A defence of the sincere and true translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue, against the cavils of Gregory Martin. By William Fulke ... Edited for the Parker society

ἐγόζ γζθξο LOLI ς

Il

Aresented to
Che Hibrary
of the
University of Coronto

by
KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
Thru the Cttee, formed in
The Old Country to aid in
replacing the loss caused by
The disastrous Fire of Feb.14,
1890

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/defenceofsincereOOfulkuoft

FULKE’S DEFENCE,

&e.

The Parker Society.

ποι A.D. 211. ΠΟ Οὐ αἴ».

Hor the Publication of the Works of the Fathers
and Carly Writers of the Reformed
English Church.

τον
Α DEFENCE

OF THE SINCERE AND TRUE TRANSLATIONS OF THE
HOLY SCRIPTURES INTO. THE ENGLISH TONGUE,

AGAINST THE CAVILS OF

GREGORY MARTIN. )

BY

WILLIAM FULKE, D.D.

MASTER OF PEMBROKE HALL, CAMBRIDGE,

EDITED FOR

The Parker Socictyp, .

BY THE
REV. CHARLES HENRY HARTSHORNE, M.A.

CURATE OF COGENHOE, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.

CAMBRIDGE:

PRINTED AT

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

M.DCCC.XLIII._ | & ἃ. &

paye

τ ἢ naa ὁ
‘Hie Pea?
=! " ‘

BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT

OF

WILLIAM FULKE.

Ir is a circumstance which has frequently been re-
marked, that those authors who by their writings have
greatly benefitted mankind, have left to posterity few
particulars from which may be gathered the events of
their own life. The course of a scholar rarely exhibits
any incidents or features of variety. Living more with
past generations than his own, holding converse with his
books in preference to the world without, the daily tenor
of his habits and occupations continues the same. We must
be contented, therefore, to dwell with him in his seclusion,
and to read the expression of his recorded thoughts, rather
than expect to have to trace his history in events of
more stirring interest. Such is the case with respect to
the subject of the present memoir. The few particulars
that have been preserved of the biography of William
Fulke, may be briefly stated.

Of his parentage nothing is known. Bishop Wren’,
who took some trouble to glean notices of his life, has
not even left us the date of his birth: but we are inci-
dentally informed by himself that he was born before the
year 1538. (See p. 41, and compare the statement there
with the notice in p. ix. of No. 17 of his works.) It is

{? Bishop Wren’s collections have been used for a similar pur-
pose by Tanner. (Historical Account of the Masters of Pembroke
Hall. Compiled by Matthew Wren, Bishop of Ely. A MS. volume
in possession of the College. Leland’s Collectanea, Vol. v. p. 396.)
_ The Manuscript life in Caius College Library seems to be copied from
the former. | |

a—2

li BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT

reasonably presumed, that he was born in London; and
that whilst a boy at school he manifested indications of
that talent which developed itself so conspiciously at a
later age. An anecdote has been preserved which shews
that even at an early period he was possessed with the
ambition of distinguishing himself above his associates. It
happened, singularly enough, that as a schoolfellow he came
into competition with Edmund Campian in a contest for
the prize of a silver pen, offered by one of the masters as
a reward for the best literary exercise. Our aspiring young
scholar being unsuccessful bore his disappointment with
so ill a grace as to shed tears under it, indignantly
looking forward to the reprisals of a future competition.
From Christ's Hospital, where it appears likely that Fulke
received the rudiments of his education, (as it is certain
that Campian was educated there’,) he was transferred to
St John’s College, Cambridge, a.p. 1555. After taking his
degree of bachelor of arts, his father, designing him for the
legal profession, entered him a student of Clifford’s Inn.
During the six years and upwards that he remained here
pursuing legal studies, he made himself well acquainted with
the sciences, and gave to the world his Οὐρανομαχία, ὃ
treatise in which he exposed the absurdities of astrology.
At length returning to the University, he proceeded to his
Master’s degree, being at the same time elected fellow of
his college, a.p. 1564.

The change thus indicated in his plans so displeased
his father, that for a time he withdrew from him the neces- |
sary means of subsistence. The zeal of Fulke suffered,
however, little diminution. under his pecuniary difficulties ;
and we find him immediately pursuing his new course of
study with alacrity, To that of theology he now joined

[ἢ This however is no conclusive evidence, especially as Fulke must
have been at least fifteen years old at the time of the foundation of the
Hospital (1553). ]

|

ya
OF WILLIAM FULKE. ill

the acquisition of the oriental languages, a deep knowledge
of which was by no means common at the time. He pro-
ceeded to the degree of bachelor of divinity; and dissen-
sions immediately afterwards springing up in his college,
and himself being suspected of holding puritanical opinions
in consequence of his close intimacy with Cartwright, he
was ejected from the society. Driven from his college, he
commenced a course of lectures, and held disputations in
a house which was afterwards the Falcon Inn. These were
attended by a numerous class of students.

The time was however approaching, when his fortunes
were to witness a beneficial change; for the Earl of Leices-
ter, who was anxious to promote men of merit, irrespectively
of trifling differences of opinion, had singled him out as
eminently deserving preferment. Through his means he
was presented, Aug. 10, 1571, to the rectory of Warley
in Essex, and soon afterwards,. March, 1573, to that of
Dennington in Suffolk. On the earl of Lincoln being sent
as British ambassador to Paris, Fulke was appointed one
of his suite, a circumstance which enabled him to obtain
the honorary degree of doctor of divinity.

The same influence may have contributed to his ad-
vancement to the mastership of Pembroke College in 1578,
on the promotion of Dr Young to the see of Rochester.
He had in this elevated station ample leisure to devote his
talents to polemical theology; and that he advantageously
availed himself of it, is sufficiently evideng,from the numerous
works he has left to posterity in vindication of the reformed
religion. He was also engaged in 1580 and following
years in repeated disputations with the Papists, sometimes
in the Tower, and once at least in Wisbech Castle. (See
No. 17, in the subjoined list of his works.) This castle,
originally built by William the Conqueror, was afterwards con-
verted into a palace of the bishops of Ely, and in the reign
of Elizabeth was used as a prison for popish conspirators.

Iv BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT

One account states that he was also Margaret Professor
of Divinity; but this fact appears to be at least very
doubtful. Having filled the office of vice-chancellor, and
governed his college for eleven years, Fulke died in Au-
gust, 1589.

The voluminous writings he left behind him are monu-
ments of that industry and love of study, which (it is
supposed) alone prevented his higher advancement in the
church; and they furnish satisfactory evidence, that among
contemporary scholars none surpassed him in erudition, in a
grammatical and deep acquaintance with the learned tongues,
in acuteness and closeness of reasoning: none devoted more
vigorous and untiring energy in supporting the bulwarks
of the Ομ πη or ENGLAND.

He was buried in the chancel of his church at Den-
nington, and the following epitaph was placed by one of
his admirmg successors over his tomb.

30. November. 1621.
In Memoriam

Reverendi Gulielmi Fulke, Sacre Theologia Doct. Aulze
Pemb. in Cantabrigia Prefect. Hujus Ecclesizs Dinning-
toniensis pastor, ac in Testimonium amoris sui perpetui erga
eum, hoc Monumentum posuit Robertus Wright, Sacre quo-
~ que Theologiz Professor, et nunc ejusdem Ecclesize Pastor.
Corpus illius Terre traditum fuit 28 Die Augusti 1589, et
in hoe sacello jacet resurrectionem expectans per adventum ~
Christi.

If deepest Learning, with a zealous Love

To Heaven and Truth, could Priveledges prove

To keep back Death, no Hand had written here

Lies Reverend Fulke, ’till Christ in Clouds appear ;
His Works will shew him free from all Error,

Rome’s Foe, Truth’s Champion, and Rhemishes Terror.

a

OF WILLIAM FULKE. Vv

Heureux celui qu’ apres un long Travaill
S est assure de son repos au Ciell.

The present volume, it is believed, will be found to be
an accurate reprint (with a corrected punctuation, which
was much needed) of the original edition of the “Defence,”
1583. But in one or two places a correction has been
introduced from the folio edition, 1633: ex. gr. p. 550,
senseless for insenseless, which, though not perhaps ab-
solutely necessary, it appeared desirable and safe to adopt
on such authority. In several instances also, in which the
quotation from Martin was inaccurately given by Fulke, the
mistake has been corrected by reference to the original.

In both the old editions there was subjoined to the
present work (but with a separate paging), ‘A briefe con-
futation of all such quarrels and cauils, as have bene of late
vttered by diuerse Papistes in their English Pamphlets,
against the writings of the saide William Fulke; as the
reader will see in the copy of the original title-page pre-
fixed to this publication, This ‘ Confutation,’ however, has
no connection whatever with the ‘Defence of the Transla-
tions:’ it is therefore not here re-printed with it, but is
reserved for a future volume of Fulke, where it will come
more appropriately in company with the works which it
undertakes to defend. |

Besides the ‘ Defence’ reprinted in the present volume,
Fulke was the author of the following works:

1. Antiprognosticon contra inutiles astrologorum pre-
dictiones Nostrodami, Cunninghami, Loui, Hilli, Vaghami et
reliquorum omnium. Authore Guilielmo Fulcone. Authori-
tate Londinensis episcopi juxta formam in edictis regine pre-
scriptam.. Sexto die Septembris, 1560. Lond. 8vo.

Wi BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT

A translation of this work was published in the year
1561, (Tanner says 1560), with the following title: Anti-
prognosticon, that is to saye, an Inuective agaynst the uaine
and vnprofitable predictions of the astrologians, as Nostro-
dame, &c. Translated out of Latin into Englishe. Where-
unto is added, by the author, a short treatise in Englishe,
as well for the better subuersion of that fained arte, as
also for. the better vnderstanding of the common people,
~vnto whom the fyrst labour seemeth not sufficient. Lond.
1561, 8vo.

/ 2. A goodly gallery, with a most slit prospect
into the garden of naturall contemplation, to beholde the
naturall causes of all kind of Meteors. As well fyery as
ayery, as watry and earthly, of which sorte be blasing
starres, shootinge starres, flames in the ayre, &c.; thonder,
lightninge, earthquakes, &c.; rayne, dew, snowe, cloudes,
-springes, &c.; stones, metalles, earthes. To the glory of
God, and the profitte of his creatures. Lond. 1571, 8vo.
1634, 1640, 8vo. From the colophon of the edition of
1571, it appears that this’ book was printed in 1563, but
no copy has been found with that date on the title-page,
and the edition of 1640 is styled the third. Tanner men-
tions editions in 1563 and 1580, under the title of * Me-
teorologia, Anglice.’

3. Ovpavouayia, hoc est, ἐπα ροῦν ἐν ludus δά bo-
narum artium et Astrologiz in primis studiosorum relax-
ationem comparatus, nunc primum illustratus, ac in lucem
editus per Guilielmum Fulconem, Cantabrigiensem. Abacus
et calculi veneunt apud Guilielmum Jones, in longa officina,
ad occidentalem Paulini templi portam. Londini per Thomas
Eastum et Henricum Middeltonnum impensis Guilielmi Jones.
1571, 1572, 1573, 4to.

