession of faith, (that is, of forgiveness of sins, resurrection of our bodies, and life everlasting, by belief and trust in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, conceived, born, suffered, crucified, dead, buried, de scended into hell, risen again, and ascended into heaven, and in God the Holy Ghost, by whose gracious and mighty work ing we are incorporate into the body of Christ, and made members of his holy cathohc church, which is the communion of saints,) every christian man ought to be as certainly persuaded, as the things are most true, being inwardly taught by the Spirit of truth, that he is the child of God, and consequently elect, and predestinate unto eternal salva tion. But that a man shall never be saved, except he have such certainty of this faith, as the truth of God's promises 416 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. doth deserve, none of us doth teach, none of us doth think. For we know our own infirmity, we know the temptation of Satan : nevertheless we acknowledge in ourselves, and so seek to persuade all men, that these things standing upon the immoveable pillars of God's promises, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, ought to be most certain unto us ; and for daily confirmation and increase of this faith, all those means are of us diligently to be used, that God for this purpose in his holy scripture hath appointed. Martin, 2 ev irXtipo- tpopla ¦jrta-Tews. Annot in Luke i. 1. nr\t]po(.po- plav tijs fcA-TTlOOS. trX^potpo-.ptas tijs cruvetrews.irXtjpocpo- pilQc-ls, pienissimesciens.irXijpocpo- pt] saith Beza> T had rather translate, than omnem fidem, 1556.' "because the apostle meaneth not all kind of faith, to wit, the faith that justifieth ;" but he meaneth, that if a man have the faith of Christ's omnipotency, or of any other article of the creed, or of all, wholly and entirely and perfectly, that is nothing without charity2. This is Beza's [i Kal edv eXw irdoav t^v irlonv. \ Cor. xiii. 2. Et si habuero omnem fidem, Vulg. Et si habeam totam fidem, Beza.] [a Fidem hic accipi pro dono cdendorum signorum, ut supra xii. 9, .apparet ex ipsius effectis, quorum unum commemorat. Sed et pro fide historica, quam vocant, accipi potest, quum de Christi omnipotentia XII. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 423 tota fides, " whole faith," thinking by this translation to exempt from the apostle's words their special justifying faith, and wrestling to that pur pose in his annotations against Pighius and other Catholic doctors. Whereas every man of small skill may see, that the apostle nameth all faith, as he doth all knowledge and all mysteries ; comprehending all sorts of the one and of the other; all kind of knowledge, all kind of mysteries, all faith whatsoever, christian, catholic, historical or special ; which two latter are heretical terms newly devised. Fulke. When your spiteful and dogged malice cannot Fulke> 6. reprove our English translation, then we must answer for Beza's Latin, who hath sufficiently answered for himself to them that understand and list to read him. In the place mentioned by you, he chooseth to say totam fidem, rather than omnem, because it appeareth by the effects, that he speaketh of faith as it was a special gift of working of mira cles ; of which effects he nameth one, removing of mountains. And that irdcra is so taken, namely, for the perfection of one kind, not the universal comprehension of all kinds, he bring eth you example, Rom. vii. 8, and elsewhere oftentimes. But if it should be taken, as you say all knowledge and all mysteries is generally to be taken, yet he telleth you this separation is but upon an impossible supposition ; for justify ing faith can never be separated from charity ; but if it might be separated, it should not profit to justify. The angels of heaven cannot preach another gospel ; but if they did preach another gospel, they should be accursed. A great argument, I promise you, agamst justification by faith only, that a soli tary, dead, or barren faith doth not justify ! Martin. And I would have any of the Bezites give me a sufficient Martin, 7. reason, why he translated totam fidem, and not also totam scientiam: undoubtedly there is no cause but the heresy of special and only faith. And again, why he translateth James ii. 22 3, " Thou seest that faith persuasos esse oporteat qui in ipsius nomine credunt se posse quidvis efficere. Quum autem et ilia improbis multis, ut Matt. vii. 22, et ista diabolis quoque tribuatur, ut Jac. ii. 19, non mirum est separata a ca ritate ex hypothesi. Beza in 1 Cor. xiii. 3. Nov. Test. p. 216.] P BXeireis on q irions ovvqpyei tois epyois abrov, James ii. 22. "Vides quoniam fides cooperabatur operibus illius," Vulg. "Vides quod fides administra fuerit operum ipsius," Bezse Vers. Upon the four last words he says, "id est, efficax et fsecunda fuerit honorum operum: unde enim ilia tanta obedientia nisi ex fide?" Heb. xi. 17. Nov. Test. p. 302.] 424 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. was {administra) a helper of his works;" and expoundeth it thus: " Faith was an efficient cause and fruitful of good works." Whereas the "Do the fruits meet for them that amend their lives'" 0l resipuerint. gjve ^ some other good cause, O ye Bezites, why your master doth so Kaptrovs ° ° . " djious i-ijs foully falsify his translation. peTavoia yet so taat they be also baptized, Peter saying thus : 'Do Act. a. ye penance, and let every one be baptized.' Men also do penance, if after baptism they do sin, that they deserve to be excommunicated and Sicut agunt reconciled again ; as in all churches they do which be called pcenitentes. tes'appeiia™ For of such penance spake St Paul, 2 Cor. xii. 21, saying, ' That I la- tur' ment not many of them which before have sinned, and have not done Act. viii. is. penance for their uncleanness.' We have also in the Acts, that utageretpce- Simon Magus, being baptized, was admonished by Peter to do penance for his grievous sin. There is also in manner a daily penance of the good and humble believers, in which we knock our breasts, saying, ' Forgive us our debts.' For these (venial and daily offences) fasts and Quotidianam alms and prayers are watchfully used, and humbling our souls we cease tentfam<"'>™- press sorrowful penance ; and for that which in Latin is always con- _ -- tristatus, in Greek a word more significant, in Hebrew it is the same kind of word that they translate " humbly." Whereas indeed this word JT>3"np hath no signification of humility properly, no, not of that humility I mean, which is rather to be called humiliation, or affliction, as the Greek words imply. But it signifieth properly the very manner, KaKu8!\vat, countenance, gesture, habit of a pensive or forlorn man: and if they jjj^'"" will say that they so translate it in other places, the more is their fault, that knowing the nature of the word, they will notwithstanding suppress the force and signification thereof in any one place, and so translate it that the reader must needs take it in another sense, and P "EiiraTe, pdraios 6 bovXevav Qea, Kal ri irXeov, on icpvXagapev ra cpvXdypara abrov, Kal bibri iiropevdqpev 'iKerai irpb irpoocoirov Kvpiov iravToKpdropos, Mai. iii. 14. " Et quia ambulavimus tristes," Vulg. Cranmer's, the Genevan, and the Bishop's Bible render iKerai "humbly," and the two latter have the rest of the verse as given by Martin.] 446 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [« cannot possibly conceive that which the word importeth ; for " to walk humbly" soundeth in all English ears the virtue of humility which this word doth never signify, and not humility or humiliation by affliction, which it may signify, though secondarily, and by deduc tion only. Fulke, Fulke. What a many of vain words are here spent, to ^' make a vain cavil seem to be of some value ! What the etymology of the Hebrew word is, the translators knew before you were born. But what the word signifieth here, Pagnine is sufficient to teach both you and them, who thus interpreteth it, In obscuro, id est, obscure, id est, humiliter : " In the dark, that is, darkly, that is, humbly." Your vulgar Latin translator calleth it tristes, which is as far from your pretended " penance," as " humility." The Septuaginta translate the word ot/cerat, which signifieth " servile" or " servants." Benedict Arias expoundeth it supplices, " hum ble." And, to put all out of quarrelling, the antithesis or opposition of the proud and arrogant, in the next verse following, proveth that in this verse they speak of humihty, which is contrary to pride, and not of the tokens of repent ance, which are mourning apparel, and such like. Martin, 18.Dan. iv. 24. ev eXet)po- (Tuvais X\i- Tpatrai. npiia OiKaioaru- Vt)V.eXetipoirv- VTJV.In Ps. xlix. 5. Psal. cxi. [cxii.] Martin. Again, what is it else but against penance and satis faction, that they deface these usual and known words of Daniel to the king, Redime eleemosynis peccata tua, " Redeem thy sins with alms';" altering and translating it thus, "Break off thy sins by right eousness?" First, the Greek is agamst them, which is word for word according to the vulgar and common reading: secondly, the Chaldee word which they translate, "break off," by Minister's own judgment, in leucico Chald., signifieth rather, and more principally, "to redeem." Thirdly, the other word, which they translate " righteousness,'' in the scriptures signifieth also eleemosynam, as the Greek interpreters trans late it, Deut. vi. and xxiv. ; and it is most plain in St Matthew, where our Saviour saith (Matt. vi. 1), "Beware you do not your justice be fore men," which is in other Greek copies, "your alms." And S. Augustine proveth it by the very text : for, saith he, " as though a man might ask, what justice? he addeth, when thou dost an alms- deed. He signified therefore that alms are the works of justice." And in the psalm they are made one, "He distributed, he gave to the poor; his justice remaineth for ever and ever :" which Beza translateth, "his beneficence or liberality remaineth, &c." Again, St Jerome, a sufficient [_* Kal tos dpaprias oov iv eXeqpoavvais Xvrpwaai, &c. Dan. iv. 24. "Et peccata tua eleemosynis redime," Vulg.~| XIII. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 447 doctor to tell the signification of the Hebrew or Chaldee words, both translateth it so and expoundeth it so in his commentary. Moreover, the words that immediately follow in Daniel interpret it so unto us, "And thy iniquities with mercies to the poor." Lastly, Beza him- Annot. in self saith, "that by the name of justice with the Hebrews is also signified beneficence or beneficialness to the poor ; yea, and that in 2 Cor. ix. this place of Daniel it is specially taken for alms." So that we see there is no impediment, neither in the Chaldee nor Greek, why they might not have said, as the church of God always hath said, "Re deem thy sins with alms, and thy iniquities with mercies to the poor;" but their heresy will not suffer them to speak after the catholic manner, that alms and merciful deeds are a redemption, ransom, and satisfaction for sins. Fulke. Against popish penance and satisfaction, there is Fulke, no doubt, but the translators were vehemently affected; yet ' in this translation they have used no prejudice against repentance, and the true fruits thereof, but rather more straitly have urged the same. For first, whereas in the vulgar Latin text there is no word of " repenting from sins," or "forsaking of sins," our translator, using the term of "breaking off his sins," signifieth that all alms, and other apparent good deeds, without repentance and breaking off the cause of the former sinful life, are in vain and unprofitable. Secondly, where the vulgar translator useth the word of " redeeming," or " buying out," which might bring the king into vain security, to think he might satisfy for his sins, without repentance, by giving of alms, which is a small penance for a king ; our translators tell him, " that he must break off his sins," before any thing that he doth be accept able to God. Thirdly, whereas the vulgar interpreter requireth of him nothing but alms and mercy to the poor, which was a very easy thing for him to perform ; our trans lators enjoin him righteousness, which comprehendeth all virtues, and is a thousand-fold harder penance for such a mighty monarch, than giving of alms, and that to poor folks, which he should never feel. Fourthly, the words are plain for our translation : for pherak, the Chaldee verb, signifieth PI? as properly and as principally to " dissolve" or " break off," as, to " deliver" or " redeem." Neither is Munster's judg ment otherwise, although he give the other signification first ; which is a miserable argument to prove that it signifieth rather and more principally "to redeem." But if any signi- 448 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. fication were more principal than other, it were more reason p-ig to say, that pherak signifieth rather and more principally "to " : break" or " dissolve," because the word sigmfieth so in the Hebrew tongue, from whence the Chaldee is derived. And indeed, " delivering" is a kind of " dissolving," or* " breaking from him" to whom he was before addict or bound. So that the verb helpeth you nothing, but rather maketh more against you. The other word, although very seldom by synecdoche it be taken for alms, yet every boy almost in Cambridge knoweth, that it signifieth properly and principally " universal justice," or " all righteousness :" therefore the Chaldee text is plain for our translation, and enforced for yours of alms ; being against all reason, that the prophet should exhort the king to giving alms, before he had exhorted bim to repentance and forsaking of his sins. Beside that, it is contrary to the whole scope of the scriptures to teach any other satisfaction or redemption from sin than the death and passion of Christ. But where you tell us of St Jerome's translation, it were somewhat worth if you could shew it. The vulgar Latin text we may not grant you to be St Jerome's : as for his commentary, [it] teacheth not the word of redeeming, which is the principal word in controversy. And indeed it is a very absurd kind of speech, to say, " redeem P"i3 *ny sms/' or " dehver thy sins ;" for pherak signifieth none otherwise to redeem, than to deliver: whereas, if he had meant as you think, he should have said rather, " redeem thy soul from sins." Christ himself, the author of our redemption, is not said to have redeemed our sins with his blood, but to have redeemed us from our sins by his blood. Martin, Martin. And what a miserable humour is it in these cases to fly as far as they can from the ancient received speech of holy scripture, that hath so many years sounded in all faithful ears, and to invent new terms and phrases, when the original text, both Greek and Hebrew, favoureth the one as much or more than the other? as, .that they choose to say in the epistle to Titus1, (where the apostle exceedingly H iva cppovTi^aoi KaXcov epyav irpoioTao8ai oi ireiriOTevKOTes T® Qea, Tit. iii. 8. " Ut curent bonis operibus praeesse qui credunt Deo," Vulg. "Might be diligent to go forward in good works," Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops' bible. " Might be diligent to maintain good works," Geneva. " Might be careful to maintain good works," Authorised version. "Be careful to excel in good works," Rheims. J 19. XIII. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 44'9 exhorteth to good works,) " maintain good works,' and "shew forth good works," rather than according to the ancient Latin translation, bonis irpoio-Ta-_ operibus prceesse, "to be chief and principal in doing good works ;" fat,™ "" which is the very true and usual signification of the Greek word, and implieth a virtuous emulation among good men, who shall do most good works, or excel in that kind. But they that look to be saved by faith only, no marvel if neither their doings nor translations tend to any such excellency. Fulke. What a miserable humour is it, when the truth Fulkb, is plainly revealed by knowledge of the tongues, which was ' hidden from many of the ancient fathers, to dehght rather in error which is old, than in truth which is newly discovered! The word irpoioTacrOai in the epistle to Titus, we translate also to " excel ;" and it may signify, either " to shew forth," " to maintain," or " to excel." And therefore your wrangling is vain and without reason. For that christian men ought with all diligent labour to excel in good works, it is always ac knowledged of us, although they must not look to be saved by their works, no, nor by their faith only, if their faith be not fruitful of good works. Such collections as these, and much better, it were no hard matter to make a great number against you, to prove that you are enemies to faith, to repentance, to good works, and to God himself. 29 [fulke. J 450 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. CHAPTEK XIV. Heretical Translation against the Holy Sacraments, namely Baptism and Confession. Martin, 1. Martin. Another sequel of their only faith is, that the sacraments also help nothing toward our salvation ; and therefore they partly take them clean away, partly deprive them of all grace, virtue, and efficacy, making them poor and beggarly elements, either worse or no better than those of the old law. Fulke, 1. Fulke. "That the sacraments help nothing toward our salvation," is another of Martin's slanders, no assertion of ours. For seeing we hold that the sacraments are seals of God's promises, to confirm our faith by which we are justified before him, how can we affirm that they help nothing to salvation ? But this is the property of bars and slanderers, when they have nothing of truth to charge their adversaries, then they either invent that which was never said or done by them, or else they violently draw out of their sayings or doings by depraving them some colour of matter to serve for a shew of their slanders. So doth our wrangler in this place after a flat he solemnly advouched against us, of that we say, the sacraments give no grace ex opere operato, " of the work wrought," he frameth his spider's web, first, "that we deprive them of all grace, virtue, and efficacy ;" because we do not include grace, virtue, and efficacy, within the external elements, or the ministry of man about them ; but ascribe the same to the mighty work of God's Spirit in his chosen children, which worketh all his gifts in all men according to the good pleasure of his own will: secondly," that we make the sacraments poor and beggarly elements: and thirdly, "either worse or no better than those of the old law." The spiritual matter, indeed, of the sacraments of both the testa ments we confess to be Jesus Christ, of equal power unto salvation of his people living under both the states : but the more abundant grace and truth, according to the revelation of Christ in the flesh, we acknowledge to be testified and exhibited in our sacraments, than was in theirs that lived under the law. XIV.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 451 Martin. For this purpose Beza is not content to speak as the Martin, 2. apostle doth, Rom. iv. II1, that circumcision was "a seal2 of the justice acppayU. of faith ;'* but because he thinketh that too small a term for the dignity of circumcision, as himself confesseth, "he gladly avoideth it" (I use Libensrefugi. his own words), and for the noun putteth the verb, so dissolutely and naret, for* presumptuously, that the English Bezites themselves here also dare not sls,llum' follow him in translation, though in opinion they agree. The cause of his wilful translation he declareth in liis annotations upon the same place, to wit, the dignity of circumcision, equal with any sacrament of the new testament. His words be these : " What," saith he, " could be spoken more magnifical of any sacrament ? Therefore they that put a real difference between the sacraments of the old testament and ours, never seem to have known how far Christ's office extendeth." Which he saith, not to magnify the old, but to disgrace the new. Fulke. There was never man that had such an artificial Fulke, 2. conjecture of men's purposes as you pretend yourself to have; which not only where there is likelihood to fasten a conjecture upon, but also when all likelihoods are against you, yet can so confidently pronounce of every man's purpose. Well, let the purpose go; which is known best to God, and next to them that will judge of the man according to charity and good reason. You say, Beza is not content to speak as the apostle doth, " that circumcision was a seal of the justice of faith." Yes, verily, his desire is to express that which the apostle saith to the full. The name of "seal" therefore he avoideth not, as you falsely slander him; but for want of a convenient Latin word to express the apostle's Greek word, he is content to use circumlocution by the verb, and saith, " Abraham received the sign of circumcision, which should seal up, or by seal confirm, the justice of faith," &c. ; yet are T1 Kal oqpeiov eXafie irepiTopqs, ocj>payiba Ttjs biKaioovvqs Ttjs irioTeas Trjs iv Ttj aKpofivaricy els to eivai abrov irarepa iravrav rav moTcvovTav bi aKpofivorias, els to XoyioBqvai Kal avrols Tqv biKaioovvqv. Rom. iv. 11. " Et signum accepit circumcisionis, quod obsignaret justitiam fidei, quse fuerat in prseputio : ut esset pater omnium creden- tium in prseputio, ut imputetur etiam ipsis justitia," Beza. "Et signum accepit circumcisionis, signaculum justitise fidei quae est in prsputio: ut sit pater omnium credentium per prseputium, ut repu- tetur et illis ad justitiam," Vulg.] [2 Quod obsignaret, oeppayiba. Quid magnificentius dici de ullo Sacramento possit? Itaque qui veteris foederis sacramenta a npstris re ipsa distinguunt, nunquam videntur Christi officium quam late pateat cognovisse, Bezse Nov. Test. p. 180.] 29—2 p. 180. 452 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. not you ashamed most impudently to say he refused the term of " seal," sigillum, and for sigillum hath used quod obsignaret : whereas the word that he saith he refused is signaculum. Signaculi nomen quod vetus interpres et usurpant. Erasmus usurpavit libens refugi, partim quod non sit admo- Nov. Test dum usitatum, partim quod non satis videatur illam vim obdgnationis declarare: "The term signaculum, wliich the old interpreter and Erasmus hath used, I have willingly refused : partly, because it is no very usual word ; partly, because it seemeth not sufficiently to declare that virtue or efficacy of sealing." You see therefore what word he avoideth, and for what cause ; and that your eyes were not matches, or else they were dazzled with a mist of malice, when you read that he avoided sigillum, and placed quod obsignaret for dgillum. The word sigillum as he useth not, so doth he make no mention of it, I think, because it being a diminu tive of signum, and taken sometimes for a httle image, unde sigillares, &c, it is not proper nor full to express the Greek word ocppayis. That he maketh circumcision equal unto the sacraments of the new testament, I have shewed before, that it is in matter, substance, and end; wliich he that con fesseth not (as Beza saith) "seemeth never to have known how far the office of Christ extendeth" : but that he hath any purpose to disgrace the sacraments of the new testament, instituted by Christ himself in a more clear dispensation of grace and truth, you affirm with the same credit by which you said he put quod obsignaret for sigillum. Mahtin, 3. Martin. Which is also the cause why not only he, but the English bibles, (for commonly they join hands and agree together,) to make no difference between John's baptism and Christ's, translate thus con- Acts xix. 3. cerning certain that had not yet received the Holy Ghost1 : " Unto P- Eis ti ovv ifiairTiodqTe ; oi be eiirov, Eis to 'ladvvov fiairnopa. Acts xix. 3. " In quo ergo baptizati estis ? Qui dixerunt, in Johannis baptismate," Vulg. " In quid ergo baptizati estis ? at illi dixerunt, in Johannis baptisma," Beza. " Therefore in what thing be ye baptized ? and they said, In the baptism of John," Wiclif. "Wherewith were ye then baptized X and they said, With John's baptism," Tyndale, Cranmer. " Unto what were ye then baptized ? and they said, Unto John's baptism," Geneva. " Unto what then were ye baptized ? and they said, Unto John's baptism," Authorised version. " In what then were you baptized ? who said, In John's baptism," Rheims.] XIV.j TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 453 what then were ye baptized ? And they said, Unto John's baptism." Which Beza in a* long discourse proveth to be spoken of John's doc trine, and not of his baptism in water. As though it were said, What doctrine then do ye profess? and they said, John's. Whereas indeed the question is this, and ought thus to be translated, " In what then, or wherein were you baptized? And they said, In John's baptism." As who should say, we have received John's baptism, but not the Holy Ghost as yet. And therefore it followeth immediately, " Then they were baptized in the name of Jesus/' and after imposition of hands "the Holy Ghost came upon them." Whereby is plainly gathered, that being baptized with John's baptism before, and yet of necessity baptized afterward with Christ's baptism also, there must needs be a great difference between the one baptism and the other, John's being insufficient. And that this is the deduction which troubleth these Bezites, and maketh them translate accordingly, Beza (as commonly still he uttereth his grief) telleth us in plain words thus : "It is not Anno, in .Acts xix necessary, that wheresoever there is mention of John's baptism, we should think it to be the very ceremony of baptism. Therefore they that gather John's baptism to have been diverse from Christ's, because these a little after are said to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, have no sure foundation." Lo, how of purpose he translateth and ex poundeth it John's doctrine, not John's baptism, to take away the foundation of this catholic conclusion, that his baptism differeth and is far inferior to Christ's. Fulke. And is John's baptism now made a sacrament of Fulke, 3. the old law ? was John the Baptist a minister of the law, or of the gospel? Our Saviour Christ is sufficient to teach us that the law and the prophets prophesied until John; "but Matt xi. from the days of John the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence." But if you will make John's baptism a sacrament of the new testament, and yet differing from the baptism of Christ, then you make two baptisms of the new testament, contrary to the Mcene Creed, and Christ himself, who was baptized for us, baptized with the worse. But concerning that place, Acts xix., which hath troubled so many interpret ers with the obscurity thereof, or rather with a prejudicate opinion of a difference in the baptism of John and of Christ, I am neither of Beza's opinion, nor yet of our translators', for the understanding and translation of that place : neither do I think that mention is made of any second baptism, the avoiding whereof hath bred divers forced interpretations; but that St Paul instructeth those disciples that knew not the grace of the Holy Ghost, that they which heard John's 454 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. preaching to the people, that they should beheve in Christ Jesus, which was coming after him, were also baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, who liad granted those visible graces of his holy Spirit to be bestowed upon them that beheved by imposition of the apostles' hands. Thus therefore I am persuaded those verses are to be translated: "But Paul said, John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people, that they should beheve in him that cometh after him, that is in Jesus ; and they which heard him, were baptized into the name of our Lord Jesus. And after Paul had laid his hands upon," &c. The argument of differ ence thereof, grounded upon this place, is nothing worth; where the baptism of John is confirmed by the imposition of hands, rather than disgraced by reiteration; which giveth strength to the error of the Donatists and Anabaptists for rebaptization : whereas it cannot be proved, that any which were once baptized by John were ever baptized again. But the contrary may easily be gathered : for seeing our Saviour Christ baptized none himself, it shall follow that the apostles were either not baptized at all, or else baptized only with John's baptism. And where there is express mention of John's disciples, that came unto Christ to become his dis ciples, there is no mention of any other baptism than they had already received. Martin, 4. Martin. But doth the Greek lead him, or force him to this trans- eisTi. lation, in quid? "unto what?" First, himself confesseth in the very same place the contrary, that the Greek phrase is often used in the other sense, " wherein," or, " wherewith," as it is in the vulgar Latin and Erasmus; but that in his judgment it doth not so signify here, and therefore he refuseth it. Yet in the very next verse almost, where eis to it is said by the same Greek phrase, "that they were baptized in the bvopa. name of Jesus Christ," there both he and his so translate it as we do, and not "unto the name of Christ." Is it not plain, that all is voluntary and at their pleasure ? For, I beseech them, if it be a right translation, "baptized in the name of Jesus," why is it not right, "baptized in the baptism of John?" Is there any difference in the Greek ? none. Where then ? in their commentaries and imagina tions only, against which we oppose and set both the text and the commentaries of all the fathers. . Fulke, 4. Fulke. The Greek doth allow him so to translate ; and "to be baptized in the name of Jesus," and "into the name of XIV.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 455 Jesus," is all one; as "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," or "into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," is all one. But if Beza, that hath discovered the truth in so many places, did not see it in this one text, as neither you nor any of the fathers which have written upon it, who are not many ; he is rather to be pardoned of all reasonable men, than to be railed upon by such one, who in learning is no more like him, than a goose to a swan in singing. Martin. But no marvel if they disgrace the baptism of Christ, when Martin, 5. they are bold also to take it away altogether, interpreting this scripture, " Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter John hi. 5. into the kingdom of God1," (which a man would think were plain enough to prove, that water in baptism is necessary,) interpreting, I say, this scripture, " of water and the Spirit," thus, of water, that is, the Spirit ; Beza in making water to be nothing else in this place but the Spirit allegorically, andlrl Tit. ' and not material water. As though our Saviour had said to Nicodemus, "'' s' " Unless a man be born of water," I mean, " of the Spirit, he cannot enter," &c. According to this most impudent exposition of plain scriptures, Calvin translateth also as impudently for the same purpose in the epistle to Titus, making the apostle to say, that God poured the water of regener- Tit iii. 5. atlon upon us abundantly, that is, the Holy Ghost2. And lest we should regeneratio-"1 nis Soiritus Sancti, quod £i idv pq tis yevvqSfj ig vbaros Kal irvevparos, ov bvvarai eloeXdeiv ^^^ n0" (Is rqv fiaoiXeiav tov Qeov. John iii. 5. Aquam vivam, vbap £av. Hic quidem (nempe in Joh. iv, 10) non dubium est quin allegorice per aquam intelligatur immensa ilia caritas Dei erga nos in Filio effusa in corda nostra per Spiritum Sanctum in vitam seternam, cujus fit mentio, Rom. v. 5, neque video cur aliter sit expli- candum quod scriptum est supra, iii. 5. Bezse Nov. Test., p. 112.] j"2 Ovk ig epyav Tav iv biKaioovvrj av iiroiqoapev qpeis, dXXd Kara rbv abrov eXeov eaaaev qpds, bid Xovrpov iraXiyyeveoias, Kal dvaKai- vdoeas irvevparos dyiov, o! igexeev ecf> qpds irXavaias, Tit., iii. 5, 6. "Non ex operibus justis quse fecerimus nos, sed ex sua misericordia servavit nos per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationem Spiritus Sancti quem effudit in nos copiose," Beza: Vers. " Not of the deeds of right eousness which we wrought, but of his mercy he saved us, by the foun tain of the new birth and with fhe renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly," Authorised version. " Not by the works of justice which we did, but according to his mercy he hath saved us by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, whom he hath poured on us abundantly," Rhemish version."] 456 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. not understand his meaning herein, he telleth us in his commentary upon this place, that when the apostle saith " water poured out abund antly," he speaketh not of material water, but of the Holy Ghost. Now indeed the apostle saith not, that water was poured upon us, but the Holy Ghost ; neither doth the apostle make water and the Holy Ghost Quem effiidit, all one, but most plainly distinguisheth them, saying, " that God of his self transla- mercy hath saved us by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, whom he hath poured upon us abundantly." See how plainly the apostle speaketh both of the material water, or washing of baptism, and of the effect thereof, which is the Holy Ghost poured upon comment, in us. Calvin taketh away water clean, and will have him speak only of the Holy Ghost, which Flaccus Illyricus the Lutheran himself wondercth at, that any man should be so bold, and calleth it plain sacrilege against the efficacy of the sacraments. Fulke, 5. Fulke. The sacrament of baptism, how far we are from disgracing, or taking it away altogether, when we affirm that the grace of God's Spirit is not so tied unto it but he may work regeneration without it in them that by necessity are deprived of it, let all men of reason and indifferency judge. Our translation of John iii. 5 being such as he can find nothing to quarrel against it, he beginneth a new controversy of our interpretation, by which he might bring in five hundred places of scripture in which we differ from them in exposition. And a great absurdity he thinketh he hath found out, in that we expound the water and Spirit to signify one thing : as though in Matt. ih. 16, " the Holy Ghost and fire," are not put both for one thing : and he may as well in the one place urge the element of fire in the baptism of Christ, as by this place prove the necessity of baptism in water. And yet we take not away the sacrament of baptism, or the water, the external matter thereof, which in other places is expressly commanded, when we say it is not spoken of in this text, which is of the thing signified in baptism, rather than of baptism; as in John vi. our Saviour speaketh in like terms of the thing represented in the sacrament of his supper, not of the sacrament itself. The error of Calvin's translation and exposition of Titus iii. 5, we have before confessed, neither doth any of our translations follow him ; and yet his error is no heresy, while he ascribeth wholly to the Holy Ghost that which properly is his, but yet of the apostle is figuratively ascribed unto the outward element, by which he worketh. XIV.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 457 Martin. And if we should here accuse the English translators also, Martin, 6. that translate it thus, "by the fountain of the regeneration of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us,'' &c, making it indifferent, either which fountain, or wliich Holy Ghost he shed, &c, they would answer by and by that the Greek also is indifferent ; but if a man should ask them further, whether the Holy Ghost may be said to be shed, or rather a fountain of water ? they must needs confess, not the Holy Ghost, but water ; and consequently that they translating, " which he shed," would have it meant of the .fountain of water : and so they agree just with Calvin's translation, and leave Beza, who in his translation referreth it only to the Holy Ghost, as we do, but in liis commentary playeth the Sp. sancti, heretic, as Calvin doth. 'luem etMit- Fulke. When Aristides could be accused of no crime, Fulke, 6. he was by his envious enemies accused of justice. Even so this man, who is wont to prescribe us a rule, to leave that in ambiguity which in the Greek is ambiguous, now blameth us for translating so, as either Calvin's or Beza's sense may stand with it. And albeit in all other places he is content to make us Beza's scholars ; yet here, be cause Calvin hath the worse part, he will enforce us to leave Beza and stick to Calvin. Such a force hath malice when it is settled in man's heart, that it carrieth him often times headlong against himself. But seeing the Holy Ghost, as the nearest antecedent, is placed next before the relative, why must we needs confess, not the Holy Ghost, but water to be shed upon us ? Is any man so brutish to beheve the bold surmises (what said I, surmises ? nay, im pudent and contentious affirmations,) of this bhnd Bayard ?' Martin. Of the sacrament of penance I have spoken before, con- Martin, 7. cerning that part specially which is satisfaction : here I will only add of confession, that to avoid this term, namely in such a place where the e£op.oXo- reader might easily gather sacramental confession, they translate thus, whereof c'on- " Acknowledge your faults one to another," James v. It is said a little ^fie™" S. Cyprian and other P A name frequently used in old writers for a horse.] fathers, Ex- L , , ,./. .... omologesis.2 [3 Ante expiata delicta, ante exomologesm lactam cnmims, ante purgatam conscientiam sacrificio et manu sacerdotis. Cyprian, de lapsis, fol. cxvi. edit. Paris. 1512. 4to. 1829, p. 371. Hujus igitur pcenitentiae secundse et unius, quanto in arcto negotium est, tanto operatior probatio ; ut non sola conscientia proferatur, sed aliquo etiam actu administretur. Is actus, qui magis Graco vocabulo exprimitur et frequentatur, exomologesis est. Tertullian. de Poenitent. cap. ix] 458 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. before, if any be diseased, "let him bring in priests," &c. and then it followeth, " Confess your faults," &c. But they, to make all sure, for " confess" say "acknowledge;" and for " priests," " elders." What mean they by this ? If this acknowledging of faults one to another before death be indifferently to be made to all men, why do they appoint in In the order their communion-book, (as it seemeth, out of this place,) that the sick of the sick, person shall make a special confession to the minister, and he shall absolve him in the very same form of absolution that catholic priests use in the sacrament of confession? Again, if this] acknowledging of faults be specially to be made to the minister or priest, why translate they it not by the word "confessing" and "confession," as well as by " acknowledg ing?" and why is not this confession a sacrament, where themselves acknowledge forgiveness of sins by the minister ? These contradictions and repugnance of their practice and translation if they can wittily and wisely reconcile, they may perhaps in this point satisfy the reader. But whether the apostle speak here of sacramental confession or no, sincere translators should not have fled from the proper and most usual word of "confession" or "confessing," consonant both to the Greek and Latin, and indifferent to whatsoever the Holy Ghost might mean, as this word " acknowledge" is not. Fulke, 7. Fulke. Of the word of "penance," and thereupon to wring in "satisfaction,'" we have heard more than enough : but that penance is a sacrament, we have heard never a word to prove it. But what say we against " confession ?" Forsooth, James v. we translate e^opoXoyeloOe, "acknowledge your selves." Why, sir, doth acknowledging signify any other thing than confessing ? You want then nothing else but the sound of "confession," which among the ignorant would help you httle, wliich term your popish acknowledging rather "shrift" than "confession." It is marvel then, that you blame us not because we say not, "shrive yourselves one to another." A miserable sacrament, that hath need of the sound of a word to help it to be gathered ! But how, I pray you, should the reader gather your auricular shrift, or popish con fession, if the word "confess yourselves" were used by us? I ween, because the priests are called in a little before. It is more than enough, if you might gain your sacrament of an- ealing by their coming in: but shrift cometh too late after extreme unction. Well, admit, the apostle forgot the order, and placed it after, wliich should come before ; must we needs have priestly confession proved out of that place ? Doth not St James say, "confess yourselves one to another," as he saith, "pray one for another?" Then it followeth, that the X1V'J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 459 layman must shrive the priest, as well as the priest must shrive the layman; and the priest must confess himself to the people, as well as the people must pray for the priest. But you have an objection out of the communion-book, to prove confession to be a sacrament, which appointeth, that the sick person shall make a special confession to the minister, and he to absolve him, &c. Will you never leave this shameless cogging and forging of matters against us ? The communion-book appointeth a special confession only for them that "feel their conscience troubled with any weighty matter," that they may receive counsel and comfort by the minister, who hath authority in the name of God to remit sins, not only to them that be sick, but also to them that be whole, and daily doth pronounce the absolution to them that acknowledge and confess their sins before God. But hereof it followeth not, that this confession is a sacrament : for by preaching the people that beheve are absolved from their sins, by the ministry of the preacher ; yet is not breaching a sacrament. A sacrament must have an outward element, or bodily creature, to represent the grace of re mission of sins, as in baptism, and in the Lord's supper. But where you conclude, that " sincere translators should not have fled the proper and most usual word of ' confession,' " you speak your pleasure ; for the word of "acknowledging" is more proper and usual in the Enghsh tongue, than is the word of "confessing." And if you can prove any sacrament out of that text, behold, you have the Greek and Latin untouched, and the Enghsh answerable to both : make your syllogism out of that place to prove popish shrift, when you dare. 460 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. CHAPTER XV. Heretical Translation against the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and for the Marriage of Priests and Votaries. Martin, 1. Martin. Against the sacrament of orders, what can they do more in translation, than in all their bibles to take away the name of " priest" and " priesthood" of the new testament altogether, and for it to say Chap. vi. " elder" and " eldership ?" Whereof I treated more at large in another place of this book. Here I add these few observations, that both for priests and deacons, which are two holy orders in the catholic church, they translate "ministers," to commend that new degree devised by Eccies.vii.3i. themselves. As when they say in all their bibles, " Fear the Lord with iepeis. ^j ^y sou]} anij honour his ministers." In the Greek it is plain thus, "and honour his priests,'' as the word always signifieth; and in the lepia. very next sentence themselves so translate, " Fear the Lord and honour the priest.1" But they would needs borrow one of these places for the i Tim. iii. honour of "ministers." As also in the epistle to Timothy, where St Paul talketh of deacons, and nameth them twice : they in the first place Bib. 1562. & translate thus, " Likewise must the ministers be honest," &c. And a 1577. little after, " Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife," Lo, the AiaKovoi. Greek word, being one, and the apostle, speaking of one ecclesiastical order of deacons, and Beza so interpreting it in both places, yet our English translators have allowed the first place to their ministers, and the second to deacons, and so, because bishops also went before, they have found us out their three orders, bishops, ministers, and deacons. Alas, poor souls ! that can have no place in scripture for their ministers, but by making the apostle speak three things for two. Fulke, I. Fulke. For the names of "priest," and "elder," we have spoken heretofore sufficiently, as also for the name of "minister," which is used for the same that elder and priest, although the word signify more generally. That the word "ministers" is put for "priests," I take it rather to be an oversight of the first translator, whom the rest followed, because that Xeirovpyovs cometh immediately after, than any purpose against the order of "priest," or to dignify the name p 'Ev SXq irvxti °~ov ebXaftov tvv Kvpiov, Kal robs iepeis abrov 6abpa£e- iv oXt] bvvapei ayairqoov tov iroiqaavrd oe, Kal -robs Xeirovpyovs abrov pq iyKaTaXiirqs. 0o/3oO tov Kvpiov, Kal bogaoov lepea. Eccles vii 29, 30, 31.] XV. j TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 461 of "ministers." For, seeing Sirach's son speaketh of the priests and ministers of the law, his saying can make nothing to or fro for the names of the ministers, priests or elders of the new testament. That some translations in 1. Tim. iii. for SiaKovot render "ministers," it is because they supposed the Greek word to be taken there in the general sense, as it is in many other places ; not to make three degrees of two, as you do fondly cavil. For the orders of bishops, elders, or, as you call them, priests, and as they be commonly called priests and ministers, is all one in authority of ministering the word and the sacraments. The degree of bishops, as they are taken to be a su perior order unto elders or priests, is for government and discipline, specially committed unto them ; not in authority of handling the word and the sacraments. Martin. There are in the scripture that are called "ministers" in Martin, 2. infinite places, and that by three Greek words commonly : but that is a large signification of " minister," attributed to all that minister, wait, serve, or attend to do any service ecclesiastical or temporal, sacred or profane. If the word be restrained to any one peculiar service or function, as one of the Greek words is, then doth it signify "deacons" only; which if they know not, or will not believe me, let them see Beza himself, in his annotations upon St Matthew, who protested that Annot. c. in his translation he useth always the word "minister" in the general signification, and diaconus in the special and peculiar ecclesiastical function of "deacons." So that yet we cannot understand, neither can they tell us, whence their peculiar calling and function of " minister" cometh, which is their second degree under -a bishop, and is placed in stead of "priests." Fulke. What the general word of "minister" signifieth, Fulke, 2. how it is taken, both generally and specially, we are not so ignorant that we need be taught of you : and yet all learned men are not agreed, when the Greek word StaKovos is restrained to the minister of the poor, and when it sig nifieth generally all the officers in the church. As for the name of "minister," by which elders or priests are com monly called among us, I have even now, and divers times before, shewed upon what occasion it was taken up so to be applied, which yet generally signifieth all that serve in the church, and commonwealth also. 462 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. Martin, 3. Martin. Again, what can be more against the dignity of sacred orders and ecclesiastical degrees, than to make them profane and secular by their terms and translations? For this purpose, as they translate HiSi-rat- "elders" and "eldership" for "priests" and /'priesthood," so do they Bib. 1562. most impudently term St Peter and St John laymen : they say for airo'0'e'i- sider of it, he should find that the proper signification thereof in this phrase of speech is, as the vulgar Latin interpreter, Erasmus, and Valla, (all which he rejecteth,) translate it, to wit, " He was numbered," or Annumeratus " counted with the eleven apostles," without all respect of common con- cooptatus est. sent, or not consent, as you also in your other bibles do translate. Fulke. The election of Matthias to be an apostle was Fulke, 5. extraordinary, and therefore permitted to the lot ; the manner whereof, as it is not to be drawn into example, so the proper election cannot be proved thereby : yet hath both Beza and the English translator faithfully expressed the Greek word which St Luke there useth; although neither Erasmus nor Valla, beside your vulgar interpreter, did consider it. Neither doth that common consent, in accepting Matthias for an apostle, whom the lot had designed, more prove a popular election, or derogate from the singularity of Peter, than that by common consent of the whole brother hood two were chosen and set up, that the apostleship should be laid upon one of them. Martin. Which diversity may proceed of the diversity of opinions Mahtin, 6. among you. For we understand by Master Whitgift's books against His defence, the puritans, that he and his fellows deny this popular election, and book!™ 157. give pre-eminence, superiority, and difference in this case to Peter and to ecclesiastical prelates: and therefore he proveth at large the use and ecclesiastical signification of the Greek word x«P0T0I"'a> not to be the giving of voices in popular elections, but to be the ecclesiastical imposing of hands upon persons taken to the church's ministry. Which he saith very truly, and needeth the less here to be spoken of, specially chap. vi. being touched elsewhere in this book. Fulke. The diversity of the translation proceedeth of Fulke, 6. this, that the former translators did not observe the nature f1 Kal ovyKare^rqCp'ioBq perd tcov evbeKa dirooroXcov, Acts i. 26. " And he was by common consent counted with the eleven apostles," Geneva version, 1557. The other versions have, "he was counted with ;" and the Authorised and Rhemish, " he was numbered with."] r 1 30 [fulke.J 466 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [dl. of the Greek word, which Beza hath considered more absolutely than any interpreters before him. Although it is not unlikely, that Chrysostom did well acknowledge it, in Act. Hom. when speaking of this election he useth these words : Jam et illud considera, quam et Petrus agit omnia ex cornmuni discipulorum sententia, nihil auctoritate sua, nihil cum imperio1. "Now also consider this thing, how Peter doth all things by common consent of the disciples, notliing of his own authority, nothing with rule or commandment." And as for the popular election, if you had read those books you make mention of, you might perceive that neither of both parts allow a mere popular election ; and that Master Whitgift doth not so much contend, what form of election was used in the time of the apostles, and of the primitive church, as whether it be necessary that such form of election as then was practised, should in all ages of the church, and in all places, be of necessity continued and observed. Maetin, 7. Martin. One thing only we would know, why they that plead so earnestly against their brethren the puritans about the signification of this word, pretending herein only the primitive custom of imposition of hands in making their ministers, why, I say, themselves translate Bib. 1577. not this word accordingly, but altogether as the puritans, thus : " When XetpoTovrj- they had ordained them elders by election in every church." Acts xiv. o-ai/T-es. verse 23 a. For if the Greek word signify here the people's giving of Beza, ibid, voices (as Beza forceth it only that way, out of Tully, and the po pular custom of old Athens), then the other signification, of imposing hands, is gone, which Master Whitgift defendeth, and the popular election is brought in which he refelleth; and so by their translation they have in my opinion overshot themselves, and given advantage to their brotherly adversaries : unless, indeed, they translate as they think, because indeed they think as heretically as the other ; but yet because their state of ecclesiastical regimen is otherwise, they must maintain that also in their writings, howsoever they translate. For an example, Pag. 200. ad they all agree to translate " elder" for " priest :" and Master Whita- amp. kers telleth us afresh in the name of them all, that there are no P Spa be abrov perd Koivijs irdvra iroiovvra yvcopqs- obbev ab8evTiKas, ovbe dpxiKcos. Chrysost. Hom. in. in Acta Apost. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 622, edit. Savill.] Q2 XeipOTOvqoavres be avTcns irpeofivTcpovs Kar iKKXqoiav, Acts xiv. 23. "And when they had ordained them elders by election in every con gregation," Tyndale, Cranmer. "Elders by election in every church," Bishops' bible. " Elders in every church,", Geneva, Authorised version.] XV'J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 467 priests now in the church of Christ, that is, (as he interpreteth him self,) "this name 'priest' is never in the New Testament peculiarly Pag. 210. applied to the ministers of the gospel." This is their doctrine : but what is their practice in the regiment of their church? Clean con trary. For in the order of the communion-book, where it is ap pointed what the minister shall do, it is indifferently said, "Then shall the priest do, or say this and that;" and, "Then shall the minister, &c." Whereby it is evident, that they make "priest" a proper and peculiar calling applied to their ministers; and so their practice is contrary to their teaching and doctrine. Fulke. I have satisfied your desire before, if you list Fulke, 7. to know : our translation must be, as near as it can, to express the true signification of the original words; and so it is in that place of the Acts xiv. 23, which being granted by them that deny the necessity of that form of election to continue always, giveth no more advantage to the adversaries, than they would take out of the signification of the Greek word, howsoever it were translated. Your example of Master Whitakers' denying the name of " priest" to be applied to the ministers of the gospel, to prove that we must maintain our ecclesiastical state, howsoever we translate, is very fond and ridiculous; as also the contradiction that you would make between him and the service-book, touching the name of priest there used and allowed. Master Whitakers, writing in Latin, speaketh of the Latin term, sacerdos; the com munion-book, of the English word "priest:" is not this a goodly net for a fool to dance naked in, and think that nobody can see him? Martin. Now concerning imposition, or laying on of hands, in Martin, 8. making their ministers (which the puritans also are forced to allow Beza, Anno by other words of scripture, howsoever they dispute and jangle against XeipoTovia), none of them all make more of it, than of the like juda ical ceremony in the old law; not acknowledging that there is any grace given withal, though the apostle say there is, in express terms: but they will answer this text (as they are wont) with a favourable translation, turning "grace" into "gift." As, when the apostle saith thus, "Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which is given thee by 1mm.iv.14. prophecy, with imposition of the hands of priesthood3;" they translate, ™a^1' "Neglect not the 'gift;'" and Beza most impudently, for "by pro- Sidirpocpti- phecy," translateth "to prophecy:" making that only to be this gift, ™ Mil dpeXei tov iv ool xaP<-°~lmT0S< & ibodq ooi Sia irpocjiqTeias p.erd imBeoeas tcov \eipav tov wpeofivTepiov, 1 Tim. iv. 14.] 30—2 468 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. and withal adding this goodly exposition, that he had the gift of pro phecy or preaching before, and now by imposition of hands was chosen only to execute that function. But because it might be objected that the 2 Tim. i. apostle saith, " which was given thee with the imposition of hands," or, as he speaketh in another place, " by imposition of hands," making this imposition of hands an instrumental cause of giving this grace, he saith that it did only confirm the gi'ace or gift before given. Fulke, 8. Fulke. Though we find that by or with imposition of hands many rare and extraordinary gifts, of prophecy, of tongues, and such like, were given in the apostles' time, yet we find nowhere, that grace is ordinarily given by that \ ceremony, used always in the church for ordination of the ministers thereof. But whether there be, or not, our trans lation of ydpia^a into " gift" is true and proper to the word. For albeit the word ydpis be taken, not only for the favour of God, but also for bis gracious gifts ; yet ydpuTpa is never taken in the scripture but for a free gift, or a gift of his grace. That Beza referreth the preposition &a to the end of the gift, he hath the nature of the word to bear him out, which may well abide that sense : and yet he doth not reject the other common interpretation "by prophecy," that by appointment of the Holy Ghost uttered by some of the prophets. But where you wrangle about the gift of prophecy, as though he were utterly void thereof before he received imposition of hands, I know not what you mean. Would you have us think, that he was ordained priest, or elder, or to any office of the church, without competent gifts, meet to discharge his office ? That the gift of prophecy, as well as of speaking with tongues, might be given by and with imposition of hands, Beza doubteth not. But it is out of doubt, that to an office none was chosen or admitted by the apostle and the rest of the presbytery of Ephesus, but such as had sufficient gifts to answer that office. Maetin, 9. Martin. Thus it is evident, that though the apostle speak never so plain for the dignity of holy orders, that it giveth grace, and con sequently is a sacrament ; they pervert all to the contrary, making it a bare ceremony, suppressing the word " grace," wliich is much more ydpicrpa. significant to express the Greek word than "gift" is, because it is not every gift, but a gracious gift, or a gift proceeding of marvellous Phil. i. 29. and mere grace. As when it is said, " To you it is given not only to believe, but also to suffer for him;" the Greek word signifieth ixapta6q. this much, "To you this grace is given," &c. So when God gave XV.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 469 unto St Paul all that sailed with him, this Greek word is used, be- Acts xxvii. cause it was a great grace or gracious gift given unto him. When 2 Cor. ii. St Paul pardoned the incestuous person before due time, it is expressed ^"''"r" by this word, because it was a grace (as Theodoret calleth it,) given xdp"rpa- unto him. And therefore also the alms of the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xvi. 3, are called "their grace," which the protestants translate "liberality," n-nvxdptv neglecting altogether the true force and signification of the Greek words, "i"""' Fulke. Here is no evidence at all, that the order of Fulke, 9. priesthood is a sacrament, or giveth grace ; but that God by the ceremony of laying on of hands did give wonderful and extraordinary gifts of tongues and prophesying in the beginning and first planting of the church. But that grace should always follow that ceremony, there is no proof to be made out of the holy scriptures. And experience shew eth, that he which was void of gifts before he was ordered priest, is as very an ass and dogbolt1 as he was before, for any increase of grace or gracious gifts, although he have authority committed unto him, if he be ordained in the church, though unworthily, and with great sin, both of bim that ordaineth, and of him that is ordained. But we suppress the word " grace," you say, because charisma sig nifieth, at least, " a gracious gift." See how the bare sound of terms delighteth you, that you might therein seek a shadow for your singlefold sacrament of popish orders. The word signifieth " a free or gracious gift;" and so will every man understand it, which knoweth that it is given by God. As also in all places, where mention is made of God's gifts, we must understand, that it proceedeth freely from him, as a token of his favour and grace. But that the Greek word -^apl^opiat. doth always import the grace or favour of God, none either wise or learned will affirm ; neither doth your vulgar interpreter express the word of grace in those places that you bring: for example, Phil. i. 29, he saith plainly, donatum est, " it is given," and so your selves translate it". Why, I pray you, do you suppress the word "grace," or why do you thus trifle against us? . [* Dogbolt: a worthless fellow.] P "On vpiv exapiadq rb virep Xpiorov, ov pdvov to els avrov irioreveiv, dXXd Kal to virep abrov irdoxeiV Philipp. i. 29. "Quia vobis donatum est pro Christo," Vulg. "For to you it is given for Christ," Rhemish version, 1582.] 470 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. When St Paul appealed to Caesar, Acts xxv., anirming that no man could give him into the hands of his adversaries, he useth the same word ¦^ap'tcrao-Oai1. So, when Festus telleth Agrippa that he answered the Jews, "that it was not the custom of the Romans to give any man to de struction," &c, St Luke useth the word ¦^ap'u^eaQaf : were. not he a mad translator, or interpreter either, that would expound this word of the grace of God, which is spoken of the favour of men ? So, when the apostle, 1 Cor. xvi., calleth the alms of the Corinthians their " grace," is it not better Enghsh to say "their liberality?" 3 for although their hberality proceeded of God's gift, yet the apostle, adding the pronoun vpwv, meaneth the "free gift of the Corinthians," not the " grace of God." Martin, Martin. But concerning the sacrament of orders, as in the first to Timothy, so in the second also, they suppress the word "grace,'' 2 Tim. i. 6. and call it barely and coldly " gift," saying : " I put thee in remem brance, that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." Where if they had said, "the grace" of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands ; then were it plain, that St Paul by the ceremony of imposing hands upon Timothy, in making him priest or bishop, gave him grace : and so it should be a very sacrament of holy orders, for avoiding whereof they translate otherwise; or else let them give us another reason thereof, specially the Greek word much more signifying "grace," than a bare "gift," as is declared. Fulke, Fulke. These coleworts were sodden enough once before, a! that they need not be set on again. The word -^dpiofia, if you find it a hundred times, signifieth no more but " a free gift," or " a gift that is freely given," even as the Enghsh word " gift" doth ; whereof the proverb is, " what P ovbels pe bbvarai abro'is xapioaodai, Acts xxv. 11. "Nemo potest me illis donare," Vulg.] P* "Oti ovk eonv e8os 'Papaiois xaPl&a8ai Tiva dvdpcoirov els dirdXeiav, Acts xxv. 16.] [3 Orav be irapayevcopai, ovs idv boKipdoqre di iirioroXav, tovtovs irepi\ra direveyKeiv rqv x^Plv vpav els 'lepovoaXqp. 1 Cor. xvi. 3. " Hos mittam perferre gratiam in Jerusalem," Vulg. " Them will I send to carry your grace unto Jerusalem," Rhemish version. "Them will I send to bring your liberality," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops' bible,- Authorised version.] XV'J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 471 is so free as gift ?" Wherefore, if we had said the grace of God, we had translated amiss, and otherwise than the Greek word doth signify. But where you trifle in your terms of a bare gift, and we call it barely and coldly " a gift," you do nothing but bewray your own shame. Can the gift of God be called " a bare gift ?" or doth he speak barely and coldly that saith " the gift of God ?" Doth the apostle, Ephes. ii., speaking of our salvation, and your vulgar interpreter, and you yourselves, speak of a bare gift, and call it barely and coldly "the gift of God ?" When you say, "you are saved through faith (and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God), not of works, &c," see you not that while you seek to rase our skin, you strike yourself to the heart ? Be wiser therefore, and spare your own credit : find no fault with that which you cannot amend, and which, if it were a fault, you yourselves 'commit as much as we. Martin. The more to profane this sacred order, whereunto con- Martin, tinency and single life hath been always annexed in the New Testa- 11- ment for the honour and reverence of the functions thereunto belonging, to profane the same, I say, and to make it mere laical and popular, they will have all to be married men, yea, those that have vowed the contrary: and it is a great credit among them, for our priests apos tates to take wives. This they would deduce from the apostles' cus tom, but by most false and impudent translation ; making St Paul say thus, as of his own wife and the other apostles' wives, " Have not we l Cor. ix. 5. power to lead about a wife being a sister, as well as the rest of the isso! apostles?" Whereas the apostle saith nothing else but, "a woman a dSeXQtjv sister," that is, a christian woman ; meaning such holy women as fol- J^'jJ^h. lowed Christ and the apostles, to find and maintain them of their substance. So doth St Jerome interpret it, and St Augustine4, both Lib. i.advera. Jovin. Be op. mon. [* Si autem nobis illud opposuerit ad probandum, quod omnes apo- c- 4- stoli uxores habuerint, ' Numquid non habemus potestatem mulieres, vel uxores circumducendi ?' . . ... jungat et illud, quod in Grsecis codicibus est, ' Numquid non habemus potestatem sorores mulieres, vel uxores circumducendi?' Ex quo apparet eum de aliis Sanctis dixisse mulieribus, quse juxta morem Judaicum magistris de sua substantia ministrabant, sicut legimus ipsi quoque Domino factitatum Aut certe, si ywaiKas uxores accipimus, non mulieres, id quod additur, sorores tollit uxores ; et ostendit eas germanas in spiritu fuisse, non conjuges. Hieron. adv. Jovin. Lib. i. cap. 14. Tom. iv. Pt. ii. p. 167* edit. Ben. Fefellit eos verbi Grceci ambiguitas, quod et uxor et mulier eodem verbo Graece dicitur. Quanquam hoc ita. posuerit apostolus, ut falli non 472 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cil. directly proving that it cannot be translated "wife," but "woman:" and the Greek fathers most expressly. And as for the Greek word, InCoUeetan. if they say it is ambiguous, St Augustine telleth them, that as the hunclocum. apostle hath put it down with all the circumstances, there is no am biguity at all that might deceive any man. Yea, let us set apart the Annot. Matt, circumstances, and consider the Greek word alone in itself, and Beza i'cor. vii. l. will tell us in other places, that it signifieth a woman rather than a wife; reprehending Erasmus for translating it "wife, because there is Quia non no circumstances annexed why it should so signify :" thereby declaring t-ito9 aut that °f itself it signifieth "woman;" and therefore much more when dieXtpod. the circumstances also, as St Augustine saith, maketh it certain that so it doth signify. Fulke, Fulke. If matrimony be a holy sacrament, as you say, and an holy ordinance of God, as we both confess; how should the sacred order of priesthood be profaned thereby? That continence and single life hath always been annexed to the ecclesiastical functions in the New Testament, it is so manifest an untruth, that I will not stand to confute it. As where you say, that we "make the order mere laical and popular, that we will have all men to be married, yea, those that have vowed the contrary," these be most impudent assertions. Though it be free for all men to marry, yet no man is willed, otherwise than he shall find cause in himself. And for priests that come from you, it is more credit to marry, than out of marriage to hve incontinently : otherwise they are of as great credit that be unmarried as they that be married. What the custom of the apostles was for having wives, and keeping company with them, not only the 1 Em. ia. scripture of the apostles, but also Clemens Alexandrinus, a i c'orl ix. &c. most ancient writer, is witness for us, and against your impudent assertion, alleging even this text of 1 Cor. ix. : to prove that they did lead their wives about with them: Per quas etiam in gynceceum, &c\ " By means of whom the debuerint : quia neque mulierem tantummodo ait, sed sororem mulierem; neque ducendi, sed circumducendi. Veruntamen alios interpretes non fefellit haec ambiguitas, et mulierem, non uscorem, interpretati sunt. Augustini de Opere Monachorum. Opera, Vol. vi. p. 803.] p1 Aey« ovv ev nvi eirioroXrj, Ovk exopev igovoiav dbeXcpqv yvvaiKa irepiayeiv, as Kai oi Xotirol dirocrroXoi ; olroi pev oiKeias rj biaKOvia airepioiraoTCO Tip Kqpvypan irpooaveyovres, obx °>s yaperas, aXX' as dbeXcfias irepirjyov ras yvvdtKas, ovvbiaKovovs eoopivas irpbs ras diKOvpobs yvvaiKas, bi cbv Kal els Tqv yvvaiKcovinv dbiafiXqTcos irapeiatbvero q tov XV-J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 473 doctrine of our Lord might enter into the closet of women, without any reprehension or evil suspicion." By which our translation is proved to be good and true, as I have more at large declared before, cap. i. sec. xviii. Neither is there And Prafat. , ° , . , • , ™ ¦ , Sect. 36.. Here any new matter, which is not there sufficiently an swered. Martin. Wherefore great must the impudency of Beza be, (and Maiitin, of the English Bezites,) that knowing this and protesting it elsewhere in his annotations, yet here translateth, sororem uxorem, "a sister a wife," and saying after his lordly manner, " I doubted not so to translate it," disputing and reasoning against all other interpreters, both ancient and later, for the contrary, yea, and affirming that St Paul himself " did foolishly," if he spake there of other rich women. Such a fancy r™pte face- he hath to make the apostles not only married men, but that they carried about their wives with them, and that they were the apostles' wives, (for so he translateth it, Acts i. 14.) that returned with them Cum uxori- after our Lord's ascension to Jerusalem, and continued together in prayer till the Holy Ghost came upon them : whereas St Luke there speaketh so evidently of the other holy and faithful women which are famous in the gospel, as the Marys and other, that the English Be zites themselves dare not here follow his translation. For I beseech you, M. Beza, (to turn my talk unto you a little,) is there any cir cumstance or particle here added, why it should be translated "wives?" o-bvyuvat- None : then by your own reason before alleged, it should rather be translated " women." Again, did Erasmus translate well, saying, " It Uxorem non is good for a man not to touch a wife ?" 1 Cor. vii. 1.* No, say you, yvvauio* reprehending this translation, because it dehorteth from marriage. If M «"""«- not, shew your commission, why you may translate in the foresaid places "wife," and "wives," at your pleasure; the Greek being all one, both where you will not in anywise have it translated "wife," and also where you will have it so translated in anywise3. Fulke. Nay, "great must be the impudency of" the papists, Fulke, that imagine the apostles which had wives of their own, did leave them behind them, and lead strange women about with them into all parts of the world. The first that invented that gloss of continent women, such as followed Christ, was Kvpiov btbaa-icdXia. Clem. Alex. Strom. Lib. ni. sect. 6. pp. 535 — 6. edit. Venet. 1757.] [2 Bonum est homini uxorem non attingere. Erasmi Vers. Opera, Vol. vi. p. 686. edit. Lug. Bat. 1705.] \j See note, chap. i. No. 18, p. 116.] 474 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Tertulhan, the Montanist, in his book of Monogamy1, which he wrote against the church, condemning second marriage, and reproving the Latin translation of his time, as it seemeth,- which in this text, 1 Cor. ix., used the term of uxor, by the ambiguity of the Greek word yvvn, saying, that if the apostle had spoken of matrimony, he would have understood this of wives; but seeing he speaketh de victuaria exhibitione, " of the exhibition toward his living," he understandeth it of such women as followed Christ : than the which distinction nothing can be more absurd ; for speaking of exhibition toward his tiving, the apostle sheweth that he might have lawfully charged the church with finding, not only of him self, but also of his wife, as the other apostles did. Again, if rich women did follow the apostles, ministering to them of their substance, as they followed our Saviour, this was no burden, but an easement unto the church, which the apostle would not have abstained from as a thing burden- ous to the church of Corinth. Concerning the other place, Acts i. 14, although perhaps it be not necessary to translate " wives," yet it is necessary to understand " wives." For to answer you in M. Beza's name, who telleth you that it was meet, (as also Erasmus thinketh,) that their wives should be confirmed, who partly were to be companions of their travail and peregrination, partly to tarry patiently at home while their husbands were about the Lord's business ; and therefore their wives also were present. Again, what a shameful ab- surdity were it to think, that the apostles would tarry in a close house so long together with other women than their wives, and shut out their own wives, which must needs have P Nee enim si penes Grsecos communi vocabulo censentur mulieres et uxores pro consuetudinis facilitate, (ceterum est proprium vocabuhnn uxorum,) ideo Paulum sic interpretabimur, quasi demonstret uxores apostolos habuisse. Si enim de matrimonio disputaret (quod in sequen- tibus facit, ubi magis apostolus aliquod exemplum nominare potuisset) recte videretur dicere, Non enim habemus potestatem uxores circums- ducendi, sicut ceteri apostoli et Cephas? At ubi ea subjungit, quse de victuaria exhibitione abstinentiam ejus ostendunt, dicentis, Non enim potestatem habemus manducandi et bibendi? non uxores demonstrat ab apostolis circumductas, quas et qui non habent, potestatem tamen manducandi et bibendi habent ; sed simpliciter mulieres, quse illis eodem instituto, quo et Dominum comitantes, ministrabant. TertulL de Monogamia, cap. viii. p. 681. ed. Rigaltii. Lutct. lMl.'] XV.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 475 been subject to great offence and obloquy ! And what devil ish mahce have you agamst the apostles' wives, that you cannot abide that they should join with their husbands in prayer and supplication, and be made partakers of the Holy Ghost with them, as well as other women, which were also married women ; Mary the wife of Cleophas, Joanna the wife of Chuza, and other holy women, the mothers or wives of holy men? Will you say the apostles had no wives? Peter's wife's mother will testify against you. Will you say she ciemen*."Rpcn lih T was forsaken by Peter? The story of his martyrdom, if cronica ad- it be true, affirmeth that she continued with him to his rascicui. . . Temp. dying day. Will you say he had no matrimonial company with her? His daughter Petronilla will bear witness against you, so young, that she was desired in marriage by Flaccus the Comes. Touching the place, 1 Cor. vii., where Erasmus trans lateth uxorem, I have answered already ; the circumstance of the place doth argue that it is spoken generally of continence, and not of abstinence in marriage only. And who is such a novice in the Greek tongue, that he knoweth not that the word yvvti signifieth " a wife," or " woman," as the circum stance of the place requireth, where it is used ? Martin. Again, to this purpose they make St Paul say, as to his Martin, wife, " I beseech thee also, faithful yokefellow," Phil. iv. 3 : for in , English what doth it else sound, but " man and wife ?" But that St Paul ymio-te. should here mean his wife, most of the Greek fathers count it ridi culous and foolish, St Chrysostom3, Theodoret4, fficumenius, Theophy- Socieger- lactus s. Beza and Calvin both mislike it, translating also in the Theophylact saith, if he spake to a , ¦ woman, it P Clementinas Recognitiones : apud Gallandi Biblioth. Patrum, should be - . -, yvtiaia in Vol. II. J the Greek. r-i ^'f i ijijj > - * ^ •! » - . - i Lib. ii. c. 24. P SvQvye. q aoeXcpov nva avrav, q Kat avopa ptas avrav our*w 7rij irdXiv pera ravra epei irepl iropvav Kal poixav. 'Ev irdoiv tpoovvqs avry irpo^e^qKooi pev iv be rots veois ov, dXX' iv irdoiv. *H KfV>rqs eXeyfpdirois, Kal ev irdoi Kalpois, pq iv BXfyei pev, iv be dveoet, obf^y^ev tovtw pev Teg pepei npios, iv 478 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [' CH. he), not in men of riper age, and not in young men also, but in all men, or by all means, and in all times, not in affliction truly, and in quietness not also ; not in this part precious and honourable, and in that part otherwise; but the whole and through all parts, let it be precious. Here heretics are made to blush, that slander marriage : for behold, he calleth marriage precious, matrimony honourable, which keepeth a man in the virtue of temperance." And afterward, " If matrimony be permitted, the fornicators and adulterers are justly punished." Who is so blind, that he will not see Theophylact refer it to the persons, as well as to all parts of it? At leastwise you should have remembered, that Theophylact, being a bishop of the Greek church, where their priests have been, and yet are, suffered to be married men, would not write anything here against the marriage of priests. Neither doth CEcumenius exclude the persons, when he extolleth the perfection of marriage, but rather doth comprehend them. Chrysostom doth plainly refer it to the persons, insomuch that he joineth it in exposition with that text, " Have peace with all men." Martin,15. TiplOS b ydpos. Tipt\v. kv Tiprj. Martin. Another, and the like falsification in this same short sentence, is, that they make it an affirmative speech, by adding "is:" whereas the apostle's words be these : " Marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled." Which is rather an exhortation, as if he should say, " Let marriage be honourable, and the bed undefiled." How honourable ? that, (as St Peter speaketh, 1 Pet. iii.) men " converse with their wives according to knowledge, imparting honour to them, as to the weaker vessels :" that is, as St Paul also explicateth it, 1 Thes. iv. " possessing every man his vessel in sanctification and honour, not in the passion or lust of concupiscence, as the gentiles," &c. Lo, what honourable marriage is, to wit, when the husband useth the wife honourably and honestly in all respects, not beastly and filthily according to all kind of lust and concupiscence. And that the apostle here exhorteth to this honourable usage of wedlock, rather than affirmeth any thing, it is most probable, Viith by that which goeth before, and that which immediately followeith, all which are exhorta tions; and let the protestants give us a reason out of the Greek text, if they can, why they translate tb" vat's following by way of ex- ¦tefellow," SXXa be oi- dXX' SXos jVedjS-word.^ „.'„„_ >EvTavea & ivrpeirovrai oi tov yapov biaftaXXovTe:,0? jv ydp Tipios ovopd^erai, on ev oacppoovvji rqpei. Theop'™ T'V'0S ^oc. Tom. n. p. 756. edit, Venet. 1756.] "r'K°'' 2\" XV.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. hortation, " Let your conversation be without covetousness ;" and not dcpiXdpyy- these words also in like manner, " Let marriage be honourable in all." £f0* ° Tp0~ Certain it is, that the Greek in both is all one phrase and speech; tipios 6 and Beza is much troubled to find a good reason against Erasmus, yr10*- who thinketh it is an exhortation. The sentence then being ambiguous and doubtful at the least, what jolly fellows are these that will so restrain it in translation, that it cannot be taken in the other sense ; and not rather leave it indifferently, as in the Greek and vulgar Latin it is, lest the sense of the Holy Ghost be not that, or not only that, which they translate ! Fulke. I have already shewed that the verb of the Fclke, indicative mood is here to be understood, because the verb 1S* which followeth in the same verse is of the indicative mood. Again, the particle Se, as Beza telleth you, declareth the first words to be uttered affirmatively : " Marriage is honour able among all men, and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." Moreover, Chrysostom1, Theodoret2, Theophylact3, CEcumenius, do all prove out of this place the permission and lawfulness of marriage to all men ; which could not be, except they understood the apos tle's words affirmatively. That married men must hve temperately with their wives, it is also true, but not the principal purpose of the apostle here to exhort thereunto ; but rather to dissuade men from fornication and adultery, because marriage is honourable and undefiled in all sorts of men. The reason you require, Beza hath given you, and I have reported it. Neither is the sentence ambiguous, neither hath it been so taken, but of late days, in despite of holy matrimony ; which though you cannot deny in all men, yet you deface the honour thereof, as the Manichees and other heretics did, when you affirm that the sacred order of priest hood is profaned thereby. They be your own words before, P Ei ydp ydpos ovvexapqdq, biKaias b iropvos KoXd^erai, biKatas 6 paixbs npapeirai. '"EvTavda irpbs robs aipenKobs dirobverai. 'Evravda Kal 'lovbatovs alviTTerat, on fibeXvpdv qyovvro rqv Koirqv. Kal bs av 77, ¦cpqoiv, diro Koirqs, ovk eon Kadapos. Ovk coti ftbeXvpd rd diro cpvaeas, a ayvapov Kal dvaladqre 'lovbaie, dXXd rd dirb irpoaipeaeas. Chrys. in loc. ed. Sav. Tom. iv. pp. 596, 698.] P To ¦ pev yap i'vvopov, rb be Xiav irapavdpov Kal to pev 6 Qebs fvopoderqoev ig dpxqs- irotqoapev ydp abno, i'cpq, fioqdbv, Kal biairXaaas ijyaye Kal ovvqfe. Theodoret. in loc. Tom. m. p. 459. Paris. 1742.] P See note 3, p. 477.] 480 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. sect, ii., convincing you to be a maintainer of the doctrine of devils. 