4. A confutation of a Popish and. sclaunderous libelle,
in form of an Apologie: geuen out into the courte, and
spread abrode in diuerse other places of the realme. Written

”
OF WILLIAM FULKE. Vii

by William Fulke, Bachelor in Diuinitie, and felowe of ‘SS.
Johns Colledge in Cambridge. Imprinted at London by
John Kingston for William Jones, and are to be solde at the
newe long shop at the west ende of Poules. 1571, 1573,
1574, 12mo.

5. A Sermon preached at Hampton Court on Sonday,
being the 12th day of Nouember, in the year of our Lord
1570. Wherein is plainly proued Babylon to be Rome,
both by Scriptures and Doctors. Preached by William
Fulke, Bacheler of Diuinity, and Fellow of S. J ohns Col-
ledge in Cambridge. Apocalips. 14. She is fallen, she
is fallen, euen Babylon, that great citie, for of the wyne of
the fury of her fornication, she hath made all nations to
drinke. Imprinted at London, by John Awdely.. 1572,
12mo. :

There was a subsequent edition with the same title,
except that Fulke was described as ‘ Doctor’ not ‘ Bacheler’,
and ‘ lately Fellow’, &c. Imprinted at London by John
Charlewod, 1579, 12mo.

6. In sacram Divi Johannis Apocalypsim prelectiones.
Lond. 1573, 4to. Translated into English by George
Gyfford. Lond. 1573, 4to.

7. A Comfortable Sermon of Fayth in temptations and
afflictions. Preached at S. Botulphes wythout Aldersgate
im London, the xv of February, 1573, by Maister William
Fulke, Doctor of Divinity. 1 John v. 4. Imprinted at
London by John Audeley. 1574, 1578, 1586, 12mo.

8. ‘Two. treatises written against the papistes; the
one being an answer of the Christian protestant to the
proud challenge of a popish catholicke: the other, a confu-
tation of the popish churches doctrine touching purgatory
and prayers for the dead. By William Fulke, Doctor ἴῃ
Divinitie. Lond. Thomas Vautrollier, 1577, 8vo. pp. 464.

9. A sermon preached on Sundaye, being the 17th of
March, anno 1577, at S. Alphage’s church within Creplegate

vill BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT

in London, by William Fulke, Doctor in Divinitie. Seene
and allowed, accordyng to the order appoynted in the
queenes maiesties iniunctions. Imprinted at London for
Lucas Harryson, 1577, 12mo.

This sermon was translated into Latin, by John Fox,
and appended to his book, entitled De Christo gratis ius-
tificante, Lond. 1583.

10. Μετρομαχία, sive ludus geometricus. Auctore
Guiliemo Fuleone Anglo. Lond. Thomas Vautrollerius,
1578, 4to.

11. Guilielmi Fulconis Angli ad epistolam Stanislai
Hosii Varmiensis episcopi de expresso Dei verbo Responsio.
Lond. 1578, 12mo. |

12. D. Heskins, ἢ. Sanders, and M. Rastell accounted
(among their faction) three pillers and archpatriarches of the
popish synagogue, (utter enemies to the truth of Christes
—Gospell and all that syncerely profess the same) ouerthrowne
and detected of their seuerell blasphemous heresies. By D.
Fulke, Maister of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge. Lond.
1579, 8vo. pp. 803.

This work consists of three treatises mentioned by Tan-
ner separately, as ‘Heskins parliament repealed,’ ‘ Confu-
tation of N. Sanders his treatise of worshipping images,’ and
‘ Refutation of John Rastell’s confutation.’ |

13. Ad Thome Stapletoni, Professoris Regii et Ordina-
tii in Academia Duacena, controversiarum et calumnias in sua
principiorum doctrinalium demonstratione methodica contra
satisfactione, ad Rishtoni postulata quedam, lib. 4. cap. 10 et
11 adhibitas, Guilielmi Fulconis, Angli, aule: Pembrochianz in
Cantabrigiensi academia preefecti, Responsio. Londini, im-
pensis Georgii Bishop, 1579, 8vo.

14. A Retentive to stay good Christians in true faith
and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristow. Also,
a discoverie of the daungerous Rocke of the Popish Church,
commended by Nicholas Sander, Doctor of Divinitie. Done

ἌΡ:

OF WILLIAM FULKE. ix

_ by William Fulke, Doctor of Divinitie, and Maister of Pem-
broke Hall in Cambridge. Lond. Thomas Vautrollier, 1580,
8vo. pp. 316.

15. T. Stapleton and Martiall (two Popish Heretikes)
confuted, and of their particular heresies detected. By
D. Fulke, Master of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge. Done
and directed to all those that love the truth, and hate
superstitious vanities. Lond. H. Middleton, 8vo. 1580,
pp. 217.

16. Stapletonii fortalitium expugnatum; cum refutatione
replicationis J. Martialis ad J. Calfhillum contra librum ejus
de cruce. Lond. 1580, 12mo.

17. Conferentia cum pontificiis in castro Wisbicensi.
4, Oct. 1580. Lond. 1580. 8vo.

18. The text of the New Testament of Jesus Christ,
translated out of the Vulgar Latine by the Papists of the
traiterous Seminarie at Rhemes. With arguments of Bookes,
Chapters, and Annotations, pretending to discouer the cor-
ruptions of divers translations, and to clear the controuersies
of these days. Whereunto is added the translation out of
the original Greeke, commonly used in the Church of Eng-
land, with a confutation of all such Arguments, Glosses,
and Annotations as contein manifest impietie or heresie,
treason, and slander against the Catholike Church of God,
and the true teachers thereof, or the translations used in
the Church of England. Both by aucthoritie of the holy
Scriptures, and by the testimonie of ancient fathers. By
William Fulke, D.D. Lond. 1580, 1589, 1601, 1617,
1633, fol.

19. A Sermon on 2 Saml. xxiv. 1. Lond. 1580, 8vo.

20. A Sermon at the Tower on Jolin xvii. 17. Lond.
1580, 8vo. 1581, 16mo. |

21. <A rejoynder to Bristow’s Replie in defence of
Allens scrole of Articles and Booke of Purgatorie, Also
the cavils of Nicholas Sander, Doctor in Divinitie, about

Χ BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT

the Supper of our Lord, and the Apologie of the Church
of England touching the doctrine thereof. Confuted by
William Fulke, Doctor in Divinitie, and Master of Pem-
broke Hall in Cambridge. At London, H. Middleton,
1581, 8vo. pp. 792.

22.. A Brief Confutation of a Popish Tina lately
set forth, and presumptuously dedicated to the Queenes most
excellent maiestie, by John Howlet, or some other Birde of
the night under that name. Contayning certaine. reasons
why Papistes refuse to come to Church, which are here
inserted and set downe at large, with their seuerall answeres.
By D. Fulke, maister of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge.
Seene and allowed. At London, printed for George is eee
1581, 4to.

23. <A Brief and Plain Declaration : pohiniitiig the de-
sires of all those faithful Ministers who seek Discipline and
Reformation of the Church of England, which may come as
a just Apology against the false Accusations and Slanders
of their Adversaries. 1584.

24. De Successione Ecclesiastica et latente ab Anti-
christi tyrannide ecclesia, Liber contra Thome Stapletoni
principiorum fidei doctrimalium librum decimum. tertium ;
auctore Guilielmo Fulcone Anglo, Aula Pembrochiane in
Cantabrigiensi Academia Prefecto, Lond. Henricus Midle-
tonus, impensis Georgii Bishop, 1584, 12mo. pp. 474.

_ 25. An apologie of the professors of the Gospel in

Fraunce against the railing declamation of Peter Frarine |

a Louanian turned into English by John Fowler. Written
by William Fulke. 8vo. pp. 54. This and also the fol-
lowing work, No. 26, were published separately, and also
appended to the ‘ Treatise against the defence of the censure
given upon the books of W. Clarke and Meredith Hanmer,
by an unknown popish traytor, in defence of the seditious
challenge of Edmond Campion.’ Camb. 1586, 8vo.

26, A Confutation of a treatise made by William Allen

Pod
OF WILLIAM FULKE. xl

in defence of the usurped power of Popish Priesthood to
remit sinnes, of the necessity of Shrift, and of the Popes
pardons. By William Fulke. Imprinted by Thomas Thomas,
Cambridge, [1586], pp. 531, 8vo. Tanner mentions an
edition, Lond. 1586, 8vo.

Amongst the Harleian Manuscripts are the following :
No. 422. fol. 148.

A Disputation or Conference had within the Towre of
London, on Monday, being the 18th of September, A. D.
1581. Wherein were assembled the Lorde of Glanrikerd, Sir
Owen Hopton, Sir William George, Sir Thomas Hinnage,
Sir Nicholas Poynes, besides others: Doctour Foulkes and
Doctour Goade, Disputants, being sitting at a table, having
there certaine bookes about them. Mr Clarke and Mr Field
being as Notaries at the said table, and for the said Con-
ference appointed; before whom and right opposite upon a
stoole was sett Mr Campion, Jesuite, having only his Bible.

Ibid., fol. 168.

A third Disputation between the said Doctors Fulke and
Goade opponents, and Campion the Jesuite respondent.
A report of these conferences, but differing considerably
from that: contained in these MSS., was published with the
following title, ‘The three last dayes conferences had in the
Tower with Edmund Campion, Jesuite, the 18, 23, and
27. of September, 1581. Collected and faithfully set down
by M. John Fielde, student in Diuinitie. Nowe perused
by the learned men themselues, and thought meete to be
published. Januarij 1, 1583.. London, 4to, This volume
is often found appended to the report of the first day’s con-
ference to which Fulke was not a party.

xii NOTICE OF

To the foregoing account of Fulke it may be iteresting to
the reader to have subjoined a brief notice of his
opponent, GREGorY Martin.

Gregory Martin was born at Maxfield near Winchelsea,
but in what precise year we are unable to state. The
earliest. date connected with his life informs us, that in 1557
he was nominated one of the original scholars of St John’s
— eollege, Oxford, by the founder Sir Thomas White. He
went through the usual course of logic and philosophy with
great diligence, and took his Master of arts’ degree in 1564.
Shortly afterwards he was engaged by Thomas duke of
Norfolk to be tutor to his children, amongst whom he had
the honour of instructing Philip, the celebrated earl of Arundel.
That Martin was a person of considerable reputation may
be gathered from the circumstance, that when his patron
visited Oxford, one of the fellows of St John’s delivered
before him a speech, in which Martin was highly compli-
mented as a Hebrew and Greek scholar, and commemorated
as a distinguished ornament of their society.