1 Tim. iv. Martin, Martin. Moreover it is against the profession of continency in priests and others, that they translate our Saviour's words of " single Matt. xix. n. life," and the " unmarried state," thus : " All men cannot receive this saying:" as though it were impossible to live continent. Where Christ said not so, that " all men cannot," but, " all men do not receive this saying1." But of this I have spoken more in the chapter of free will., Here I add only concerning the words following, that they translate them not exactly, nor perhaps with a sincere meaning; for if there be chastity in marriage, as well as in the single life, as Paphnu- tius the confessor most truly said, and they are wont much to allege it, then their translation doth nothing express our Saviour's meaning, Bib. 1561. when they say* " There are some chaste, which have made themselves ''" chaste for the kingdom of heaven's sake;" for a man might say, all do so that live chastely in matrimony : but our Saviour speaketh of euvobx0'. them that are impotent and unable to generation, called eunuchs, or gelded men, and that in three divers kinds : some that have that in firmity or maim from their birth, other some that are gelded after ward by men, and other that geld themselves for the kingdom of heaven, — not by cutting off those parts, wliich were an horrible mortal sin, but having those parts, as other men have, yet geld themselves ebvovxirrav (for so is the Greek,) and make themselves unable to generation. eauxous. Which how it can be but by voluntary profession, promise, and vow of perpetual continency, which they may never break, let the pro testants tell us. Christ then, as it is most evident, speaketh of gelded men, either corporally, or spiritually, (which are all such as profess perpetual continency;) and they tell us of some that were born chaste, and some that were made chaste by men, and some that make them selves chaste : a most foolish and false translation of the Greek words, ebvovxoi, and ebvovxi£etv. Fulke Fulke. Concerning the former part of this matter, !6. Matt. xix. 11., we have answered sufficiently, in the chap ter of free will; but here is a new cavil. Because chastity is also in marriage, as in single life, our translators do not well to express the word evvov^oi, and evi/oi/^tcrai', by "chaste," and "have made chaste." I confess they should more properly have said, " gelded men," or " gelded them selves," or else "continent," and "made continent:" although p Ov iravres x0,P0^'Tl T°v ^-dyov tovtov, dXX' dis beborai. fieri, yap ebvovxoi, olnves i< KoiXias pqrpbs iyewqdqaav ovra' Kal eloiv ebvovxoi, o'lnves ebvovxiodqoav xnrb Tav dvdpcoirav' Kal eloiv ebvovxoi, oinves ebvovxioav eavrobs bid rqv fiaoiXeiav Tav ovpavcov. Matt. xix. 11, 12.] XV-J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 481 they mean none other by the word "chaste," which they use. And touching your question, how men may lawfully geld themselves, "but by voluntary purpose of continency, which they may not break:" I answer, that we deny not but that such as be assured they have the gift of continency, may profess to keep it; and after such profession or promise made to God, they sin if they break it. But if any have rashly vowed that which they are not able to keep, they have sinned in vowing, and cannot keep their vow by absti nence from marriage, except they abstain also from all filthi- ness out of marriage : for such, we hold with Epiphanius2 Epiph. cont and Saint Jerome3, that immoderate advancer of virginity, ^^g„ that it is better to marry than out of marriage to hve dem' incontinently. Martin. The Bezites here are blameless, who translate it word Martin,17 for word "eunuchs:" but they are more to blame in another place, where in derogation of the privilege and dignity of priests they translate Mai. H. 7. thus: "The priest's lips should preserve knowledge, and they should JtfSS J"' ' seek the law at his mouth ;" where in the Hebrew and Greek it is aovaiv. as plain as possibly can be spoken, "The priest's lips shall keep YlDtt^ knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth4." Which is a ^{jijj^ marvellous privilege given to the priests of the old law, for true de- : " : termination of matters in controversy, and right expounding of the law; as we read more fully, Deut. xvii., where they are commanded, The infallible under pain of death, to stand to the priest's judgment, which in this the priests in questions of religion. ver. 4 P Ot yap bid to pr) aloxwdrjvai tois dvdpcoirois Kpvqbq tropvevovres icoiovai iropveias, q povdrqros q iyKpareias ov irpbs dvdpcoirovs exovoi Tqv bpoXoyiav, dXXd irpbs Qeov tov elbora rd Kpvcpia Kal igeXeyxovra irdoav aapKa ev ttj avrov irapovoia, irepi cov eKaoros qpapre' Kpevrrov toivvv exeiv dpapriav piav, Kai pq ireptaoorepas- Kpeirrov ireoavra dirb bpdpov avepS>s eavTco Xa^elv yvvaiKa Kara vopov, Kal dirb irapdevlas iroXXa xp^vcp peravoqaavra eloaxdijvat iraXiv els rqv itdcXqalav. Epiphan. Apostol. Heres. Ix. sect. 7. Tom. i. p. 512. Ed. MorelL Paris. 1622.] P Sanctum virginum propositum, et ccelestis angelorumque familise gloriam, quarumdam non bene se agentium nomen infamat. Quibus aperte dicendum est, ut aut nubant, si se non possunt continere; aut contineant, si nolunt nubere. Hieronymi, Epist. xcvii. ad Demetriadem de servanda Virginitate. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 796.] P "On yei'Xi; iepeas cpvXdgeTai yvcooiv, Kal vdpov iKforqaovoiv « ardparos abrov, bion ayyeXos Kvpiov iravTOKparopos icrnv, Mai. ii. 7. " Labia autem enim sacerdotis custodient scientiam, et legem requirent ex ore eius: quia angelus Domini exercituum est," Vulg-1 31 [fulke.] 482 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. place God by the prophet Malachi calleth his covenant with Levi, and that he will have it to stand, to wit, in the new testament, where Peter hath such privilege for him and his successors, that his faith shall not fail, where the Holy Ghost is president in the church of bishops and priests. All which these heretics would deface and defeat, by translating the words otherwise than the Holy Ghost hath spoken them. Fulke, Fulke. The verb indeed, which the prophet Malachi 17- useth, is of the future tense. But who knoweth not that the Hebrews lack the potential mood? and therefore they do very often express it by the future tense of the indicative mood ; which if you should always translate by the future in dicative, you should make many fair promises to them that are sharply rebuked. But the circumstance of the place doth plainly declare, that the priests of that time had broken the covenant made with Levi concerning keeping of the law. Yea, the very words following express the same : " But you have departed out of the way, and have caused many to fall agamst the law. You have made void the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts." By which words it is manifest, that the prophet before spake of that knowledge of the law which the priest ought to have, and not which the priest always had : for certain it is that many of them were ignorant, yea, sometimes all ; the high priest was often an idolater. And who condemned Christ and his gospel but the high priests? The authority that was given to the priests, in case of controversy, was hmited within the bounds of God's law ; from which if they declined, no man was bound to obey them. For who was bound to obey Urias the high priest, preferring the idolatrous altar of Damasco before the true altar of the Lord ? or those devilish tyrants, Menelaus, Alcimus, and such other as occupied the priests' rooms in the time of the Maccabees, or Annas and Caiphas, in the time of Christ? Peter then having none other privilege for him and his successors than Aaron had, he and his successors might fall and be deceived : although Christ prayed that his faith should not fail, as he prayed for all the apostles, and for all their successors, yea, for all believers, that they might be sanctified in the truth ; yet it were madness to say that none of them could err. But whensoever you will go about to prove this privilege out of those words of our Saviour' XV.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE: 483 Christ, make your syllogism, and let us have no more bab bling. Our translation in that place of Malachi is more true than you are able to impugn ; for those words are rather a commandment, what the priests' hps should do, not a promise or assurance that they alway did so. Martin. And when the prophet addeth immediately the cause of Mautin, this singular prerogative of the priest, quia angelus Domini exercituum est, "because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts," wliich is also a wonderful dignity, so to be called ; they after their cold manner of profane translation say, " Because he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts." So do they in the next chapter call St John the Baptist "messenger;'' where the scripture no doubt speaketh more honourably Mai. Hi. 1. of him, as being Christ's precursor, than of a messenger, which is a term for posts also and lackies. The scripture, I say, speaketh thus of St John, " Behold I send mine angel before thee :'' and our Saviour ™" «yy«- in the gospel, Matt. xi. Luke vii. telling the people the wonderful Angeium" dignities of St John, and that he was more than a prophet, citeth n um' this place, and giveth this reason : " For this is he of whom it is written, Behold I send mine angel before thee." Wliich St Hierome1 calleth meritorum aiigqoiv, " the increase and augmenting of John's hSnciocum™ merits or privileges, that in Malachi he is called an angel:" and St Gregory2 saith, " He which came to bring tidings of Christ himself, g °™- • ft in was worthily called an angel, that in his very name there might be a dignity ;" and all the fathers, and all wit and reason conceive a great excellency in this name : only our profane protestants, that think of all divine things and persons most basely, translate accordingly even in the foresaid gospel also, making our Saviour to say that John was more than a prophet, because he was a " messenger." Yea, where our Saviour himself is called Angelus testamenti, "The Angel of the testament," there they translate, " The messenger of the covenant3." Mal- »'¦ '• Fulke. It is not safe to translate always " the messenger Fulke, of God" by the name of " an angel," which is commonly 18, P Et quia ad privilegium prophetale etiam Baptistse accessit prse- mium, ut Dominum suum baptizaret ; unde infert meritorum aiigqoiv, faciens de Malachia testimonium, in quo etiam angelus praedicatur. Hieronymi Comment, in Matt. Lib. ii. Vol. iv. p. 1. edit. Martianay.] P Quod enim Grace angelus, hoc Latine nuntius dicitur. Recte ergo, qui nuntiare supermini Judicem mittitur, angelus vocatur, ut dignitatem servet in nomine, quam explet in operatione. Greg. Magn. in Evang. Liber, i. Hom. vi. edit. Paris. 1705. Tom. i. p. 1455. B.] p Kal 6 ayyeAos rijs biadqKqs, Mal. iii. 1. "Et angelus testamenti," Vulg. " Even the messenger of the covenant," Cranmer's bible, 1562, Bishops' bible, 1584, Authorised version.] 31-— 2 484 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. taken to signify "a spirit," not "a bodily creature": there fore our translators thought good to express the signification of the Hebrew and Greek word in English, and to use the term of " messenger," as the word doth signify ; nothing derogating from the dignity of the persons or office of them, of whom it is uttered, which consisteth in the addition following, "of God," "of the Lord," "of the church." For the name of "angel," of itself, is no name of dignity, seeing there be angels of the devil and of darkness, as well as of God and of hght. And Isidorus Clarius interpreteth the word in this place of Malachi legatus, "the ambassador," or "messenger." It is not therefore of any "profane" mind, that for " angel" we say " messenger1." Your own vulgar li&D interpreter, Agg. i. 13, translateth Maleach Jehovah, nuntius Hirr Domini, "the Lord's messenger;" and so divers times, where mention is made of God's messengers. This is therefore a vain contention about terms, when the matter is not in ques tion. That the name of "angels" soundeth more honourably, as Jerome and other think, it is no rule to bind translators; but expounders may, as occasion is offered, observe it. Martin, Martin. If St Jerome in all these places had translated nuntium, see' Apoc. c. tnen tne English were " messenger :" but translating it angeium, and theaEngiishn tlle church and all antiquity so reading and expounding it as a term »Tleth5'K' °^ more dignity and excellency, what mean these base companions to senger ofthe disgrace the very eloquence of the scripture, which by such terms of tion,"&c. amplification would speak more significantly and emphatically? What iE" mean they, I say, that so envy against Castaleo for his profaneness, themselves to say, for angel, "messenger," for apostle, "legate," or "ambassador," and the like? Are they afraid, lest by calling men angels it would be mistaken, as though they were angels in deed by nature ? Then St Paul spake dangerously, when he said to the Gala- Gal, iv. 14. tians, " As God's angel you received me, as Christ Jesus." But to proceed. Fulke, Fulke. "The very eloquence of the scripture" is best ia expressed, when the words are translated as they signify in the original tongue. And although some words be appro priated to certain callings, which it is not convenient to turn P Kai eiirev 'Ayyaior ayyeXos Kvpiov ev dyyeXois Kvpiov no Xam, Haggeus i. 13. "Et dixit Aggams nuncius Domini de nunciis Domini populo,'' Vulg.] XV.J TEANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 485 into the general signification ; yet is neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word, that signifieth " messengers" in the scrip ture, so restrained, but that it is used for all messengers indifferently, of God and men, yea, of God and the devil. Wherefore there is no cause why we should use the Greek word " angel," rather than the Enghsh word " messenger." And where you ask, whether we be "afraid, lest by calling men angels it would be mistaken, as though they were angels in nature;" we may well fear lest the ignorant and unlearned might so be deceived, when Bristow, so great a doctor and writer among you, is so fondly disguised, that he mistaketh the angel of the church of Philadelphia for an Apoc. 3, angel by nature, and allegeth that which God promiseth, «• «¦ that his enemies, the Jews, shall worship before his feet, to prove the invocation and worship of heavenly angels. Nei ther "spake Paul dangerously, when he said the Galatians received him as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus." For the word "angel" in the Greek tongue signifieth " a messenger:" it was easy to understand that the messenger, or ambassador, of a prince is received as the prince himself, without con founding the persons of the prince and his messenger. Martin. It is much for the authority and dignity of God's priests, Mahtin, that they do bind and loose, and execute all ecclesiastical function as 20- in the person and power of Christ, whose ministers they are. So St Paul saith, 2 Cor. ii. 10., that when he pardoned or released the pe nance of the incestuous Corinthian, he did it " in the person of Christ :" iv irpoo-ui- that is, (as St Ambrose expoundeth it,) " in the name of Christ, in nr"- ?*"' his stead, as his vicar and deputy." But they translate it, "In the sight of Christ3." Where it is evident they cannot pretend the Greek ; and if there be ambiguity in the Greek, the apostle himself taketh it away, interpreting himself in the very same case, when he excom- municateth the said incestuous person, saying, that he doth it, " in 1 Cor. .. +. the name and with the virtue of our Lord Jesus Christ;" so ex pounding what he meaneth also in this place. [2 o) be n xapi&ode, Kal eyca' Kal yap iycb b Kexdpiopai, e'l n Kexd- piopai, bi vpds, iv irpoodirco Xphrrov, iva prj irXeoveKTqdapev biro tov 2arava, 2 Cor. ii. 10, 11. " Cui autem aliquid donastis, et ego : nam et ego quod donavi, si quid donavi, propter vos in persona Christi," &c. Vulg. "In the room of Christ," Tyndale's version, 1534. "In the sight of Christ," 1539, Geneva, 1557, Bishops' bible, 1584, " In the person of Christ," Rhemish, Authorised version.] 486 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Fulkb, Fulke. That the bishops, elders, or priests of God's church do "bind and loose as in the person and power of Christ," in his name, and by his authority, is acknowledged by us. But when we translate ev irpoowwcp Xptorov, " in the sight of Christ," we respect what the Greek phrase doth more properly require ; yea, what the Hebrew phrase ^2D mipenei doth signify, whereunto it is like that the apostle doth allude. Otherwise Beza, in his annotations upon the place, doth not mislike the sense and interpretation of Am brose, whereof he maketh mention; but preferreth the other, as more simple and agreeable to the meaning of the apostle in that place, and to the nature of the Greek and Hebrew phrase. Martin, Martin. And it may be, that for some such purpose they change Matt. u. *ne ancient and accustomed reading in these words of St Matthew, Ex te enim exiet dux qui regat populum meum Israel; translating thus: Nov. Test. " Out of thee shall come the governour that shall feed my people Israel," for, "that shall rule my people Israel1." This is certain, that ¦rov elvai it is a false translation, because the prophet's words, Mich. v. (cited ehdpxov- Dy gt Matthew,) both in Hebrew and Greek, signify only a "ruler" 'lo-parjX. or "governour," and not a "pastor" or "feeder." Therefore it is f^j-L either a great oversight, which is a small matter in comparison of the , ^ . .: " least corruption ; or rather, because they do the like, Acts xx. 28., it .. J is done to suppress the signification of ecclesiastical power and govern ment, that concurreth with "feeding," first in Christ, and from him in his apostles and pastors of the church ; both which are here signi- iroipalva. fied in this one Greek word, to wit, that Christ our Saviour shall "rule" and "feed," (Psal. ii., Apoc. ii. 27.) "yea, he shall rule in a rod of iron ;" and from him Peter and the rest, by his commission given irolpawe. in the same word, "feed and rule my sheep," John xxi., yea, and that Actsv, in a rod of iron, as when he stroke Ananias and Sapphira to corporal & v. 5. & ' death, as his successors do the like offenders to spiritual destruction i°8°r"xx'4' (unless they repent) by the terrible rod of excommunication. This is imported in the double signification of the Greek word, which they to diminish ecclesiastical authority, [they] translate " feed," rather than "rule," or "govern." £i ck oov yap igeXevaerai rjyovpevos, dons iroipavei tov Xaov pov tov 'lapaqX. Matt. ii. 6. "For out of thee shall come the captain that shall govern my people Israel," Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539, Geneva, 1557 ; Bishops' bible, 1584. "Shall rule my people Israel," Rhemish, 1582, Authorised version, 1611. " For out of thee shall come the Governor that shall feed my people Israel," Geneva bible, 1560.] XVJ TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 487 Fulke. That we should not mean any thing against the Fulke, government of Christ, whom we wish and desire from our21- hearts that he alone might reign, and his servants under him, he himself is judge, to whom in this case we do boldly appeal. But let us see how we may be charged with false translation. The Hebrew and Greek (say you) do signify only a "ruler" or "governor," Mich. v. And do not we trans late "a governor" or "captain," which may answer there the Hebrew of the prophet, or the Greek of the Septuaginta, or of the evangelist ? The word iroiiuaiveiv, that we trans late sometime "to govern," sometime "to feed," is not in the prophet, but in the evangelist, and signifieth properly " to feed as a shepherd," and metaphoricaUy, " to govern." What cause have you here to cry out, " false translation," and to oppose the Hebrew word of the prophet, which is fully satisfied in the word "governor?" And the Greek word, which the Evangelist useth, hath his proper signifi cation in some translations, in other that which is figura tive; neither doth the one exclude the other. But "feeding" doth import " governing." But it seemeth you would have rule without feeding, that you are so zealous for govern ment. The word iroipaiveiv, Acts xx., in some translations is rendered " to rule," in other " to feed." The more proper is "to feed;" yet the Greek word will bear the other also. But "feeding," as a shepherd doth his sheep, com prehendeth both. The same word, John xxi., our Saviour Christ limiteth rather to " feeding," as the evangelist re porteth his words, using jSoovce twice, and iro'tpaive once. For by lording and ruling, Peter should not so well testify his love towards Christ, as by painful feeding. And there your own vulgar interpreter translateth pasce, and yourselves "feed;" though in the margin you would fain pray aid of the Greek to estabhsh your pope's tyrannical rule. Yea, you will give him a- rod of iron, which is the sceptre of Christ; yea, an army of soldiers to subdue Ireland, and to wrest it out of the Queen of England's dominion: that is molixaive tu irpoftaTa fiov, "feed and rule my sheep," in your secret meaning; and for that purpose you bring in the mi raculous striking of Ananias and Sapphira for their hypocrisy, pretending that you mean but spiritual destruction by the rod of excommunication; which how terrible it is when it is 488 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. duly exercised by them that have authority, we need not learn of you. The other text, Psalm ii., Apoc. ii. 27, we translate always "rule." And your vulgar interpreter, [1] Pet. v., translateth the same word pascite, "feed you the church of God," &c, and elsewhere divers times. Doth he so "diminish ecclesiastical authority," &c? Martin, Martin. To the diminishing of this ecclesiastical authority in the latter end of the reign of king Henry the eighth, and during the reign of king Edward the sixth, the only translation of their English bibles was, "Submit yourselves unto all manner ordinance of man, whether pao-iXeZ ais it be unto the king, as to the chief head," 1 Pet. ii. : where in this virepexov- queen's time the later translators cannot find those words now in the Greek, but do translate thus, " To the king as having pre-eminence," Bibi. 1577. or "to the king as the superior1." Why so? because then the king had first taken upon him this name of " Supreme head of the church;" and therefore they flattered both him and his son, till their heresy was planted, making the holy scripture to say that the king was "the chief head," which is all one with "supreme head:" but now being better advised in that point (by Calvin, I suppose, and the Lu therans of Magdeburg, who do jointly inveigh agamst such title, and Caiv.inc.vii. Calvin against that by name, which was first given to king Henry Magdeb. in the eighth,) and because they may be bolder with a queen than with fol. 9, 10, ii.' a king, and because now they think their kingdom is well established, therefore they suppress this title in their later translations, and would take it from her altogether, if they could, to advance their own eccle siastical jurisdiction, without any dependence of the queen's supreme government of their church, which in their conscience (if they be true Calvinists, or Lutherans, or mixt of both,) they do and must mislike. Fulke, Fulke. Touching this text, 1 Pet. ii., I have answered 22- before, that the word signifieth " him that excelleth ;" and therefore it is no corruption to translate it " the chief." For the name of " supreme head," in that sense which Calvin [' 'YiroTayqTe ovv irdori dvdpairivq Knoei bid tov Kvpiov' e'ire flaaiXei, as virepixovn, 1 Pet. ii. 13. "Either to the king as to him that is higher in the state," Wiclif, 1380. " Submit yourselves unto all manner ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be unto the king as unto the chief head," Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539, Geneva testament, 1557. "Whether it be unto the king as unto the superior,' Geneva bible, 1560. "Whether it be to the king, as excelling," Rheims, 1682. " Whether it be unto the king, as having the pre-eminence," Bishops' bible, 1584. "Whether it be to" the king as supreme," Authorised ver sion, 1611."] XV J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 489 and other abroad did mislike it, it was never allowed, nor by authority granted to the kings, Henry and Edward, but in the same sense it is now granted to queen Elizabeth; whom we acknowledge to have the same authority in causes ecclesiastical, which her father and brother, kings before her, had, and exercised to God's glory. But as Stephen Gar diner understood that title in conference with Bucer at Ratis- bon, we do utterly abhor it, and so did all godly men always, that a king should have absolute power to do in rehgion what he will. In what sense the popish clergy of England, being cast in the premunire, did first of all ascribe it to the king in their submission, look you unto it : we think it was rather of flattery, than of duty, wis dom, or rehgion. As for the ecclesiastical government which the scripture prescribeth, [it] may well stand, which craveth the aid of a christian prince, which is the queen's authority in causes ecclesiastical. Martin. But howsoever that be, let them justify their translation, Mahtin, or confess their fault. And as for the king's supremacy over the 23- church, if they make any doubt, let them read St Ignatius' words, Epist. 7. ad who was in the apostles' time, even when St Peter gave the foresaid Smyrnenses- admonition of subjection to the king, and knew very well how far his pre-eminence extended; and therefore saith plainly in notorious words, that we must first honour God, then the bishop, and then the king: because in all things nothing is comparable to God, and in the church nothing greater than the bishop, who is consecrated ev dpxou- to God for the salvation of the whole world ; and among magistrates ie„'wa.vv„ and temporal rulers none is Like the king2. See his other words im- io-rlv, to mediately following, where he preferreth the bishop's office before the ^,"^21 iv king's and all other things of price among men. dvdpmiroisdvafiePn- Fulke. Howsoever those epistles be truly or untruly f^ke, ascribed to Ignatius, which here I will not dispute, there is 23. nothing said in this that you cite of the bishop's pre-emi nence above the king, but we acknowledge it to be true of the meanest priest of God's church, in matters properly f3 'Eyes be (pqpl, Tip,a pev tov Qeov as ainov tcov oXav Kal Kvpiov' iiriaKorrov be cos apxiepea, Qeov eiKova cpopovvra' Kara pev to apxeiv Qeov, Kara be to lepareveiv XpioTov" Kal perd tovtov npav XP1! T0V &aai- Xea, k. t. e. Ignat. ad Smyrnenses, p. 198. ed. Voss. Londini, 1680. The passage however is not from the genuine, but the interpolated Epistle.]^ 490 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH, belonging, to his office; which yet doth not exempt him from subjection to his prince, but that in causes ecclesias tical also he is to be commanded by his prince to do his duty, and to be punished by him, if he do otherwise. Maetin,24. iracrr) av- Qpwirivtj KTi(ret . 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. Fulke, 24. Martin. But in the former sentence of St Peter, though they have altered their translation about the king's headship, yet there is one corruption remaining still, in these words : " Submit yourselves unto all manner ordinance of man : " whereas in the Greek it is word for word as in the old vulgar Latin translation, omni humance creaturce, and as we have translated, "to every human creature;" meaning temporal princes and magistrates, as is plain by the exemplification immediately following, of king, and dukes, and other sent or appointed by him. But they, in favour of their temporal statutes, acts of parliament, proclamations and injunctions made against the catholic religion, do translate all with one consent, " Submit yourselves to all manner ordinance of man." Doth ktiois signify "ordinance?" or is it all one to be obedient to every one of our princes, and to all manner ordinance of the said princes ? The word " ordinance" you do violently draw to every statute, proclamation, or injunction, which is understood of the ordinance or appointment of magistrates, in what form soever they be created; or at the worst cannot be referred but only to such decrees as are not contrary to the word of God. The word kt'iltis we know signifieth "a crea ture," or " creation;" which speeches being not usual in our English tongue to signify magistrates, our interpreters have expressed the same by the word " ordinance." You your selves translate that which is in Greek KTioews, in Latin creaturce, Mark xvi., " of the creation;" and in the same sense do our translators use the word of ordinance. Martin, 25. Matt, xviii. Luke x. Martin. A strange case and much to be considered, how they wring and wrest the holy scriptures this way, and that way, and every way, to serve their heretical proceedings. For when the question is of due obedience to ecclesiastical canons, and decrees of the church and general councils, where the Holy Ghost by Christ's promise is assistant, and whereof it is said, " If he hear not the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen and publican ;" and, " He that heareth you, heareth me ; he that despiseth you, despiseth me :" there they cry out aloud, and odiously term all such ordinances " men's traditions," and " commandments of men," and most despitefully contemn and con demn them. But here, for obedience unto temporal edicts and par liament statutes daily enacted in favour of their schism and heresies, XV. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 491 they once maliciously forged, and still wickedly retain without altera tion, a text of their own, making the apostle to command submission unto all "manner ordinance of man;" whereof hath ensued the false crime of treason, and cruel death for the same, upon those innocent men and glorious martyrs, that chose to obey God and his church's holy ordinances, rather than man's statutes and laws directly against the same. Fulke. It is no strange case for an heretic and a traitor, Fulke, that hath sold his tongue to utter slanders against the church of God, and the christian magistrate, protector of the same, to devise and surmise that which never was intended, never was practised : as that against the godly and lawful decrees of the church we should translate " men's traditions," " com mandments of men;" and to the maintenance of all temporal laws, be they never so wicked, we should translate " ordi nance," instead of "creature." As for the crime of treason, and just execution of them that have suffered of your vi perous brood, I refer to the trial of the laws and judgments that have passed upon them, as no matter meet for me to dispute of: only this all good subjects know, yea, all the world may know, that they which take part with the pope, our prince's open and professed enemy, not in matters of re hgion only, but in cases concerning her crown and dignity, her realms and dominions, cannot bear dutiful and obedient hearts to her Majesty; whose clemency hitherto hath spared them that acknowledge her princely authority, although in all other points of popery they continue as obstinate as ever they were. 492 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. CHAPTER XVI. Heretical Translation agamst the Sacrament of Matrimony. Martin, 1. Martin. But as they are injurious translators to the sacred order of priesthood, so a man would think they should be very friendly to the sacrament of?* matrimony. For they would seem to make more of matrimony than we do, making it equal at the least with virginity. Yet the truth is, we make it, or rather the church of God esteemeth it, as a holy sacrament, they do not: as giving grace to the married persons to live together in love, concord, and fidelity; they acknow ledge no such thing. So that matrimony with them is highly es teemed in respect of the flesh, or (to say the best) only for a civil contract, as it is among Jews and pagans: but as it is pecuhar to Christians, and (as St Augustme saith) " in the sanctification also and holiness of a sacrament," they make no account of it, but flatly deny it. Fulke, 1, Fulke. We make no more of matrimony than the holy scripture doth teach us; neither do we in all respects make. it equal with virginity, howsoever you do slander us. But you so "make it an holy sacrament," that you think the holy order of priesthood is profaned by it. We acknowledge that God giveth grace to them that be faithful "to hve in love, concord, and fidelity," even as he did to the fathers of the old testament, living in the same honourable estate; which proveth that matrimony is no sacrament of the new testament, although it be an holy ordinance for God's children to hve in, and in it is contained a holy secret or mystery of the spiritual conjunction of Christ and his church. It is therefore nothing else but a devilish slander to say that we "esteem it but in respect of the flesh, or for a civil contract." Martin, 2. Martin. And to this purpose they translate in the epistle to the Sacramen- Ephesians, v. where the apostle speaketh of matrimony, " This is a magnum est. great secret1." Whereas the Latin church and all the doctors thereof j"1 To pvoTqpiov tovto peya eorlv' eyd be Xe'y<» eis Xpiarbv Kal els Tt)v iKKXqoiav, Eph. v. 32. " Sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo et in ecclesia," Vulg. "This sacrament is great," Wiclif, Rheims. " This is a great secret," Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops' bible, Geneva Test. " This is a great mystery,'' Authorised version.] XVI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 493 have ever read, "This is a great sacrament:" the Greek church and all the fathers thereof, " This is a great mystery," because that which pvo-Ttjpiov. is in Greek "mystery," is in Latin "sacrament:" and contrariwise, the words in both tongues being equivalent ; so that if one be taken in the large signification, the other also : as, Apoc. xvii. " I will shew sacramen- thee the sacrament of the woman," and, "I will shew thee the mystery tum' of the woman 2." And so in sundry places, again, if one be restrained pvo-Ttiptov. from the larger signification, and peculiarly applied, signify " the sacra ments of the church," the other also: as, "the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ," or, " the mystery of the body and blood of Duo sacra- Christ:" and the Calvinists in their Latin and Greek catechism say, ™™ „OTT,j. "Two sacraments," or, "two mysteries." />«¦¦ Fulke. The Enghsh word "secret" signifieth fully as Fulke, 2. much as the Greek word ft.vo-Tripiov, in which we must seek no hohness, as papists do, in vain sound of words, but in the matter annexed, which plainly expresseth that it is a great • secret of great holiness, whereof the apostle speaketh. And it is very false that you say, that the Latin word sacramen tum is equivalent to the Greek : for both it signifieth " an oath," which the Greek word doth not, and also it includeth holiness, which the Greek word doth not. Or else, why saith not your vulgar translator, and you, the sacrament of iniquity? MvcrTijpiov therefore signifieth "every secret;" sa cramentum only " an holy sacrament :" as when you say, Apoc. xvii., "the sacrament of the woman," the meaning is, the secret to be revealed concerning her is an holy thing ; else in the same chapter you have not a sacrament written in her forehead, but "a mystery or secret, Babylon, the mother of abominations." That the sacraments are called mysteries, we confess ; but that whatsoever is called a mystery may also be called a sacrament, that do we ut terly deny. Martin. This being so, what is the fault of their translation in Martin, 3. the place aforesaid ? This, that they translate neither " sacrament," nor "mystery." As for the word "sacrament," they are excused, because they translate not the Latin : but translating the Greek, why said they not "mystery," which is the Greek word here in the apostle? I mean, why said they not of matrimony, "This is a great mystery?" [! ey)- is, "which by the word of prayer and thanksgiving is made a con secrated meat, the flesh and blood of Christ," as St Justin, in fine 2. Apolog. and St Irenseus, lib. iv. 34. in the same places expound its. Whereas it may also signify " that for which thanks are given" in that most solemn sacrifice of the eucharist, as St Denis in one place djriwv seemeth to take it, Eccl. Hier. c. 3. in fine, who in the selfsame e»X.aPl- chapter speaketh of the consecration thereof most evidently. T,S„ Swpe- iov. Fulke. That the creatures or elements are blessed and Fulke, 4, consecrated, that by the working of God's Spirit they should be changed into the body and blood of Christ, after a divine and spiritual manner, unto the worthy receivers, Beza and we agree with the Greek liturgies. But that this blessing is performed by the word of God, prayer, and thanksgiving, both Justinus and Irenseus do most plainly testify with Beza and us. " When the mixed cup and bread," saith Irenseus, " receiveth the word of God, it is made the eu charist3," &c. "The bread on which, or for which, thanks is Lib. v.c. 2. given. The bread which is of the earth, receiving the vo cation or invocation of God." So saith Justinus: "The meat Apoiog. 2. for which thanks are given by the word of prayer, which is received from him." And speaking of the very manner of the consecration used in his time: "When the bread and wine with water is offered, the chief minister sendeth forth [3 Nostra autem consonans est sententia eucharistiae, et eucharistia rursus confirmat sententiam nostram. Offerimus enim ei qua; sunt ejus, congruenter communieationem et unitatem praedicantes carnis et Spi- ritus. Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis, percipiens invoca- tionem Dei, jam non communis panis est, sed eucharistia, et duabus rebus constans, terrena et ccelesti ; sic et opera nostra percipientia Eucha- ristiam jam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. Offeri mus autem ei, non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes donationi ejus, et sanctificantes creaturam. Irensei adv. Hseres. Lib. rv. cap. 34. Edit.- Lutet. Paris, p. 363, 1639.] [3 Sic autem, secundum hsc videlicet, nee Dominus sanguine suo redemit nos, neque calix eucharistia: communicatio sanguinis ejus, neque panis quem frangimus communicatio corporis ejus est Quando ergo et mixtus calix et fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit eucharistia sanguinis et corporis Christi. Iren. Lib. v. cap. 2, p. 434.] 504 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [OH. prayers and thanksgiving with all his might, and the people consenteth, saying, Amen1. Then followeth the distribu tion and participation of those things, for which thanks was given, to every one, &c." As for the magical mysteries of Dionyse, although in this behalf they make nothing against us, we make not so great account of, that we will stand to his judgment any more than you to his practice. Mabtin, 5. Martin. Whereby we have to note, that the heretics in urging the word "eucharist," as mere thanksgiving, thereby to take away blessing and consecration of the elements of the bread and wine, do unlearnedly and deceitfully, because all the fathers make mention of both; St Paul also calleth it "blessing of the chalice," which the evangelists call "giving of thanks." Whose words Theophylact ex- plicateth thus: "The chalice of blessing, that is, of the eucharist: for holding it in our hands, we bless it, and give thanks to him that shed his blood for us." See here both blessing and eucharist, blessing Liturg. s. the chalice, and thanksgiving to Christ. St James, and the Greek chrys. fathers in their liturgies, put both words in the consecration of each ebxapurn'i- element, saying thus, " Give thanks, sanctifying, breaking;" and, "giving yijo-'as" °" thanks, blessing, sanctifying;" and, "taking the cup, giving thanks, sanc- dyiaVas. tifying, blessing, filling it with the Holy Ghost, he gave it to us his Hom. 2. in disciples." St Chrysostom, who in many places of his works speaketh Hom. 83. in much of thanksgiving in these holy mysteries, doth he not as often Hom. de Ju- speak of the blessing, consecration, yea, and the transmutation thereof, daproditore. an(j tflat ^j^ what wor(JSj g^fr Dy wnat power ft is done? Doth Aug. ep. 59. not St Augustine say of the same, Benedieitur et sanetificatur, " It is lie bono vi- blessed and sanctified," — who often speaketh of the solemn giving of thanks in the sacrifice of the church? Doth not the church at this day use the very same terms as in St Augustine's time, Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro, " Let us give thanks to the Lord our God;" and, Vere dignum et justum est semper et ubique tibi gratias agere Sec. "It is very meet and right, always and in all places to give thee thanks;" which the Greek church also in their li- Q1 ' En-eiTa irpoocfteperai tco irpoeorcoTi tcov dbeXqjcov dpros, Kal irarnpiav vbaros Kai Kpaparos, Kal ovtos Xaftdv cuvov Kal bogav tco irarpl tcov oXav Sia toO ovoparos tov vlov Kal tov irvevparos rov dyiov dvairepirei' Kal ebxapionav virep tov Karqgiaodai rovrav trap' abrov iirl iroXb iroievrai' ov ovvreXeoavTos ras evxas Kal Tqv ebxapionav, irds 6 irapdv Xabs iirevcpqpei Xeyav, dpqv to Se dpqv Trj 'Efipatbi cpavy to yevano oqpalvei. cixa" pioTqoavros be toC irpoeoTcoros, Kal iirevcpqprjaavTos irdvros tov Xaov, oi KaXovpevoi trap qpiv biaKovoi biboaaiv eKdona tcov irapovrav pera- Xafie'iv airb tov evxaptorqdevTos aprov Kal o'lvov Kal vbaros, Kal rois ov irapovoivdirocpepovoi. . Justini Martyris, Apol. n. Opera, Vol. II. p. 97, edit. Paris, 1636.] XVII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 505 turgies express most abundantly? Yet doth there follow blessing and consecration, and whatsoever St Ambrose describeth to be done in this holy sacrifice touching this point, writing thereof most excellently in his book De iis qui initiantur mysteriis, c. 9. If it were to prove anything that we deny, Fulke, 5. you would be as bare and hungry, as now you are frank and plentiful, of your testimonies. Theophylact saith the same that Beza said out of Chrysostom and CEcumenius. The Greek liturgies, falsely intituled to St James, Basil, and Chrysostom, have no other thing, nor any other au thor whom you name. But your popish church doth not either as the Greek liturgies, or as the churches in Ambrose and Augustine's time. For they hold that the elements are consecrated by prayer and thanksgiving ; whereof although you use some terms in your mass, yet you hold, that the consecration consisteth only in a magical murmuration of the words, Hoc est corpus meum, over the bread by a priest, with intent of consecration: wherefore you are far from the judgment that the ancient fathers had, and we have, of the consecration of the bread and wine to be the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ. Martin. Of all which this is the conclusion, that the eucharist Martin, 6. is a solemn name, taken of the word ebxapioreiv, so called because this sacrament and sacrifice is blessed and consecrated with prayer and thanksgiving, as St Justin speaketh, and because in this sacri fice, so blessed and consecrated into the body and blood of Christ, him we offer up a most acceptable oblation of thanksgiving, and a memory of all God's marvellous benefits toward us. In this sense the fathers and the holy church speak of the eucharist, including all the rest, to wit, sacrament, sacrifice, blessing, and consecration, without which this were no more to be called eucharist than any other common giving of thanks; as St Irenaus doth plainly signify, when he de clareth, " that being before bread, and receiving the invocation of Lib. 4. c 34. God over it, now is no more common bread, but the eucharist, con sisting of two things, the earthly and the heavenly." So that it is made the eucharist by circumstance of solemn words and ceremo nies, and therefore is not a mere giving of thanks. And further we learn, that St Justin's and St Irenseus' words before alleged, panis ciixapiaTt,- et calix eucharistisatus, signify, "the bread and chalice made the J^V- eucharist ;" and consequently we learn, that the active thereof is aTelu. by thanksgiving to make the eucharist. And because the other word of blessing, and this of thanksgiving, are used indifferently one for another in Christ's action about this sacrament, we learn undoubtedly, 506 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. that when it is said ebXoyqoas, or evxapiorqoas, the meaning is, Blessing and giving thanks, he made the eucharist of his body and blood, that is, the sacrament and sacrifice of a singular thanksgiving, which (as St Augustine often is wont to say) the faithful only do know and understand in the sacrifice of the church; and because the faithful only understand, therefore the protestants and Calvinists are so ignorant in this mystery, that to take away all the dignity thereof they bend both their expositions and translations. Fulke, 6. Fulke. That the elements are blessed and consecrated by prayer and thanksgiving, as Justin, Irenseus, and other ancient fathers write, it is the thing that we contend for. But you (except you be a schismatic from all other papists) do teach that they are consecrated by these words, pro nounced by a priest, " This is my body ;" which are words neither of prayer nor of thanksgiving. Nevertheless, to prick us with a pin, you have wounded yourself with a sword, and say "the sacrament is blessed and consecrated with prayer and thanksgiving:" except you have some so phistical meaning, that it is consecrated with them, but not by them. The signification of the active, which you gather out of the passive, used by Justinus, sheweth what a learned clerk you are. Justinus writeth to the gentiles or heathen men, of whom he could not have been understood, if he had not used the passive, ev^apio-Tt]9els, in that signification that all other men did use it in in that time. What we understand of the mystery of the Lord's supper, and the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving, which is the only sa crifice of Christians, as Justinus writeth, the church of God doth acknowledge, though the synagogue of antichristian heretics will not confess it. Martin, 7. Martin. After they have turned blessing or consecration into bare thanksgiving, which is one step toward the denying of the real Sv Sei oi- presence, they come nearer, and so include Christ in heaven, that he pavdv oe J - cannot De withal upon the altar, translating thus : " Whom heaven aaVal. , ° must contain until the times that all thmgs be restored1," Acts iii. 21 ; T1 bv bet ovpavbv pev begaodai axpi xpdvav diroKaraoTaoecos irdvroiv, Acts iii. 21. "Whom the heaven must contain until the time that all things be restored," Geneva, 1557. " To wit, Jesus Christ wliich must receive heaven," Tyndale, Cranmer. " Whom the heaven must (truly, Rheims) receive," Authorised version, 1611.] XVII. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 507 and yet Beza worse, and he that allegeth him, M. Whitakers, Ad Rat. Cam. "who must be contained in heaven." Which is so far from the p '**' Greek, that not only Illyricus the Lutheran, but Calvin himself doth not like it. Beza protesteth, that he so translateth of purpose, to keep Christ's presence from the altar; and we marvel the less, because we are well acquainted with many the like his impudent pro testations. M. Whitaker only do we marvel at, that he should be either so deceived by another man's translation, or himself be so overseen in 8e£ao6ai. the Greek word, that he knoweth not a mere deponent and only de ponent from a passive. Fulke. The answer to this cavil is at large contained Fulke, 7. cap. i. sect. 36. Tour own translation is, " whom heaven must receive." If there be now such difference between receiving and containing, capere and recipere, it is very strange to learned ears, however sottish papists will accept whatsoever proceedeth from you. But forasmuch as this section, with two other following, are directed principally against Master Whitakers, I shall need to say httle, seeing he hath fully answered for himself. This one thing I may say concerning his knowledge in the Greek tongue, which you make to be so small "that he knoweth not a deponent from a passive," he is well known to be so well learned there in, that many of your seminary may marvel at him, as you say ; but neither you, nor any of you all, is able to match him therein. Martin. This doth not become him that objecteth ignorance of Martin, 8. the Greek to another man, and that after he had well tried by ibid. n. 84. public conference, that he was not ignorant ; and so objecteth it, as Camp.] though he knew not three words in that tongue, whereas he had yet tried hi"m, heard him read and interpret St Basil, not the easiest of the Greek £ J^5j doctors. This is palpable impudency, and a face that cannot blush, and 5^jehhim- full of malice against the saints of God; who, if they knew not a word in the Greek tongue, were never the worse, nor the less learned, but among fools and children, that esteem learning by such trifles, which grammarians know far better than great divines. For were not he a wise man, that would prefer one Master Humfrey, Mas ter Fulke, Master Wliitakers, or some of us poor men, because we have a little smack in the three tongues, before St Chrysostom, St Basil, St Augustine, St Gregory, or St Thomas, that understood well none [s Quare nativum Christi atque humanum corpus in ccelo collo- camus, scripturam secuti magistram, non novam sectam ingressi. Sic enim Petrus: Quem oportet ccelo capi usque ad tempora restitutionis omnium. Ad Rationes Campiani Resp. p. 43.] 508 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH, but one ? Howbeit, if they esteem learning by knowledge of the tongues, they will not (I trow) compare with catholics either of former time, or of these later age, specially since their new gospel began: and if they will compare with us herein for their simple credit, we may perhaps give them occasion ere it be long to muster their men all at once, if they dare shew their face before our camp of ex cellent Hebricians, Grecians, Latinists, of absolute linguists in the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, &c, whom they must needs confess to have been, and to be, even at this day, their masters and teachers. Fulke, 8. Fulke. It becometh you, that have cast off all fear of God and duty to your prince, to cast off all civil honesty and human modesty also, if you speak of such matters, as you might not be controlled in them ; yet if you forbear the truth, it were somewhat tolerable. But when you speak of Campion's learning in the Greek tongue, wherein you may be so manifestly convicted by hundreds of witnesses, you stop the way from any credit to be given you in other x matters. All Oxford knew that Campion was no Grecian, ^ when he departed from that university. His time spent in Ireland, and other places where he travelled, would not yield him great knowledge since his departure, except he had wholly applied it; which he could not do, nor any other serious study in such sort, as he travelled in divers places. But admit he might have knowledge by extraor dinary means or miracle, if you will; how shall he be tried, but by reading and understanding that which greatly con cerneth his cause in disputation and conference? You said, "he did read and interpret St Basil, not the easiest of the Greek doctors." I was not present at that conference, and therefore have the less to say. But I myself, making trial of his skill by a place of Epiphanius, both read it to him, and offering "him the book, he understood no more the matter thereof than if I had cited it in the Arabic or Persian language. And therefore, upon the acknowledging of his dissembled ignorance, with great laughter of the hearers, I was content to expound it to him in English, before I coidd receive any answer to the argument taken from that authority. Wherefore I verily think, and am certainly persuaded, that if he pretended to interpret any thing out of St Basil, it was altogether by artificial conjec ture, either of the place which he knew, and had read in XVII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 509 Latin, or else by surmising of some one common word, he gathered what the sense of the whole should be. Indeed, if he had never known a word of Greek, although he had been no meet man to challenge a whole realm to disputation, yet he might have been an honest man, and otherwise meanly learned, so he had not pretended knowledge, when he was in a manner altogether ignorant. For mine own part, though it please you to name me with Master Humfrey, Master Whitakers, and others, I never took upon me but a mean knowledge in the tongues ; neither desire I in com parison to be preferred before any learned man, whose travails have been profitable to the church, although he were ignorant in the tongues. Yet this I must freely say, that he which shall profess to be an absolute learned divine with out the knowledge of three tongues at the least, may think well of himself; but hardly he shall get and retain the credit he seeketh among learned men in this learned age. And therefore Campion, if disputation had been meant rather than sedition, for all his arrogance and impudence, was an unmeet apostle to be sent from Gregory of Rome to chal lenge all the wise and learned in England. Neither do I say this as though I measured all learning by knowledge of the tongues ; but whereinsover any papist in the world shall be bold to challenge the name of learning, in any knowledge that ever was or is accounted good learning, God be praised! there are many of God's true cathohc church, whereof we are members, able to match them therein; that I say not to excel them. And whereas you would make us beholden to papists for such knowledge as any of us hath in the Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, Arabic tongues, &c, it is well known the papists are more beholden to us. And although I confess that some papists of la^e days have be stowed fruitful pains in setting forth some of, the oriental tongues; yet are they not the first, nor all, that have travailed profitably that way. But many have attained to com petent skill in those languages many years before any papists had written anything that might further them therein. You were wont to bear ignorant men in hand, that we were a sight of Enghsh doctors, understanding no languages but our mother tongue, which hath enforced divers men to shew their skill in the tongues, which otherwise they would never have openly 510 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. professed. But now that the world seeth, to your shame, how richly God hath blessed us with the knowledge and in terpretation of divers tongues, you exprobrate to us our knowledge in the tongues, and traduce us among the igno rant, as though we esteemed all learning by knowledge of tongues, and that we were but mere grammarians, and often tell us of that stale jest, that the kingdom of grammarians is past ; as though it were but a httle grammar whereof we make a shew. But for that general muster which you threaten to drive us unto ere it be long, if you come as learned men should do, armed with books, pen, ink, and paper, I doubt not by the grace of God but you shall find them that dare confront you, and chase you out of the field also. But if you come under the pope's banner, with such blessing as he sent lately into Ireland, I hope you shall be met withal as those his champions were, and find that promotion for your good service which you have long ago deserved by your travails for upholding of his kingdom. Martin, 9. Martin. But to return to you, M. Whitakers, greater is your fault in divinity than in the tongues, when you make your argument against the real presence out of this place, as out of the scripture and St Peter ; whereas they are Beza's words, and not St Peter's. Again, whether you take Beza's words, or St Peter's, your argument faileth very much, when you conclude that Christ's natural body is not in the sacra- Hom 2. ad ment, because it is placed and contained in heaven. For St Chrysostom po. Antioch. telleth you, that " Christ ascending into heaven, both left us his flesh, Lib. 3. de sa- aQd yet ascending hath the same1." And again, " O miracle ! " saith he, cerdotio. «ne that sitteth above with the Father, in the same moment of time is handled with the hands of all." This is the faith of the ancient fathers, M. Whitakers, and this is the catholic faith ; and this is (I trow) another manner of faith and far greater, thus to believe the presence of Christ in both places at once, because he is omnipotent and hath said the word, than your faith (whereof you boast so much), which believeth no further than that he is ascended, and that therefore he cannot be present upon the altar, nor dispose of his body as he list. Fulke, 9. Fulke. Master Whitaker is not so young a divine, but he knoweth that Chrysostom speaketh of the ineffable P 'O pev yap HXtas pqXarqv dcpqKe Tm padqrfj, 6 be vibs Tov 6eoii dvafiaivav Tqv oapKa qpiv KareXiire rqv eavrov. Kal 6 pev 'HXtas diro&v- odpevos, 6 be Xpiarbs Kal qpiv KareXiire, Kal ex°>v avrqv dvqXde. Chrysost. Hom. ii. Opera, Vol. vi. p. 472, edit. Saville.] XVII. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 511 manner of Christ's presence spiritually, though he be absent corporally: as in the place by you cited, de sacerdotio, it is most manifest, where he saith that we may "see the people dyed and made red with the precious blood of Christ;" which as it is not with the eye of the body, but with the eye of faith, so is Christ that is corporally present in heaven, spiritually present unto the faith of the worthy receiver2. Martin. Again, it is a very famous place for the real presence Martin, of the blood (which we have handled at large elsewhere*, but here .chap.i. also must be briefly touched), when our Saviour saith, Luke xxii. num- 38- " This is the chalice the new testament in my blood, which (chalice) m ttotij- is shed for you3." For so ' which' must needs be referred according ^tu^Sae- to the Greek. In which speech, ' chalice' must needs be taken for vov. that in the chalice, and that in the chalice must needs be the blood of Christ, and not wine; because his blood only was shed for us. And so we do plainly prove the real presence, according as St Chrysostom also said, Hoc quod est in caliee, illud est quod n> ' °or. x. flutxit de latere: "That which is in the chalice, is the same that gushed out of his side." All which most necessary deduction Beza would defeat, by saying the Greek is corrupted in all the copies that are extant in the world, and by translating thus clean otherwise than ev tm ipol the Greek will bear, " This cup is the new testament in my blood, IJ^bpe- which (blood) is shed for you." vov. Fulke. "It is a famous place" indeed, that never a one Fulke, . 10 of the ancient writers could consider for any real presence to " be drawn out of it. How Beza hath translated it, I have at ["* orai» yap ibrjs tov Kvpiov redvpevov, Kal ro iepea icjteoTara tco dbpan, Kal iirevxdpevov, Kal irdvras iKeivca no npla qboiviooopevovs aipan, c\pa en pera dvdpdirav elvai vopi^eis Kal im rqs yqs eoravai, aXX' ovk evdeas iirl robs ovpavovs peraviOTaoai, Kal irdoav aapKiKqv bidvoiav rijs ¦^jrv'xV1 ixfiaXXav, yvpvfl rfi ^rvxfi Kac TV "V Kddapco irepi- fiXeireis rd iv ovpavols ; a tov davparos, a rqs tov Qeov qbtXavdpairias. 6 pera tov iraTpqs dvco Kadqpevos, Kara Tqv dpav iKelvqv rais anavrav Karexerai Xe/K"> Ka' bibaoiv avrov tois fiovXopevois irepiirrvgaadai Kai irepCXafieiv. iroiovoi be tovto irdvres bid tcov ocpdaXpdv Trjs irioreas. Chrysost. de Sacerdot. Lib. in. Opera, Vol. vi. pp. 15, 16.] P ToSto to irorqptov, q Kaivq biadqKq iv tco alpari pov, to birep vpav eKxwopevov, Luke xxii. 20. " This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you," all the Protestant versions. " This is the chalice the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you," Rhemish version.] 512 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. large declared before, cap. i. sect. 37, 38, 39. That which Chrysostom saith, we confess to be most true, after a spi ritual and heavenly manner; and so he doth expound himself in the same place, where he saith that Christ suffereth him self to be broken for us in the oblation which he suffered, not on the cross, where no bone of his was broken: which none but a madman would take otherwise than spiritually to be done, as he is present after a spiritual manner. Martin, Martin. But what pertaineth this to the English heretics, who translate, "which is shed," so indifferently that it may signify, "which Ad rat. cup," or, "which blood" is shed? Thus far it pertaineth, because they do not only defend this translation by all means, but they tell sanadnKoc'k us P*8"1^ namery Fulke, that they refer "which" to the word "blood," p. 309. ' and not to the word "cup;" even as Beza doth, asking us what grammarian would refer it otherwise. In which question he sheweth himself a very simple grammarian in the Greek, or a mad heretic; that either knoweth not, or will not know, that in the Greek it cannot be so referred, and consequently neither in Latin nor English, which in true translation must follow the Greek. But of these and chap. i. other their foul and manifold shifts to avoid this place, I have spoken num. 37, 38, . . e r &c. in another place of this book. Fulke, Fulke. As you have placed your crimination in the first chapter, to be sure that it should be read of every man that taketh your book in hand ; so have I, observing your order, answered you in the same place, and in such sort, I hope, discharged myself, that you shall have httle lust hereafter to insult against mine ignorance, before you be able to weigh the matter yourself with sounder knowledge. Maiitin, Martin. Only M. Whitakers, to say truly, hath brought some- p. is. what to the purpose, to wit, that St Basil readeth the Greek as they translate. But he doth well to make light of it, because it is evident that St Basil cited not the text of the evangelist, but the sense ; which Prat in Nov. Beza noteth to be the custom of the ancient fathers, telling us withal ' that therefore the reading of the fathers is no certain rule to reform or alter the words of scripture according to the same: and it is very like, that if Beza or Fulke his advocate had thought St Basil's reading of any importance, they would have used it long since, rather than so many other shifts and so absurd, as they do : unless we may think they knew it not, and therefore could not use it. But for St Basil, ac cording to the sense, he citeth it very truly : for whether we say, "the cup that is shed," or, "the blood that is shed," both signifieth XVII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 513 the blood of Christ shed for us, as St Basil citeth it. The difference is, that referring it to the " cup," as St Luke hath it, it signifieth the " blood" both present in the " cup," and also then shed in a sacrament at the last supper: but referring it to the word "blood," as St Basil doth, and as they translate, it may signify the "blood" shed on the cross also, yea, (as these translators mean and would have it,) only that on the cross, not considering that the Greek word is the present tense, and therefore rather signifieth the present shedding of his blood then in mystical sacrifice, than the other visible shedding thereof, which was to come in the future tense. Lastly, they translate St Luke's gospel, and not St Basil: and therefore, not following St Luke, they are false translators, howsoever St Basil readeth. Fulke. The reading of St Basil, whereof Beza maketh Fulke, mention in his annotation upon this text of St Luke, is also handled before. As the reading of the doctors is no perpetual rule to reform the text of the scripture by, so is it not to be neglected, but that sometimes also the present reading may be corrected thereafter. True it is, that Beza supposeth it rather to have been added out of the margin : and I, as I have before declared, do think that either it is to be read as Basil did read it, or else that the verb substantive is to be understood, and the article taken for the relative ; as it is often both in profane writings, and in the New Testament itself, as by sundry examples I have made it manifest. Martin. As this falsehood is both against sacrament and sacrifice, Mahtin, so against the sacrifice also of the altar it is, that they control St • Jerome's translation in the Old Testament, concerning the sacrifice of Melchisedec. who " brought forth bread and wine1 ;" Gen. xiv. 18 ; that The sacrifice of Meichise.- is, offered, or sacrificed bread and wine ; which we prove to be the dec. true sense and interpretation, (and that this bringing forth of bread and wine was sacrificing thereof,) not only by all the fathers' expo sitions, that write of Melchisedec's priesthood, (Cypr. epist. 63. Epiph. hcer. 55, and 79. Jero. in Matt. xxvi. and in epist. ad Evagrium,) and by the Hebrew word, which is a word of sacrifice, Judg. vi. 18. ; and by N^in the greatest rabbins and Hebricians that write thereof: but we prove see Pet. Gal. it also by these words of the very text itself, " He brought forth bread & s.x6nro. and wine, for he was the priest of God most high." Which reason p e\l, rar" [i Kai MeXxiaeb'eK /3aoiXebs 2aXqp igqveyKev dprovs Kal oivov. Gen. xiv. 18. " At vero Melchisedech rex Salem, proferens panem et vinum," Vulg.] S3 [fulke.J EP 514 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. immediately following, " because he was God's priest," proveth evidently that he brought it not forth in common manner, as any other man might have done, but as " God's priest," whose office is to offer sacri fice. This consequence is so plain, that for avoiding thereof the ad- nvikiepeSt. versaries will not have it translated in any wise, "for he was the WiTl priest," as though the scripture gave a reason, why he brought forth bread and wine; but, "and he was a priest," &c. wrangling about the signification of the Hebrew conjunction. Fulke, Fulke. That St Jerome was author of the vulgar Latin interpretation of the Old Testament, it is more boldly affirmed than ever it can be sufficiently proved by you. But what do we control? Your vulgar interpreter saith, that Melchisedec brought forth bread and wine, and so say we ; which how St Jerome and other understandeth, I have be fore declared, cap. i. sect. 42. Against all the fathers that expound that bringing forth of bread and wine to pertain to his priesthood, I oppose the apostle to the Hebrews, who could not have omitted it, if it had been so. That " the Hebrew word is a word of sacri fice," it is most impudently affirmed of you. For Judg. vi., it signifieth no more to offer than here, although there Gideon desire the angel to. stay, until he return and bring from his house with him a gift or oblation. But if you will contend that whatsoever is brought forth, wheresoever this Hebrew word is used, is a sacrifice, you shall make an hundred sacrifices more than ever God ordained. Neither will Ga- latinus or Gerebrardus, for their credit, once affirm that it signifieth to offer sacrifice : though it may be used in bring ing forth of sacrifices, as well as of all other things that are brought forth. But the conjunction causal "maketh it clear, that this bringing forth was in respect of his priesthood." Indeed, if the Hebrew conjunction were causal and not copu lative, we were driven to the wall ; but seeing the Hebrew conjunction copulative must be expounded according to the sense, you do very unskilfully to conclude the sense, which is in controversy, upon the conjunction which is indefinite : and we without partiality have translated the conjunction copulative, as it doth most commonly and ordinarily signify. Mabtin, Martin. Wherein the reader may see their exceeding partiality 14- and wilfulness. For, besides infinite like places of scripture, whereby we do easily shew that this Hebrew particle is used to give a reason XVII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 515 or cause of a thing, themselves also in another place prove it for us, ?effu™"°4'2 and that by the authority of Theophylact, and allegation of examples out of the scripture, and translate accordingly thus : " Blessed art thou Nov- *«£¦ . ° ^ anno 1580. among women, because the fruit of thy womb is blessed. Let them Benedicta tu, give us a reason, why the said conjunction is here by their translation dictus, &c. quia, or enim, where it was never so translated before ; and it must not K1" E. " * ' ytjpevos. be in any case in the other place of Genesis, where it hath been so translated and generally received, even in the primitive church. In other places of scripture also, which Theophylact allegeth, (and many more may be alleged,) they confess, and like very well it should so signify : only in the place of Genesis, they cannot abide any such sense, or translation thereof; but, " He brought forth bread and wine, Gen. xiv. is. and he was the priest," &c. not, " because he was the priest :" what is the cause of this their dealing ? None other undoubtedly, (and in all these cases I knock at their consciences,) but that here they would avoid the necessary sequel of Melchisedec's sacrifice upon such trans lation ; which typical sacrifice of bread and wine if it should be granted, then would follow also a sacrifice of the New Testament, made of bread and wine, answering to the same, -and so we should have the sacrifice of the altar, and their bare communion should be excluded. Fulke. Because we will not falsely translate to main- Fulke, tain a colour of your popish sacrifice, we shew great "par- 14- tiality." Wherein, I pray you? The conjunction copulative, we know, may often be resolved into the causal, where the sense so requireth ; but it never hath any force in itself to breed such a sense, or to conclude such a sense by it. It is against all reason therefore, that you would urge us to translate contrary to that which in our consciences before God we take to be the sense. Where you say, that " the sacrifice of Melchisedec, if it were granted, would bring in your mass, and exclude our communion," it is altogether untrue. For none of the ancient fathers (who were deceived to imagine a sacrifice, where the apostle seeking all things pertaining to Melchisedec's priesthood could find none) doth allow your propitiatory sacrifice; but contrariwise, by those only speeches that they use about Melchisedec's oblation of bread and wine, we are able to prove that they did speak of a sacrifice of thanksgiving only. And your sacrifice, in which you say is neither bread nor wine, should hardly resemble Melchisedec's oblation made of bread and wine. Martin. For which purpose also their partial translation about Martin, "altar," and "table," is notorious. For the name of "altar," (as they 15- 33—2 516 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. vvaiaaTri- piov. rata 6vataaTt)- piov. c. ix. v. 13. \epoif. know very well,) both in the Hebrew and Greek, and by the custom of all peoples, both Jews and Pagans, implying and importing sacrifice, therefore we, in respect of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, say " altar," rather than " table," as all the ancient fathers (Chrys. Hom. 53 ad pop. Antioch. and Hom. 20 in 2 Cor. and in Demonst. quod Christus sit Deus, torn. v. Nazianz. de Gorgonia sorore. Basil in Liturg. Socrat. Lib. i. Hist. c. 20, and 25. Theodoret. Hist. Lib. iv. c. 20. Theophyl. in 23 Matt. Cypr. epist. 63. Optat. cont. Parm. Aug. ep. 86. and Lib. ix. Confess, c. 11. and 13. et alibi scepe) are wont to speak and write, (namely when St Jerome calleth the bodies or bones of St Peter and Paul the "altars" of Christ, because of this sacrifice offered over and upon the same,) though in respect of eating and drinking the body and blood it is also called a " table ;" so that with us it is both an " altar'* and a " table," whether it be of wood or of stone. But the protestants, because they make it only a communion of bread and wine, or a supper, and no sacrifice, therefore they call it "table"' only, and abhor from the word "altar," as papistical. For the which purpose, in their first translation (Bible, an. 1562), when altars were then in digging down throughout England, they translated with no less malice than they threw them down, putting the word "temple" in stead of "altar;" which is so gross a corruption, that a man would have thought it had been done by oversight, and not of purpose, if they had not done it thrice immediately vrithin two chapters, 1 Cor. ix. and x., saying : " Know you not, that they which wait of the temple are partakers of the temple 1" and, "Are not they which eat of the sacrifice partakers of the temple 1" — in all which places the apostle's word in Greek is "altar," and not "temple." And see here their notorious peevishness: where the apostle saith "temple," there the same translation saith "sacrifice;" where the apostle saith "altar," there it saith "temple1." P oi no dvoiaorqpico irpooebpevovres tco SvoiaoTqplco ovppepi^ovrai, 1 Cor. ix. 13. " Qui altari deserviunt, cum altari participant," Vulg. " Witen ye not that they that work in the temple, and they that serve to the altar, are partners of the altar," Wiclif. " They which wait at the altar, are partakers with the altar," Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops' bible, 1584, Authorised version. " They which wait of the temple, are partakers of the temple," Cranmer, 1539, 1662. " They that serve the altar are participators of the altar," Rheims. Obxi oi iodlovres rds dvolas Koivavol tov dvoiaoTqplov eioi; 1 Cor. x. 18. " Nonne qui edunt hostias, participes sunt altaris ?" Vulg. " Were they that eat sacrifices not partners of the altar 1" Wiclif. " Are not they which eat of the sacrifice partakers of the altari" Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops' bible, 1584, Authorised version. " Partakers of the temple V Cranmer, 1539, 1562. " They that eat the hosts, are they not partakers of the altar V Rheims.] XVII. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 517 Fulke. That the ancient fathers used the name of Fulkk, "altar," as they did of "sacrifice," "sacrificer," "levite," and 15' such hke, improperly, yet in respect of the spiritual oblation of praise and thanksgiving, which was offered in the celebra tion of the Lord's supper, we do easily grant : as also, that they do as commonly use the name of table, and that it was a table indeed, so standing as men might stand round about it, and not against a wall, as your popish altars stand, it is easy to prove, and it hath oftentimes been proved, and it seemeth you confess as much, but that it is with you both an " altar " and a " table ;" with us indeed it is, as it is called in the scripture, only a "table." That we make the sacra ment a communion of bread and wine, it is a blasphemous slander, when we beheve, as the apostle taught us, that it is the communion of the body and blood of Christ, and the icor. x. n. Lord's supper: as for the corruption you pretend, I cannot think, as I have answered before, it was anything else but chap. i. the first printer's oversight. For why should the name of " altar " mislike us in that place more than in an hundred other places, when it is certain, wheresoever it is used in the scriptures, in the proper sense it signifieth the altars of the Jews, or of the gentiles, and never the communion-table, or that at which the Lord's supper is prepared and received ? Martin. Thus we see how they suppress the name of "altar," Martin, where it should be : now let us see how they put it in their translation, where it should not be. This also they do thrice in one chapter, and that for to save the honour of their " communion-table ;" namely, in the story of Bel, where we have it thrice called the " table" of that idol, Dan. xiv. 12. under which Bel's priests " had made a privy entrance," and " that the king looked upon the table," and " that they did eat up such things TpdireX,a, as were upon the table;" these wicked translators, fearing lest the name of Bel's " table" might redound to the dishonour of their com munion-table, translate it "altar" in all these places2. Wherein I Seethe Mfc cannot but pity their folly, and wonder exceedingly how they could imagine it any disgrace, either for " table" or " altar," if the idols also [2 " The priests thought themselves sure enough, for under the altar they had made a privy door." In the margin, "table." Story of Bel and the Dragon, v. 12, Bishops' bible, 1584. " The king looked unto the altar," v. 17. " Table" in margin. " Such things as were upon the altar," v. 20. The Geneva bible, 1560, and Authorised version have "table" in the text of these three passages. Cranmer's bible of 1562 has "altar.".] 518 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ell. had their "tables" and "altars;" whereas St Paul so plainly nameth icor.x.si. both together, "the table of our Lord," and "the table of devils.'! If the "table" of devils, why not the "table" of Bel? if that be no disgrace to the "table" of our Lord, why are you afraid of Bel's "table," lest it should disgrace yours. Or if you had no such fear, then you must tell us some other good reason of your unreasonable translation in this place, why you translate "altar" for "table," that is, chalk, for cheese. Fulkk, Fulke. That the authors of the first translation in the m fabulous story of Bel for " table" translated " altar," as I cannot excuse them of error, so I dare discharge them of any partiality or favour of the communion-table. For in king Henry the eighth's time, when that translation was first printed, there was never a communion-table in any church of England. It is like therefore, they respected similitude of the placing thereof, so as a privy door might be under it; which could not be conveyed in tables of such forms as now- a-days are in use. The bible 1577, in the margin, placeth the word "table," which is in the Greek, signifying that there is no great matter whether word you use ; and that story being of no credit, the translators could have no pur pose either to prove or improve by authority thereof. Mariin, Martin. And here, by the way, the reader may note another ex- 17- ceeding folly in them, that think the name of " table" maketh against " altar" and " sacrifice," their own translation here condemning them, where they call Bel's table an "altar;" and St Paul, having said to the Corinthians, " The table of our Lord," saith to the Hebrews of the selfsame, " We have an altar ;" and again, he saith, " the table of devils," which, I am sure, they will not deny to have been a true " altar' of idololatrical sacrifice; and Malachi i. 7. in one sentence it is called both "altar" and "table," whereupon the Jews offered their external and Haimo. true sacrifices; and all the fathers, both Greek and Latin, speaking of the sacrifice of the New Testament, call that whereupon it is offered both "altar" and "table;" but the Greeks more often "table," the Latin fathers more often " altar :" and why, or in what respects, it is called both this and that, we have before declared ; and here might add the very same out of St Germanus, archbishop of Constantinople, in his Greek commentaries (called Mystica Theoria,) on the liturgies or masses of the Greek fathers; but to proceed. Fulkk Fulke. It were an infinite matter to note, not only all 17. the folhes that you commit, but also the impudent assertions XVII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIELE. 519 that you make, upon your own surmise, without all proof. Who made you so privy of our thought, that you affirm us to think the name of " table " maketh against " altar " and " sacrifice ?" We know the name of " table " proveth no sacrifice ; but that the fathers call the same both a " table " and an " altar," we do never deny unto you. Yet, that the apostle to the Hebrews xiii., calleth that same " an altar," which St Paul to the Corinthians nameth "a table," yon shall never be able to prove ; howsoever CEcumenius and Haimo, two late writers, dote upon that place, which is evi dent, even by the text, to be understood of the only sacrifice of Christ's death upon the cross. That the people whom the prophet Malachi reproveth, calleth the Lord's altar his " table," is no sufficient proof that it might be called by the one name as well as the other. And although in respect of the meat-offerings and drink-offerings it was also a " table," at which God vouchsafed to be entertained by the people, as their familiar friend : but what is this to the purpose of any controversy between us? The altar was called a "table" in the Old Testament; but the "table" is never called an "altar" in the New Testament, although by the ancient fathers oftentimes. Martin. There are also some places less evident, yet such as smack Mahtin, of the like heretical humour against the blessed sacrament. In the 18. prophet Jeremiah xi. 19. we read thus, according to the Latin and the Greek : " Let us cast wood upon his bread," that is, saith St Jerome, Lignum in in comment, hujus loci, "the cross upon the body of our Saviour1. For Kj^^jf it is he that said, ' I am the bread that descended from heaven.'" Where t6v dpTov the prophet, so long before saying "bread," and meaning his "body," auTOI/- alludeth prophetically to his "body" in the blessed sacrament made of "bread," and under the form of "bread," and therefore also called " bread" of the apostle. So that both in the prophet and apostle his "bread" and his "body" is all one; and lest we should think, that the " bread" only signifieth his "body," he saith : " Let us put the cross l Cor. x. upon his bread," that is, upon his very natural body, which hung on the cross. Now for these words of the prophet, so usual and well known in the church and all antiquity, how think you do these new [' Qui quum non cognovisset peccatum, pro nobis peccatum foetus est; et dixerint, Mittamus lignum in panem ejus, crucem videlicet in corpus Salvatoris. Ipse est enim qui ait : Ego sum panis qui de ecelo descendi. Comment. Hieronymi, Lib. n. in Jeremiam xi. 19., Opera, Vol. m. p. 585.] 520 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. masters translate ? In one bible thus : " Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof." Another, " We will destroy his meat with wood ;" or as they should have said rather, " the wood with his meat." Do you see how properly they agree, whiles they seek novelties, and forsake the ancient usual translation ? Fulkb, 18. Fulke. The phrase or manner of speech which the prophet Jeremiah useth, being somewhat obscure and un usual, hath bred divers translations. The most simple meaning, and agreeable unto the Hebrew, is this : " Let us destroy him with wood instead of bread ;" that is, " Let us famish him in a close prison, or in the stocks," &c.: and so may the Greek and vulgar Latin be expounded, " Let us give him wood for bread," rather than that violent exposition of St Jerome is to be admitted, which referreth it to his crucifying : where, beside it were an intolerable figure in that place to understand his body by bread, it is clean contrary to that you said ; for the cross was not put upon Christ, but Christ upon the cross. Such wresting of the scripture, where no need is, maketh the Christians ridiculous to the Jews. And yet it is more far-fetched to draw it to the sacrament, which is called bread, and is not bread ; neither doth St Jerome extend his interpretation so far. Mahtin, Martin. They will say, the first Hebrew word cannot be as St , " Jerome translateth, and as it is in the Greek, and as all antiquity 6pev" M readeth; but it must signify, "Let us destroy." They sayHruly, Mittamus. according to the Hebrew word which now is. But is it not evident nfiTlttb thereby, that the Hebrew word now is not the same which the Sep tuaginta translated into Greek, and St Jerome into Latin ? and conse quently the Hebrew is altered and corrupted from the original copy Psal. xxi. which they had : perhaps by the Jews, (as some other places,) to obscure this prophecy also of Christ's passion, and their crucifying of him upon the cross. Such Jewish rabbins and new Hebrew words do our new masters gladly follow in the translation of the Old Testament; whereas they might easily conceive the old Hebrew word in this place, if they would employ their skill that way, and not only to novelties. For who seeth not that the Greek interpreters in number seventy, and all Hebrews of best skill in their own tongue, St Jerome also, a great Hebrician, did not read as now we have in the Hebrew, nashehUa, but, nashitha, or, nashlicha? Again, the Hebrew word that now is, doth so little agree with the words following, that they cannot tell how to translate it; as appeareth by the diversity and difference of Uestruamus.Ponamus. Mittamus. XVII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 521, their translations thereof before mentioned, and transposing the words in English otherwise than in the Hebrew, neither of both their trans lations having any commodious sense or understanding. If we should acknowledge the Hebrew word to Fulke, be altered in so many places, as the Seventy depart from 19- it, we should not only condemn the Hebrew text, that now is, in many places, but your vulgar Latin text also ; the translator whereof, differing oftentimes from the Greek, fol loweth the truth of the Hebrew, or at least cometh nearer unto it. Tour argument of the number of the seventy inter preters, all Hebrews, is very ridiculous and childish. Jerome himself will laugh you to scorn in it, who acknowledged for certainty no more than the books of the law translated by them. And Lindanus proveth manifestly unto you, that some parts of the Old Testament in Greek, which we now have, are not the same that were counted the Seventy translation in the ancient fathers' time. Whether Jerome in this place did consider the Hebrew text, we know not : for he doth not, as his manner is, shew the diversity of the Hebrew and the Septuaginta in this chapter; beside, he professeth great brevity in treating upon so long a prophet. But whether a letter in this word have been altered or no, nJVJTtM or whether it were corrupt in the copy which the Greek translator and Jerome did read, for the true or simple sense thereof there is no great difference : no, nor for that sense which Jerome brings ; which, although it seem eth to be far from the prophet's meaning, yet it may have as good ground upon the word naschita, as upon the word nashlicha. Martin. But yet they will pretend, that for the first word at Martin, the least they are not to be blamed, because they follow the Hebrew 20- that now is. Not considering that if this were a good excuse, then might they as well follow the Hebrew that now is, Psal. xxi. 18., and so utterly suppress and take out of the scripture this notable pro phecy, " They pierced my hands and my feet :" which yet they do not, neither can they do it for shame, if they will be counted Chris. tians. So that indeed, to follow the Hebrew sometime, where it is corrupt, is no sufficient excuse for them, though it may have a pretence of true translation, and we promised in the preface in such cases not to call it heretical translation. A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. Fulke, 20. Fulke. To this cavil against the certain truth of the Hebrew text, I have sufficiently answered in my confutation of your preface, sect, xliv.,1 shewing that the true reading of this word, as Felix Pratensis, Johannes Isaak, Tremelius, and other do acknowledge, is still remaining and testified by the Mazzorites. Mahtin, 21. That water and wine ought to be mingled in the chalice, Prov. ix. See S. Au- gu^ine De Civit. Dei, lib. 17. c. 20. Fulke, 21. Martin. But concerning the blessed sacrament, let us see once more how truly they follow the Hebrew. " The Holy Ghost (saith St Cy prian, Ep. lxiii. nu. 2.) by Salomon foresheweth a type of our Lord's sacrifice, of the immolated host of bread and wine, saying, ' Wisdom hath killed her hosts, she hath mingled her wine into the cup. Come ye, eat of my bread, and drink the wine that I have mingled for you V Speakmg of wine mingled (saith this holy doctor), he foresheweth pro phetically the cup of our Lord, mingled with water and wine." So doth St Jerome interpret this mixture or mingling of the wine in the chalice ; so doth the author of the commentaries upon this place among St Jerome's works; so do the other fathers. So that there is great importance in these prophetical words of Salomon, " she hath [mingled her wine into the cup," and, "the wine which I have mingled," as being a manifest prophecy of Christ's mingling water and wine in the chalice at his last supper, which the catholic church observeth at this day, and whereof St Cyprian writeth the foresaid long epistle'3. Fulke. It had been to be wished that St Cyprian, when he goeth about to prove the necessity of wine in the cele bration of the Lord's supper against the heretics, called Aquarii, that contended for only water, had retained the precise institution of Christ in wine only, which the scrip ture mentioneth, and not allowed them a mixture of water, C1 P. 79, 80.] [a " Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum, excidit columnas septem : im- molavit victimas suas, miscuit vinum, et proposuit mensam suam." Prov. ix. 1, 2, Vulg.J [3 Sed et per Salomonem Spiritus sanctus typum Dominici] sacrificii ante praemonstrat, immolats hostise, et panis et vini, sed et altaris et apostolorum facicns mentionem : Sapientia, inquit, aedificavit sibi domum, et subdidit columnas septem: mactavit suas hostias, miscuit in cratera vinum suum, et paravit mensam suam ; et misit servos suos, convocans cum excelsa praedicatione ad craterem, dicens : Qui est insipiens declinet ad me, et egentibus sensu dixit, Venite, edite de meis ,'panibus, et bibite vinum quod miscui vobis. Vinum mixtum declarat, id est, calicem Domini aqua et vino mixtum prophetica voce prsenuntiat. Cypriani Epist. lxiii.] XVII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 523 and for that purpose driven himself to such watery exposi tions, as this of Proverbs ix., which, without good warrant, he draweth to represent the Lord's supper : where if he had been urged by the adversaries, whereto the beasts slain were referred in this sacrament, he must have been driven to some violent comment. But whereto tendeth this pre paration ? Martin. But the protestants, counting it an idle superstitious cere- Mahtin, mony, here also frame their translation accordingly, suppressing alto- 22- gether this mixture or mingling, and instead thereof saying, " She Bibi. 1579. ¦'• hath drawn her wine,4" and, "drink the wine that I have drawn;" or (as in other of their bibles), " She hath poured out her wine," and, An. 1577. "the wine which I have poured out;" neither translation agreeing either with Greek or Hebrew. Not with the Greek, which doth ih-epaaev, evidently signify "mingling" and "mixture," as it is in the Latin, and as K^^aKa all the Greek church from the apostles' time hath used this word M'scui. in this very case whereof we now speak, of mingling water and wine in the chalice; St James and St Basil in their liturgies expressly testifying that Christ did so, as also St Cyprian in the place alleged ; Xafiolv to St Justin, in the end of his second apology, calling it of the same 7ro'7"^""') Greek word Kpapa, that is (according to Plutarch), wine mingled Mixtus calix. with water ; likewise St Iraeneus, in his fifth book near the beginning. See the sixth general council most fully treating hereof, and deducing Cone. Con- it from the apostles and ancient fathers, and interpreting this Greek c-an! 32°p' "' word by another equivalent, and more plain to signify this mixture, piywvai. Fulke. The authority of the holy scriptures with us is Fulke, more worth than the opinion of all the men in the world. 22, In the scripture we find "the fruit of the vine," water we find not ; therefore we account not water to be of any necessity in the celebration of the Lord's supper. In the primitive church we know water was used first of sobriety, then of ceremony, and at length it grew to be counted of necessity. The Armenians therefore are commendable in this point, that' they would never depart from the authority of the scriptures, to yield to the custom, practice, or judgment of any man. But against this mixture, as you surmise, we have translated "poured out" or " drawn." I confess, our [' " She hath drawen her wine," Geneva, 1560. " Drink of the wine that I have drawen," Id. v. 5.] [5 Geneva bible, 1560.] 524 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ch. translators should more simply, according to the word, have said, " mingled his wine," and " the wine that I have mingled;" but because that speech is not usual in the English tongue, it seemeth they regarded not so much the property of the word, as the phrase of our tongue. But that they had no purpose against the mixture of the wine with water in the sacrament, it is manifest by this reason, that none of them did ever think that this place was to be interpreted " of the Lord's supper," but generally, of such spiritual food as wisdom giveth to men's souls. Therefore it is certain they had no meaning to avoid the word of " mixing," for any such intent as you surmise. Martin, Martin. Thus then the Greek is neither " drawing of wine," nor 3' " pouring out thereof," as they translate, but " mingling." But the Hebrew perhaps signifieth both, or at the least one of the two, either " to draw," or " to pour out." Gentle reader, if thou have skill, look the ^DD Hebrew Lexicon of Pagnine, esteemed the best : if thou have not skill, ask, and thou shalt understand, that there is no such signification of this word in all the bible, but that it signifieth only mixture and mingling. A strange case, that to avoid this mingling of the cup, being a most certain tradition of the apostles, they have invented two other significations of this Hebrew word, which it never had before ! Fulke, Fulke. The dictionaries are more sure to teach what 2T a word doth signify, than what it doth not signify. I con fess, Pagnine giveth none other signification of that root "|DZ3> but miscuit. But even the word miscuit may signify "a pouring out," when there is no respect of joining divers things together, but of serving one with the cup, as TuUy useth the word : Qui alteri misceat mulsum, ipse non sitiens : " He that serveth another with sweet wine, when he is not athirst himself." So is the Hebrew word used, Esai. xix., where the prophet saith, " The Lord hath poured forth among them the spirit of error :" where the word of " mixture " is not so proper. Again, your own vulgar }DQD Latin interpreter, Prov. xxiii., translateth mimsach, a word derived from the same root, not for any mixture, but for drinking up, or making clean the cups : et student calicibus epotandis, "which study how to empty or drink up all that is in the cups." In Hebrew it is, " which go to seek strong wine," or " mingled wine." And if a mixture be granted XVII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 525 in the place you require, how prove you a mixture with water rather than with any thing else? Verily the circum stance of the place, if there must needs be a mixture, re quireth a mixture of spices, honey, or some such thing to make the wine delectable unto which wisdom doth invite, and allure all men to drink it, rather than of water only, to abate the strength of it. As also in the text, Prov. xxiii., the drunkards that continued at the wine, and went to seek "|DOD " mingled wine," went not to seek wine mingled with water, but some other delicate mixture. And Esai. v., where woe is pronounced to drunkards, the same word is used : " Woe be to them that are strong to drink wine, and men of might, limsoch, to mingle strong drink ;" not to mingle it -rQr& with water for sobriety, but with some other delectable matter to provoke drunkenness, as your vulgar interpreter translateth it. So that albeit the word did signify "to mingle" never so properly and certainly, you can make no good argument for mingling with water in that place, Prov. ix., where either it signifieth simply "to draw," "broach," or " pour out," or else to prepare with some other more pleasant mixture than of water only. 526 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH CHAPTER XVIII. Heretical Translation against the honour of Saints, namely of our blessed Lady. Martin, 1. Martin. Let us pass from God's holy sacraments to his honour able saints in heaven; and we shall find that these translations Ps. cxxxviii. pluck from them also as much honour as they may. In the psahn cxxxviii., where the catholic church and all antiquity readeth thus, Nimis honorati sunt amid tui, Deus 1, Sec. " Thy friends, O God, are become exceeding honourable, their princedom is exceedingly strength ened;" wliich verse is sung and said in the honour of the holy Psal. xiiv. apostles, agreeably to that in another psalm, Constitues eos principes super omnem terram, "Thou shalt appoint them princes over all the earth ;" what mean they in all their English bibles to alter it thus, niy-r " How dear are thy counsels (or thoughts) to me, O God ! O how great is the sum of them1 !" Doth not the Hebrew make more for the old received Latin translation, than for theirs, because the Hebrew word is used more commonly for to signify "friends" than "cogitations?" Doth not St Jerome so translate in his translation of the Psalms according to the Hebrew? doth not the great Rabbin R. Salomon? oi q>iXoi doth not the Greek put it out of doubt, wliich is altogether ac cording to the said ancient Latin translation? aou. Fulke, I. Fulke. The context of the verse going before, and also the verse following, not any envy against the saints of God, have moved our translators to depart from the vulgar trans lation, which is neither so proper for the words, and alto gether impertinent to the matter of the text. For when the prophet had in the verse going before celebrated the wonderful work of God in the framing of his body in his mother's womb, in this verse he breaketh out into an ex clamation to behold the marvellous and unsearchable wisdom of God's counsels, whose strength is above man's reach, whose number is as the sand of the sea. To answer R. Salomon, we have R. David Kimchi, as great a rabbin as he and [' " Nimis honorificati sunt amici tui, Deus," Vulg. "How dear are thy counsels unto me, O God: O how great is the sum of them," Psal. cxxxix. 17, Bishops' bible, 1584, and 1562. " How dear there fore are thy thoughts unto me, O God ! how great is the sum of them," Geneva, 1560.] XVIII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE HIBLE. 527 a more sincere interpreter, that expoundeth the whole verse even as we do. Martin. And you, my masters, that translate otherwise, I be- ju.ir-hn 2. seech you, is it in Hebrew, " How great is the sum of them, &c." and not rather, word for word, most plainly, " how are the heads of iiQW them strengthened, or their princedoms,'' as in the Greek also it is n_i,T:.._ most manifest? Why do you then hunt after novelties, and forsake i-.- - the trodden path of the ancient, and pass the bounds which our holy *", aPXaL forefathers have set and appointed, preferring your own singularities and new devices, even there where you cannot justly pretend either the Hebrew or Greek ? When the Hebrew Lexicon hath given the jjpjto. Tne_ common interpretation of this place, and then saith, Quidam exponunt, ^"'lsTa'i'n "Some expound it otherwise;" why had you rather be of that lesser radice " some that expound otherwise," than of the great society of all ancient ' icexapinopepiy Luke i. 28. "Hail, full of grace," Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, Rheims. " Hail, thou that art freely beloved," Geneva, 1557, 1560. " Hail, thou that art highly favoured," Authorised version, 1611.] XVIII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 529 Martin. They will say, the Greek word doth not so signify. Mahtin, 5. Doth it not ? I make themselves witnesses of the contrary, and their own translation in other places shall confute them, where they translate another word of the self-same nature and form, and in all respects like to this, " full of sores." If rjXKcopevos be " full of sores," why is not Luke xvi. 20. Kexapnapevq " full of grace ?" Let any Grecian of them all make me a difference in the nature and significancy of these two words. Again, if ulcerosus (as Beza translateth) be "full of sores," why is not gratiosa (as Erasmus translateth) "full of grace?" or why doth Beza marvel that Erasmus translated gratiosa, when himself translateth the like word ulcerosus? All which adjectives in osus (you know) signify "fulness," as perieulosus, cerumnosus. Yet what a stir doth Beza keep here in his annotations, to make the Greek word signify " freely beloved !" Fulke. The signification of the Greek word, with your Fulke, 5. foohsh cavillation of ulcerosus, I have discussed sufficiently, cap. i. sect. 43. Martin. But hath it indeed any such signification ? Tell us, you Martin, 6. that profess this great skill of the tongues, what syllable is there in xaPlTaaai. this word that soundeth to that signification ? St Chrysostom and the comment, in Greek doctors, that should best know the nature of this Greek word, say that it sigmfieth, to make gracious, and acceptable, and beloved, and beautiful, and amiable, and so to be desired; as when the psalm saith, " The king shall desire thy beauty." Beza himself saith, that it Psal. xiiv. is word for word gratiftcata, "made grateful;" and yet he expoundeth it " accepted before God," and translateth it " freely beloved," because he will have no singular grace, or goodness, or virtue, resident in our blessed Lady, but all by imputation, and acceptation, whereof I have spoken before. St Athanasius, a Greek doctor, saith, that she had s. Athan. de this title Kexaptrapievq, because the Holy Ghost descended into the Virgin, filling her with all graces and virtues. And I beseech the reader to see his words, which are many more concerning this fulness of grace and all spiritual gifts. St Jerome, that knew the Greek word Ep. 140. in as well as the protestants, readeth gratia plena, and findeth no Psal. xiiv. fault with this interpretation; but saith plainly, she was so saluted, "full of grace," because she conceived him in whom all fulness of the deity dwelt corporally. Fulke. Look in the best Greek lexicons, and you shall Fulke, 6. find it the same signification that we translate, and none other. Chrysostom is of the same judgment, as I. have shewed in the place above mentioned. That the virgin Mary was justified before God by faith, imputed to her for righteous ness, without works or justice, as you will have it called, we doubt no more of her than of Abraham. But that she was r l 34 [fulke. J 530 a defence of the English [ch. also sanctified with most excellent graces, and endowed in her soul with all christian virtues, Beza, and all that esteem Beza in the word, will confess as much as is convenient for her honour, so nothing be derogated from the honour of God. That which Athanasius saith, we do likewise admit; and that which Jerome writeth also. But this is all the controversy, whether the virgin Mary were freely accepted and beloved of God, and so by his Spirit endued with gracious virtues; or whether for her virtues which she had of herself she were worthy to be beloved of God, and deserved that honour whereof she was vouchsafed to become the mother of God. Athanasius saith expressly, " that all those graces and gifts , were freely given her by the obumbration or overshadow ing of the Holy Ghost, which the angel promised should come upon her." Martin, 7. Martin. Now let the English Bezites come with their new term, tridgef^1 "freely beloved," and control these and all other ancient fathers, both theawOTd ta Greek and Latin, and teach them a new signification of the Greek word, London, in which they knew not before. Let John Keltridge, one of their great his Sermons ** . , within the preachers in London, come and tell us, that " the Septuaginta and the ed, foi. 14. best translations in Greek have no such words as we use in the Ave ranee and" Marie ;" but that the word which the Septuaginta uses, is Kexapirapevq, in"m^nyPofde &c- Who ever heard such a jest, that the preacher of the word of derKvW G°°- m London, (so he is called in the title of his book,) and preacher So he called before the Jesuits and Seminaries in the tower, which is next degree to the seminary, the disputers there ; whose sermons be solemnly printed, and dedicated to wouidcaii a one of the queen's council ; who seemeth to be such a Grecian, that he nastery.ora confuteth the vulgar Latin translation by the signification of the Greek nerV* nun~ word, and in other places of his book allegeth the Greek text ; that Page 37 of this man for all this referreth us to the Septuaginta either as authors of St Luke's Gospel, which is too ridiculous, or as translators thereof, as though St Luke had written in Hebrew ; yea, as though the whole New Testament had been written in Hebrew, (for so no doubt he presupposed,) and that the Septuaginta had translated it into Greek as they did the Old, who were dead three hundred years before St Luke's Gospel and the New Testament was written? Fulke, 7. Fulke. Concerning John Keltridge, against whose ig norance and arrogance you insult, I can say nothing, because I have not seen his book. But knowing how impudently you slander me, M. Whitaker, Beza, and every man almost with whom you have any dealing, I may well suspect your fidelity in this case, and think the matter is not so hard against John XVIH.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 531 Keltridge as you make it seem to be. If he have overshot himself, as you say, he is the more unwise : if you slander him, as you do others, you are most of all to blame. Martin. All this is such a pitiful jest as were incredible, if his Martin, 8. printed book did not give testimony. Pitiful, I say, because the simple people count such their preachers jolly fellows and great clerks, because they can talk of the Greek and of the Hebrew text, as this man doth also concerning the Hebrew letter Tau, whether it had in old time the Vol. n. part form of a cross or no, even as wisely and as skilfully as he did of the Septuaginta, and the Greek word in St Luke's Gospel. Whose incredible folly and ignorance in the tongues perhaps I would never have men tioned, (because I think the rest are sorry and ashamed of him,) but that he boasteth of that whereof he hath no skill, and that the people may take him for a very pattern and example of many other like boasters and braggers among them ; and that when they hear one talk lustily of the Hebrew and Greek, and cite the text in the said tongues, they may always remember John Keltridge their preacher, and say to themselves, What if this fellow also be like John Keltridge ? Fulke. Reserving John Keltridge to the trial and de- Fulke, 8. fence of himself, I say you have shewed yourself as ridiculous in this book divers times ; and so have many that bear a greater countenance among you ten times than John Keltridge doth among us, howsoever it pleaseth you to make him the "next degree to the disputers." But if John Keltridge have shewed himself to be a vain boaster of that knowledge where of perhaps he is ignorant, what reason is it that other learned men, which know the tongues indeed, should be drawn into suspicion of ignorance for his folly, but that you dehght by all means to discredit their learning and good gifts of God in them? — to whom if you were comparable yourself, yet it were not tolerable that you should seek their re proach before their unskilfulness may plainly be reproved. Martin. But to proceed : these great Grecians and Hebricians, that Martin, 9. control all antiquity, and the approved ancient Latin translation, by scanning the Greek and Hebrew words ; that think it a great corruption, Gen. iii., to read, Ipsa conteret caput tuum1, " She shall bruise thy head," t1 The LXX. have Gen. iii. 15, abros oov rqpqaei KecpaXqv. The Vulgate renders the whole passage thus: " Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius ¦ ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus."] ' 34—2 radice and 532 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. Sand. Rock because it pertaineth to our Lady's honour, calling it a corruption of the popish church; whereas St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Gregory, St Ber nard, and the rest read so, as being the common received text in their time, (though there hath been also always the other reading, even in the vulgar Latin translation, and therefore it is not any late reformation of these new correctors, as though the Hebrew and Greek text before had been unknown; ) these controllers, I say, of the Latin text by the Hebrew, against our Lady's honour, are in another place content to dissemble the Hebrew word, and that also for small devotion to the blessed Virgin : namely, Jerem. vii. and xiiv., where the prophet inveigheth against them that offer sacrifice to the " Queen of heaven." This they tliink is very well, because it may sound in the people's ears against the use of the catholic church, which calleth our Lady " Queen of heaven." But they know very well that the Hebrew word doth not signify "queen" in any other place of the scripture ; and that the rabbins and later Hebri cians, whom they gladly follow, deduce it otherwise, to signify rather the whole corps and frame of heaven, consisting of all the beautiful stars see Pagn. in and planets ; and the Septuaginta call it not only f3aoi~Xiaoav, " queen," but Tqv orpandv, "the host of heaven," Jerem. vii. ; and St Jerome not only reginam, but rather, militiam coeli; and when he nameth it liih" reginam, "queen," he saith we must understand it of the moon, to " T which and to the other stars they did sacrifice and commit idolatry. But the protestants, against their custom of scanning the Hebrew and the Greek, translate here, " Queen of heaven," for no other cause in the world but to make it sound against her, whom catholics truly call and worthily honour as "Queen of heaven," because her son is King, and she exalted above angels and all other creatures. See the New Test. Annot. Acts i. 14. Fulke, 9. Fulke. We think it indeed a shameful corruption of the scripture that your vulgar Latin text, for ipsum or ipse, as it is in the Greek, readeth ipsa ; and blasphemous it is, to ascribe that to the mother of Christ, which is proper unto himself. But many of the ancient fathers did read so, and therefore Fulke did ignorantly belike in calling it a corrup tion of the popish church. The best property I find in you, for which I am beholding to you, is that when you have made a he, and slandered me, you will note the place your self, where I may be discharged, and your own impudency be nisc. sand, convinced. My words in the place by you noted be these : '"' £' Finally, how the Romish church in these last days hath kept the scripture from corruption, although I could shew by an hundred examples, yet this one shall suffice for all. The very first promise of the gospel that is in the scripture, Gen. iii., 'that the seed of the woman should break the ser- XVIII'l TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 533 pent's head,' the popish church hath either wilfully corrupted, or neghgently suffered to be depraved thus : Ipsa conteret caput tuum, * she shall break thine head;' referring that to the woman which God speaketh expressly to the seed of the woman." Whether the mystery of iniquity, working in the Latin church long before the apostasy thereof into the king dom of antichrist, began this corruption, I leave it in doubt : but that the popish church hath suffered this depravation to continue, it is out of all question, although you say you have the other reading also, which though some copies have, yet will you not admit it to be authentical. And whereas you brag that this reading hath been always in your vulgar Latin translation, Hentenius confesseth that of twenty-eight ancient copies, by which he revised the vulgar translation, he found it only in two. As for St Ambrose, how he did read, it is not certain : for in his book De fuga sceculi, cap. vii., where this text is cited, though the prmted books have ipsa, yet there is nothing in his exposition that agreeth therewith ; and seeing that he followed the Greek text, which hath the pronoun of the masculine gender, it is like he did read rather ipse: but because his Greek was very corrupt, so that for Teiptjcrei, conteret, he did read Tr\pr\oei, servabit; there is no great account to be made of his reading. St Augustine in Psalm chi. readeth ipsa, but he referreth it to the church, not to the virgin Mary; as also for conteret, out of the corrupt Greek he readeth observabit. Gregory2 followeth the same corrupt version out of the Greek, Ipsa observabit; but he referreth it to every christian man, which is the seed of the [} Nostis enim et quid dictum est mulieri, vel potius serpenti, cum audiret Deus peccatum primi hominis : Ipsa tuum observabit caput, et tu ejus observabis caleaneum. In magno mysterio dictum, in figura dictum ecclesia? futurae, facte de latere viri sui, et hoc dormientis. Erat autem Adam forma futuri. Hoc apostolus dicit : Qui est forma futuri. Prse- figuratum est quod futurum erat, facta est ecclesia de -latere domini dormientis in cruce. Nam de latere crucifixi percusso, sacramenta ec clesiae profluxerunt. Augustini Enarrat. in Psalm, ciii. Opera, Vol. iv. pp. 1668, 1669.] [2 Cum vero antiquus hostis neque in exordio intentionis ferit, neque in itihere actionis intercipit, duriores in fine laqueos tendit. Quem tanto nequius obsidet, quanto solum sibi remansisse ad deci- piendum videt. Hos namque fini suo appositos laqueos propheta con- spexerat, cum dicebat : Ipsi caleaneum meum observabunt. Quia enim in 534 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cil. woman, not to the virgin Mary, Mor. Lib. n. cap. xxxviii.: by which it is evident that your vulgar Latin text was not received in the church of Rome for six hundred years after Christ; for you read conteret, and not observabit. Only Bernard indeed, a late writer, hath your reading, ipsa, con teret1, which he expoundeth as prophecy of the virgin Mary, who withstood the temptations of the devil; not understand ing the promise of the overcoming of the devil by Christ, even as the apostle alludeth to it, "the Lord shall tread down Satan under your feet." Rom. xvi. The same Bernard, Sermon, de Villic. Iniquo2, readeth the text, Gen. iv. Si recte offeras, et non recte dividas, after the Greek : by which also it is plain, as by other arguments, that your vulgar Latin translation was not received for a thousand years after Christ. How true therefore it is that you said, Ipsa conteret caput tuum was the common received text in the ancient fathers' time, the readers may see and judge. But the chief complaint is behind: that in Jeremiah xhv. 7, we translate the " Queen of heaven," as the Septua ginta, Jerome, and the vulgar Latin translation doth ; and we only do it in despite of the virgin Mary, because the papists blasphemously call her the Queen of heaven. The Hebrew word indeed may signify " queen," although with those points it be not elsewhere read for " a queen;" and it may signify the workmanship, but then you must supply aleph of calcaneo finis est corporis, quid per hunc nisi terminus signatur actionisl Sive ergo maligni spiritus, sive pravi quique homines, illorum superbite sequaces, caleaneum observant, cum actionis bonae finem vitiare desi- derant. Unde et eidem serpenti dicitur : Ipsa tuum observabit caput, et tu caleaneum ejus. Caput quippe serpentis observare, est initia suggestionis ejus aspicere, et manu sollicite considerationis a cordis aditu funditus extirpare. Gregorii Moral. Lib. I. cap. xxxvi. Opera, Vol. i. p. 36, edit. Bened. 1705.] \} Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem. Et si adhuc dubitas quod de Maria non dixerit, audi quod sequitur: Ipsa conteret caput tuum. Cui haec servata victoria est, nisi Mariae ? Ipsa procul dubio caput con- trivit venenatum, quae omnimodam maligni suggestionem tam de camis illecebra, quam de mentis superbia, deduxit ad nihilum. Bernardi Homil. n. de Laudibus Virgin. Matris. Opera, Vol. i. p. 744, edit. Mabillon. 1719.] Q2 Edit. Paris. 1602. p. 241 . Cave places this sermon among those wrongly ascribed to Bernard. Vol. n. p. 708. edit. Montf.] XVIII. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 535 the root, that is wanting, and resteth under no long vowel; and so some protestants do translate it, as Tremellius and Junius. But if we be accused of heretical translation, when we join with your vulgar Latin, with Jerome, with the Septuaginta, it is very strange that they should not bear the blame with us. Certain it is, no protestant did ever teach that the Jews did worship the virgin Mary for the queen of heaven ; but the sun, the moon, or some great star, as Pagnine saith. How truly you call the virgin Mary "queen of heaven," and how well you prove it in your notes upon Acts i. 14, some other more convenient time and place may be granted to consider. Martin. Again, why doth the Geneva New Testament make Martin, St Matthew to say, that "he" (to wit, Joseph) "called his name ' Jesus 3 ?" Why not "she," as well as he ? For in St Luke the angel saith Cap.';. 25.' to our Lady also, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus4." St Matthew then, speaking indifferently, and not limiting it to him or her, why do they give this preeminence to Joseph rather than to the blessed Virgin ? Did not both Zachary and also Elisabeth his wife by revelation give the Luke i. eo. name of John to John the Baptist ? yea, did not Elisabeth the mother ' first so name him before Zachary her husband ? Much more may we think that the blessed Virgin, the natural mother of our Saviour, gave him the name of Jesus, than Joseph his putative father : especially if we consider that the angel revealed the name first unto her, saying that she should so call him ; and the Hebrew word, Isaiah vii., whereunto the angel alludeth, is the feminine gender, and referred by the great rabbins, rabbi Abraham and rabbi David, unto her, saying expressly in their commentaries, Et vocabit ipsa puella, "And the maid herself shall call." And surely, the usual pointing of the Greek text, (for Beza [a Kal irapeXaPe Tqv yvvaiKa abrov- Kal ovk iyivaoKev avrqv, ecos ov ereKe tov vlbv avrqs tov irpcoTOTOKOV Kal imXeae rb Svopa avrov 'iqoovv, Matt. i. 24, 25. "And Joseph, as soon as he awoke out of sleep, did as the angel of the Lord bade, and took his wife unto him ; and knew her not, till she had brought forth her firstborn son, and called his name Jesus," Geneva Test. 1557, v. 24, 25. " And Joseph, rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son, and called his name Jesus," Rhemish version, 1582.] [* Mq cbofiov, Tftapidp- evpes yap xaPLV ™P* TV Qe& K<" ®ov> ovXXqTpy iv yam-pi, Kal regrj vlbv, Kal KaXeoets to Svopa abrov 'iqoovv, Luke i. 30, 31. " Fear not, Mary !" &c. " Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and (shalt, Rhemish) bear a son, and (thou, Rhemish) shalt call his name Jesus," Geneva, 1557, Rhemish version, 1582.] 536 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. maketh other points of his own,) is much more for that purpose. Now, if they will say that Theophylact understandeth it of Joseph, true it is, and so it may be understood very well : but if it may be understood of our Lady also, and rather of her than of him, why doth your translation exclude this other interpretation ? Fulke, Fulke. The matter is not worth the weight of an hair, 10" whether we read "he called," or "she called;" for both called him so. But because Joseph had a commandment in the same chapter that he should call his name Jesus, it is more probable, that St Matthew in this place meant of him, rather than her : at the least, it is no heretical translation to say, that Joseph did that, which he was in a few verses before commanded to do ; and it was more ordinary and usual, that the man gave the name rather than the woman, although in this case the woman had more right than the man. As for Elisabeth's example, [it] proveth nothing, be cause she spake when her husband was dumb. Martin, Martin. Where by the way I must tell you, and elsewhere perhaps more at large, that it is your common fault to make some one doctor's interpretation the text of your translation, and so to exclude all the rest that expound it otherwise ; which youlmow is such a fault in a translator as can by no means be excused. Secondly, the reader may here observe and learn, that if they shall hereafter defend their translation of any place by some doctor's exposition, agreeable thereunto, that will not serve nor suffice them ; because every doctor may say his opinion in his com- See chap. i. mentaries, but that must not be made the text of scripture, because other chap. x. ' doctors expound it otherwise ; and being in itself, and in the original chap. xix. tongue, ambiguous, and indifferent to divers senses, it may not be num. 1. restrained or limited by translation, unless there be a mere necessity, when the translation cannot possibly or hardly express the ambiguity and indiffereney of the original text. Fulke, Fulke. The authority of one doctor, agreeing with the X1, propriety of the original tongue, is more worth than an hundred against it. We never follow one doctor, as you falsely slander us, to make his interpretation the text, but where that one doctor did see the truth of the natural sense according to the tongue, that perhaps was hid from other doctors, whose writings we have. As for ambiguities, and indifferences unto diverse senses, [they] are better reserved to commentaries and lectures upon the scriptures, than that they either can or ought to be retained in the translations. XVIII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 537 Martin. As for example, in this controversy concerning saints, Martin, St Peter speaketh so ambiguously, either that he will remember them l2, after his death, or they shall remember him, that some of the Greek j^^ti fathers gathered, and concluded thereupon, (fficum. in Caten. Gagneius ™v TySe, in hunc locum,) "That the saints in heaven remember us on earth, and S°^*J" make intercession for us1." Which ambiguity both in the Greek and the bnkpVL Latin should be also kept and expressed in the English translation; and fr"'1"™"'- we have endeavoured as near as we could possibly so to make it, because of the divers interpretations of the ancient fathers. But it may seem perhaps to the reader, that the said ambiguity cannot be kept in our English tongue, and that our own translation also can have but one sense. If it be so, and if there be a necessity of one sense, then, as I said, the translator in that respect is excused. But let the good reader consider also, that the Calvinists in restraining the sense of this place, follow not necessity, but their heresy, that saints pray not for us ; which is evident by this, that they restrain it in their Latin Beza. translations also, where there is no necessity at all, but it might be as ambiguous and indifferent as in Greek, if it pleased them; yea, when they print the Greek Testament only without any translation, Nov. Test. yet here they put the Latin in the margin, according as they will steph. ann! have it read, and as though it might be read no otherwise than they ' ' prescribe. Fulke. CEcumenius, who hved in a superstitious time, Fulke, telleth, that "some men understood this saying of Peter by 2" an hyperbaton, &c, meaning to shew that the saints, even after their death, do remember those things which they have done here for them that are alive : but other, handling this matter plainly, &c, do give the usual sense." First, CEcume nius counteth this an enforced exposition, because it cannot stand but by an hyperbaton. Secondly, he speaketh never a word of the intercession of saints for us. Thirdly, he pre- ferreth the common sense, that all the fathers before him given of this text, as plain and simple : and yet this must be sufficient for us to change our interpretation, although we were put in fault immediately before, as though we made one doctor's interpretation a sufficient ground of our translation. Yet is not this an opinion approved, but reported only, by CEcumenius; and CEcumenius himself a doctor of as httle P TovreoTl, KaBeKcvoTqv Kal biqveKas rqv tovtcov pvqpqv, fiavXovTai irapiorav dirb tovtov, on Kal pera ddvarov oi dyioi pepvqvrai tcov Tfjbe, Kal irpeo^evovoiv virep tCov £dvrav. aXXoi be dirXds peraxeipi&pevoi to pqrbv, ovtco voovoi, &c. OScumen. in 2 Epist. Cathol. Petr. Comment. Vol. n. p. 534. Lut. Paris. 1631.] 538 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. authority as any other, in respect of the late season in which he hved. As for Gagneius, that came after him, who seeth not how httle we are to account of his credit, that would wrest the deciding of an unprofitable question out of this place, "whether saints make intercession for us?" which, if it were granted, it followeth not that we must make intercession to them. XIX.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BII1LE. 539 CHAPTER XIX. Heretical Translation against the distinction of Latria and Dulia. Martin. In this restraining of the scripture to the sense of some Martin, 1. one doctor, there is a famous example in the epistle to the Hebrews1, Heb. xi. 21. where the apostle saith either, Jacob adored the top of Joseph's sceptre, as many read and expound ; or else, that he adored toward the top of his sceptre, as other read and interpret ; and beside these, there is no other interpretation of this place in all antiquity, but in St Augustine Quest, in only, as Beza confesseth : yet are they so bold to make his exposition 1579'. Blb' only, and his commentary peculiar to him alone, the text of the scripture in their translation, saying, "Jacob leaning on the end of his staff, worshipped God;" and so excluding all other senses, and ex positions of all the other fathers, excluding, and condemning their own former translations, adding two words more than are in the Greek Bib. 1562. text, "leaning, God;" forcing abrov to signify abrov, which may be, but is as rare as virgee ejus for virgce sues ; turning the other words clean, out of their order, and place, and form of construction, which they must needs have correspondent and answerable to the Hebrew Gen.xivii.3i. text, from whence they were translated ; which Hebrew words them- 'l'!- TJ^ltt'^ selves translate in this order : " He worshipped toward the bed's head." pj^y^; If "he worshipped toward the bed's head," according to the Hebrew, ._.,.,,._ ' then "did he worship toward the top of his sceptre," according to the t Greek; the difference of both being only in these words, "sceptre," vmev e7ri and "bed," (because the Hebrew is ambiguous to both,) and not in to ampov the order or construction of the sentence. avToS. Fulke. The restraining of simple men from error is Fulke, 1. counted of you the restraining of the scripture; as though the scripture were a "nose of wax2," as some of you have called it, which might be writhed every way; and especially it pleaseth you when it may be wrested to some colour of your f1 IliaTei 'laKfflj3 dirodvqoKav eKaorov Tav vlav 'laaqcp ebXbyqoe, Kal irpooeKvvqoev iirl to cucpov rijs pdfibov avrov, Heb. xi. 21. " Fide Jacob moriens singulos filiorum Joseph benedixit, et adoravit fastigium virgae ejus," Vulg. " By faith Jacob when he was a dying blessed both the sons of Joseph, and bowed himself toward the top of his sceptre," Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539. " And worshipped toward the top of his sceptre," Bishops' bible, 1584. "And leaning on the end of his staff worshipped God," Geneva, 1557. " And worshipped leaning on the top of his staff," Authorised version, 1611. " And adored the top of his rod," Rheims, 1582.] Q2 Pighius, Hierarch. Eccles. Assert. Lib. ni. c. iii. fol. 80. ed, 1538.] 