Having terminated his engagement in the duke of
Norfolk’s family he went abroad, and openly renounced
the Protestant religion, having been previously a favourer
of the doctrines of the Romish church only in secret. He
now settled himself at Douay, applied himself to the study
of theology, was ordained priest in 1573, and licentiate in
divinity in 1575. He subsequently travelled; visited Rome,
and the other places in Italy which a person of his views
would most naturally desire to see, and at length per-
manently fixed himself at Rheims, where he became public
professor and one of.the readers of divinity in the English
seminary. He died there Oct. 28, 1582, and was buried
_ In St Stephen’s church.

Martin was considered a person of great learning, an

᾿

»»

GREGORY MARTIN. xii

excellent linguist, and superior to most scholars of his time.
Besides the work reprinted in the present volume, he was
one of the principal persons concerned in that translation of
the New Testament, which is quoted and generally known
under the title of the Rhemish. The first edition was
printed at Rheims in 4to in 1582: a second edition by
Daniel Vervelict at Antwerp, 4to, 1600: a third in 1630,
and a fourth at Paris in 1633. It was reprmted in London,
with “the Bishops’” translation in a parallel column: and
‘A Confutation of all such arguments, glosses, and annota-
tions as contain manifest impiety, or heresy, treason and
slander against the catholick Church of God, and the true
teachers thereof, or the translations used in the Church of
England; by Dr William Fulke. The marginal notes of
the Rhemish Testament were answered in 1588, in “A
View of the marginal notes of the Popish Testament, trans-
lated into English by the English fugitive papists resident
at Rheims, i France, by George Withers.” The Rhemish
translation was also reprinted in 1618 ‘by some friends
to the memory of the learned Thomas Cartwright,’ with a
Confutation’. |

The following are the titles of other works attributed
to Gregory Martin by Antony Wood, Tanner, and Dod:

A Treatise of Schisme; shewing that al Catholikes
ought in any wise to abstaine altogether from heretical con-
venticles, to witt, their Prayers, Sermons, &c. 1578. b. 1.
1587, Doway?’.

A Treatyse of Christian Peregrinatione; written by
M. Gregory Martin, Licentiate, and late Reader of Divinitie,

[᾿ Towneley’s Illustr. of Biblical Literature, Vol. m1. pp. 74, 75.
Lewis's Hist. of Engl. Transl. of the Bible, pp. 294, 295.]

[? For reprinting this book Carter the printer was condemned of
treason and executed, it being thought to contain a recommendation to
assasinate the queen. See Concert. Ecclesie Cathol. pp. 127, 129, 130.
Strype’s Annals, m. 587, m1. 281, ch. 23. Fuller’s Church Hist. xvi.
169. ]

XIV NOTICE OF GREGORY MARTIN.

at Remes: Whereunto is adioyned certen Epistles written
by him to Sundrye his frendes; the copies whereof were
since his decease founde amonge his writtings. Nowe espe-
cially published for the benefite of those that either erre
in religione of simplicitie, or folow the worlde of frailty.
Lond. 1583. 16mo.

Against the Marriage of Priests. 1584.

Of the love of the Soul, with questions to the Protes-
tants. Printed at Rouen and St Omer’s. 12mo. 1603.

Roma Sancta. ᾿

_ Dictionarium quatuor linguarum, Hebraic, Grace, La-
tine, et Anglice, et vocabulorum ac phrasium secundum
cujusque lingue proprietatem.

Compendium historiarum, lib. 1.

' Orationes de jejunio, de imaginum usu et cultu, MS. m
the library of John Pits, .

Pro veteri et vera Grecarum literarum pronuntia-
tione, adversus Adolphum Mekerchium Brugensem. ‘Edit.
Havercamp. Ludg. Bat. 1740.

Diversorum carminum partim Grace partim Latine,
lib. 1.

Besides these he left behind savant translations.

The Editor of the present volume has the pleasure of
expressing his grateful acknowledgements to the Right Hon.
the Earl Spencer, for the permission allowed him to con-
sult the valuable collection of Bibles at Althorpe

DEFENCE
OF

THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS

OF THE

HOLY SCRIPTURES,

IN REPLY TO

GREGORY MARTIN’s

DISCOVERY OF CORRUPTIONS BY HERETICS.

[ruLKs.|

.Α DEFENSE

of the sincere and true Tran-

slations of the holie Scriptures into

the English tong, against the manifolde cauils,
friuolous quarels, and impudent slaunders of GRE-
GORIE MARTIN, one of the readers of Po-
pish diuinitie in the trayterous Semi-

narie of Rhemes.

By Witiiam Fvuixe D. in Diuinitie,
and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge.

Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of all such
quarrels & cauils, as have bene of late vttered by diuerse
Papistes in their English Pamphlets, against the

writings of the saide WiutLiAM Εν: ΚΕ.

AT LONDON:
Imprinted by Henrie Bynneman,
for George Bishop.

Anno. 1583.

Cum gratia & Priuilegio.

A DISCOVERIE

OF THE MANIFOLD
CORRVPTIONS OF THE

HOLY SCRIPTVRES BY THE
Heretikes of our daies, specially the
English Sectaries, and of their foule
dealing herein, by partial & false trans- > RR
lations to the aduantage of their here-

sies, in their English Bibles vsed and
authorised since the time of Schisme.

By Grecory Martin one of the readers
of Diuinitie in the Enexnisa CoLLEGE
or RHEMEs.

2 Cor. 2.
Non sumus sicut plurimi, adulterantes verbum Dei, sed
ex sinceritate, sed sicut ex Deo, coram Deo, in Christo
loquimur.

That is,

VVe are not as very many, adulterating the word
of God, but of sinceritie, & as of God, before
God, in Christ vve speake.

Printed at RHEMES,
By Iohn Fogny.

166 δ᾽ οἱ

1—2

TO THE

MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCESS ELIZABETH,

BY THE GRACE OF GOD QUEEN OF ENGLAND, FRANCE,
AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c.

Amone the inestimable benefits, wherewith Almighty God
hath wonderfully blessed this your majesty’s most honourable
and prosperous government, it is not to be numbered among
the least, that under your most gracious and christian pro-
tection the people of your highness’ dominions have enjoyed
the most necessary and comfortable reading of the holy scrip-
tures in their mother tongue and native language. Which
exercise, although it hath of long time, by the adversaries of
him that willeth the scriptures to be searched, (especially
those of our nation,) been accounted little better than an

D. Stanaish.! heretical practice ; and treatises have been written, pretending
D. Heskins,?

to shew great inconvenience of having the holy scriptures in
the vulgar tongue; yet now at length perceiving they cannot
prevail to bring in that darkness and ignorance of God’s most
sacred word and will therein contained, whereby their blind

Γ᾿ John Standish here alluded to was admitted a probationer fellow

of Corpus Christi, Oxford, in 1528. In the time of Edward VI. he was

_ ὃ zealous reformer, made rector of Wigan, and married; but was sepa-
rated from his wife when queen Mary ascended the throne, and deprived
of his preferment. Bp. Bonner for his affections to popery gave him
the rectory of Packlesham. Among other works he wrote “A Treatise
against the Translation of the Bible into the vulgar language ; printed by
Caley in 1554,” of which there was a second edition by the same printer
the following year. Wood’s Athene. Vol. 1. p. 286—8. ]

Γ᾿ Thomas Heskins, or Heskyns, was collated by Cardinal Pole to
the chancellorship of Salisbury, 1558, but ejected on the accession of
Elizabeth the following year. (Le Neve’s Fasti, p. 269. Wood’s Fasti,
p- 113.) Heskins wrote “ the Parliament of Christ, concerning the
Sacrament, impugned in a sermon by John Jewell. Ant. 1566. fol.”
It was answered by Fulke in his book entitled Heskins’ Parliament
repealed by W. F. Lond. 1579. ]

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 5

devotion, the daughter of ignorance, as they themselves pro-
fess, was wont to. make them rulers of the world, they also
at the last are become translators of the New Testament into
English. In which, that I speak nothing of their insincere
purpose, in leaving the pure fountain _of the original verity,
to follow the crooked stream of their barbarous vulgar came cee
translation, which (beside all other manifest corruptions) is

sen

found defective in more than an hundred_places, as your ma-
jesty, according to the excellent knowledge in both the tongues
wherewith God hath blessed you, is very well able to judge;
and to omit even the same book of their translation, pestered
with so many annotations, both false and undutiful, by which,
under colour of the authority of holy scriptures, they seek to
infect the minds of the credulous readers with heretical and
superstitious opinions, and to alienate their hearts from yielding
due obedience to your majesty and your most christian laws
concerning true religion established; and that I may pass
over the very text of their translation, obscured without any
necessary or just cause with such a multitude of so strange
and unusual terms, as to the ignorant are no less difficult to
understand, than the Latin or Greek itself: yet is it not meet
to be concealed, that they which neither truly nor precisely
have translated their own vulgar Latin and only authentical
text, have nevertheless been bold to set forth a several trea-
tise, in which most slanderously and unjustly they accuse all
our English translations of the bible, not of small imperfections
and oversights committed through ignorance or negligence, but
of no less than most foul dealing in partial and false transla-
tions, wilful and heretical corruptions.

Against which most lewd and untrue accusation, though
easy to be judged of by such as be learned in the tongues,
yet dangerous to disquiet the conscience of them that be
ignorant in the same, I have written a short and necessary
defence; which, although not laboured in words, yet in
matter I hope sufficient to avoid all the adversaries’ cavils,

6 THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

I am most humbly to crave pardon, that I may be bold to
dedicate unto your most excellent majesty ; that under whose
high and christian authority your people have so many years
enjoyed the reading of the holy books of God in their native
language, to the everlasting benefit of many thousand souls,
under the same your most gracious and royal protection they
may read also the defence of the sincere and faithful trans-
lation of those books, to the quieting of their consciences, and
the confusion of the adversaries of God’s truth and holy re-
ligion. By which they may be stirred up more and more in
all dutiful obedience, not only to be thankful unto your ma-
jesty, as it becometh them, but also to continue their most
earnest and hearty prayers to Almighty God for this your
most godly and happy regiment over them for many years
forward to be prolonged.

The God of glory, which hitherto hath advanced your
majesty’s throne, above all princes of this age, in true honour
and glory, vouchsafe to preserve the same with his daily
blessing, to the protection of that glorious reparation
of his church, which you have most happily
taken in hand, to the everlasting praise
of his mercy, and the endless
felicity of your
majesty !

Your majesty’s most humble subject,
and most bounden daily orator,

WILLIAM FULKE,

THE PREFACE, Martin.

CONTAINING

FIVE SUNDRY ABUSES OR CORRUPTIONS OF HOLY
SCRIPTURES, COMMON TO ALL HERETICS, AND
AGREEING ESPECIALLY TO THESE OF OUR
TIME: WITH MANY OTHER NECES-

SARY ADVERTISEMENTS TO
THE READER.

Martin. As it hath been always the fashion of heretics to pretend Heretics

scriptures for shew of their cause; so hath it been also their custom pes ially,

and property to abuse the said scriptures many ways in favour of their po el
errors.