540 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. error. So have ye not one place of scripture clear on your side for any of your heresies, but you are glad to uphold ambiguities and diversities of senses; whereas, if you had the truth, you might have texts of infallible certainty, whereof there could not be divers interpretations without manifest violence offered unto the words and true signification of them. But concerning the place now in question, your vulgar text, omitting the preposition, which is both in the Greek and in the Hebrew, hath committed a manifest error in saying, "that Jacob worshipped the top of his rod or staff;" where St Augustine1 hath rightly observed the true sense of the place, and saith, that "Jacob, as a weak old man, worshipped upon the top of his staff," that is, " leaning on his staff." The Hebrew is, " towards the bed's head." Although it is not unlike, that either the apostle did read the word mattah, which we read mittah; or else that mittah signifieth "a staff," as well as mattah. For it is not like, as Beza saith, "that Jacob kept his bed, when Joseph came first to him; for after it was told Joseph that his father was sick." That other translators observed not this matter, whereto shall it be imputed, but to human imperfection? That we add to the text, it is false: the words "leaning" and "God" are printed in the small letter, to signify that they are not of the original text, but added for plainness. And yet the sense may stand without them : " and he worshipped upon the end or top of his staff." That avTov is "forced to signify avTov," it is a forgery of you, and no enforcement by us ; for it is in a manner as commonly taken so as otherwise, except there be another antecedent to whom it may be referred ; then, to avoid ambiguity, it is avTov, rather than avTov, as Matth. iv., "his paths," "his meat," "his hand;" Matth. v., "his disciples," and elsewhere in every place2. Martin, 2. Martin. To make it more plain: when the prophet David saith, ¦jtjoos vaov. Adorabo ad templum sanctum tuum, Psalm v. and cxxxvii. is not the true [} Nam facile intelligeretur senem, qui virgam ferebat eo more, quo ilia aetas baculum solet, ut se inclinavit ad Deum adorandum, id utique fecisse super cacumen virgae suse, quam sic ferebat, ut super eam caput inclinando adoraret Deum. August. Question, in Genesim. cap. clxii. Opera, Vol. m. pp. 661, 662.] [2 The Vulgate reads abrov, but the text of Stephens, Plantin, Gries- bach, and Scholtz, abrov ; and abrov is often put for eavrov3 XIX.]. TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 541 translation and grammatical sequel of the words thus, " I will adore toward thy holy temple ?" Is it not a common phrase in the scripture, that the people of God adored toward Jerusalem, toward his holy mount, eh oops. before the ark, toward the place where his feet stood? May any man i Kings' viii. be so bold, by adding and transposing to alter and obscure all such ^ai. vii!"'" places of holy scripture, that there may appear no manner of adoration ei* rT°" toward or before a creature ; and for worshipping or " adoring" toward psal. cxxxi. the things aforesaid, and the like, may we say, leaning upon those things to worship, or "adore" God? Were they afraid, lest those speeches of holy scripture might warrant and confirm the catholic and christian manner of "adoring" our Saviour Christ, toward the holy rood, at, or before the image and crucifix, before the altar, and so forth ? For had they not feared this, why should they translate iirl, " leaning upon," rather than, " towards?" yea, why in Genesis, " towards his bed's head," and here not, "towards?" Fulke. You abound in leisure, thus to trifle about nothing. Fulke, 2. We allow "worshipping toward the temple," "the holy hill," "the footstool," "the ark of God," and such like : yea, if you will have it, "toward the bed's head," or "the top of his staff," what gain you for the worshipping of images, forbidden by the second commandment, or before images? For so you would creep upon poor men's consciences, first, to worship before images, then to worship images, thirdly, to worship them with dulia and not with latria, at last to worship the image of God, of Christ, of the Trinity, with latria, even the same worship that is due to God himself. Martin. And, which is more, when the ancient Greek fathers, Martin, 3. Chrys. (Ecum. in Collectan. Damasc. Lib. i. pro imaginibus, Leont. apud Damasc. put so little force either in this preposition iirl, or the other »/"**> eit- alleged, that they expound all those speeches as if the prepositions were of phrase only, and not of signification, saying, " Jacob adored -n? p&pSio Joseph's sceptre, the people of Israel adored the temple, the ark, the ^"*" holy mount, the place where his feet stood," and the like ; whereby toistoVois St Damascene proveth the adoration of creatures, named dulia, namely ^"ir^oa- of the cross and of the sacred images : if, I say, they make so little Kvveiv. force of the prepositions, that they infer not only adoration towards the thing, but adoration of the thing ; how do these godly translators, of all other words, so strain and rack the little particle iirl, to signify "leaning upon," that it shall in no wise signify anything tending to wards adoration? Fulke. The worship that Chrysostom and CEcumenius Fulke, 3. speak of, is a civil reverence done to Joseph, or to his sceptre, in respect of the kingdom of Ephraim, that should 542 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [(JH. be set up in his posterity. What Damascene gathereth hereof, to maintain idolatry, we regard not: certain it is, that Jacob worshipped none but God, and bowed himself either toward the bed's head, or leaning upon his staff, as St Augustine saith : " That they which follow constrained expo sitions, are enforced to neglect the prepositions, it is no warrant for us, when we see how the sense may best stand without making the prepositions, which the Holy Ghost useth, idle or unprofitable, both in the Hebrew and in the Greek." And if eirl should signify "toward," as it doth not properly, but "upon," your counterfeit distinction of dulia and latria should never the sooner be received. Martin, 4. Martin. And if the Greek doctors suffice not to satisfy these great Grecians herein, tell me, you that have skill in the Hebrew, whether in the foresaid speeches cited out of the Psalms there be any force in the Hebrew prepositions? Surely, no more than if we should say _._ L in English, without prepositions, "Adore ye his holy hill:" "we will D ", : adore the place where his feet stood :" " Adore ye his footstool." For Psal. xcvin. r " cxxxi. , you know that there is the same preposition also, when it is said, D ' 7. because it importeth a shadow of Peter's primacy ; but yet your mahce is so great against Beza, (whose sincerity in this case you should rather commend, if there were any spark of honest equity in you,) that you cannot pass it over without quarrelling and cavilling. But your pretence is to know the reason why they do it. I have some marvel that you should be ignorant of such things as are counted so material for the maintenance of the pope's P eat eiredqKe tco Sipcovi Svopa Uerpov, Mark iii. 16. " Et imposuit Simoni nomen Petrus," Vulg. " Primum Simonem (et imposuit Simoni nomen Petrum)," Bezse versio, edit. 1556, p. 47. The Geneva Testa ment of 1557 has it thus : "And he named Simon, Peter." The Testa ment appended to the first edition of the Geneva Bible, 1560, has it thus, from Beza's version: "And the first was Simon, and he named Simon Peter." Upon this verse Beza has the following note, shewing upon what authority he so translated it : " Primum Simonem, irpdrov Sipcova. Haec verba testatur Erasmus in nonnullis Grsecis codicibus extare, neque tamen ea admittit, sed ex Matthaso resumpta arbitratur. Ego vero non dubito quin haec sit germana lectio. Nam praeterquam quod ita loquitur Matthseus et Lucas, nisi ita legas, versiculus proximus incipiens a particula icai, cum duobus sequentibus, nullum prorsus verbum habebit cum quo connecti possit. Nov. Test. p. 47, 48. The word "first" is omitted in the Genevan Testament of 1557, and all the other English versions.] 554 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. primacy, especially since Beza telleth you so plainly the reason of it. True it is, that the common printed books have not that addition. But Beza taketh Erasmus to witness, that in divers Greek copies these words are expressed; and be cause they agree best with the context, Beza translateth them out of those copies. For except you so read, saith Beza, the next verse, beginning of the particle Kal, shall have no word at all with which it may be knit. But in St Matthew, you say, he " suspected that the word 'first5 was added by some papist for Peter's primacy." He only object eth, What if it were so? and answereth the objection himself out of St Mark ; as upon St Mark, for the coherence with that which followeth. Wherefore it is not without great and mahcious impudence, that you charge him with contradiction where there is none, and where he saith more toward your cause than any of you could say for yourselves. Martin, 8. Martin. There is also another addition of theirs, either proceed ing of ignorance, or of the accustomed humour, when they trans- Col. i. 23. late thus x : "If ye continue stablished in the faith, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard how it was preached to every creature;" or, "whereof ye have heard how that it is preached;" or, "whereof ye have heard, and which hath been preached to every creature," &e. For all these varieties they have, and none according to the Greek text, which is word for word as ou riKobaa- the vulgar Latin interpreter hath most sincerely translated it : "Un- Te, tov Kti- moveaD]e from the hope of the gospel, wliich you have heard, which is, or hath been preached among all creatures," &c. So that the apostle's exhortation is unto the Colossians, that they continue grounded and stable in the faith and gospel, which they had heard and received Q1 Eiye impevere Ttj irlorei TedepeXicopevoi Kal ebpaioi, Kai pq pera- Kivovpevoi airb Ttjs iXirlbos tov evayyeXlov oS qKovoare, tov Kqpvxdevros iv irdoy tj nrloei rfj biro tot obpavbv, Col. i. 23. " Si tamen permanetis in fide fundati et stabiles, et immobiles a spe evangelii, quod audistis, quod prsedicatum est in universa creatura, quse sub coelo est," Vulg. " If ye continue grounded and stablished in the faith, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, whereof ye have heard, how that it is preached (how it was preached, Bishops' bible, 1584) among all creatures which are under heaven," Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539. " Whereof ye have heard and which hath been preached to every crea ture," Geneva, 1557, 1560. " If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven," Authorised version.] XX.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 555 of their first apostles ; as in the Epistle to the Romans, and to the Rom. xvi. Galatians, and to the Thessalonians, and to the Hebrews, and to Timothy, 2 Thess. ii.' and St John in his first Epistle, ii. 24., and St Jude, 3. and 20., all fmm**'. use the like exhortations. 2Tim.i.&n. Fulke. Here is no addition of any word that may not Fulke, 8. be comprehended in the Greek. For ov, being the genitive case, signifieth not only "which," but also "whereof," or "of which," and Ktipv)(6evTos, " that hath been, or which hath been preached." Here is only the poor word "how," which is a superfluous word, even in our Enghsh; for the sense is all one if you leave it out : " immoveable from the hope of the gospel, of which you have heard that it hath been preached among, or to all creatures." Here is therefore no addition to the text, but a sense differing from that which pleaseth you best ; and yet your vulgar Latin may well bear that sense which our translators do follow. Martin. But this doth not so well like the protestants, which Martin, 9. with Hymenaeus and Alexander, and other old heretics, have fallen 1 Tim. i. & vi. from their first faith ; and therefore they alter the apostle's plain speech with certain words of their own, and they will not have him say, "Be immoveable in the faith and gospel wliich you have heard and received," but, "whereof you have heard how that it is preached;" as though he spake not of the gospel preached to them, but of a gospel which they had only heard of, that was preached in the world. Certain it is, these words, "whereof you have heard how it was preached," are not so in the Greek ; . but, " which you have heard, which hath been preached:' which is as much to say, as that they should con tinue constant in the faith and gospel which themselves had received, and which was then preached and received in the whole world. So say we to our dear countrymen, " Stand fast in the faith, and be un- moveable from the hope of the gospel, which you heard of your first apostles, which was, and is preached in all the world." If the pro testants like not this exhortation, they do according to their translation. Fulke. The Lord is witness, there is nothing liketh the Fulke, 9. protestants better than that all nations should continue grounded and stable in that faith and gospel which they had heard and received of their first apostles : but in this place our translators understand, not only that continuance in the gospel; but also they comprehend the mystery of the preach ing of the gospel to the Gentiles, whereof the apostle in this text beginneth to speak, that the Colossians might know 556 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. that they have been instructed in that gospel, which at such time as the apostle did write unto them, had been spread by preaching, according to our Saviour Christ's commandment, over all the world. As for your brutish collection, "as though he spake not of the gospel preached to them, but of a gospel, which they had only heard of, that was preached in the world ;" what ground can it have of our translation, accord ing to the sense I shew that the translators followed? Is it possible they should continue in a gospel that was not preached unto them, but whereof they had heard only a fame, that it was preached to others ? The whole context before enforceth as much as you say is the sense of the place. And the vulgar translator seemeth to favour this sense that our translators follow, rather than that bare trans lation of yours, because he saith not, a spe evangelii quod audistis prcedicati in universa creatura, &c; but a spe evangelii quod audistis, quod prcedicatum est in universa creatura. The words of the exhortation you make to your countrymen are well to be liked, if your meaning were as good. But when by "the gospel" you mean popish traditions, by "your first apostles," not the apostles of Christ, but of the bishop of Kome, by "which was preached in all the world" the doctrine of antichristian apostasy; we are so to consider, that under so good and holy words so devilish and detestable a meaning is craftily covered and cloked with hypocrisy. XXI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 557 CHAPTER XXI. Certain other Heretical Treacheries and Corruptions, worthy of observation. Martin. They hold this position, that the scriptures are not hard Martin, 1. to be understood, that so every one of them may presume to in terpret and expound them. And because St Peter saith plainly, that 2 Pet. m. St Paul's epistles are hard, and other scriptures also, which the un- concerning learned (saith he) pervert to their own destruction1 ; therefore they of^hTscrip- labour tooth and nail to make this subtle difference, that St Peter saith BeS'in An not, " Paul's epistles are hard," but " some things in St Paul's epistles not- are hard," (as though that were not all one ;) and therefore they trans late so, that it must needs be understood of the things, and not of the epistles, pretending the Greek, which yet they know in some copies ev oU cannot be referred to the things, but must needs be understood of the ^° T!,"r epistles. Wherefore, the Greek copies being indifferent to both, and CrisP- p as Kal iv iraoais Toils iirioroXais, XdXav iv, abrcus irepl rovrav, iv 01s ion bvovoqrd nva, a. oi dpadeis Kal dorqpiKTOi orpefiXovoiv, as Kal Tas Xoiirds ypacfms irpbs rqv Ibiav abrcov dirdXeiav, 2 Pet. iii. 16. " Sicut et in omnibus epistolis, loquens in eis de his, in quibus sunt quaedam difficilia intellectu," Vulg. " Ut qui in omnibus fere epistolis loquatur de istis, inter qua? sunt nonnulla difficilia intellectu," Beza. "Yea, almost in every epistle, speaking of such things : among wliich are many tilings hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and un stable pervert, as they do (also other, Cranmer; also the other, Bishops' bible, 1584) other scriptures, unto their own destruction," Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539. "As one (that in all his epistles speaketh of these things, Geneva, 1560) almost in every epistle speaking of such things : among (the which some things, Geneva, 1560) which things some are hard to be understand, which they that are unlearned and unstable pervert, as they do also other scriptures, unto their own destruction," Geneva, 1557. " As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction," Authorised version, 1611. The Alexan drine class of MSS. has iv ais : the received reading by Griesbach and Scholtz is iv 01s. Inter quae, ev 01s. Relativum 01s, ut recte observat doctissimus interpres, non cohsret cum rovrav. Beza in locum.] 558 A BEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ell. the thing also in very deed being all one, whether the hardness be in the epistles, or in the matter, (for when we say the scripture is hard, we mean specially the matter,) it is not only an heretical, but a foolish and peevish spirit that maketh them so curious and precise in their translations, as here to limit and abridge the sense to the things iv ols. only ; Beza translating, inter quce sunt multa difficilia, and not, in quibus, iv ah. as it is in the old vulgar translations, most sincere, and indifferent both to epistles and things. Fulke, 1. Fulke. We hold of the scriptures, as St Augustine teacheth1, deDoct. Chr. Lib. ii. cap. vi. that "the Holy Ghost hath so magnifically and wholesomely attempered the holy scriptures, that with open and clear places he hath provided against famine, and in dark and hard places he hath wiped away loathsomeness ; and that nothing almost is gathered out of those dark places, which is not found elsewhere to be uttered most plainly, specially if it contain matter necessary unto salvation." But that every one may presume to inter pret and expound the scriptures, it is one he of an hundred that Martin hath made in this book, and hath feigned of us, never held or maintained by us. But St Peter, you say, "plainly saith, that St Paul's epistles are hard, and other scriptures also." Howbeit, St Peter saith neither the one nor the other, especially not the latter. For albeit in the most approved Greek copies the relative be of the neuter gender, limiting that which St Peter speaketh, not to any matter at large in St Paul's epistles, but to those things which St Paul hath written concerning the second coming of Christ ; yet of the other scriptures he saith not that they are hard, although he might say there is hard things in them, but that " the unstable and unlearned pervert them to their own destruction," which they do oftentimes when they be most plain and easy, and not only where they be difficult and hard. That you can understand no dif ference between the sense which is made of the neuter gender, and that which the feminine gender doth yield, I know not whether it be to be imputed to the dulness of P Magnifice igitur et salubriter Spiritus sanctus ita scripturas sanctas modificavit, ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret, obscurioribus autem fastidia obtergeret. Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eniitur, quod non planissime dictum alibi reperiatur. Augustini de Doctrina Christiana, Lib. ii. cap. vi. Vol. m. p. 45.] XXI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 559 your wit, but rather I think it proceedeth of the crafty mahce of your mind: as also, that you charge us with "an heretical, foolish, and peevish spirit," when we translate according to the most usual Greek copies, and according to that which is most agreeable to the place. For to accuse all St Paul's epistles of difficulty and hardness had not been agreeable to that excellent commendation which St Peter before did give him. For every man that desireth to teach, as St Paul did by his epistles, ought to frame his speech to be as plain and easy to be understood as the matter whereof he speaketh will admit. But that some things about that high mystery of the second coming of Christ are hard to be understood, dischargeth Paul of affec tation of difficulty, or not regard of perspicuity, shewing the cause of the hardness to be in the height of the matter, not in the handling of the writer. And that some did mis understand the apostle St Paul writing of that matter,' it is apparent by the second epistle to the Thessalonians, chap. 2. Martin. Another fashion they have, which cannot proceed of good Martin, 2. meaning ; that is, when the Greek text is indifferent to two senses, F"™^™ d and one is received, read and expounded of the greater part of the author of the ancient fathers, and of all the Latin church, there to follow the other sense, not so generally received and approved ; as in St James' epistle2, where the common reading is, Deus intentator malorum est, " God is no tempter to evil," they translate, " God cannot be tempted with evil," which is so impertinent to the apostle's speech there, as nothing more. But why will they not say, God is no tempter to dircipaa- evil, as well as the other ? is it because of the Greek word, which is TOS KaKWV- a passive ? Let them see their Lexicon, and it will tell them that it is both an active and passive. So say other learned Grecians, in- Gagneius. terpreters of this place. So saith the very circumstance of the words next going before, "Let no man say that he is tempted of God." P "On dirb Qeov ireipd£opai- 6 yap Qebs diretpaatrds eon kok&v, ireipdfei be abrbs ovbeva, James i. 13. " Let no man say when he is tempted, that he is tempted of God. For God tempteth not unto evil, neither tempteth he any man," Tyndale, 1534. " For God cannot tempt unto evil, because he tempteth no man," Cranmer, 1539. "For God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man," Ge neva, 1557. " Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man," Geneva, 1560, Bishops' bible, 1584, Authorised version, 1611.] 560 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Why so ? " Because God is not tempted with evil," say they. Is this a good reason ? Nothing less : how then ? " Because God is no tempter to evil," therefore let no man say, that he is tempted of God. Fulke, 2. Fulke. You have a fashion, common to you with many of your fellows, to snatch all occasions that you can get, to make a shew, for your heinous slanders, wherewith you seek to overwhelm the saints of God, and especially those whose labours have been most fruitful to his church. Whereof you give us an evident example in this translation, which you follow with such eagerness in three large sections, that the ignorant reader, which cannot examine the matter, might think you had great and urgent cause so to do. The Greek of St James, direipaoTos kokwv, we translated passively, as the word signifieth, and as words of that form do signify: "God is not, or cannot be tempted with evil." But against this translation you oppose the Lexicon ; which following the judgment of the vulgar interpreter, that hath translated it actively, doth indeed make it indifferent to both signifies tions, but example giveth none thereof, but this now in controversy. You allege further learned Grecians, interpreters of this place, and namely Gagneius, a late writer ; to whom I may oppose Hentenius, who, translating CEcumenius upon St James, turneth this place of scripture thus : Deus enim malis tentari nequit. And CEcumenius in his commentary is plain of the same judgment; for repeating the text as before, he saith : Juxta eum qui dixit {quanquam externus sit a nobis et a fide alienus), divina beataque natura neque molestias sustinet neque aliis prcebet^. "God cannot be tempted with evil, according to him which said, (although he be a foreigner from us, and a stranger from the faith,) 'the divine and blessed nature neither suffereth griefs nor offereth to other.'" And this judgment of CEcumenius is collected out of a great number of Greek doctors. But " the very circum stance of the .words next before," say you, doth require it should be taken actively. A good interpreter will consider the circumstances of the words following, as well as of the words going before. For the words following declare that [j1 'Airelpaoros be 6 Qebs kukcov, Kara tov elpqKora, (.Kav rdv dvpadev eonv qpiv,) to deidv Te Kai paKapwv oiiTe avrb n pay para ?X«, oike irepots irapexei. (Ecumen. in Epist. Cathol. Jacobi Comment. Vol. il, p. 446.] XXI. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 561 it must be taken passively; or else the apostle speaketh one thing twice together, without any cause why : whereas the passive taking of that word agreeth to the circumstance, as well going before, as following after. The whole context is this : " Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God ; for God cannot be tempted of evils, neither doth he tempt any man." The meaning is plain : God is so far from tempting unto evil, as his divine nature is uncapable of any temptation of evil. For temptation to evil could not come from God, except it were first in God : but seeing it cannot be in God, it cannot proceed from him ; and so doth CEcume nius interpret the place. Martin. This reason is so coherent and so necessary in this place, Martin, 3. that if the Greek word were only a passive (as it is not), yet it might beseem Beza to translate it actively, who hath turned the active into a passive without scrupulosity, as himself confesseth, and is before noted, against the real presence. Much more in this place might he be bold to translate that actively, which is both an active and a passive; specially, having such an example, and so great authority as is all the ancient Latin church till this day. But why should he not? Surely, because he would favour his and their heresy, which saith clean contrary to these words of the apostle, to wit, "that God Annot. Nov. is a tempter to evil." Is that possible to be proved ? Yea, it is Matt. vi. 33. ' possible and plain : Beza's words be these, Inducit Dominus in tentationem eos quos Satance arbitrio permittit, aut in quos potius Satanam ipsum inducit ut cor eorum impleat, ut loquitur Petrus, Acts v. 3 : that is, " The Lord leadeth into tentation those whom he permitteth to Satan's arbitrement, or into whom rather he lead eth or bringeth in Satan himself to fill their heart, as Peter speak eth." Mark that he saith, God bringeth Satan into a man to fill his heart, as Peter said to Ananias, "Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost ?" So then, by this man's opinion, God brought Satan into that man's heart to make him lie unto the Holy Ghost, and so led him into tentation, being author and causer of that heinous sin. Fulke. How necessary the coherence is with the former Fclke, 3. words, that it maketh an absurd repetition in the words following, I have noted before. And therefore there is no cause that should drive Beza to translate a word of passive signification actively, as you slander him to have translated an active passively against the real presence ; for that you mean of Acts iii., he translateth not passively, so as the 36 [fulke.J 562 a Defence of the English [ch. passive is opposite to the active, but as the one may be resolved into the other, the same sense remaining, which every child in the grammar school knoweth. Ego amo te, tu amaris a me, "I love thee," "thou art loved of me;" and not as they may disagree, " I love thee," but " I am not loved of thee." But Beza, you say, would not follow the vulgar interpre ter, whose antiquity I have shewed, for universal receiving, not to have been above five hundred years ; seeing Bernard, which hved a thousand and one hundred years after Christ, useth it not always. And why did Beza leave the vulgar translation in this place ? " Surely, in favour of our heresy, that God is a tempter to evil." The Lord himself be judge, whether we abhor not that heresy! Yet you say, it is "both possible and plain to be proved by Beza's own words." In his later edition, anno 1565, his words are these, upon that petition of the Lord's prayer, " Lead us not into temptation :" Inducit autem Dominus in tentationem eos quos Satance arbitrio permittit, ut cor eorum impleat, deut loquitur Petrus, Acts v. " The Lord leadeth into temptation them whom he permitteth to the will of Satan, that he may fill their heart, as Peter speaketh1." These words declare that God leadeth some men into temptation, and how he leadeth them into temptation, namely, by giving them over to Satan, who filleth their heart with all iniquity. But hereof it cannot be proved, that he tempteth unto evil. He sent the lying spirit into the mouth of Achab's prophets for a punishment unto Achab and them; yet he neither tempted Achab to evil, nor his prophets to lie. But you grate upon these words in the first edition, " God bringeth Satan into a man." Beza meaneth no otherwise, than for a punishment they are delivered to Satan, as the lying spirit was sent to deceive Achab : not that God filleth their hearts, but that Satan filleth their hearts to their destruction, as Peter saith ; where you do slanderously apply that which Peter saith of Satan filling the heart of Ananias, to the whole sentence, as though Peter p 'Avavld, biari iirXqpaoev 6 "2aravds Tqv Kapblav oov, Acts V. 3. "Anania, cur tentavit Satanas cor tuum," Vulg. "Anania, cur im- plevit Satanas cor tuum," Beza. Also the same in Edit. 1556. In that of 1582, after " eos quos" is added, "ut Justus judex, non ut pec catorum auctor, Satanae arbitrio," &c] XXI'J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 563 were alleged to say, that God sendeth Satan into a man's heart. That God did lead Ananias into temptation for his hypocrisy, and gave him over to Satan, who filled his heart and possessed him, so that he lied unto the Holy Ghost, we may safely affirm ; and yet it followeth not that God either tempted Ananias to his sin, or else was author and causer of that heinous sin, otherwise than he is the good author and causer of all things, which as they are caused by him, they are good. And yet of such things, as St Augustine saith, he is no evil author ; he may be, and is a just revenger. Wherefore you can no better gather of this saying, that God is the author of sin, than when we say, that God created the devil or man to be of free will ; for if they had not been of free will to sin, they should not have sinned. Or if God had not suffered and ordained the devil first to fall, he could not have tempted Eve, and so have brought man to sin. But as God is clear from the sin of the devil, and of Adam, which yet he might have kept from sinning; so is he clear from the sin of them whom, for a just plague, he leadeth into temptation, and giveth into the power of Satan, to work his wicked will in them, to their eternal destruction. Martin. Is not this to say, "God is a tempter to evil," clean Martin, 4. contrary to St James the apostle ? or could he that is of this opinion translate the contrary, that "God is no tempter to evil?" Is not this as much to say as, that God also brought Satan into Judas to fill his heart, and so was author of Judas' treason, even as he was of Paul's conversion? Let Beza now, and Master Whitaker, or any other he- See Beza, An- 7 i not- ln Rom. retic of them all, wrest and wring themselves from the absurdity i- 24. 7 3 , , , ,. Aetsii. 23. of this opinion, as they endeavour and labour to do exceedingly, whit, ad Bat. because it is most blasphemous ; yet shall they never be able to lSTFi?^ clear and discharge themselves from it, if they will allow and maintain their foresaid exposition of God's leading into temptation. Doth not ¦ Beza for the same purpose translate " God's providence," for, " God's irpoyywaei. prescience ?" which is so false, that the English Bezites in their transT lation are ashamed to follow him. Fulke. Beza, that said the one, defieth the other. For Fulke, 4. St James saith, " that God tempteth no man to evil, as he himself is not tempted of evil." Therefore it is most ridicu lous that you imagine, that. Beza should not translate the word actively, to avoid that sentence, "God is no tempter to 36—2 564 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. evil," which followeth in the very next words, " God tempteth no man." That God gave over Judas unto Satan, it implieth not that God was the author of Judas' treason, no more than when the apostles say, that " Herod and Pontius Pilate came together with the gentiles and people of Israel against Jesus Christ, to do whatsoever the hand and counsel of God had determined." Acts iv. 27, 28. Behold, all they that mur dered Christ, Herod, Pilate, Judas, Annas, Caiphas, with all the rest, did whatsoever the hand and counsel of God had before determined to be done. Was God then author of their sin? God forbid. And yet without horrible sin those things could not be done which God had determined to be done by those wicked instruments, yet necessary by God's appointment for our redemption. Beza therefore needed not for any such end, as you slander him, to have translated "God's providence," for "God's prescience," which I have answered before. Neither is there any need for Mr Whitaker or other to " wrest and wring themselves from this absurdity," which they never granted, but may easily be avoided by them that hold the doctrme of God's eternal providence and foreappointment of all things, as we do. Martin, 5. Martin. Another exceeding treachery to deceive the reader is this, corruption that they use catholic terms and speeches in such places where they catho'iic"6 may make them odious, and where they must needs sound odiously 2Mach.vi.7. in the people's ears. As for example, this term, "procession," they put very maliciously and falsely, thus : " When the feast of Bacchus was kept, they were constrained to go in the procession of Bacchus1." Bib. I670.0 Let the good reader see the Greek lexicon, if there be any thing in ZTTiovb" this word uke to the catholic church's procession; or whether it Precession signify s0 much M "to S° about," as their other bibles are translated, Bib. 1562. ' which meant also heretically, but yet durst not name " procession." Fulke, 5. Fulke. Your popish ceremonies are many of them so heathenish and idolatrous, that they may well be resembled to the customs and solemnities of the gentiles, from whom they were taken. And as for the Greek word iropireveiv, it signifieth to go in a solemn pomp, sjich as your processions are ; and so doth our lexicon teach us, in pompa incedere, [* yevopevqs be Aiovvoiav eoprfjs qvayKafavro kiooovs exovres irop- irtveiv tco Aiovbom, % Macchab. vi. 7.] L~2 Geneva Bible, 1560.] XXI. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 565 "to go solemnly in a pomp8." And if it signifieth not so much as "to go about," as you say, I pray you tell us, why your vulgar Latin interpreter hath translated it by circumire, or whether circumire doth not signify "to go about;" or whether the worshippers of Bacchus did not go about with garlands pf yew on their heads, as your priests went with garlands of flowers at some time of the year. Martin. Again, "He put down the priests (of Baal) whom the Mai>tIN,6. kings of Judah had founded to burn incense4," 4 Reg. xxiii. 5. So they Founded. translate (the Hebrew being simply "to give," "make," " appoint,") "lyy because in the catholic church there are foundations of chantry- — yl.J.«, priests, chapels, diriges, &c. Neither is it sincerely, and without ill 't : meaning, that they say here the "priests" of Baal, whom &c; because the Hebrew word signifieth all those that ministered, in the temples of false gods. Fulke. A childish folly! As though we were enemies to Fulke, 6. good and godly foundations, because we mislike idolatrous and superstitious foundations. The Hebrew word, which signifieth " to give," according to the circumstances of this place may well be translated " to found," because the text speaketh of a gift of perpetuity, intended by those wicked kings. That Chemarim were the priests of Baal, the story doth declare, although they had that name of their black garments, which they did wear superstitiously, as your black monks do : or if you doubt whether Baal had sacerdotes, sacrificing priests, you may read 4 Reg. xi. 18, where Mattan, Baal's priest, was killed before his altar. And if " the Hebrew word signify all those that ministered in the temples of false gods," your vulgar Latin translator, by your own judgment, hath erred in translating it aruspices, which is a kind of soothsayers. F Numerous instances are adduced by Stephens in his Thesaurus where iropireba has this signification. Vol. m. pp. 199, 200.] f"4 Kal KareKavae robs xa>liaP'H- °"s *°'a'Kav PaoiXeis 'lovba, 4 [2] Reg. xxiii. 5. "Et delevit aruspices, quos posuerant reges Juda," Vulg. " And he put down the Chemerim whom the kings of Juda had founded to burn incense," Geneva, 1560. " And he put down the priests (of Baal) whom the kings of Juda had founded," &c, Bishops' bible, 1584. " He put down the ministers of Baal whom the kings of Juda had founded," Cranmer, 1562.] 566 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Mabtin, 7. Martin. Again, "silver shrines for Diana1," Acts xix. 24., be- shrines. cause of the shrines and tabernacles made to the image of our blessed Lady ; the Greek word signifying " temples," and Beza saith he cannot see how it may signify shrines. Fulke, 7. Fulke. The word in that place is taken neither for shrines nor temples, but for pieces of coin, in which was stricken the similitude of Diana's temple : indeed such a thing as your shrines and tabernacles are, or rather such as your broaches and leaden coins are, which are used at your solemn pilgrimages and idolatrous festivities ; such as I have seen a number at Amiens in France, prepared on St John Baptist's eve, having the print of St John's head in a platter on them, and I know not what beside. But of this place I have spoken before, cap. i. sec. 16. Martin, 8. Martin. Again, "As I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I alpd*™- found an altar V Acts xvii- 23- So they ei*11 the superstition of the Ta. Athenians toward their false gods, because of catholic people's de votions toward the true God, his church, altars, saints, &c; the Greek word signifying the things that are worshipped (as 2 Thess. oeBaapa. ji. 4} and sap. xv. 17), not the manner of worshipping; Fulke, 8. Fulke. Of this also I have spoken in the place above mentioned. The word may signify " the exercise of their re ligion." And seeing St Paul accounteth the altar, which he found dedicated to the unknown God, among their crefidcrpaTa, it seemeth he taketh the word more generally than to signify their gods. For the altar was not worshipped as God, but dedicated to the unknown God. Again, what folly is it to think our translators had respect to your popish devotions, by the name of " devotion," so apphed to discredit them, when the term of " devotion" is indifferent, as the term of " religion," either to true or to false devotion and rehgion ! P Tloidv vaovs dpyvpovs 'Aprepibos, Acts xix. 24. " Silver houses," Wiclif. "Silver shrines," Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops' bible, Geneva, Authorised version.] Q2 biepxdpevos yap Kai avadeapcov rd oefidopaTa vpav, evpov Kal fiapbv, &c, Acts xvii. 23. "Prseteriens enim, et videns simulachra vestra," Vulg. " For as I passed by and beheld the manner how ye worship your gods," Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539, Geneva, 1557, Bishops' bible. " For as I passed by and beheld your devotions," Ge neva, 1560, Authorised version, 1611.] XX1-J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 567 Martin. Again, "The Jews had agreed, that if any man did con- Mabtin, 9. fess that he was Christ, he should be excommunicated3," John ix. 22. 'ha dwoav- "And Jesus heard that they had excommunicated him," v. 35: to "a>wV0S make the Jews' doing against them that confessed Christ sound like yem,Ta' to the catholic church's doing against heretics in excommunicating Excommunl- them, and so to disgrace the priest's power of excommunication ; cd 10°' whereas the Jews had no such spiritual excommunication, but (as the Greek must needs only signify) they did " put them out of Aposynago- the synagogue;" and so they should have translated, the Greek word gum e' including the very name of synagogue. But they, as though the church of Christ and the synagogue of the Jews were all one, so translate "excommunicating," and "putting out of the synagogue," as all one. Fulke. The hke discipline to the church's excommunica- Fulke, 9. tion had the Jews, in excluding men from their synagogues or assemblies; and therefore of the simihtude the one hath to the other in the thing, as well as in the end, our trans lators have used the word of " excommunicating" in this place ; and yet not of " excommunicating" alone, for they all add, " out of the synagogue," to make it more plain, which you do fraudulently suppress. But how vain a thing it is that we should have any purpose against the discipline of excommunication, all the world may see, when we practise it ourselves, and teach that it is necessary to be perpetual in the church, against them that hold it was but temporal. And what we are to esteem of the excommunication of heretics, both out of this place, and divers other, we may be suffi ciently instructed. Martin. I omit here, as spoken before, that they call an idol Martin, "the queen of heaven," because we call our Lady by that title; so ' to make both seem alike. Also, that they say " Bel's altar " thrice, for Altars. "Bel's table," to disgrace altars; and that for "idols" they say "images," images. in despite of the church's images ; that they say " tradition " duly in Traditions. the ill part, yea, sometime when it is not in the Greek, to make traditions odious; and such like. Thus by similitude and like sound of words they beguile the poor people, not only in their false ex positions concerning Judaical fasts, meats, observation of days (as is elsewhere shewed), but also in their translations. So doth Calvin's fa iva idv ns abrov opoXoyqotj Xptorbv, diroovvaycoyos yevqrai, John ix. 22. " He should be excommunicate out of the synagogue," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops' bible. " He should be put out of the synagogue," Rhemish, Authorised version.] 568 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [en. Matt, xxiii. New Testament in French for, nolite vocari Rabbi, translate, " be not called nostre maistre," or magister noster; in derision and disgrace of this title and calling, which is peculiar to doctors of divinity in the catholic universities beyond the seas; even as Wickliff their grandfather did upon the same words condemn such degrees in universities. But their Rabbins can tell them that rabbi signifieth magister, and not magister noster. And St John telleth them so, chap. i. 38, and chap. iii. 2, and chap. xx. 16 ; and yet it pleaseth them to translate otherwise, and to abuse Christ's own sacred words against catholic doctors and schools; not considering that as Christ forbad them to be called rabbi, so he forbad them the name of father and fathers; and yet I trow they will not scoff at this name either in their own fathers, or in themselves so called of their children; though in religious men, according to their heretical humour, they scoff also at this name, as they do at the other in doctors. Fulke,10. Fulke. And " I omit here, as answered before," the queen of heaven, altars, images, and traditions. But now, as though we had any thing to do therewith, we are charged with Cal vin's New Testament in French, which translateth Matt, xxiii. Nolite vocari rabbi, " be not called nostre maistre," or ma gister noster. I suppose it is not credible that any man would translate rabbi, nostre maistre, or magister noster: specially seeing it is made a great difference among dunstical1 doctors between noster magister and magister noster; as also it is a hke jest between noster magistrande and nostrande magister. Wherefore, except I see the book of Calvin's translation, I must think you feign. For I have two New Testaments printed at Geneva, the one 1555, the other 1559, and in both them rabbi is translated consonantly maistre, and not nostre maistre, or magister noster. That the text may be well apphed against your pompous titular doctors* that desire to be called nostre maistres ; as also that which followeth against your Jebusites, that must be called "fathers," though they be but young and hght persons, I will not deny. And yet I think the titles of " doctor," and " master," in the universities, and of " fathers," ascribed to any ancient and grave personage, in respect of civility, and not of superstition, may be well used without transgression of our Saviour Christ's commandment, Matt, xxiii. L"1 Dunstical, a word probably invented by the Thomists against Duns Scotus and his followers. See Todd's Johnson's Dictionary, v. Dunce.~\ XXI. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 569 tin. Contrariwise, as they are diligent to put some words Mabtin, odiously where they should not, so they are as circumspect not to 11- put other words and terms where they should. In their first bible, a heap of (printed again, anno 1562,) not once the name of " church ;" in the cormptIons' same, for " charity," " love ;" for " altar," " temple ;" for " heretic," " an author of sects ;" and for " heresy," "sect :" because in those begin nings all these words sounded exceedingly against them. The church they had then forsaken, christian charity they had broken by schism, altars they digged down; heresy and heretic they knew in their con science were like in the people's ears to agree unto them, rather than to the old catholic faith and professors of the same. Again, in all their bibles indifferently, both former and later, they had rather say, "righteous," than "just ;" "righteousness," than "justice;" "gift," than "grace," specially in the sacrament of holy orders; "secret," rather than "mystery," specially in matrimony; "dissension," than "schism." And these words not at all : "priest," (to wit, of the New Testament,) • sacrament," "catholic," "hymns," "confession," "penance," "justifica tions," and "traditions" in the good part; but instead thereof, "elders," "secret," "general," "praises," "acknowledging," "amendment of life," "ordinances," "instructions;" and, which is somewhat worse, "car case" for "soul," and "grave " for "hell." We may say unto you, as nemosth. Demosthenes said to iEschines, «' ravra ; pqpara q davpara ; " What Ter" mitted. But except you had a profane mind, you would never have imagined any such matter thereof, which you are ashamed to utter. The circumstance of the place re quireth, that we should translate the word in this place for " wind," and not " the spirit :" for the prophet's purpose was to shew that people were in desperate case, without hope of help, till God did raise them, even as it were from death. The simihtude is taken of a travailing woman, whose womb if it be full of wind, she is in great torments. But you ask us whether there be anything in the Hebrew that hindereth us to say, " we have conceived, and as it were travailed, and have brought forth the spirit." Yea, verily; the context of the Hebrew words will not bear that transla- IDp tion; for the word chemo, quad, "as it were," is placed before ;ivtV> the word jaladhenu, which signifieth "bringing forth," and ^n not before chalnu, which signifieth " travailing in pain." Therefore the text is word for word as we have translated it. And the word following, "We could make no help to the land," or " there was no help in the earth," declareth a continuance of their misery; and cannot agree with that sense, which you would have, because they which have re ceived the Holy Ghost have found help, and are able to help. Beside that, it is a monstrous phrase, that the godly should XXII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 573 say, " they have conceived, travailed, and brought forth' the Holy Ghost," by which they are born again to be the chil dren of God, rather than that they have conceived or brought forth God's spirit. And therefore, howsoever Jerome hke your interpretation, it agreeth neither with the words of the Hebrew, nor with the circumstance of the place ; and it is scarce tolerable to make such a conception and generation of God's spirit in men. That "servile fear" is to be reproved in the children of God, which should fear him as sons, and not as slaves, we are content to acknowledge with Luther. But what place is this for us to mean anything against servile fear, when there is no mention of fear in the Hebrew text? and the Greek hath such licentious additions, that Jerome is fain to strike them through with a spit, and note them to be wiped out. Martin. But to say "we have brought forth wind," can admit no Martin, 3. such interpretation ; but even as if a mere Jew should translate or understand it, who hath no sense of God's spirit, so have you ex cluded the true sense, which concerneth the Holy Ghost, and not the cold term of " wind," and whatsoever naked interpretation thereof. And it is your fashion in all such cases, where the richer sense is of God's holy Spirit, there to translate "wind," as Psalm cxlvii. 18., as you number the Psalms. Fulke. We must say in Enghsh, as the prophet hath said Fulke, 3. before us in Hebrew, and so truly translate the scripture, that never a Jew in the world may have just cause to accuse our falsehood or partiality. And how cold soever the term of "wind" seem to your crooked mind, and how naked soever the interpretation be thought of your cloaked hypocrisy, it is the word of the everliving God, and the true sense thereof, as it is expressed by the prophet. Likewise, Psal. cxlvii., the prophet sheweth who doth execute the commandment of God, in thawing and dissolving the frost, namely, the wind, which being southerly, we see the effect of it. What need we here to cause the Holy Ghost to be sent to melt the ice ? Martin. And it is not unlike to this, that you will not translate Mabtin, 4. for the angel's honour that carried Abacuck, " He set him into Ba- 574 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. iv poi'Jm bylon, over the lake by the force of his spirit' ;" but thus, " through too irvei- ft mjg^ty wind,"— so attributing it to the wind, not to the angel's power, aiToi. and omitting clean the Greek pronoun abrov, "his," which sheweth evidently, that it was the angel's spirit, force, and power. Fulke, 4. Fulke. That we have translated in the story of Aba- cuck's taking up, that it was through a mighty wind, it hath good probability by the circumstance of the place ; and the signification of polios, which is a force with a noise, is more apt to the wind, than to the Spirit: and in other writers irvevpaTwv polios is taken for the vehement noise of winds. But the pronoun, I confess, should not have been omitted, and then it may be referred, either to the wind, or Spirit of God, whose angel this is said to be, rather than to the angel. For the angel being nothing but a spirit, it is not so convenient to say, by his spirit, as by his own force: again, the pronoun is not avTov, but avTov, whereof you made great difference, as indeed there is difference, in another case. Martin, G. Martin. Again, where the prophets speak most manifestly of Christ, there you translate clean another thing, as Isaiah xxx. 20.; when St Bib. 1673. Jerome translateth thus, and the church hath always read accord- Vuig. ingly : Non faciat avolare a te ultra doctorem tuum ; and, Erunt oculi tui videntes prceceptorem tuum2: that is, "And (our Lord) shall not cause 5pT© thy doctors to fly from thee any more, and thine eyes shall see thy master." Which is all one in effect with that which Christ saith, " I will be with you unto the end of the world." There you translate thus, " Thy rain shall be no more kept back, but thine eyes shall see thy rain." So likewise Joel ii. 23, where the holy church readeth, "Rejoice, you children of Sion, in the Lord your God, because he hath given you the doctor of justice3;" there you translate, "the rain \} Bel and the Dragon, v. 39.] I"2 Kai bdoei Kvpios vpiv aprov dXfyeas, Kal vbap orevbv, Kal ovk en pq eyyioaol ooi oi irXavavres oe- on oi 6cj>daXpol oov Syjrovrai tovs. irXavdvrds oe, Isai. xxx. 20. " And when the Lord hath given you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction, thy rain shall be no more kept back, but thine eyes shall see thy rain," Geneva, 1560. "And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers," Authorised version, 1611.] P Kai rd reKva 2ieov xa^PiTe Ka' eveppatveode iirl tc2 Kvpico Qea vpdv, b'lori ebcoKev vpiv id jlpdpara els biKaioovvqv, Joel ii. 23. " Quia XXII,j TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 575 of righteousness." Doth the Hebrew word force you to this? You See H"£ know that it signifieth a teacher or master. And therefore the Jews themselves partly understand it of Esdras, partly of Christ's divinity. Why are you more profane (I will not say, more Judaical) than the Lya in Isai- Jews themselves ? Why might not St Jerome, a christian doctor, and ** lacking no skill in the Hebrew, as you well know, satisfy you, who maketh no doubt but the Hebrew in these places is "doctor," "mas ter," "teacher"? who also, in Psal. lxxxiv. 7., translateth thus", "With blessings shall the doctor be arrayed," meaning Christ: where you, with the latter rabbins, the enemies of Christ, translate, "The rain covereth the pools." What cold stuff is this in respect of that other translation, so clearly pointing to Christ, our master and doctor ! Fulke. I have told you in the beginning of this chap- Fulke, 5. ter, we must not, neither is it safe for the strengthening of our faith, to draw places of scripture unto Christ, which by the Holy Ghost had another meaning : so shall the Jews laugh us to scorn; and the faith of the ignorant, which is grounded upon such translation, if it shall be opened unto them that it is untrue, shall be mightily shaken, and brought in doubt of all other places of scripture, apphed to the like end. God be thanked ! there be plain and evident testi monies of Christ in the scripture, which no mahce of Jewish or heathenish enemies can wrest out of our hands, which are sufficient for instruction and confirmation of our faith. Now concerning those places, where you would have iTTlD to signify a " doctor," " teacher," or " master :" first, it seemeth you have your Hebrew but from hand to mouth : for chap. iii. sect. 25, where as we translate, moreh shaker, ITTID "a teacher of lies," Abacuck ii. you say, we translate another -pty dedit vobis doctorem justitise," Vulg. " For he hath given you the rain of righteousness," Geneva, 1560. " For he hath given you the former rain moderately," Authorised version.] f4 "Els Tqv KoiXdba tov KXavdpcovos, els tov Tcmov bv i'dero- Kal yap ebXoyias bdoei 6 vopoderdv, Psal. Ixxxiii. 6. " In valle lacrymarum in loco, quem posuit," Vulg. Psal. lxxxiv. 6. "They, going through the valley of Baca, make wells therein : the rain also covereth the pools," Geneva 1560. " Who passing through the valley of Baca, make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools. iropevoovrai ix bvvdpeas els bvvapiv, Psal. Ixxxiii. 7. "Etenim benedictionem dabit legislator," Vulg. Psal. lxxxiv. 7. " They go from strength to strength," Geneva version, 1560, Authorised version.] 576 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ch. thing, without any necessary pretence of Hebrew or Greek ; and here you would have it of the necessity of the Hebrew, that we should translate a " teacher :" yet Pagnine in the root m\ whereunto you refer us, saith, that Esay, the xxx. 20. this word is taken either for rain, or for a teacher : Joel ii. he maketh no question, but it signifieth rain ; saving that some think it to be the name of a place. In the third place, Psalm lxxxiv. after he hath told you how Jerome translateth it, he telleth you how Pi. David and other do translate it for rain, as we do: and in all these places the sense is more proper for "rain," than for "a teacher," saving that in Esay, perhaps, it may signify more aptly " a teacher," and so the Geneva translation noteth it. In Joel, where the prophet before had threatened famine through drought, nothing is so convenient to be understood as season able rain. In the Psahn lxxxiv. where the prophet com- mendeth the courage of the people that travelled to Jeru salem through the dry deserts and places that wanted water, it is most apt to understand that God filled their pits with rain for their comfort. This, how cold soever it is counted of you, that care not whereon faith should be grounded, yet is it an hundred times more comfortable to a godly con science that desireth to be established in truth, than any violent wresting of the scripture from the true and natural sense to any other interpretation, how good in shew soever it be. Martin, 6. Martin. And again, where St Jerome translateth, and the church isai. xxxiii. readeth, and all the fathers interpret and expound accordingly, " There shall be faith in thy times," to express the marvellous faith that shall be then, in the first Christians specially, even unto death, and in all the rest concerning the hidden mysteries of the New Testament ; there you translate, "There shall be stability of thy times." The prophet joineth together there "judgment," "justice," "faith," "wisdom," "knowledge," "the fear of our Lord"; you, for a little ambiguity of the Hebrew word, turn "faith" into "stability." Fulke, 6. Fulke. The word " stability1," Esai. xxxiii. 6. ex- chideth not faith, but sheweth wherein faith is grounded. [* 'Ev vopco irapabodqoovTai, Isaiah xxxiii. 6. " Et erit fides in tem- poribus tuis," Vulg. "And there shall be stability of thy times," XXII,J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 577 And therefore this is, as all the rest, a fond quarrel, without any good ground at all; seeing our translation may stand with the truth of the words and of the matter, and com prehendeth as much as you would have, and more also. Yea, it sheweth that faith is settled upon stability and sted- fastness of truth, which shall flourish in the time of Christ. Martin. If I should burden you with translating thus also con- Martin, 7. cerning Christ, " Cease from the man whose breath is in his nostrils ; isai. ii. for wherein is he to be esteemed2?" you would say I did you wrong, because it is so pointed now in the Hebrew : whereas you know very T1D2 well by St Jerome's commentary upon that place, that this is the Jews' pointing or reading of the word against the honour of Christ; the true reading and translation being as he interpreteth it, "For he is reputed high, and therefore beware of him." Otherwise, as St Jerome saith, what a consequence were this, or who would commend any man thus, " Take heed ye offend not him who is nothing esteemed ?" yet that is your translation. Neither doth the Greek help you, which (if the accent be truly put) is thus, " because he is reputed for some- in tmI iXo- body or some thing ;" as St Paul speaketh of the chief apostles, and ^ ^'e it is our phrase in the commendation of a man. Fulke. So long as you acknowledge we have translated Fulke, 7. truly according to the Hebrew text that we read, there is no reason that you should burden us with false interpretation. The Septuaginta, as Jerome confesseth, did read as we do ; and plain it is, not only by the vowels, but also by the con text, that so it must be read. For the prophet dissuadeth the people from putting affiance in any mortal man, for God will bring down the pride of all such as they trust most in, as it followeth in the next chapter, whereof this verse should be the beginning; the dismembering whereof, by the ill division of the chapter, deceived Jerome, to think the prophet spake of Christ, when he spake of a proud man, " whose Geneva, 1560. " And wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy times," Authorised version, 1611.] P Geneva Bible, 1560. Havoaode vpiv dirb tov dvdpdirov, christian translation, which is thus, "I use similitudes by the ministry of the prophets ;" as though there were nothing there concerning Christ, or the second Person peculiarly? Fulke, 8. Fulke. Seeing our Saviour Christ hath promised that never a prick of the law shall perish2, we may understand the same also of the prophets, who have not received the vowels of the latter Jews, but even of the prophets them selves, howsoever that heathenish opinion pleaseth you and other papists. Martin, 9. Martin. You will also perhaps allege not only the later Jews, but The Hebrew also some later Catholic men, that so translate the Hebrew. But the textisnocer- ,.„ , . ... , -, tain rule to aiiierence between them and you is, that they, with reverence and interpretate by. Q1 Kal XaXqoa irpbs irpocpqras, Kal iyd opdoeis iirXqdvva, Kal ev Xepol irpoqbqrdv dpoiddqv, Hosea xii. 10. " Et locutus sum super pro- phetas, et ego visionem multiplicavi, et in manu prophetarum assimi- latus sum," Vulg. "I have spoken through the prophets, and have multiplied visions, and shewed similitudes by the ministry of the pro phets," Bishops' bible, 1584. "I have spoken through the prophets, and shewed divers visions, and declared myself by the ministratidn of prophets," Cranmer, 1562. " I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets," Geneva, 1560.] [2 See p. 55.] XXI1-J translations of the hible. 579 preferment always of St Jerome's and the church's ancient translation, tell us how it is now in the Hebrew; you, with derogation and dis annulling the same altogether, set down your own as the only true inter pretation according to the Hebrew ; avouching the Hebrew that now is, and as now it is printed, to be the only authentical truth of the Old Testament. Where you can never answer us, how that in the Psal. xxii., " As a lion my hand and my feet" (as now it is in the Hebrew) can *HJO be the true and old authentical , Hebrew ; which none of the fathers knew, the ancient rabbins condemn as a corruption, yourselves trans late it not, but after the old accustomed reading, " They have pierced my hands and my feet:" which is a notable prophecy of our Saviour's kind and manner of passion, being crucified on the cross. Only the later Jews, and such heretics as think he died upon a gallows or gibbet, and not upon the cross, they hke this Hebrew text well, and stand upon it, as you do upon all without exception ; and yet when it cometh to certain particulars, you are compelled to forsake it, as in certain other places for example. Fulke. Isidorus Clarius, retaining the word assimula- Fui.ke, 9. tus sum, doth thus expound it in his note : Hoc est volunta- tem meam dmilitudinibus et variis locutionis generibus elocutus sum : that is, " I have uttered my will by simili tudes and divers kinds of speech." You see therefore how you are deceived in advouching this matter of your own pseudo-cathohcs, when this bishop, not departing from your reading, yet expoundeth this text according to the Hebrew, and was allowed in so doing by the deputies of the Council of Trent, whose censure was observed in printing this bible. Where you repeat yet once again, that we "can never answer" that of a lion, Psalm xxii. you shew your skill and great reading. I have answered before in the preface, sect, xiiv.3 : that we forsake the Hebrew in this, or in any other, it is utterly false ; for we follow no text but the Hebrew, so near as we can understand it and express it. Martin. Where the Hebrew saith, "Achaz, king of Israel," Martin, 2 Paralip. xxviii. 19., which is not true, you are compelled to trans late, "Achaz, king of Judah," as the truth is, and as it is in the jgg^^t Greek and the vulgar Latin; yet some of your bibles follow the Bib. 1579. falsehood of the Hebrew. Fulke. While you take upon you to discover faults in Fulke, the Hebrew text, you bring three examples, which, if they were all faults, contain no matter of doctrme whereby we C pp. 79, 80.] 37—2 580 a defence of the English [ch. may be deceived in any article of faith. The first is, that Achaz, 2 Chron. xxviii. 19, is called king of Israel, whereas he was king only of Juda. But I pray you, sir, was not Juda part of Israel? why might he not then be called a king, or one of the kings, of Israel ? The queen of England may well be called Regina Britannice, although there be a king in Scotland. Although there may be another cause why Achaz is called king of Israel, because in his days, when Pekah the son of Remaliah was slain, the kingdom of Israel, that had continued from Jeroboam's time until then, was now in a manner decayed. For Hosea was of small power, and made tributary to the king of Assyria, and per- adventure also in the time of Achaz was kept in prison, as it is certain he was imprisoned, 2 Reg. xvii. 4. ; so that when there was none other king of Israel to account of, Achaz might be called king of Israel, as also in the same chapter, the last verse, though he were buried at Jerusalem, and in the city of David, it is said, that he was not laid in the sepulchres of the kings of Israel, where your vulgar Latin text hath " Israel," and not " Juda." Martin, Martin. Likewise, where the Hebrew saith, "Zedechias his brother," meaning the brother of Joachim, you translate, "Zedechias his father's Bib. 1579. brother," as indeed the truth fa, according to the Greek, and to the scripture, 2 Kings xxiv. 19. ; and therefore your bible, which followeth the Hebrew here also, translating, "hfa brother," yet in the margin putteth down as more true, "uncle." Fulke, Fulke. This argueth no fault in the Hebrew text, but gross ignorance of the Hebrew tongue in you, which knew ni* not that ach signifieth, not only a '¦' brother," but also any other kinsman, as the "uncle," "cousins," and such hke ; as, Gen. xiii. Abraham and Lot are called "brethren," yet was Abraham Lot's uncle ; Deut. xxv. when brethren shall dwell together, the law of marrying the brother's wife that died without issue, there the word "brethren" pertaineth to kins men far off, as appeareth in the story of Ruth, cap. hi. and iv. Finally, it is a thing so commonly known to them which have but a httle smack in the Hebrew tongue, that I will spend no time about it. And even your vulgar translation in some ancient copies hath fratrem, and not patruum, as you may see in the bible printed by Plantin, 1567. XXII-j TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 581 Martin. Likewise in another place the Hebrew is so out of frame, Martin, that some of your bibles say, " He begat Azuba of his wife Azuba." 12' And other some translate, " He begat Jerioth of his wife Azuba :" the Hebrew being thus, "He begat Azuba his wife and Jerioth," which neither you nor any man else can easily tell what to make of. Thus you see how easy it were (if a man would multiply such examples), to shew by your own testimonies the corruption of the Hebrew, and that yourselves do not nor dare not exactly follow it, as of the Greek Inthepreface text of the New Testament also is declared elsewhere. 165*™™ Fulke. The third fault you find is, 1 Chron, ii. 18., Fulke, where the interpreters are deceived while they take eth for 12- a sign of the accusative case, which in that place, as in divers AN other, is taken for a preposition, "of" or "by;" as, Gen. iv. iTiiTTW Eve saith, "I have obtained a son," eth Jehovah, "of the -pyn-nN Lord," or "by the Lord's gift," &c. Gen. xhv. "They are gone out," eth hayir, "of or from the city." So here the true translation of this verse in question is this : " Caleb the son [of] Chetzron, begat of Azuba, his wife, and of Jerioth1;" that is, he had children by these two women, Azuba bis wife, and Jerioth, which was his concubine ; so they called them that were lawful wives, in respect of matrimony, but yet had not the honour of wives, but being of base condition before they were married, so continued. By this Jerioth he had those three sons that in this verse are named; his children by Azuba are named afterward, verse 42. Wherefore here is no fault in the Hebrew, but in your vulgar translator, which maketh Jerioth the son of Azuba, and addeth to the text, be cause he understood it not. It is false, therefore, that you say, " we dare not follow the Hebrew," because some translator, by oversight, hath not attained to the right understanding thereof; as also, that "we dare not exactly follow the Greek of the New Testament," which we desire to follow as exaotly as we can. Martin. But it is greater marvel, why you follow not the Hebrew Martin, in other places also, where is no corruption. You protest to translate it according to the points or vowels that now it hath, and that you call the Hebrew verity. Tell me then, I beseech you, why do you in all your bibles translate thus ? " O virgin daughter of Sion, he hath p Kal XaXe|3 vibs '"Eopdp eXafle rqv Ta£ovPd yvvaiKa, Kal Tqv 'lepidd- ko.1 ovtoi viol avTtjs. Caleb vero filius Hesron accepit uxorem nomine Azuba, de qua genuit Jerioth. Vulg. 1 Paralip. ii. 18.] 582 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. isai. xxxvii. despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn : O daughter of Jerusalem, ir'apflevos, he hath shaken his head at thee." In the Hebrew, Greek, St Jerome's TViMre*a- translati°n and commentary, it is clean contrary : " The virgin daugh- XijvaiiT^. ter of Sion hath despised thee," (O Assur:) "the daughter of Jeru- n?3. salem hath shaken her head at thee." All are the feminine gender, -,1, njyS and spoken of Sion literally, and of the church spiritually triumphing : t -:t over Assur and all her enemies : you translate all as of the masculine gender, and apply to it Assur, insulting against Jerusalem, &c. I cannot conceive what this translation meaneth, and I would gladly know the reason ; and I would have thought it some gross oversight, but that I find it so in all your English bibles, and not only in this place of Isaiah, but also in the books of the kings, 4 Reg. xix. where the same words are repeated. And it is no less marvel unto us, that know Bib'isT? no* ti*e reason °f y°ur doings, why you have left out Alleluia nine iTwi"! times in the six last psalms, being in the Hebrew nine times more than in your translation; specially when you know that it is the ancient and joyful song of the primitive church. See the New English Testament, Annot. Apoc. xix. Fulke, Fulke. It seemeth that our translators followed too 13 much the judgment of the Tigurine translator, who, what reason moved him so to translate, I know not : it seem eth they weighed not well the Hebrew in that place; but such is man's frailty that he is apt and easy to be de ceived, if he be not very vigilant and attentive in those cases : and the example of one man's error that is of credit, soon draweth other men into the same, by coun tenance of his authority. Nevertheless two of our trans lations, the Bishops' bible and Coverdale's bible, translate the very same words according to the Hebrew, 2 Reg. xix. referring the saying against Senacherib despised and laughed to scorn by Jerusalem; and therefore you say untruly, that it is in all our English bibles, 4 Reg. xix. Where you marvel why we have left out Alleluiah nine times in the six last psalms, I marvel as much why you should so say ; for in the Bishops' bible which I have, and which you call bible 1577, it is ten times in the five last psalms, and ten times there is in the translation, "Praise ye the Lord." In the cxlv. it is not in the Hebrew ; but in the other five psalms it is both in the beginning and in the end of every one of them. Martin, Martin. Again, you translate thus: "Many which had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their XXII.j TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 583 eyes, wept," &c. Look well to your Hebrew, and you shall find it according both to the Greek and the Latin, thus : " Many which had seen the first house in the foundation thereof," (that is, yet standing upon the foundation, not destroyed,) "and this temple before then- eyes, wept." You imagined that it should be meant, they saw Salo mon's temple, when it was first founded; which because it was im possible, therefore you translated otherwise than fa in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. But yet in some of your bibles, you should have considered the matter better, and translated accordingly. Fulke. The Hebrew is indifferent, Ezra iii. to either Fulke, of both translations, and the sense is all one, whether heiasedho be referred to the first house, named before, or MD^ to this house before their eyes, which followeth ; and there fore your conjecture of our imagination, as in other places, is no more bold than vain. Martin. And surely why you should translate (4 Reg. xxiii. 13.) Martin, " On the right hand of mount Olivet," rather than as it is in the ' _l vulgar Latin ; and why, " Ye abject of the gentiles," Isaiah xiv. 20. . - : rather than " ye that are saved of the gentiles ;" you belike know JVTK&Sn some reason, we do not, neither by the Hebrew, nor the Greek. oi amlope- voi dirb Tcov . , ,. eQvoiv. Fulke. The Geneva bible hath according to the He-^gj^g brew, " the mount of corruption," which was indeed the J^-j : mount Olivet, as it is proved by 1 Reg. xi. 7 and 2 Sam. xv. ' 30, " and of the fruitfulness of oil was called mischethith;" 15. but in this place, in detestation of the idolatry, is called maschith, signifying "corruption," as Bethel was . called Bethaven, Osee iv. 15. In Esai. xiv. two of our translations have, according to the usual signification ofthe Hebrew word, pelitei, "you thatUDvB escaped of the people ;" but that the word also signifieth "an abject," you might have learned by Pagnine, and so ceased to have marvelled why the Geneva bible translateth "you abjects of the gentiles ;" as your own vulgar translation,. Jer. xiiv. translateth it, "of them that fled," or "fugitives." Martin. Howbeit in these lesser things, (though nothing in the Martin, scripture is to be counted little,) you might perhaps more freely have " taken your pleasure, in following neither Hebrew nor Greek; but when it concerneth a matter no less than usury, there by your false translation to give occasion unto the reader to be an usurer, is no small fault, either against true religon, or against good manners. This 584 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [c Bib. 1562. 1577. Deut. xxiii. 19. ywn ab 1 • t : OVK eKTO- raels ™ a6eA.$wrroy TOKOV dpyvpiov,&c.Martin, 17. Ibid. v. 20. Fulke, 16, 17. i\m }tM you do most evidently in your most authentical translations, saying thus : " Thou shalt not hurt thy brother by usury of money, nor by usury of corn, nor by usury of anything that he may be hurt withal." What is this to say, but that usury is not here forbidden, unless it hurt the party that borroweth? which fa so rooted in most men's hearts, that they think such usury very lawful, and daily offend mortally that way. Where Almighty God in this place of holy scrip ture hath not a word of hurting, or not hurting, (as may be seen by the Geneva bibles,) but saith simply thus: "Thou shalt not lend to thy brother to usury, usury of money, usury of meat, usury of anything that is put to usury." Mark the Hebrew and the Greek, and see and be ashamed, that you strain and pervert it, to say for Non famerabis fratri tuo, which is word for word in the Greek and Hebrew, " Thou shalt not hurt thy brother by usury." If the Hebrew word in the use of holy scripture do signify, "to hurt by usury," why do you in the very next words following, in the selfsame bibles, translate it thus, "unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury, but not unto thy brother?" Why said you not, " A stranger thou mayest hurt with usury, but not thy brother?" Is it not all one word and phrase, here and be fore ? And if you had so translated it here also, the Jews would have thanked you; who by forcing the Hebrew word, as you do, think it very good to hurt any stranger, that is, any Christian, by any usury, be it never so great. Fulke. You say well, that in the scripture nothing is to be counted httle ; and therefore even in these httle things we have endeavoured to follow the Hebrew, and have so well followed it, that though you say much, yet you can prove httle against us. But concerning this text of usury, whereof you would make us great patrons, it is marvel that you cannot find in your dictionaries, that the verb nashach signifieth "to bite :" at least wise you should have regarded that your vulgar Latin interpreter, Num. xxi., translateth it "to strike," or "hurt," as they were that were hurt or bitten by the fiery serpents. The consent of all Hebricians also is, that neshech, the name of "usury," is derived of "biting" and "hurting :" wherefore the Bishops' bible, mean ing to express that all usury is hurtful, according to the etymology of the word, rather than to defend that any usury is lawful other than such as God himself alloweth ; and. there fore it had been well to have translated also in the next verse, " a stranger mayest thou bite, or hurt with usury ;" howsoever the Jews would take it, whose abominable usury, XXII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 585 under pretence of that place, sure I am our translators' pur pose was not to defend. Martin. What shall I tell you of other faults, which I would Martin, gladly account oversights or ignorances, such as we also desire pardon 18- of? but all are not such, though some be. As, "two thousand" (written Cant, Cantic. at length), " to them that keep the fruit thereof." In the Hebrew, Kb. 1579. and Greek, "two hundred." Again, in the same book, chap. i. 4. "As the fruits of Cedar," in the Hebrew and Greek, "tabernacles." And, " ask a sign either in the depth or in the height above," for, " in isai. vii. n. the depth of hell." And, " great works are wrought by him," for, Matt. xiv. 2. " do work in him," as St Paul useth the same word, 2 Cor. iv. 12. ^pyodaiv ev avTw. And, " to make ready an horse," Acts xxiii. 24. in the Greek, " beasts." Bib. 1577. And, "if a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, without breaking of the law of Moses," John vii. 23, for, " to the end that 'lva pt) Xudy the law of Moses be not broken." And, "the Son of man must suffer " vopos. many things, and be reproved of the elders," Mark viii. 31, for, " be diro&oKi- rejected;" as in the psalm, "the stone which the builders rejected," ixaa ,1""' we say not, "reproving'' of the said stone, which is Christ. And ve6q)vros> "a young scholar," in all your translations falsely. And, "Simon 1 Tim. in. of Chanaan," or " Simon the Cananite," who is called otherwise Zelotes, Mark Hi. that is, "zealous," as an interpretation of the Hebrew word Cananceus; which I marvel you considered not, specially considering that the Hebrew word for " zealous," and the other for a " Cananite," begin with ,3 p diverse letters. And, "lest at any time we should let them slip," for, "lest we slip or run by," and so be lost. Fulke. The first in Can. viii. is doubtless the printer's Fulke, fault, who did read in the written copy one cipher too much. 18- That the second, Can. i. 5, was the printer's fault, which did read "fruits" for "tents," it is plain by the note upon the word Kedar, which is this : " Kedar was Ishmael's son, of whom came the Arabians, that dwelt in tents." In the third place, Esai. vii. there lacketh this word "beneath," or toward the pit, downward ; for shealah is here opposite to lemayelah, "above," or "upward :" which omission I know not rbycb whether it is to be imputed to the negligence of the printer, or of the translators ; but notwithstanding the sense is all one. In the fourth text also, there is no difference for the meaning ; and some are of opinion, that evepyelv may be taken pas sively as doKelv, Beza, in Marc. vi. 14 ; other translations turn it actively. In the fifth text, Acts xxiii. if for an " horse" they had said " horses," it had been no fault ; for it is not Like they rode upon asses or camels. The word 586 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. signifieth "beasts," that are possessed, and of possession they be called KTiqvn ; but here it is certain beasts meet for carriage of men are signified. In the sixth, John vii. 23, I think the translators were deceived, supposing that iva /xrj might be translated, " so that the law of Moses be not broken," as perhaps it may; but hereof I will not determine: commonly iva sigmfieth " to the end ;" yet is there no un godly sense contained in this translation. The seventh, Mar. viii. 31, is but a knot in a rush ; for " reproved" in that place signifieth nothing but " refused," or " rejected." Your vulgar Latin saith, reprobari, which is plainly " to be reproved ;" and 1 Peter ii. " The stone which the builders reproved," reprobaverunt, " refused." By " reproved" they do not mean "reprehended" or "rebuked," but "utterly refused and not accepted." The eighth, neophytus, "a young scholar," as I have shewed before, is better Englished than a neophyte, which is neither Greek, Latin, nor Enghsh. The ninth is corrected in two translations, and the Geneva bible telleth you, that for "Cananite" you may read "zealous ;" so that we are not beholding to you for this correction, as it seemeth you would have us. Touching the tenth text, Heb. ii., both those translations that say, "lest at any time we should let them slip," have this note in the margin, by which they declare they mean even as you would have them say : "lest, hke vessels full of chaps, we leak, and run out on every part ;" for vessels that do run out, do let go or let slip that liquor that is put into them. Martin, 19. Ann. 1562. Matt. xxii. Matt. xxiv. Mark v. Matt xxv. Eph. iii. Tit. i. Fulke, 19. Martin And as for the first bible, which was done in haste, and not yet corrected, but is printed still afresh, that saith, " With He rod's servants," as though that were the only sense; that calleth idiotas, " laymen ;" Kifiarbv, "a ship;" dopvfiov, "wondering;" ofievwrai, " are gone out :" igovoiav, " his substance ;" and, " to know the excellent love of the knowledge of Christ," for, " the love of Christ that excelleth knowledge ;" and, " of men that turn away the truth," for, " that shun the truth and turn away from it;'' and, "mount Sina is Agar in Arabia," for, "Agar is mount Sina," &c. Fulke. "The first bible" was not that you meant, but not much differing from it; neither was it "done in haste," but with as good consideration as God gave for that time ; neither was it printed these twenty-two years, for ought I know, which XXII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 587 you say " is printed still afresh." In that bible " Herod's servants," put for the Herodians, was lack of knowledge of what sect the Herodians should be. Idiotas, "laymen, " is no more fault than of " the vulgar sort," which you say. "The ship," for "the ark," is a small fault, seeing that ark into which Noah entered was a ship, or instead of a ship. "The wondering," for " the tumult," is a popular term ; for so they call a great noise made by a multitude. The lamps "are gone out," or "are quenched," I know not what great difference may be in it. "His substance,',' e^ovoiav, I know not where you mean, except it be Mark xiii. where Erasmus noteth that he hath read in some copy ovo'tav, " substance," which seemeth to agree aptly with the place. In the text, : Eph. hi. the true translation is as we have corrected it in the later editions ; yet the words may bear that other interpre tation also. In Titus the first, the participle is of the mean voice, and therefore may signify actively or passively. In Gal. the transposition, Sina before Agar, seemeth to be the fault of the printer, rather than of the translator. Martin. Let these and the like be smaE negligences or ignorances, Martin, such as you will pardon us also, if you find the like. Neither do we "• greatly mislike that you leave these words, urim and thummim, and ehemarim, and ziims, and Urns, untranslated, because it fa not easy to Deut. xxxiii. express them in English: and we would have liked as well in certain jer.'lf5™"' other words which you have translated, "images," "images," and still Hamanim. "images," being as hard to express the true signification of them as Giiiuiim'. the former. And we hope you will the rather bear with the late mphietscth. Catholic translation of the English Testament, that leaveth also certain Eom' xv' words untranslated, not only because they cannot be expressed, but also for reverence and religion, as St Augustine saith, and greater majesty of the same. Fulke. Some indeed are small faults, some none at all. Fulke, That you mislike us not for not translating a few words whose signification is unknown, or else they cannot be aptly expressed in the Enghsh tongue, it is of no equity towards us ; but that you might, under that shadow, creep away with so huge a multitude of words, which may as well be trans lated as any in the bible, and that in the New Testament, which is scarce the sixth part of the whole bible. The words which we have translated " images," are out of question terms 588 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. sigriifying " images," and of your translator they be called either imagines, simulacra, sculptilia, idola, &c Our Enghsh tongue, being not so fruitful of words, we call them sometimes " idols," sometimes " images ;" which, when we speak of worshipped images, can be none other but such as you call "idols." To obscure such a multitude of words, and «o much matter by them, as you do, St Augustme will not warrant you ; who speaketh only of two or three words usually received in the Latin church in his time, not of such a number as you have counterfeited. Martin, Martin. Of one thing we can by no means excuse you, but it must savour vanity, or novelty, or both. As when you affect new strange words, which the people are not acquainted withal, but it is Bib. 1579. rather Hebrew to them than English; paXa oepvds ovopd£ovres, as Demosth. Demosthenes speaketh, uttering with great countenance and majesty. 