Fulke. Whether these five abuses have been common to Futxs.

all heretics, and whether it hath been the fashion of all here-
tics to pretend scriptures for shew of their cause, though I
will spare now to inquire of, as a thing wherein learned men
at the first sight may espy the great skill that Martin pre-
tendeth to have in discerning of heretics and heresies; yet
will I shew (by the grace of God) that none of these five
abuses are committed by us or our catholic translations, and
that the popish heretics are, in some sort or other, guilty of
them all.

Martin. One way is, to deny whole books thereof, or parts of Marrw, 1.
books, when they are evidently against them. So did (for example) }Penyng ΚΟ
Ebion all St Paul’s epistles, Manicheus the Acts of the Apostles, Alo- ot parts of
giani St John’s gospel, Marcion many pieces of St Luke’s gospel, and
so did both these and other heretics in,other books, denying and allowing
what they list, as is evident by St Ireneus, St Epiphanius, St Augus-
tine, and all antiquity.

Fulke. First, we deny no one book of the canonical Furxe, 1.
scripture, that hath been so received of the catholic church,
for the space of 300 years and more, as it hath been often
proved out of Eusebius, St Jerome, and other ancient au-
thorities: but the papists, in advancing apocryphal books to
be of equal credit with the canonical scriptures, do in effect
deny them all. Besides that, to add unto the word of God
is as great a fault as to take away from it, the one being

Martin, 2.
2. Doubting
of their
authority
and calling
them into
question.

Funke, 2.

8 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

forbidden under as heavy a curse as the other. Those blas-
phemies of Pighius’ and Eccius*, the one calling the holy
scripture a nose of wax and a dumb judge, the other
terming the gospel written to be a black gospel and an
inky divinity ; and that of Hosius*, acknowledging none other
express word of God, but only this one word ama, or dilige,
“love thou ;” what other thing do they import, but a shame-
less denial of all books of the holy scripture in deed, howso-
ever in word they will seem to admit them?

Martin. Another way is, to call into question at the least, and
make some doubt of the authority of certain books of holy scriptures,
thereby to diminish their credit. So did Manicheus affirm of the whole
New Testament, that it was not written by the apostles; and peculi-
arly of St Matthew’s gospel, that it was some other man’s under his
name, and therefore not of such credit, but that it might in some part be
refused. So did Marcion, and the Arians, deny the epistle to the He-
brews to be St Paul’s, Epiph. lib. 2. her. 69, Euseb. lib. 4. hist. c. 27 ;
and Alogiani the Apocalypse to be St John’s the Evangelist, Epiph. et
August. in her. Alogianorum.

Fulke. We neither doubt of the authority of any certain
book of the holy scriptures, neither call we any of them into
question; but with due reverence do acknowledge them all
and every one to be of equal credit and authority, as being

[? Sunt enim ille (scripture), ut non minus vere quam festive dixit
quidam, velut nasus cereus, qui se horsum, illorsum, et in quam volueris
partem, trahi, retrahi, fingique facile permittit. Pighius, Hierarch,
Eccles, Assertio, Lib. m1. cap. 3. fol. 80. edit. 1538. Albert Pighius, a
mathematician and controversialist, born at Kempen in Westphalia
about 1490, and died 1542.

[? Scriptores canonici semper prius habuerunt evangelium mentale,

. quam ederent illud nigrum in literis. Eck. Apologia pro Principibus

Catholicis. Fol. 74 b. Antverp. 1542. Tu nos ad mortuas pelles, ad
atramentum remittis, et literam. Ibid. fol. 156 b. Echius, or Eckius,
was professor and chancellor of the University of Ingolstad, and a cele-
brated controversialist of the 16th century. His chief work was a
“Manual of Controversy,” which went through many editions. He
was born in Suabia in 1486, and died at Ingolstad in 1543.]

[ἢ Vis autem quod sit verbum salvificans cognoscere? Breve verbum
est etexpeditum, Ama. Caritas est verbum salvificans, etc. Hosii Opera,
De Expresso Dei Verbo. Tom. 1. p. 628. Stanislas Hosius was one of
the most illustrious cardinals of the 16th century, born at Cracow in
1504. He opened the Council of Trent as legate from Pius the Fourth,
and was subsequently appointed grand penitentiary by Gregory the Thir-
teenth. He died in 1579.]

Pe

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 9

all inspired of God, given to the church for the building up
thereof in truth, and for the avoiding of fables and heresies.
But the papists, arrogating to their pope authority to allow
or refuse any book of holy scripture, and affirming that
no scripture hath authority but as it is approved by their
church, do bring all books of the holy scripture into doubting
and uncertainty with such as will depend upon their pope
and popish church’s authority, which they affirm to be above
the holy scriptures, saying they might as well receive the
gospel of Nicodemus as of St Mark, and by the same au-
thority reject the gospel of St Matthew, as they have done
the gospel of St Bartholomew. These blasphemous assertions
although some of them would colour or mitigate with gentle »
interpretations, yet there is no reasonable man but seeth
into what discredit and uncertainty they must needs bring
the authority of the canonical books of holy scripture with
the simple and ignorant.

Martin. Another way is, to expound the scriptures after their own Marrry, 3.

private conceit and fantasy, not according to the approved sense of the ccppaitieest

holy ancient fathers and catholic church. So did Théodorus Mopsues- 2ccording to

every one’s

tites (Act. Synod 5.) affirm of all the books of the prophets, and of the fancy =
Psalms, that they spake not evidently of Christ; but that the ancient
fathers did voluntarily draw those sayings unto Christ, which were
spoken of other matters. So did all heretics, that would seem to ground

their heresies upon scriptures, and to avouch them by scriptures ex-
pounded according to their own sense and imagination.

Fulke. We expound not the scriptures after our own Fuxxe, 3.
private conceit and fantasy; but, as near as God giveth us
grace, according to the plain and natural sense of the same,
agreeable unto the rule or proportion of faith, which bemg
approved by the ancient fathers, and catholic church of Christ,
in all matters necessary to eternal salvation: not bringing
a new and strange sense, which is without the scriptures, to
seek confirmation thereof in the scriptures (as the manner
of heretics is rightly noted by Clemens‘); but out of the scrip-
tures themselves seek we the exposition of such obscure
places as we find in them, being persuaded with St Augus-

[* οἱ δὲ ἡδοναῖς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐκδεδωκότες βιάζονται πρὸς τὰς ἐπι-
θυμίας τὴν γραφήν. Clem. Alexandr. Stromatum vu. p. 890. Ed. Potter.
Venet. 1757. ]

10 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

tine’, that nothing in a manner is found out of those obscure and.
dark places, which may not be found to be most plainly spoken
in other places. And as for the approved sense of the holy
ancient fathers, and catholic church of the eldest and purest
times, if the papists durst stand unto it for the deciding of
many of the most weighty controversies that are between us,
there is no doubt but they should soon and easily be de-
termined, as hath been shewed in divers and many treatises,
written against them. In which if any thing be brought so
plainly expounding the scripture against their popish heresies,
as nothing can be more express nor clear, then they are driven
to seek new and monstrous expositions of those fathers’ inter-
pretations ; or else they answer, “They are but those fathers’
private expositions ;” appealing to the catholic church’s in-
terpretation, which is nothing else but their own private conceit
and. fancy, having no record to prove that catholic church’s ,
interpretation but the present heretical opinions of this late
degenerated antichristian congregation. And when they have
discoursed never so much of the catholic church’s interpre-
tation, they reduce and submit all men’s judgments to the
determination of their councils, and the decrees of the councils
to the approbation of their pope; which, as he is oftentimes
a wicked man of life, so is he ignorant and unlearned in the
scriptures ; to whose most private censure the holy scriptures
themselves, and all sense and exposition of them, is made
subject, under colour that Christ, praying for Peter that his
faith should not fail in temptation, gave all popes such a pre-
rogative, that they could not err in faith; though they were
wicked of life, void of learning, ignorant in the scriptures,

[* Deinde illa que in eis aperte posita sunt, vel precepta vivendi, vel
regule credendi, sollertius diligentiusque investiganda sunt, que tanto.
quisque plura invenit, quanto est intelligentia capacior. In iis enim
que aperte in scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia que con-
tinent fidem moresque vivendi, spem scilicet atque caritatem, de quibus
libro superiore tractavimus. 'Tum vero facta quadam familiaritate cum
ipsa lingua divinarum scripturarum, in ea que obscura sunt aperienda
et discutienda pergendum est, ut ad obscuriores locutiones illustrandas de.
manifestioribus sumantur exempla, et quedam certarum sententiarum
testimonia dubitationem incertis auferant.—Augustinus de Doctrina
Christiana. Lib. τι. 14. Opera. Vol. 11. p. 24. edit. Benedict. Paris.
1696. Ubi autem apertius ponuntur, ibi discendum est quomodo in locis:
intelligantur obscuris.—Ibid. Lib. m1. 37. p. 56.]

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 11

destitute of the Spirit of God; as is proved most invincibly
by example of divers popes that have been heretics, and main-
tainers of such errors as are not now in controversy between
us (lest they should say we beg the principle), but of the
sect of the Arians, Monothelites, Eutychians, Saducees, and
such other.

Martin. Another way is, to alter the very original text of the holy M ARTIN, 4.
scripture, by adding, taking away, or changing it here and there for * Changing

some wade

their purpose. So did the Arians in sundry places, and the Nestorians αν

in the first epistle of St John, and especially Marcion, who was there- original text.
fore called Mus Ponticus, the mouse of Pontus, because he had gnawn Marcio, Eb.
(as it were) certain places with his corruptions, whereof some are said Tertul. lib. 5.

to remain in the Greek text until this day.

Fulke. The original text of the holy scripture we alter Funxz, 4.
not, either by adding, taking away, or changing of any letter
or syllable, for any private purpose; which were not only
a thing most wicked and sacrilegious, but also vain and im-
possible. For, seeing not only so many ancient copies _of the
original text are extant in divers places of the world, which
we cannot, if we would, corrupt, and that the same are multi-_
plied, by printing, into so many thousand examples ; we should
be rather mad than foolish, if we did but once attempt such
a matter, for maintenance of any of our opinions. As also
it is. incredible that Marcion, the mouse of Pontus, could
corrupt all the Greek copies in the world, (as Lindanus’, of
whom you borrowed that conceit, imagineth,) in those places
in which he is charged by Tertullian. For Marcion’s heresy
was not so generally received by the Greek church, that all
men would yield unto him; neither was Tertullian so sound
of judgment in the Latin church, that whatsoever he judged
to be a corruption in Marcion, must of necessity be so
taken. But if adding and detracting from the scripture be
proper notes of heretics, who can purge Stephen Gardiner
and Gregory Martin ?—+the one, for adding unto a verse of
the psalm this pronoun 86, himself, to prove the carnal pre-
sence, citing it thus, Hscam se dedit timentibus eum, “He
gave himself to be meat to them that fear him;” whereas

{? William Lindanus, born in 1525, at Dordrecht, a polemical writer
of the Romish Church, who has left many works of erudition written in
a pure style, but disfigured by the faults common to authors of that age. |

Martin, 5.
False and
heretical
translation.
ἐκτήσατο,
possedit.
‘2p

“TT

περιζώ-
ματα.
man
Aug. ep. 89.
et lib. 1. de
pec. mer.
cap. 11.

ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ
ἁμαρτή-
σαντας.

_ Funke, 5.

12 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

the words of the prophet, according to the Hebrew, Greek,
and Latin, are no more but, scam dedit, “He hath
given meat’,” &c.—the other, in his fond book .of schism’,
citing this text out of 1 Cor. x. as many papists do against
the certainty of faith, Qui stat, videat ne cadat, “He that
standeth, let him take heed he fall not;” whereas not only
the truth of the Greek, but even the vulgar Latin translation
hath, Qui se existimat stare, “He that thinketh or supposeth
that he standeth, let him take heed that he fall not.” But of
such additions and detractions, used by the Romish rats, far
worse than the mice of Pontus, we shall have more occasion
to speak hereafter.

Martin. Another way is, to make false translations of the scriptures,
for the maintenance of error and heresy. So did the Arians (as St Je-
rome noteth in xxvi. Esa.) read and translate Proverb viii. Dominus
creavit me in initio viarum suarum, that is, “The Lord created me
in the beginning of his ways,” so to make Christ, the wisdom of God,
a mere creature. St Augustine also, Lib. V. cont. Julian. c. 2, noteth it
as the interpretation of some Pelagian, Gen. iii. Fecerunt sibi vestimenta,

_ for perizomata, or campestria, that is, “They made themselves gar-

.᾽

ments ;” whereas the word of the scripture is, breeches or aprons, pro-
per and peculiar to cover the secret parts. Again, the selfsame heretics
did read falsely, Rom. v. Regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen etiam
in eos qui peccaverunt in similitudinem prevaricationis Ade; that is,
“Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even on them that sinned after the
similitude of the prevarication of Adam;” to maintain their heresy
against original sin, that none were infected therewith, or subject to
death and damnation, but by sinning actually, as Adam did. Thus did
the old heretics.

Fulke. As touching false and heretical translations, which

1s the chief argument of this book, I doubt not but, by the

grace of God, to clear our English translators from any wilful
corruptions for the maintenance of any error or heresy ; such

[? “Wherein (in the sacrament of the altar) God instituted me-
moriam mirabilium suorum, et escam se dedit timentibus eum; that is
to say, ‘a memory of his marvels, and gave himself meat to them
that lovingly fear him’.” Gardiner’s “Detection of the Devil’s So-
phistrie, wherein he robbeth the unlearned people of the true belief
in the most blessed Sacrament of the aulter.” London, 1546. fol. 69. b.
See Psal. cxi. 4, 5.]

[? Martin’s “ Treatise of Schism, shewing that all Catholics ought in
any wise to abstain altogether from heretical Conventicles, viz. their
Prayers, Sermons, &c.” Douay, 1578. ]

ee ee Ξἴ

at

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 13

as were those of the Arians and Pelagians, which Gregory
Martin, as though he uttered some great piece of skill, doth
so diligently express. I shall have occasion also to shew,
that the papists themselves of our times, maintaining their
corrupt vulgar translation against the truth of the original _ Ἂ
texts of Greek and Hebrew, are most guilty of such οοΥ-.
ruption and falsification; whereof although they be.not.the first:
authors, yet, by obstinate defending of such errors, they ma
prove worse than they which did. first commit ice
the authors of that vulgar translation might_be deceived,
either for lack of exact knowledge of the tongues, or by -
some corrupt and untrue copies which they followed, or else

perhaps that which they had rightly translated, by faultof
the writers and negligence_of the times might be perverted:

but these men frowardly justifyimg all errors of that trans-
lation, howsoever they have been brought in, do give plain
testimony, that they are not led with any conscience of God’s
truth, but wilfully carried with purpose of maintaining their
own errors; lest, if they did acknowledge the error of the
Romish church in that one point, they should not be able to
defend any one iota of their heresy, whose chief colour is the
credit and authority of that particular and false church, rather
* than any reason or argument out of the holy scriptures, or
testimony of the most ancient christian and catholic church.

Martin. What these of our days? Is it credible that being so Marr, 6.
well warned by the condemnation and detestation of them, they also
would be as mad and as impious as those? Heretics, gentle reader,
be always like heretics ; and howsoever they differ in opinions or names,
yet in this point they agree, to abuse the scriptures for their purpose
by all means possibly. I will but touch four points of the five before
mentioned, because my purpose is to stay upon the last only, and to de-
cipher their corrupt translations. But if I would stand upon the other ναι the
also, were it not easy to shew the manner of their proceeding against ep ne nc
the scriptures to have been thus: to deny some whole books and _ parts ists use the
of books, to call other some into question, to expound the rest at ome
their pleasure, to pick quarrels to the very original and canonical text, i ἤνμμι
to fester and infect the whole body of the bible with cankered trans-
lations ?

Fulke. Τῦ is very true, that so many heretics as pretend Fux, 6.
the authority of the holy scriptures, abuse the same to their
own destruction; and no heretics worse than the antichris-
tians or papists: as partly hath been seen already in every

14 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

one of your five marks, and more may appear in those four
points which you will handle in the preface, because the
argument of your whole book is the fifth; so that in the end
you shall be proved no wiser with your five points, than he
that came forth with his five eggs, and never a good of them
all. But you ask, if it were not easy for you to shew (if
you would stand upon them) that. the protestants use all
the said five means of defacing the scripture? I answer, No,
and that shall you see when demonstration is made, how vainly
you have laboured in the last pomt; which howsoever you
would have it appear to be a sudden writing, of small travail,
by interlacing a few lines here and there against M. Whitaker’,
against me and some other; yet it is evident, both by Bris-
tow’s threatening and Campian’s promise, that it hath been
a work of some years unto you; wherein, beside that you
are beholden much to Lindanus for divers quarrels against
Calvin, and to Sir Thomas More for many cayillations against
W. Tindal’s translation, there is little worthy of so long
study and large promises as have gone before this diligent

_ discovery ; so that, if you will make the like trial in the rest,

Martin, 7.

Fux, 7.

you shall find them as hard to prove as this last.

Martin. Did not Luther deny St James’ epistle, and so contemn
it, that he called it an epistle of straw, and not worthy of an apostolical
spirit? Must I prove this to M. Whitaker, who would never have

᾿ denied it so vehemently in the superlative degree for shame, if he had

not thought it more shame to grant it? I need not go far for the

307. matter: ask M. Fulke, and he will flatly confess it was so. Ask Calvin,

in argum. ep. Jacobi. Ask Flaccus Illyricus, in argum. ep. Jacobi;
and you shall perceive it is very true. I will not send you to the
catholic Germans and others, both of his own time and after, that wrote

‘against him in the question of justification: among whom not one omit-

teth this, being a thing so famous and infamous to the confusion of
that arch-heretic.

Fulke. I know not whether ever Luther denied St James’
epistle as unworthy of an apostolical spirit; but I believe

[Γ᾿ William Whitaker, master of St John’s, Cambridge, and Pro-
fessor of Divinity, born in 1547. Cardinal Bellarmine, his antagonist,
pronounced him to be the most learned heretic he ever read. He
wrote among other treatises, “Ad Rationes Decem Edmundi Campiani _
Jesuite, quibus fretus certamen Anglicane ecclesie ministris obtulit
in causa fidei, responsio Gulielmi Whitakeri. Londini. 1581.” - Re-
printed in Whitaker’s Works, Geneve. 1610. Vol. 1. ]

a

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 15 3

you may take a twelvemonth’s day more to prove it, as also
that he did so contemn it, that he called it an epistle of
straw. But M. Whitaker, which denied it so vehemently,
must ask of me, who most flatly confess (saith M. Martin)
that it was so. I pray you, sir, urge me not to confess
more than I know, or ever knew. But you have confessed it
already in two printed books, Retent®. p. 32. Disc. of the
Rock, p. 307. In the first place cited there are these words:
“But to proceed: LUTHER DENIETH THE EPISTLE OF ST
JAMES, BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST HIS HERESY OF JUSTIFICA-
TION BY FAITH ONLY. We allow not Luther, neither did he
allow himself therein; for he retracteth it afterward.” First,
those words of Luther’s denial. being printed in a diverse
letter, may testify sufficiently to every reasonable man, that
they are the objection of Bristow, and not the confession
of Fulke, who not simply admitteth them as true, but by
concession proveth that if they were true, yet Luther’s opinion,
against which he himself hath written, ought not to pre-
judice him, and much less all other men that never held that
opinion. In the latter cited place are these words: “And as
touching the epistle of St James, it is a shameless slander of
him to say that the protestants reject it; but we must hear
his reason. First, Luther calleth it a strawen epistle*. So
Luther called the pope supreme head of the church, and
the mass a sacrifice propitiatory. If protestants be charged
to hold whatsoever Luther sometime held, and after repented,”

[? A Retentive to stay good Christians in true faith and religion,
against the motives of Richard Bristow. Also a discovery of the dan-
gerous Rock of the Popish Church, commended by Nicholas Sander,
Ὁ. of Divinity. Done by Wm. Fulke. 1580. ]

[᾿ Campian, the Jesuit, states that the Reformer had characterised
the Epistle of James as “contentiosam, tumidam, aridam, stramineam,
et indignam spiritu apostolico.” The Prefaces to the Argentine, Wir-
temburg, and Francfort editions do not however contain these words,
that of Jena alone does. Luther's opinion is exhibited in its truest
light by the following remarks: “ Epistolam hanc S. Jacobi, quamvis
rejectam a veteribus, tamen laudo, et pro utili ac commodo habeo.”
And in his treatise De Captivitate Babylonica he thus alludes to it:
“Omitto quod hance epistolam non esse apostoli Jacobi, nec apostolico
spiritu dignam, multi valde probabiliter asserant.” See the question
examined more fully Ad Rationes Campiani. pp. 5—138. edit. 1581 ;
and in Whitaker’s Works, Vol. 1. p..60. edit. 1610. ]

16 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

&c. Who seeth not in these words, that I rehearse the
objection of Saunder, which is common to him with many
other papists; which not discussing whether it be true or
no, but supposing it were as Saunder and the rest of the
papists do affirm, I shew that it is no good consequence
to charge all protestants with Luther’s private opinion, which
perhaps he held sometime and after retracted, more than to
charge us with all opinions of papistry which he did hold,
before God opened his eyes to see the absurdity of them?
And yet, if he had held that opinion, and never retracted
the same, he were not in worse case than Eusebius!, who in
plain words affirmeth, that the same epistle is a counterfeit
or bastard epistle, lib. 2, cap. 23. Do you not see now, how
flatly Master Fulke confesseth that it was so? Such con-
fessions as these are now and then extorted out of the an-
cient fathers’ writings, which are not living to expound their
meanings. But I had thought Master Martin could have
discerned between a suppose or concession, and an absolute
assertion or a flat confession, especially of one whose writing
is plain enough, and beside is alive to interpret himself, if
any ambiguity were therein. But be it that Master Martin
either would not, or could not, see in my writing any thing else
but a flat confession of Luther’s denying of St James’ epistle,
and calling it an epistle of straw: of what forehead proceedeth
it, that he willeth Master Whitaker to ask Calvin’, in argum.
epist. Jacobi, whether Luther so spake of that epistle?—in
which argument Luther is not once named by Calvin; so far
is it that he doth testify any such thing against Luther.
Only he saith, that some there are in these days which
think that epistle not worthy of authority ; which could not

[᾿ Τοιαῦτα καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ιάκωβον, οὗ ἡ πρώτη τῶν ὀνομαζομένων
καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν εἶναι λέγεται. ἰστέον δὲ ὡς νοθεύεται μέν᾽ οὐ πολλοὶ
γοῦν τῶν παλαιῶν αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσαν, ὡς οὐδὲ τῆς λεγομένης ᾿Ιούδα, μιᾶς
καὶ αὐτῆς οὔσης τῶν ἑπτὰ λεγομένων καθολικῶν. ὅμως δὲ ἴσμεν καὶ ταύτας
μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐν πλείσταις δεδημοσιευμένας exkrAnoiars.—Eusebii Pam-
phili Eccles. Hist. Lib. πι. c. 29. Opera. Vol. 1. p. 66. edit. Valesii.]