2 chron. "Against him came up Nabuchadnezzar, king of Babel," 2 Par. xxxvi. 6., xxxvi. 6. c. 32. for " Nabuchodonosor, king of Babylon ;" " Saneherib," for " Sennacherib :" Fol 172 173 i6o.' ' ' "Michaiah's prophecy," for " Michsea's ;" " Jehoshaphat's prayer," for Queen! tothe"Josaphat's;" "Uzza slain," for "Oza;" "when Zerubbabel went about to build the temple," for "Zorobabel;" "remember what the Lord did to Miriam," for "Marie," Deut. xxxiv.: and in your first bm. 1562. translation, "Elisa," for "Elisseus;" "Pekahia" and "Pekah," for 16. b "Phaceia"and "Phacee;" "Uziahu," for "Ozias;" " Thiglath-peleser," for " Teglath-phalasar ;'' "Ahaziahu," for "Ochozias;"' "Peka, the son of Remaliahu," for " Phacee, the son of Romelia." And why say you not as well "Shelomoh,'' for "Salomon;" and "Coresh," for "Cyrus," and so alter every word from the known sound and pronunciation thereof? Is this to teach the people, when you speak Hebrew rather than English? Were it a goodly hearing (think you) to say for "Jesus," "Jeshuah;" and for "Marie," his mother, "Miriam;" and for "Mes sias," "Messiach;" and "John," "Jachannan;" and such like mon strous novelties? which you might as well do, and the people would Caim. understand you as well, as when your preachers say, "Nabucad- nezer, king of Babel." Fulke, Fulke. Seeing the most of the proper names of the 21- Old Testament were unknown to the people before the scrip ture was read in Enghsh, it was best to utter them according to the truth of their pronunciation in Hebrew, rather than after the common corruption which they had received in the Greek and Latin tongues. But as for those names which were known unto the people out of the New Testament, as Jesus, John, Mary, &c, it had been folly to have taught men XXII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 589 to sound them otherwise than after the Greek dechnation, in which we find them. Martin. When Zuinglius, your great patriarch, did read in Mun- Martin, ster's translation of the Old Testament Jehizkiahu, Jehezchel, Cho- 22' resh, Darianesch, Beltzezzer, and the like, for Ezechias, Ezekiel, fs™fat '" Cyrus, Darius, Baltasar; he called them barbarous voices, and un civil speeches, and said the word of God was soiled and depraved by them. Know you not that proper names alter and change, and are written and sounded in every language diversely? Might not all antiquity, and the general custom both of reading and hearing the known names of Nabuchodonosor, and Michseas, and Ozias, suffice you, but you must needs invent other which the people never heard, rather for vain ostentation, to amaze and astonish them, than to edi fication and instruction? which fa an old heretical fashion, noted by Eusebius, Lib. iv. c. 10, and by the author of the imperfect commen taries upon St Matthew, Ho. xiiv., and by St Augustine, Lib. iii. c. 26., contra Cresconium. Fulke. That Zuinghus is no patriarch of ours, you may Fulke, know by this, that we do freely dissent from him, when we 22. are persuaded that he dissenteth from the truth. But where you charge us with "an heretical fashion" in sounding Hebrew names according to the truth of the Hebrew tongue, if your authors be well weighed, they will convince you of an here tical fashion in training of new words, which are more apt "to amaze and astonish men, than to instruct or edify them ;" and in using strange language in all your church service, and in that also divers Hebrew words. So did the Mar- cosians, of whom Eusebius out of Irenams writeth, in bap tizing. And the author of the imperfect work upon Matthew, though himself an heretic, yet truly saith of heretic priests, as you are, in the homily by you quoted, Sic et modo hceretici sacerdotes, &c " Even so the heretic priests shut up the gate of truth : for they know that if the truth were made mani fest, their church should be forsaken," &c. For which cause, until this time, you have been utter enemies to the trans lation of the scripture. But now you see you cannot pre vail against the translation, you have begun so to translate the scripture, as in many things it were as good not trans lated, for anything the people shall understand by it. For you have not explicated the fourth part of the feigned ink- horn terms that you have used. And that St Augustine 590 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH. saith, Cresconius went fondly about to terrify him with the Greek word anticategoria, you do the like with parasceve, azymes, scandals, neophyte, yea, with the Latin words gratis, depositum, and such like, seek to bring the ignorant in great admiration of your deep knowledge, which is nothing else but " an heretical fashion," under strange terms to hide the poison of your pestilent doctrine. Mahtin, 23.Jehovah. m'tr Fulke, 23. Martin. What shall I speak of your affectation of the word Jehovah (for so it pleaseth you to accent it) instead of Dominus, the "Lord?" whereas the ancient fathers in the very Hebrew text did read and sound it rather Adonai, as appeareth both by St Jerome's translation, and also hfa commentaries; and I would know of them the reason why in the Hebrew bible, whensoever this word is joined with Adonai, it fa to be read Elohim, but only for avoiding Adonai twice together. This, I say, we might justly demand of these that take a pride in using this word Jehovah so often both in English and Latin, though otherwise we are not superstitious, but as occasion serveth, only in the Hebrew text we pronounce it and read it. Again we might ask them, why they use not as well Elohim instead of Deus, "God;" and so ofthe rest, changing all into Hebrew, that they may seem gay fellows, and the people may wonder at their wonderful and mystical divinity. Fulke. In our Enghsh translation, Jehovah is very sel dom used in other speech ; no wise man useth it oftener than there is good cause why. And when there is cause, we have no superstition in pronouncing it, as we are not curious in accenting it. Although, perhaps, you quarrel at our accent, because you cannot discern between time and time. The middle syllable we know to be long; whether it be to be elevated we make no question : we know where the accent is in the Hebrew ; but we think not that all accents be sharp, and elevate that syllable in which they are. It is a great matter that you demand the reason why, joined to Adonai, it is to be read Elohim: you should rather demand why it is otherwise pointed, when it is joined with Adonai; for being pointed as it is, I see not why it should not be read according to the vowels, Adonai Jehovih. Many other ques tions might be moved about the names of God, in pronouncing or writing of which we know the Jews were reverent, even to superstition ; and therefore in books that should come in all men's hands, made other alterations than you speak of, XXII. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 591 and yet retained in other authentical copies the true letters and points. If any desire vaingloriously to utter his skill in the tongues, when he should edify the people, of all them that be wise and learned he is misliked for so doing. Martin. To conclude: are not your scholars, think you, much Maiitin, bound unto you, for giving them, instead of God's blessed word and his holy scriptures, such translations heretical, Judaical, profane, false, negligent, fantastical, new, naught, monstrous ? God open their eyes to see, and mollify your hearts to repent of all your falsehood and treachery, both that which is manifestly~convinced against you and cannot be denied, as also that which may by some shew of answer be shifted off in the sight of the ignorant, but in your consciences is as manifest as the other! Fulke. Happy and thrice happy hath our Enghsh na- Fulke, tion been, since God hath given learned translators, to ex-24- press in our mother tongue the heavenly mysteries of his holy word, dehvered to his church in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Who, although they have in some matters, of no importance unto salvation, as men, been deceived; yet have they faithfully dehvered the whole substance of the heavenly doctrine, contained in the holy scriptures, without any heretical translations or wilful corruptions ; and in the whole bible, among them all, have committed as few over sights for anything that you can bring, and of less im portance, than you have done only in the New Testament; where, beside so many omissions, even out of your own vulgar Latin translation, you have taken upon you to alter that you found in your text, and translate that which is only in the margin, and is read but in few written copies : as for Italia you say Attalia, noted before Heb. xiii., for placuerunt you translate latuerunt, 2 Pet. ii., for coinquina- tionis, which is in the text, you translate coinquinationes, which was found but in one only copy by Hentenius, as the other but in one or two of thirty divers copies, most written. A BRIEF TABLE TO DIRECT THE READER TO SUCH PLACES AS MARTIN IN THIS BOOK CAVILLETH TO BE CORRUPTED IN DIVERS TRANSLATIONS OF THB ENGLISH BIBLES, BY ORDER OF THE BOOKS, CHAPTERS, AND VERSES OF THE SAME, WITH SOME OTHER QUARRELS AGAINST BEZA AND OTHERS FOR THEIR LATIN TRANSLATIONS, WITH THE ANSWERS OF WILLIAM FULKE. OLD TESTAMENT. PAGE Gen. iv. 7. num. 28. num. 9. ..125, 390 xiv. 18. num.42 147, 513 xxxvii. 35. num. 7 286 xiii. 38. num. 12 297 2 Kings xxiii. 5. num. 6 565 2 Chron. xxviii. 19. num. 10 579 xxxvi. 8. num. 19 202 num. 1 547 Ezra ix. 5. num. 16 444 Psal. lxxxiv. 7 575 lxxxvi. 13. num. 13 299 num.46 152 lxxxix. 48. num. 14 301 xcv. 6 542 xcviii. 5 542 cxix. i 332 cxxxi 542 cxxxix. 17 526 cxlvii. 19. 18. num. 3 332, 573 Prov. i. 12. num. 22 309 ix. 2. num. 21. cum sequent. 522 xxvii. 20 310 xxx. 16 309 Canticles vi. 9. num. 10 237 PAGE Canticles viii. 6. num. 46 152 num. 2 571 Isai. ii. 22. num. 7 577 xxvi. 18 571 xxx. 20. num. 5 574 22. num.23 208 xxxiii. 6. num. 6 576 Jer. vii. 18. num.9 532 xi. 19. num. 18 519 xiiv. 19. num.9 532 Dan. iv. 24. num. 18 446 vi. 22. num.3 336 x. 12. num. 15 444 xiv. 4. num.26 212 12. 17. 20. num. 16 517 Hoseaxii. 10. num. 8 578 xiii. 14. num. 46 152 num.16 303 Joelii. 23 574 Hab. ii. 18. num. 23. num. 4.. .208, 573 Mal. ii. 7. num. 17 481 iii. 1. num. 18 483 14. num.17 445 APOCRYPHA. Wisd. iii. 14. num.3 419 xv. 13. num. 27 213 Ecclus. v. 5. num.4 420 vii. 31 460 1 Mace. i. 51 332 ii. 21 332 2 Mace. vi. 7. num. 5 564 INDEX. 593 NEW TESTAMENT. PAGE Matt. i. 19. 25. num. 4 336, 535 "¦6 486 i". 2, 8 428 xvi. 18. num. 2 225 num.5 230 xviii. 17 225 xix. 11, 12. num. 8 388 num. 16 480 xxvi 497 Markx. 52. num.9 425 xiv. 22 497 Luke i. 28. num.43 149 num.4 528 6. num.4 332, 336 iii. 8. num. 1 428 viii. 48. 50. num.9 425 xviii. 42. num. 9 425 xxii. 20. num. 10 511 num. 11 512 John i. 12. num. 1 375 ix. 22, 23. num. 9 567 xiii. 16. num. 3 462 Acts i. 26. num. 5 465 ii. 27. num. 3, 4, 5 281 iii. 21. num. 7 506 iv. 13. num. 3 462 ix. 22. num. 2 547 xiv. 23. num. 5 245 num.7 466 xv. 2. 4. 6. 22, 23. num. 4. 243, 244 xvi. 4. num. 4 244 xvii. 23. num. 8 566 xix. 24. num. 7 566 3. num. 3 452 xx. 24. 28. num.21 486 17. num. 8 248 Rom. ii. 26. num. 1 332 v. 6. 18. num.13 396, 401 viii. 18. 38. num. 3 343, 419 ix. 16. num.7 386 xi.4. num. 19 202 1 Cor. i. 10. num. 3 220 v.ll. num. 6 107 ix. 7. num. 15 516 a. 21. num. 16 518 xi. 2. num. 2,3 166, 168 xv. 10. num.2 376 51. num.4 494 55. num. 16 302 2 Cor. ii. 10. num. 20 485 iv. 17- num. 6 349 [fulke.] paob 2Cor. v. num.6 409 vi. 1. num. 6 382 16. num. 3 181 viii. num. 3 462 Gal. v. 20. num. 3 221 Eph. i. 6. num. 7 410 Eph. i. 22. num. 2 226 22. 23. num. 6 231 iii. 12. num. 3 378 num. 5 421 v. num. 2 492 5. num. 5 100 num. 1 179 32. num. 2 219 25. num.2 226 Phil. ii. 15. num. 4 464 iv. 3. num. 13 475 Col.i. 12. num. 17 362 23. num.8 554 ii.20. num. 8 107 iii. 5. num. 5 100 num.1 179 num. 12 191 2 Thess. i. 5. num. 5 338 11. num. 15 359 ii. 15. num.2 166 iii. 6 166 1 Tim. iii. 6. num. 1 460 num. 3 462 8. 15. num. 2 460, 226 iv. 14. num. 8 249, 467 v. 17, 18. num.9 250 2 Tim. i. 6. num. 10 470 iv. 8. num.5 337 Tit. iii. 8. num. 19 448 10. num. 13 Ill num. 3 221 Heb. ii. 9. num. 6 349 v. 7. num.45 150 num. 37 322 vi. 10. num. 5 338 11. num. 2 416 x. 29. num. 13 357 22. num.2 416 xi. 21. num. 1 539 xii. 23. num. 2 226 xiii. 4. num. 14 476 num. 44 150 James i. 13. num. 2 559 iv. 6. num.6 551 1 Pet. i. 18. 25. num. 6 173 38 594 INDEX. PAGE 1 Pet. i. 18. 25. num. 3 548 ii. 13. num. 22 488 ii. 13. num. 24 490 v. 1. num. 9 251 2 Pet. iii. 16. num. 1 557 1 John v. 3. num. 14 398 21. num. 13 193 Rev. xix. 8. num. 3 335 BEZA'S CORRUPTIONS. Psal. Ii. 6. num. 26 122 Matt, xxiii. num. 10 567 Acts i. 14. num. 12 473 ii. 23. num. 31 128 24. num. 34 129 27. num. 32 128 num.2 280 iii. 21. num. 36 130 xiii. 39. num. 2 403 xxvi. 20. num. 45 150 Acts xxvi. 20. num. 1 428 Rom. iv. 11. num. 2 451 1 Cor. xii. 31. num. 8 424 xiii. 2. num. 6 422 xv. 10. num. 27 125 2 Thess. ii. 3. num. 3 168 Tit. iii. 5, 6. num. 46 152 num. 5 455 Heb. v. 7. num.29 126 INDEX OF MATTERS, &c. A. Auditions to the text, allegation of, examined, 547—556. Altar, 110, 111, 112; translations con cerning it examined, 497—525. Ambassador, 218. Ambrose, 41, 51, 60, 102, 171, 212, 270, 272, 395 ; his opinion of the Sep tuagint, 53 ; of Genesis xviii. 395 ; of merits, 369 ; of penance, 438. Amendment of life, 433. Angel, 218; translation of the word examined, 483. Anima, 81, 82, 158, 280. Apocrypha, 21. Apocryphal books, when first received, 18. Apostle, 218; and messenger, dift'erence between, 464. Aquarii, a sect of heretics, 522. Arias Montanu3, 55, 56, 79. Aristotle, his meaning of SiKalwpa, 336. Armenian church depart not from the scriptures in favour of men's judg ment, 523. Augustine, 10, 19, 23, 25, 26, 35, 38, 47, 48, 53, 70, 73, 102, 103, 146, 149, 226, 227, 242, 258, 269, 270, 290, 292, 293, 294, 298, 340, 341, 353, 387, 389, 472, 544, 558, 590 ; com mended the necessity of Greek and Hebrew learning to find out the truth ofthe Latin interpretation, 48 ; not ad dicted entirely to the Latin translation, 70 ; ignorant of Hebrew, 391 ; says it is the special gift of God that men will and are able, 389; follows corrupt translation of Septuagint in reading conversion for appetite, 391 ; says merits are of God, not man, 353; denies reward of works, ib.; opinion of free-will perverted by Romanists, 386, 387; of penance, 438; con cerning the Virgin Mary, 533. Auricular confession, not proved from the passage in St James, 458, 459. Ausonius, 435. B. Ballad, the term justified, 572. Baptism and confession, translations concerning, examined, 450 — 459 ; of John, explained, 453, 454 ; sacrament of, not taken away when it is stated that God may work regeneration in those who are necessarily deprived of it, 456. Basil, his opinion adduced to shew the proper rendering of Luke xxii. 20, 131, 139 ; quoted, 364 ; his opinion of irXtjpocpopia, 418. Beda, 56, 57. Beiasedho, 583. Bel and the Dragon, story of, not in the Hebrew, 26; reasons for not re ceiving it into the Canon, 27. Bernard, his opinion of ipsa, 534. Beza, his translation impugned and defended, 57, 60, 61, 69, 112, 157, 160 ; —of Matthew x. 2, 41 Luke i. 6,118; 78,43; iii. 36, 43; xxii. 20, 511 John vi. 11, 499; Acts ii. 23, 128; 24,43; iii. 21, 130, 131, 158; vii. 14, 43 ; xiii. 39, 404 1 Corin thians vii. 1, 115; ix. 5, 115; x. 16, 500, 501.— Galatians iii. 13, 45 — Romans iii. 20, 404 ; iv. 2, 404 ; iv. 3, 9, 406; v. 7, 123 ; v. 18, 160, 402. — Hebrews v. 7, 127 ; his translations not followed by English Protestants, 154; his rendering of peTavoia, 155; reasons why he refused the word pamitentia, 155 ; misrepresented, 175 ; his opinion of the vulgar translation of the New Testament, 176; an enemy to the doctrine of free will, 377 ; says men cannot keep God's commandments without his grace, 38—2 596 INDEX 399 ; expresses what the apostle saith, that circumcision is a seal of the jus tice of faith, 451 ; translation concern ing temptation examined, 562, 563. Bible by Thomas Matthew, 21, 72, 91 ; by Jug, 422; by Coverdale, 548. Bishops not superior to priests in au thority of handling the sacraments, 461 ; superior for government, ib. Blasphemies ofRomanist writers against holy scripture, 8. Bonaventure, Psalter of, blasphemous, 528. Brasen serpent, in what manner an image, 183. Brethren of love, 37. Bridges, Mr, 75. Bristow, Richard, 14, 15, 68, 76, 95. Cadaver, 84, 112, 280. Calf hill, Mr, 75. Calvin on 2 Pet. i. 10, 85 ; his opinion of Acts iii. 21, 131; of St James' epistle, 159; an enemy to doctrine of free will, 377. Campian, Edm. ii. 14, 439, 440, 442, 508; could not construe Greek, 508. Canisius, 527, 528. Canonical scriptures, how to be dis tinguished from other writings, 19. Capere, 507. Carcase, 81, 83. Castaleo, 163. Catechumeni, 257. Catholic, 218, 219, 222, 223. Chataoth, 391, 393. Chemarim, 565. Christ, citing the Old Testament brings nothing disagreeing with the Hebrew text, 49 ; his descent into hell, 323 ; crowned for his suffering, 374; for himself needed not to merit, ib. ; our justice, wisdom and sanctification, 402 ; makes us just, 403 ; conformity to his sufferings necessary towards being the partakers of his glory, 441. Christ's descent into hell, translations respecting, 278 — 321. Christian's creed, 415. Chrysostom, 171, 204, 271, 273, 294, 360, 364, 365, 466; his opinion of tradition, 171 ; exposition of Gen. iv. 395 ; says justification is of God, 410, 411; his opinion of the election of Matthias, 466; of apostles' mar riages, 475, 478, 479 ; ofthe blessing of the bread and wine, 502; on Christ's flesh, 510 ; on his presence, 511. Church, the, had no tradition necessary to salvation but what is contained in Old and New Testament, 89; translations respecting it examined, 225—239. Church militant, not excluded by the term congregation, 227. Circwmire, 565. Civil contract, 492. Clemens Alexandrinus, 9, 473 ; says the apostles had wives, 472. Codex Bezse, 88. Complementum, 231, 234, 236. Confession, 274 ; and baptism, transla tions concerning, examined, 450— 459. Conflatile, 204, 205, 209, 212, 213. Congregation, term alluded to, 90, 112, 218, 219, 230, 238, 239; the Jews so termed by Augustine, 227. Convivificavit, 384. Cooperarii, 383. Corruptions, alleged, considered, 557. Council of Carthage, 18, 19, 23, 262; of Laodicea, 18 ; of Constantinople, 18. Coverdale, his translation defended, 98. Cranmer's Bible misliked by Papists, 190. Curare, 379. Cyprian, 40, 351, 352, 522 ; thought it possible for the Church of Rome to err, 40 ; his opinion of merits, 352 ; his opinion of penance, 439; his opinion of exomologesis, 457. D. Deacons, 218, 254, 255. Denis, (Dionysius,) 431. Diaconus, 110, 254. Digrwr, 360, 365. Disputation at Wisbech Castle, iii. 41. Dissension between Augustine and Je rome, about a text of scripture, 35. Dissensions, 218, 219, 221 ; in churches of Africa and Rome, about re-baptism of those baptized by heretics, 35. Dulia, 259 ; translations concerning, examined, 539 — 546. OF MATTERS, &C. 597 E. Ecclesia, meaning of the term, 58, 90, 229, 231; synagogue of the Jews so called by St Luke and Augus tine, 227. Ecclesiastieus, by Augustine's rule, not to be received, 20 ; not received by apostolic churches, 20 ; or Reform ers, ill. Elders, 246, 251. Election, popular, Whitgift's opinion of, 466. Energumeni, 258. Epiphanius, 194, 481. Episcopius, 110, 266. Erasmus, his translation of peTavoia, 155 ; his translation of Rom. v. 18, vindicated, 159. Esther, vain additions to book of, 26 ; contrary to the truth of the story, 27 ; reasons for placing it among the un- canonical scriptures, ib. Eucharist, opinions of Irenaeus concern ing it, 503 ; of Chrysostom, 502 ; of Basil, ib. ; of Justin Martyr, 504 ; of CEcumenius, 505. Eusebius, 16; exhorts to keep apos tolical traditions, 165. Exomologesis, 457. Faith, reward of, that which is looked for according to God's promise, 352 ; faith only profits according to belief, 353; not the efficient cause of justifi cation, 405 ; reputed to Abraham for justice in deed, 407 ; should be fruit ful of good works, 449. Faith only, and faith special, trans lations concerning it examined, 415—427. Faithful, the, counted worthy not by their merit, but for Jesus Christ's sake, 359. Feckenham, abbot, 426. Free will, translations concerning it examined, 375—400; meaning of, 385; Augustine's opinion of, per verted by papists, 386, 387. Fulke, William, his birth and educa tion, i. ii.; ejected from his college, iii. ; accompanies the earl of Lincoln to Paris, ib. ; made Master of Pem broke College, Cambridge, and Vice- chancellor, ib. ; his disputations with the Papists, ib. ; his death and list of his works, iv. seqq. G. Gardiner, Stephen, Bishop of Win chester, 11, 98, 489. Geneva version, translated from He brew and Greek, 118; why so called, 155. Gloss, the ordinary, confesses that errors have crept into the text, 43. Godly life, necessary to justification, 419 ; without it, no assurance of faith, ib. Good works, Christians should excel in, 449. Gough, Mr, 426. Grace frames the will of man to God's service, 377; more abundant in our sacraments than under the law, 450 ; does not always follow imposition of hands, 469. Grave, 301, 302, 303, 307. Grave and death, difference betwixt, 304 ; Jerome's opinion, 305. Gregory Nazianzen, 131, 247, 324. Gregory the Great, 483. H. Heaviness, why used instead of humili ation, 445. Hebrew points, 55, 578. Hebrew text falsely pointed by Martin, 79. Hebrews, Epistle to, supposed by some to have been written by St Luke, 29, 31, 33 ; by Barnabas, ib. ; by Cle mens, ib. ; authority of it not doubted, 30. Holy orders, translations concerning, examined, 460. Howlet, John, (Persons,) 95, 97, 113, 189, 190. Humbling, comprehends fasting and mourning, 444. Humfrey, Mr, 507, 509. Humiliabam, humiliare, humiliatus, 444. Hymn of the three children, not in the Hebrew of Daniel, 26. 598 INDEX Idiota, 462; idiota, 587. Idol, 218, 219. Idola, 105, 113, 179. Idolaters and worshippers of images the same, 187. Idololatria, 100, 101, 106, 179—216. Idols, false Christians possessed them, 215. Idolum, how the word is used by Augustine, 183. Ignatius, 165, 489. Illyricus Flaccus, defends Luther's translation of Rom. iii. 17, 28, 154, 159. Image, 218, 219. Images and idols, the same in the mind of Jerome, 185. Images, conduct of Epiphanius con cerning, 194 ; opinion of Tertullian, ib. ; of Irenseus, ib.; worshipping of, forbidden by the scriptures, 206. Imago, 103, 105, 179—216. Inferi, 308, 309, 318. Infernum, 292, 305, 307 ; Jerome's dis tinction between this and mors not tenable, 306; word not proper for hell, 320. Infernus, 81. Ipsa, whether to be referred to Virgin Mary in Gen. iii., 532 ; Gregory's opinion on this reading, 533. Irenseus, 194, 271 ; his sentiments con cerning the eucharist, 503. Isidorus Clarius, his translations of scripture referred to, — Gen. xxxvii. 36, 287; Psal. cxix. 112; Hab. ii. 18, 211 ; Coloss. iii. 5, 100 ; Acts xix. 35, 203 ; of plenitudo, 235 ; discusses errors of the Vulgate, 62 ; his expo sition of Hosea xii. 10, 579. Isidorus Hispalensis, 104. J. Jacob's staff, translations concerning, 539, 540, 543 ; Augustine's opinion on the subject, 541 ; that of CEcume nius, ib. ; of Jerome, 545. James, St, 222, 223. James's, St, Epistle , authentic] ty of, 1 6 ; received by Calvin, 21 ; why denied by Eusebius, 33 ; alluded to, 69, 222, 223. Jehovah, the term vindicated, 590. Jerome quoted, 19, 26, 30, 40, 51, 52, 106, 185, 214, 215, 222, 223,247,262, 263, 265, 272, 274, 290, 294, 298, 303, 305, 320, 354, 390, 392, 471, 519; translated scripture out of original, 47 ; would not be dissuaded by Au gustine, ib. ; complains of the Sep tuagint translation, 49 ; not to be credited agamst the truth of Old Testament, 50 ; his opinion of Sep tuagint, 53; his meaning of xa'/°'Sj 376, 377 ; rendering of chataoth, 391 ; of attath, 392 ; favours mar riage of priesthood, 481 ; his opinion of ipsa, 534.; his opinion of Jacob's rod, 545, 546. Jesus Christ, the spiritual matter of the sacraments, 450. Jewell, Bishop, 75. Jewish church excommunicated men from the synagogue, 567. Jude, St, his Epistle, 222. Jug's bible, 422. Justice imputative, translations con cerning it examined, 401 — 414. Justice inherent, 160; denied, 400, 403 ; reputed by God's mercy in Christ, 409, 411, 412. Justification, 118, 157, 160; transla tions affecting it examined, 332— 342. Justified, to be ; to be reputed just ; obtain justice ; all one, 407. Justin Martyr, 504, 505. Justitia, meaning of, 119. K. Keltridge, John, 530, 531. Knowledge to be used in discovering true meaning of scripture, 371. L. Lactantius, 102, 104. Latimer errs respecting Christ suffer ing torment, 284. Latria, 259; translations concerning, examined, 5.39—546. Lenephesh, 82. Limbus patrum, 84, 158, 161 ; transla tions concerning it examined, 278— OF MATTERS, &C. 599 331 ; Jerome's opinion of, examined, 290; Tertullian's, 295, 296, 297. Lindanus, 11, 42, 62; confuted by Johannes Isaac, 45, 79, 80, 373, 435, 521. Luke xxii. 20, meaning of the verse investigated, 132—137, 139; exam ples adduced from classic authors to shew that protestants have trans lated accurately, 140, 141 ; examples of similar kind from scripture, 142, 143, 144, 145. Luther denieth not the Epistle of St James, 15, 17; reforms mistakes in his later translation of the scriptures, 154. Lutherans, not to be excused for having images in their churches, 205. M. Maccabees, by Augustine's rule not to be received, 20 ; not received by apostolic churches, 20 ; Augus tine's opinion of it, 23 ; sometimes called Hagiographa, 24; decree of Gelasius allowed only one book, ib. ; not received by Jerome, ib. ; refused by the Reformers, 77 ; not received by church of Israel, ib. Marcion, 42, 302. Mariale, 528. Mariana, 527. Marriage of priests, translations con cerning, examined, 460. Martin, Gregory, brief account of, xii. seqq. ; list of his works, xiii— xiv. Maschith, 583. Massecath, meaning of, 207, 210, 211. Matrimony, translations affecting, exa mined, 492— 496 ; no sacrament, 492; not esteemed a civil contract; ib. Matthias, his election extraordinary, 465. Melchisedec's sacrifice, 513, 514, 615 ; | i opinions concerning it discussed, 148, 149. Merits, mention of, to be found rather in the fathers than in scripture, 352; Cyprian's opinion of, ib. ; notneces- \, sarily included in worthiness, 355; Augustine says they are of God, not men, 353 ; translations concerning, examined, 343—374; our, not crowned by God, 341. Messenger, 218 ; and apostle, differ ence between, 464 ; of God, transla tion of the term examined, 483. Mimsach, 524. Mingling of water with wine, 524. Minister, 218. Mipenei, 486. Misehethith, 583. Mors, 306. Mysterium, 220, 260, 495. N. Nashach, 584. Nashlicha, 521. Neophytus, 463. Nephesh, 83. Neshech, 584. Novatians deny repentance, 437. Novelty of terms in Rhemish transla tion, 569. O. CEcumenius, 223, 339, 363, 364 519, 561; his opinion of marriage of priest hood, 479 ; of intercession of saints, 537, 560. Ordinance, term examined, 490. Papal church divided on the point of the conception of the Virgin Mary, 36 ; wrests interpretation of scrip ture to secular ends, ib. Papists add to scripture in their trans lations, 403. Their translations of 2 Cor. viii. 408; 2 Cor. i. 8, ib.; 1 Cor. xiii. 1 1, ib. ; erroneously trans late passages in Acts v. 4, x. 41, 1 Cor. xiv. 38, Heb. vii. 28, 394. Penance, 257 ; translations concerning it examined, 428—432 ; reasons why the word is not used, 429 ; Augus tine's opinion of, 439; Cyprian's, ib. ; Ambrose's, ib. Penitence, Tertullian's definition of, 437. 600 INDEX Penitent may assure himself his sins are forgiven, 421. Pesel, meaning of, 209. Pesilim, meaning of, 207. Peter's primacy, 86, 87. Pherak, 447. Pighius calls scripture a nose of wax, 539. Plenitudo, 235, 236. Pcenitentes, 436, 437, 438. Pcenitentia, 155, 429, 432; signifies change of mind, 443. Pasnitentiam agere, 432, 437, 438,443. Pcenitejitiam dare, 432. Pceniterent, 379, 403. Preaching, not a sacrament, 459. Presbyter, why not translated priest, 240 ; meaning of the word, 109, 110, 242, 251, 254, 260, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266. Presbyterium, used by Cyprian for a consistory of elders, 153 ; why not translated priesthood, 240 ; meaning of the word, 252, 253. Priest and priesthood, translations respecting the words generally ex amined, 240—277. Priests, 109, 218, 219, 242; marriage of, favoured by Jerome, 481. Primasius, 325. Propitiato peccato, de, 421. Protestants not to be charged with Lu ther's opinions, 16, 18, 122; fetch the truth from the fountain head, 47. Psalter of Bonaventure, its blasphe mous character, 528. Purgatory, translations respecting it examined, 278—331. R. Rainolds, John, defended, 38. Becipere, 507. Redeem thy sins, 446, 448. Relative, often referred to an ante cedent not expressed in the same verse, 391. Repentance, 257; requires hatred of sin, 421. Reprobari, 586. Resipiscentia, 155, 156, 429, 430. Retribution, 373. Reward of works, denied by Augus tine, 353 ; given by God of his mere grace, 369 ; illustrated by parable of the labourers, ib. ; merits of Christ plead for us in our, 370 ; does not of necessity imply merit or desert, 371. Righteousness inherent, denied by pro testants to be justifying, 403 ; scrip. ture against it, (2 Cor. v. 21.) 409. Robets, 392. Ruffinus, 20. Sacerdos, 109, 219, 242, 262, 267, 269, 271, 273, 467, 565. Sacrament, 218, 219 ; that instituted by Christ not a sacrifice, 241 ; must have an outward element, 459 ; trans lations concerning it, examined, 497 —525. Sacraments, translations concerning, examined, 450 — 459; are seals of God's promises to confirm our faith, 450. Sacramentum, meaning of the word, 493, 496. Sacrifice of the mass disclaimed, 241 ; translations concerning it examined, 497—525. Saints, translations in honour of, ex amined, 526, 538. Satisfaction, translation concerning it, examined, 428 — 432 ; prescript time of, 433. Saunders, or Sander, Nicholas, 15, 16, 17, 134. Schism, 218, 219, 221. Scholastica Historia, opinion of its author concerning Melchisedec's sa crifice, 148. Scripture, not expounded after private conceit, 9 ; sense of it to be sought out of scripture itself, ib. ; according to analogy of faith, 37 ; truth of, not falsified by the Reformers, 58; trans lations of, made from the common printed copies, 74 ; easy to be under stood by such as use ordinary means, 77. Seulptile, 204, 205, 207, 209, 212, 213. Secret, 218, 219, 220, 494. Seniores, 58, 244, 246, 276. Sects, why so translated, 224. Septuagint, Jerome denieth the trans lators of it were separated into cells, OF MATTERS, &C. 601 53, 80; Ambrose, his opinion of their translation, 83. Sermones de Sanctis, wrongly ascribed to Augustine, 353. Sheol, 59, 82, 128, 129, 153, 158,284,287, 299, 301, 303—310, 314-317, 319, 320; in what sense understood by Augustine, 308; by Beza, 311, 312; signifies properly a grave, 311, 317. Sigillum, 452. Signaculum, 452. Simulacrum, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 179, 212. Sleidan, 63. Solomon's, temple, did not agree with images made by device of man, 182. Soul, 301. Statua, 207. Stability, the term does not exclude faith, 576. Supplices, 446. Supreme head, Calvin's sense of the term, 489. Surius, 63. Susanna, story of, not in the Hebrew of Daniel, 26; reasons for not receiv ing it as canonical, 26, 27. Synagoga, meaning of the word, 228. Table of theLord, 517, 518. Temptation to evil cannot proceed from God, 561; Beza's translation con cerning it, examined, 562, 563. Tertullian, 31, 102, 155, 194, 296, 353; his definition of pcenitentia, 155, 443 ; his opinion of exomologesis, 457 ; his opinion of marriage of the apostles, 474. Theodoret, his opinion of trXr\pocj,opia, 418; of apostles' marriages, 475, 479. Theodotion, 25. Theophylact, his opinion of irXt,pocpo- pia, 418; of apostles' marriages, 476, 477- Tobit, by Augustine's rule not to be received, 20; not received by the apostolic churches, 20; refused by the Reformers, 77- Tomson's Answer to Feckenham, 426. Tonstal, bishop, finds two thousand corruptions in the New Testament, 61 ; forswears the pope, ib. Tradere, sense of, 90, 169. Tradition, 107, 108. Traditions, subject examined, 164 — 178; papists accuse the scriptures without them, of uncertain under standing, 164 ; their sense of tra dition overthrown by scripture, 167 ; opinions of Chrysostom touching them, 171 ; of Ambrose, ib. ; admis sion of tradition argues unbelief of sufficiency of scripture, 172. Translating the scriptures, methods used by the Reformers in, 99, 100 ; reasons given for several terms in, being different from the Romanists, 151 ; in, words to be taken according to their use and appropriateness, 217 ; rules for it, laid down, 217, 218 ; should be examined what is most agreeable to the common phrase, 387. Translations in the New Testament according to the usual signification of Greek words, 83 ; free, of the Ro manists instanced, 108, 131, 177; of Protestants, just to the original, 571. Translators of canonical scripture took care to retain true meaning of words, 355. Tristes, 446. U. Unity of the church, translations affect ing, 237. Valentinian heretics accused the scrip tures of ambiguity, 89. Virgin Mary, translations affecting her considered, 526 — 538; justified be fore God by faith, 529. Votaries, translations concerning, ex amined, 460. Vulgate, cites Isaiah instead of Mala chi, 43; not discredited by Protes tants, 47 ; - should however be de fended by Romanists, 51 ; not of highest authority with Bede, 57 ; errors of, discussed by Isidore Cla rius, 62 ; edition of 1569 omits his 602 INDEX OF MATTERS. remarks on, 63 ; not of high autho rity with fathers of Latin cliurch, 70 ; full of errors and corruptions, ib. ; does not always follow the Sep tuagint, 73; departs from the Sep tuagint translation, 81 ; erroneously translates John xii. xxi. Acts i. xiv. xxv. 1 Cor. xiv. xv., 385 ; authors of, not sufficiently learned in the Latin tongue, 435. W. Water not to be mingled with wine in the sacrament, 522, 523. Wltitaker, William, 14, 564 ; his opinion misrepresented by Martin, 132, 133; answer to Campian, 14, 69, 440, 442 ; vindicated, 467, 509, 530. Whitgift, his opinion of election in the primitive church, 466. Wisbech Castle, disputations in, iii. Wisdom, book of, uncanonical, 354; Jerome's opinion of, ib. Works, the fruits of God's grace, 367 ; synonymous with deeds, 368 ; reward of, denied by Augustine, 353 ; men must not look to be saved by, 449 ; nor yet by faith, if works be deficient, ib. Worthiness, a more general word than desert, 357 ; does not always argue desert, ib. Worthy, those such whom God maketh, 360 ; men not worthy by their own merits, ib. ; worthy of God, or meet for God, to be understood of grace, and not of merit, 355. INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. ofdtp, 158, 280, 282, 284, 287, 305, 307, 311,313,314,316. ai'joecrts, 224. din-a/teii/as, 370. duTairodoarLs, 370. dttTLfitffdia, 370. a"£tos, 345, 346, 347, 348, 354, 362, 363. a£toa), 363. djrt(jo6ijvai, 361. Chry- sostorn's opinion of the word, ib. Signifies to be made worthy by merit, ib. a£i«j0»jcreT-at, 353. dfyuxTcu, to vouchsafe, account worthy, 365, 412. aTTodiSw/jLiy 341. oird, 328, 329. a7ro, 413, 414. XetToupyous, 460. Xoyi£ojuat, 344. fj.eTap.eXe La, 435. fteTa/xeXeti/, 155. fi€Tavoelv, 429, 433, 434. fierdvoia, 155, 156, 161, 257, 429, 433, 443. Tertullian's definition of it, 155. fivtrrypiov, 224, 493—496. vaol, 151,203,566. oi/ceTCEj, 446. oud£ei9, 368. 'TrpearfivTepiov, 153, 250. irpetrftvTepos, 261, 267. i7rpecrf3vTepot) 58, 109, 243, 245, 273, 275, 463. TTpoyi/wtrts, 128. TrpotCTacrOat, 449. irpoo*Tayp.aTa, 333, 334. pot£*os, 574. o-e/3a 469, 470. xaP^aor^ah 470. X<*PL*> 468. Xapia-fia, 468, 470. X^poToviay 162, 247, 248, 249, 260. Xtnpetv, 388. xwPV^at, xupovvai, 389. i/norf, 83, 280, 281. INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. OLD TESTAMENT. PAGE Gen. iii. 15 531 v.7 125,126 xiv. 18 147,148, 513 xvi. 9 444 xxxi. 19 105 xxxvii. 36 286 xiii. 38 287, 297 xlvii. 31 539 Exod. xviii. 20 333 Numb. xvi. 33 298 1 Kings ii. 9 297 xxix. 5 565 2 Kings xxiii. 5 565 1 Chron. ii. 18 581 2 Chron. xxviii. 19 579 xxxvi. 8 202 Ezra ix. 5 444 Psal. vi. 5.. 306 li. 4 122, 123 liv. 15 306 Ixxxii. 1 227 Ixxxiii. 6, 7 575 lxxxiv. 7 575 Ixxxv. 13 300 lxxxix. 48 301 xcv. 6 542 xcviii. 5 542 cxix. 1 332 cxxxii. 7 «*^ PAQB Psal. cxxxix. 17 526 cxl. 7 309 cxlvii. 18, 19 .\„ 332 Prov. i. 12 309 ix. 2 522 xv. 11,24 300, 309 xxvii. 20 310 xxx. 16 309 Cant. vi. 8 237 viii. 6 152 Isai. ii. 22 577 xxvi. 18 571 xxx. 20, 22 574 xxxiii. 6 576 Jerem. vii. 18 532 xi. 19 519, 520 xiiv. 17 534 Dan. iv. 24 446 vi. 10 541 22 336 x. 12 444 Hoseaxii. 10 578 xiii. 14 301 Joel ii. 23 574 Hab. ii. 18 208 Hag. i. 13 484 Mal. ii. 7 481 iii. 1 483 14 445 APOCRYPHA. Wisdom iii. 5 353 14 «» xv. 13 213 Eccles. v. 5 42° vii. 29, 31 460 Bel and the Dragon, or Darnel xiv. 4 212 Bel and the Dragon, or Daniel xiv. 12, 17,20 517 39 574 1 Mac. i. 49, 51 332 ii. 21 332 2 Mac. vi. 7 564 606 INDEX NEW TESTAMENT. PAGE Matt. i. 19 336, 339 24,25 535 ii. 6 486 iii. 2 428 8 362, 428 11 362 viii. 8 362 xi. 17 177 xiv. 14, 19 178 xv. 2 166 xvi. 18 225 xviii. 17 225 xix. 11, 12 388,480 xxvi.26 497 xxvii. 3 257 Markii. 1.., 121 iii. 16 553 v. 52 425 viii.. 10 108 *. 52 425 . xiv. 14, 22 178, 497 33 327 Luke. i. 6 118, 119, 157, 332, 336 28,42 148, 149, 528 30,31 535 iii. 8 , 428 v. 3 108 vi. 11 178 vii. 41 108 viii. 50 425 ix. 16 497 x. 34 108 xvi. 20 149 xviii. 42 425 xx. 35 357 xxi. 36 357 xxii. 20 511 xxiv. 30 497 John i. 12 375 iii. 5 455 v. 36 379 vi. 11 498 ix. 22,23 567 xiii. 16 462 Acts i. 26 465 ii. 17 109 23, 24, 27... 128, 129, 281, 283 40 177 iii. 21 60, 130, 506 iv. 5, 13 109 PAGE Acts v. 3 502 v-7 177 31 257 vii. 17 177 viii. 2 379 ix. 22 547 xi. 18 257 xiii. 39 403 xiv. 22, 23 245,246,466 xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23 ... 109, 243, 244 xvi. 4 244 xvii. 23 152, 566 xix. 3 452 24 151, 566 35 203 xx. 17 109 xxiii. 10 326 xxiv. 5 Ill xxv. 11,16 470 xxvi. 20 151, 428 Rom. i. 17 337 32 119 ii. 13 337, 403 26 119, 332 iv.3,9 406 11 451 v. 6 123 18,19 119, 120, 396, 401 viii. 18 343 38 419 ix. 16 386 x. 4,5,6 338 xi. 4 202 ICor. i. 10 220 iii. 9 383 v.ll 107 vii.l 115 ix. 5 71, 115 13 516 x. 16 500 18 516 xi. 2 167 19 219 xii. 31 424 xiii. 2 422 xiv. 23, 24 462 xv. 9 362 10 376 43 124 55 301, 302 OF TEXTS OP SCRIPTURE. 607 PAGE 1 Cor. xvi. 3 47O 2Cor.ii. 10, 11 485 iv. 17 59, 349 v. 21 409 vi. 1 384 16 181 viii. 23 462 Gal. v. 20 219 Eph. i. 6 410 22 226 23 231 ii. 5 384 15 170 iii. 12 378, 421 v. 5 100 23, 24, 25 226 32 492 Phil. i. 29 469 ii. 25 464 iv.3 476 Col. i. 12 362 23 554 ii. 20 107, 170 iii. 5 100, 106,179, 191 2 Thess. i. 4, 5 338 11 359 ii. 15 151, 166 iii. 6 151, 166 1 Tim. iii. 2 71 6 462 8 461 iv. 14 249,467 v. 17,19 '•¦•¦ 250, 251 PAGE 2 Tim. i. 6 468 iv. 5 416 8 337 Titus i. 5, 6 71,245, 246 iii. 5,6 455 8,10 111,219, 448 Heb. ii. 9 349 v. 7 127,151, 323 vi. 10 338 a. 20 321 29 357 xi. 21 539 23 226 xii. 23 226 xiii. 4 477 4,5 150 James i. 13 559 ii. 14 425 22 423 iv. 6 551 v. 14 251 1 Pet. i. 18 173, 174 25 548 ii. 13 112,152, 488 v. 1 109 2Pet.i. 10 71 iii. 16 557 1 Johnii. 2 379 v. 3 .". 398 21 113,193 Rev. xiii. 8 330 xvii. 7 493 xix. 8 335 ERRATA. Page 71, note, line 2, for 1 Tim. i. 2, read iii. 2. Page 464, line 19, for Philip, ii. 15, read ii. 25. Page 534, line 19, for xiiv. 7, read xiiv. 17. Page 541, margin, for Dan. vi. 3, read vi. 10.