[ Calvin’s words are: “Hane epistolam non sine certamine olim
receptam a multis ecclesiis fuisse ex Hieronymi Eusebiique testimonio
notum est. Sunt etiam hodie nonnulli, qui eam auctoritate dignam non
censeant. Ego tamen, quia nullam ejus repudiande satis justam causam
video, libenter eam sine controversia amplector.”—Argumentum cum
Joh. Calvini Commentariis. p. 91. edit. Stephan. 1560.]

a

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 17

be understood of Luther, who long before Calvin wrote that
argument had forsaken that opinion, if ever he held any
such; as all those Dutch bibles and testaments of Luther’s
translation, in which those words so much baited at, and so
much sought for, are omitted, do give sufficient testimony.
What Flaccus Illyricus* reporteth, who perhaps held that
opinion himself, and would father it upon Luther, I have
neither opportunity to seek, nor care to know. But how
great a matter it is, that all the popish Germans, and other,
who have written against Luther, do so spitefully gnaw upon,
I have learned at length by relation of Master Whitaker,
whom you send to ask of me; who, after long search and
many editions turned over, at the length lighted upon a
Dutch testament, by likelihood one of the first that Luther
did set forth in the German tongue, in which he findeth
neither denial of St James’ epistle to be canonical, nor af-
firmation that it is unworthy of an apostolical spirit; no,
nor that whereof there hath been so much babbling of all
the papists, that he calleth it an epistle of straw simply
and in contempt, but only in comparison of the epistles of
Paul and Peter, and other books of the new testament; the
excellency of which, one above another, after he hath shewed
in sundry degrees, at last he saith, the epistle of James in
comparison of these is straw, or like straw: which he saith
not in respect of the credit or authority thereof, but in regard
of the argument or matter handled therein; which all wise and
godly men will confess to be not so excellent and necessary,
as the matter of the holy gospels and epistles of some other
of the apostles, namely of Paul, Peter, and John. Our
Saviour Christ himself, John ii. 12, calleth the doctrine of
regeneration, in such plain manner as he uttered it to Nico-
demus, earthly things, in comparison of other greater mysteries,
which he could have expressed in more heavenly and spiritual
sort. “If 1 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,

[ἢ Mathias Flack, or (as the name was latinised, from Albona in Istria,
a part of ancient Illyria, where he was born in 1521,) Flaccus IIlyricus,
was a famous protestant theologian. He studied under Luther and Me-
lancthon, and became a most formidable enemy to the Church of Rome. |
2

[ FULKE. |

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

Martin, 8.

Cone. Cart. 3.
can. 47.

Argu. in
epist. Jacob.

Whitak.!
᾿ 10.
bid.

Fuxg, 8.

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 him 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. O what a stir would
they keep, if they had any weighty matter of truth to bur-
then him withal!

Martin. To let this pass: Toby, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees,
are they not most certainly rejected? And yet they were allowed and
received for canonical by the same authority that St James’ epistle was.
Thisepistle the Calvinists are content to admit, because so it pleased
Calvin: those books they reject, because so also it pleased him. And
why did it so please Calvin? Under pretence forsooth, that they were
once doubted of, and not taken for canonical. But is that the true
cause indeed? How do they then receive St James’ epistle as canoni-
cal, having been before doubted of also, yea, as they say, rejected 2

Fulke. You may well let it pass, for it is not worth the
time you spend in writing of it; and if you had been wise,
you would utterly have omitted it. But what say you of
Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, most certainly by
us rejected? They were allowed (you say) for canonical by

the same authority that St James’ epistle was. And think -

you that St James’ epistle was never allowed for canonical
before the third council of Carthage? For of the other it
is certain, they were never received by the church of the
Israelites before Christ’s coming, nor of the apostolic and
primitive church for more than 300 years after, as both Eu-
sebius out of Origenes, and the council of Laodicea, Can. 59.
confirmed afterward by the sixth general council of Constan-

[ Whitakeri ad Rationes Campiani Responsio. |

ate

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 19

tinople, sheweth for the Greek church, and St Jerome im Lid. 6. cap.
Prologo Galeato* for the Latin church. As for the provincial
council of Carthage, holden by forty-four bishops of Africa,
if we were bound to receive it for these books, we must
also acknowledge five books of Salomon, which in the same
council are authorised, whereas the church never knew but
of three. And although the book of Wisdom should be as-
eribed to Salomon, there could be but four. Again, how
they understand the word canonical, it may be gathered both
out of the words of the same canon, where they give none
other reason of the approbation of all those books of scrip-
ture, but that they have received them of their fathers to be
read in the church; and also out of St Augustine, who was De doct.
one present at the same council; which after he hath declared 3. cap. 8.
how a man should discern the canonical scriptures from other
writings by following the authority of the catholic churches,
especially those that have deserved to have apostolic sees,
and to receive their epistles, he addeth further: Tenebit igitur
hunc modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas que ab omnibus
accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis, praponat eis quas quedam
non accipiunt; im eis vero que non accipiuntur ab omni-
bus, praeponat cas, quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis
quas’ pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesie tenent. Si
autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi,
quanquam hoc invenire non possit, equalis tamen auctoritatis
eas habendas puto. Totus autem canon scripturarum, in quo
istam considerationem versandam dicimus, his libris continetur.
He shall hold therefore this mean in the canonical scrip-
tures, that he prefer those which are received of all catholic
churches, before those scriptures which some churches do
not receive. But in those which are not received of all, let
him prefer those scriptures which the greater number and
graver churches do receive, before those which churches fewer
in number and of less authority do hold. But if he shall
[? Non idem ordo est apud Grecos, qui integre sapiunt et fidem
rectam sectantur, epistolarum septem, que canonice nuncupantur, qui
in Latinis codicibus invenitur. Quod quia Petrus primus est in numero
apostolorum, prime sint etiam ejus epistole in ordine ceterarum. Sed
sicut evangelistas dudum ad veritatis lineam correximus; ita has proprio
ordini, Deo nos juvante, reddidimus. Est enim prima earum una Jacobi;
Petri due; Johannis tres; et Jude una.—Hieronym. Prolog. Septem
Epistolarum Canonicarum. Opera. Vol. 1. p. 1667. |
2—2

Anno 1532.
Anno 1537.

20 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

find some scriptures to be had of fewer churches and other
some of graver churches, although you cannot find this thing,
yet I think they are to be accounted of equal authority.
Now the whole canon of scriptures in which’ we say this
consideration must be occupied is contained in these books:
Five books of Moses, that is Genesis, Exodus, &c. By this
saying of Augustine it is manifest, that he calleth canonical
scriptures, not only those books that ought of necessity to
be received of all churches; but also such as were received
of some, and of some were not; in which number were these
books of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, which
by his own rule were not to be received as of absolute and
sovereign authority, because the apostolic churches of Asia
and Europe, and those of gravest authority, among which
was the church of Rome in that time, did not receive them ;
as witnesseth not only St Jerome, a priest of Rome, but
also Ruffinus of Aquileia, in symbolo’, who both declare what
books were received in their churches as canonical, and of
irrefragable authority to build principles of faith upon them,
and what books were admitted only to be read for imstruc-
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-
eerning 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-
lies; and that we have neither received that epistle, nor
rejected the other, because it pleased Calvin so. This may
serve for a clear demonstration, that in the first English?

[? Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt qui non canonici, sed
ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt: ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et
alia Sapientia que dicitur filii Syrach, qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso
generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur; quo vocabulo non auctor
libelli, sed scripture qualitas cognominata est. Ejusdem ordinis est
libellus Tobie, et Judith, et Machabeorum libri—Expositio in Sym-
bolum Apostolorum Ruffini. p. 397, 398. ed. Ald. 1563. ]

[? In the bible of 1537, known under the name of the translator,
Thomas Matthew, this is the case. Also in Coverdale’s bible of 1537,
4to., imprynted in Southwarke by James Nycolson. |

»»
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 21

bibles that were printed under the name of Thomas Matthew,
before Calvin wrote any word of the rejection of those books,
or of receiving of the other, they are called Apocrypha, and
printed with other of that mark by themselves, and the epistle
of St James without any question acknowledged to be one of
the canonical epistles; whereas Calvin’s institution was first
printed anno 1536, and his argument upon St James’ epistle,
1551. You may see what honest dealing the papists use to
bring the truth into discredit, and the professors thereof into
hatred with the simple and unlearned people, bearing them in
hand, that we have no cause to receive or refuse books of scrip-
ture, but Calvin’s pleasure. But the God of truth will one day
reward these impudent liars and shameless slanderers.

Well, let us now see under what pretence it pleased Cal-
vin to reject these books: ‘“ Under pretence forsooth, (saith
Martin,) that they were once doubted of, and not taken for
canonical.” I pray you, Sir, where doth Calvin pretend that
only cause? In his Instit. lib. mi. ὁ. 5. sec. 8, he allegeth
divers other causes touching the books of Machabees, as every
man that will may read. Shame you nothing to forge such
manifest untruths, and that in such matters as you may be
convinced in them by ten thousand witnesses? What credit
shall be given to you in matters that consist upon your own
bare testimony, when you force not to feign of other men that
wherein every man may reprove you? And as for the only
pretence you speak of, Calvin doth so little esteem it, that
notwithstanding the same, he doubteth not to receive the
epistle of St James, because it is agreeable to the whole body
of the canonical scripture; as, if you had read his argument
upon that epistle, you might easily have perceived.

Martin. Mark, gentle reader, for thy soul’s sake, and thou shalt asin 9.

find that heresy, and only heresy, is the cause of their denying these Me White
books; so far, that against the orders and hierarchies and particular ¥°.}Y these
patronages of angels one of them writeth thus in the name of the ther own
rest: “We pass not for that Raphael of Toby, neither do we acknow- 88 ΠΝ which
ledge those seven angels which he speaketh of; all this is far from appointeth

book
canonical scriptures, that the same Raphael recordeth, and savoureth o “Tobit and
I wot not what superstition.” Against free-will thus: “I little care cus to be
for the place of Ecclesiasticus, neither will I believe free-will, though holy seri

he affirm an hundred times, that before men is life and death.” And bin ag De

Γ᾽ Ad Rationes Campiani Responsio, p. 17.]

22 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

they read

in their
churches
apocryphal
+ and super-
stitious
books for
holy serip-
ture, or is
he a puritan
that thus
disgraceth
their order
of daily ser-
vice?

FuuKe, 9.

against prayer for the dead, and intercession of saints, thus: “As for
the book of the Machabees, I do care less for it than for the other.
Judas’ dream concerning Onias I let pass as a dream.” This is their
reverence of the scriptures, which have universally been reverenced, for
canonical in the church of God above 1100 years. Con. Cart. 3. and
particularly of many fathers long before, Aug. de doct. Christ. Lib. τι.
6. 8.

Fulke. The mouth that lieth killeth the soul. The reader
may think you have small care of his soul’s health, when
by such impudent lying you declare that you have so small
regard of your own. But what shall he mark? “That
heresy, &c.” You were best say that Eusebius, Jerome, Ruf-

fine, and all the churches in their times, were heretics, and

that only heresy was the cause of their denial of these books.
For such reasons as moved them move us, and something
also their authority. But how prove you that only heresy
moveth us to reject them? Because M. Whitaker against
the orders, and hierarchies, and particular patronages of
angels, writeth in the name of the rest, that “we pass not,”
&c. Take heed, lest upon your bare surmise you belie him,
where you say he writeth in the name of the rest; as in the
next section following you say, he writeth in the name of both
the universities, for which I am sure he had no commission
from either of them; although he did write that which may
well be avouched by both the universities; yet I know his
modesty is such, as he will not presume to be advocate for
both the universities, and much less for the whole church,
except he were lawfully called thereto. This is a common
practice of you papists, to bear the world in hand, that what-
soever is written by any of us in defence of the truth, is set

᾿ forth in the name of all the rest, as though none of us could

say more in any matter than any one of us hath written; or
that if any one of us chance to slip in any small matter,
though it be but a wrong quotation, you might open your
wide slanderous mouths against the whole church for one
man’s particular offence. Now touching any thing that M.
Whitaker hath written, you shall find him sufficient to main-
tain it against a stronger adversary than you are; and there-
fore I will meddle the less in his causes. And for the orders
and patronage or protection of angels by God’s appointment,
we have sufficient testimony in the canonical scriptures, that
we need not the uncertain report of Tobie’s book to instruct

ail

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.' Ep. ¢. 23. con-
fesseth that the Jews account it not as the Law, and the
Prophets, and the Psalms, to which our Lord giveth testi-
mony as to his witnesses, saying, “It behoveth that all things
should be fulfilled which are written in the Law, and in the
Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me; but it is received
of the 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 religion,
to encourage Christians by their example.” Finally, he
addeth a condition of the receiving it, “if it be soberly read
or heard.” These speeches declare, that it was not received

[* Et hane quidem scripturam, que appellatur Machabeorum, non
habent Judei sicut legem et prophetas et psalmos, quibus Dominus
testimonium perhibet tamquam testibus suis, dicens, Oportebat impleri
omnia que scripta sunt in lege et prophetis et in psalmis de me: sed
recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur vel audiatur,
maxime propter illos Machabeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres.
a persecutoribus tam indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt; ut etiam
hine populus Christianus adverteret, quoniam non sunt condigne pas-
siones hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam que revelabitur in nobis, pro.
quibus passus est Christus, si tanta patientissime pertulerunt pro lege
quam dedit Deus per famulum hominibus illis pro quibus nondum tra-
diderat Filium.—Augustin. contra Gaudentium Donatist. Episc. Lib. 1.
cap. 38. Opera. Vol. rx. p. 655-6. ]

In exposi-
tione sym-
boli.

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
Ecclesiasticus to be read for holy scripture as the other.
And where find you that in the service-book, M. Martin?
Can you speak nothing but untruths? If they be appointed
to be read, are they appointed to be read for holy scripture,
and for such scripture as the other canonical books are ?
The service-book appointeth the litany, divers exhortations
and prayers, yea, homilies to be read: are they therefore to
be read for holy and canonical scriptures? But you ask, Do
they read in their churches apocryphal and superstitious books
for holy scripture? No, verily. But of the name apocryphal
I must distinguish, which sometimes is taken for all books
read of the church, which are not canonical; sometime for
such books only as are by no means to be suffered, but are to
be hid or abolished. These books therefore in controversy,
with other of the same sort, are sometimes called Hagiographa,
holy writings, as of St Jerome prafat. in lib. Tobie; some-
times Ecclesiastica, Ecclesiastical writings, and so are they
called of Ruffinus. Because (saith he) they were appointed
by our elders to be read in the churches, but not to be

brought forth to confirm authority of faith: but other scrip-

tures they named apocryphal, which they would not have to
be read in the churches. So saith St Jerome in praefat. in
Proverb. “Even as the church readeth indeed the books of
Judith, Tobias, and the Machabees, but yet receiveth them
not among the canonical scriptures; so let it read these two
books (of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom) for the edifying of the
people, not for the confirmation of the authority of ecclesi-
astical doctrines.” These ancient writers shall answer for our
service-book, that although it appomt 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

een

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 95

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. ΑΒ for parts of books, do they not reject certain pieces Marry,
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, μ. white
though before doubted of, for canonical scriptures, unless they receive spastic
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 Fuixe,10.
none; but only we discern that which was written by Daniel in
deed, from that which is added by Theodotion the false Jew, and
that which was written by the Spirit of God of Esther, from
_ that which is vainly added by some Greekish counterfeiter. But
the reason why we reject those patches (you say) is because
they are not in the Hebrew, which reason St Augustine re-
jecteth. Here you cite St Augustine at large, without quota-
tion in a matter of controversy. But if we may trust you that
St Augustine rejecteth this reason, yet we may be bold upon
St Jerome’s authority to reject whatsoever is not found in
the canon of the Jews, written in Hebrew or Chaldee: for
, whatsoever was such, St Jerome did thrust through with a

spit or obelisk, as not worthy to be received. Witness hereof
St Augustine himself, Hpist. ad Hier.‘ 8.and 10, i which he

[? Petimus ergo, et nobiscum petit omnis Africanarum ecclesiarum
studiosa societas, ut interpretandis eorum libris, qui Grece scripturas
nostras quam optime tractaverunt, curam atque operam impendere non
graveris. Potes enim efficere, ut nos quoque habeamus tales illos viros,

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 himself? testifieth, that Daniel in the
Hebrew hath neither the story of Susanna, nor the hymn of
the three children, nor the fable of Bel and the Dragon:
which we, (saith he,) because they are dispersed throughout
the whole world, have added, setting a spit before them,
which thrusteth them through, lest we should seem among
the ignorant to have cut off a great part of the book. The
like he writeth of the vain additions that were in the vulgar
edition unto the book of Esther, both in the preface, and
after the end of that which he translated out of the Hebrew.
There are other reasons also, beside the authority of St Jerome,
that move us not to receive them. As that in the story of
Susanna, magistrates and judgment of life and death are
attributed to the Jews being in captivity of Babylon, which

hath no similitude of truth. Beside, out of the first chapter Ὁ

et unum potissimum, quem tu libentius in tuis literis sonas. De ver-
tendis autem in Latinam linguam sanctis literis canonicis laborare te
nollem, nisi eo modo quo Job interpretatus es; ut signis adhibitis quid
inter hanc tuam et Septuaginta, quorum est gravissima auctoritas, inter-
pretationcm distet, appareat.—Augustin. ad Hieron. Ep. xxvim. Opera.
Vol. 11. p. 46.

Ego sane te mallem Grecas potius canonicas nobis interpretari scrip-
turas, que Septuaginta interpretum perhibentur. Perdurum erit enim,
si tua interpretatio per multas ecclesias frequentius cceperit lectitari,
‘quod a Grecis ecclesiis Latine ecclesie dissonabunt, maxime quia facile
contradictor convincitur Greco prolato libro, id est lingue notissime.—
Augustin. txx1. Epist. ad Hieron. Opera. Vol. τι. p. 160.]

[᾿ Cui et Eusebius et Apollinarius pari sententia responderunt: Susanne
Belisque ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico ; sed partem esse
prophetie Abacuc filii Jesu de tribu Levi, sicut juxta Lxx. interpretes
in titulo ejusdem Belis fabule ponitur: Homo quidam erat sacerdos, nomine
Daniel, filius Abda, conviva regis Babylonis: quum Danielem et tres pue-
ros de tribu Juda fuisse sancta scriptura testetur. Unde et nos ante
annos plurimos quum verteremus Danielem, has visiones obelo prenota-
vimus, significantes eas in Hebraico non haberi.—Hieronymi Explanatio
in Danielem Prophetam. Opera. Tom. 1. p. 1074. Augustini Epist. ad
Hieronymum, txx. p. 611. Hieronym. Opera. Vol. 1v. Hieronymi
Epist. ad Augustinum, xxiv. pp. 626, 627.]

ee δια, . ἡ κὰ

it

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 lived with the same king
Cyrus; and after, when he was cast into the lions’ den, the
prophet Habakkuk was sent to him out of Jewry, who pro-
phesied before the first coming of the Chaldees, and therefore
could not be alive in the days of Cyrus, which was more than
seventy years after. The additions unto the book of Esther,
in many places, bewray the spirit of man; as that they are
contrary to the truth of the story, 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
ealled a Macedonian, which in the true story. is termed an
Agagite, that is an Amalekite, whereas the Macedonians had
nothing to do with the Persians many years after the death
of Esther and Haman. I omit that in the cap. 15, ver. 12,
the author maketh Esther to lie unto the king, in saying that
his countenance was full of all grace; or else he lieth 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? If any part were of some person doubted of,
doth it follow that it was not at all in credit? You reason
profoundly, and gather very necessarily: as likewise, that
he “forgetteth himself in the very next lines, admitting St
James’ epistle (though before doubted of) for canonical.”
Will ye say that St James’ epistle was once not in credit,
or not worthy of credit (for that is his plain meaning), be-

Martin,
11.

In the argu-
ment bib
an. 1579.

ἡ πρὸς

e ,
ἑβραίους
ἐπιστολ᾽

Παύλου.

28 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

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 little
joy thus insolently to deface his godly and learned writings.
It had been more than time that his book had been confuted,
which hath been abroad a year and a half almost’, if you can
with such facility, by only noting such matters, shew that he
confuteth himself. But somewhat you must say afar off, to
save your credit with your disciples, to keep them play for

the time; while with long study and great travail you are

crowding out great trifles.

Martin. For the second point, which is not the gross denial of
books, but yet calling of them in question, moving scruples about them,
and diminishing their authority and credit, I will go no further than
St Paul’s Epistle tothe Hebrews; which I will not ask why they doubt
of, or rather think it not to be St Paul’s, for they will tell me, be-
cause it was once in doubt (not considering that it was in like man-
ner doubted whether it were canonical, and yet they will not now
deny but it is canonical); but I must ask them, and request them to
make a reasonable answer, why in their English bible of the years
1579 and 1580, they presume to leave out St Paul’s name out of the
very title of the said epistle, which name is in the Greek, and in
Beza’s Latin translation, both which they profess to follow. See the
title of the New Testament, anno 1580. Doth not the title tell them
that it is St Paul’s? Why seek they further; or why do they change
the title, striking out St Paul’s name, if they meant to deal simply
and sincerely? and what an heretical peevishness is this, because Beza
telleth them of one obscure Greek copy that hath not Paul’s name,
and only one, that they will rather follow it, than all other copies both
Greek and Latin! I report me to all indifferent men of common sense,
whether they do it not to diminish the credit of the epistle.

|’ Whitaker's Answer to Campian was printed in 1581.]

EE — eS τὰδμϑ-" μα ante

er — —

ee κον ...ζκϑνω,.,

ae

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 29

Fulke. Now concerning the second point, which is calling Furxe,

of some books into controversy, or moving scruples about them, 11.

to diminish their credit or authority, whether you be guilty

of that crime rather than we, 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 Hebrews*. You may be ashamed to have gone so far;

for of all books of the New Testament, there is none that

we might worse spare to confound your blasphemous heresies

than that epistle, which is the very mall to beat into powder

the abominable idol of your mass, and your sacrilegious priest-

hood serving to the same. Wherefore it is without all colour
that you charge us to seek to diminish the credit of that
epistle. But you “will not ask why we doubt of, or rather

think it not to be St Paul’s, because we will tell you, that it

was once in doubt.” If you acknowledge that the author of

this epistle was once in question, you clear us of moving
scruples about it, or calling it im question, which was your

first charge. Let Eusebius, Jerome, and other ancient writers, Fomeb. lib.
bear that blame, if it be blame-worthy to tell what other men’s Tieronym.
opinions have been in such a matter; some holding that it ἴοι. 8.
was written by St Luke, some by St Barnabas, some by St
Clemens. But you must wit, if you will, that they which at

this day doubt of the writer thereof, or else think it not of

St Paul’s penning, have other reasons to lead them, than

[3 The argument to ‘the Epistle to the Hebrewes,” in the edition of
the bible printed at Edinburgh, 1579, (which is a reprint of the Geneva
bible of 1560,) commences thus, as indeed it does in the edition of 1557,
and those printed by Barker, 1578, and 1582. ‘ Forasmuche as divers,
bothe of the Greke writers and Latine, witnesse, that the writer of
this epistle for juste causes wolde not have his name knowen, it were
curiosite of our parte to labour muche therein. For seeing the Spirit of
God is the autor thereof, it diminisheth nothing the autoritie, althogh
we knowe not with what penne he wrote it.. Whether it were Paul (as
it is not like), or Luke, or Barnabas, or Clement, or some other, his
chiefe purpose is to persuade unto the Ebrewes, (whereby he principally
meaneth them that abode at Jerusalem, and under them all the rest of
the Jewes,) that Christ Jesus was not only the redemer, but also that at
his comming all ceremonies must have an end,” &c.

In Coverdale’s bible, 1537, it bears the title of St Paul’s Epistle to the
Hebrews; in Matthew’s bible, 1537; in Taverner’s, 1539; in Day’s bible,
1551; in the Bishops’ bible, 1584, and in Cranmer’s bible, 1562. The omis-
sion seems to be peculiar to the Anglo-Genevese Version. ]

In Isai. lib.
3. cap. 6. in
Evang.
Matt. lib. 5.
cap. 26.

30 THE ANSWER TO THR 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 Jesus Christ.” Gal. i. 12. But of all them that
doubt, or think it not to be St Paul’s epistle, there is not
one that doubteth of the authority thereof, but that it is
equal with the epistle to the Romans, or the gospel of St
John: although in the Latin church, as St Jerome’ testifieth,
it hath been doubted whether it were canonical. The cause

[* Nam et Paulus in epistola sua que scribitur ad Hebreos (licet
de ea multi Latinorum dubitent)—Comment. Hieronymi in Matthei
cap. 26. Opera. Vol. rv. pp. 125, 126.

Ac primum solvenda est illa questio, que nobis objici potest : quare
Apostolus Paulus cum Hebreis disputans non juxta Hebraicum, quod
rectum esse cognoverat, sed juxta txx. sit loquutus? Evangelistam
Lucam tradunt veteres ecclesie tractatores medicine artis fuisse scien-
tissimum ; et magis Grecas literas scisse quam Hebreas. Unde et
sermo ejus tam in Evangelio, quam in Actibus Apostolorum, id est,
in utroque volumine comptior est, et secularem redolet eloquentiam ;
magisque testimoniis Grecis utitur quam Hebreis. Mattheus autem
et Johannes, quorum alter Hebreo, alter Greco sermone evangelia
texuerunt, testimonia de Hebraico proferunt: ut est illud, Ex Agypto
vocavi filium meum. Et, Quoniam Nazareus vocabitur. Et, Flumina
de ventre ejus fluent aque vive. Et, Videbunt in quem compunaxerunt,
et cetera his similia. Pauli quoque idcirco ad Hebreos Epistole con-
tradicitur, quod ad Hebreos scribens utatur testimoniis que in Hebreis
voluminibus non habentur. Quod si aliquis dixerit, Hebreos libros
postea ἃ Judeis esse falsatos, audiat Origenem quid in octavo volumine
explanationum Isaie huic respondeat questiuncule, quod nunquam
Dominus et Apostoli, qui cetera crimina arguunt in Scribis et Phariseis,
de hoc crimine quod erat maximum reticuissent. Sin autem dixerint,
post adventum Domini Salvatoris et predicationem Apostolorum libros
Hebreos fuisse falsatos, cachinnum tenere non potero, ut Salvator et
Evangeliste et Apostoli ita testimonia protulerint, ut Judei postea fal-
saturi erant.—Commentar. Hieronymi in 1881: Prophet. Lib. m1. cap. 6.
Opera. Vol. 111. pp. 63, 64.]

a

—————

»
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 91

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, Hpistola autem que fertur ad Hebroeos, &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 Tertullian® holdeth, or by
Luke the Evangelist, as some men think, or by Clemens, that
after was bishop of the Roman church, whom they say to
have ordered and adorned the sentences of Paul in his own
speech, or else truly, because Paul did write unto the Hebrews,
and. because of the envy of his name among them he cut off
the title in the beginning of the salutation. These things
considered, what need those tragical exclamations in so trifling
a matter? ‘ Doth not the title tell it is St Paul’s? why
strike they out St Paul’s name? what an heretical peevishness
is this!” For lack of good matter, you are driven to loud
clamours against us; but I will even conclude in your own

[3 Exstat enim et Barnabe titulus ad Hebreos, adeo satis aucto-
ritatis viro, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentie tenore:
Aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem? Et
utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabe illo apocrypho pastore
mcechorum.—Tertullian. de Pudicitia. Opera. p. 741. edit. Rigaltii,
1641. cap. 20. edit. Semler. Vol. 1v. p. 427. ]

Martin,
12,

Fuxr,
32.

32 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

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 hereties 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 of the author, .

as indeed it doth not—for the books of J udges, of Ruth, of
Samuel the later, of the Kings, &c. who can certainly affirm
by whom they were written ?—-with what forehead do youcharge
us to doubt of the authority of this epistle, because we report
out of the ancient writers the uncertainty of the author, or
leave out that title which is not certainly true? “But yet
(you say) to be Paul’s or not Paul’s, apostolical or not apos-
tolical, maketh great difference of credit and estimation.”
If by apostolical you mean, of apostolical spirit or authority,
I agree to that you say of apostolical, or not apostolical, If
you mean apostolical that only which was written by some
apostle, you will make great difference of credit and estima-
tion between the gospel of Mark, Luke, and the Acts of the

Se ἉΨΝΑΨΟΝΗΒΕΡῪΝ

Ee δα

ar

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 33

_ Apostles, from the gospels of Matthew and John. But which
of us, I pray you, that thinketh that this epistle was not
written by St Paul, once doubteth whether it be not of apos-
tolical spirit and authority? Which is manifest by this, that
both in preaching and writing we cite it thus, the Apostle to
the Hebrews. And if it were written by St Luke, or by St
Clement, which both were apostolic men, seeing it is out of
controversy that it was written by the Spirit of God, it is
doubtless apostolical, and differeth not in credit and estimation
from those writings that are known certainly to have been
written by the apostles. But I marvel greatly why you write;
that to be Paul’s or not Paul’s maketh great difference of
eredit and estimation. Those epistles that are Peter’s and
John’s are not Paul’s; and yet I think there is no great dif-
ference of credit and estimation between them and Paul’s.
What you think, I know not; but you write very suspiciously.
You ask what made St James’ epistle, or the 2nd of Peter
and the rest, to be sometimes doubted of, but that they were
not thought to be the epistles of those apostles? Yes, some-
thing else, or else they doubted vainly of them, and without
just cause, as I think they did. But when there were two
apostles called James, he that doubteth whether the epistle
was written by James the brother of John, and is persuaded
it was written rather by James the son of Alpheus, doubteth
nothing of the credit, authority, and estimation of the epistle.
No more do we, which doubt whether the epistle to the
Hebrews were written by St Paul, seeing we are persuaded
it was written either by St Barnabas, or by St Luke, or by
St Clement, as the ancient writers thought, or by some other
of the apostles or evangelists; we make no question but that
it is apostolical, and of equal authority with the rest of the
holy scriptures. But Eusebius denied the epistle of St James,
because he was persuaded that it was written by no apostle
or apostolic man, and therefore saith plainly that it is a bastard
or countérfeit ; 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
3

[FULKE. |

Martin,
13.

34 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

and printed is left out; and in leaving out those titles that
never were omitted, nor never any question or controversy
moved of them by any of the ancient catholic fathers? But
you will us to urge no more the title of the Apocalypse of
St John the Divine, as though it were not St John the
Evangelist’s; and we shall please 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,
Tue Divine, could agree to any John in the apostles’ time
so aptly, as to St John the Evangelist, beside the consent
of all antiquity, ascribing that Revelation to St John the
evangelist and apostle, “ Last of all (you say) it is most
certain, and we know best by our usual doings, that it is a
principal way to discredit any book, to deny it to be the
author’s under whose name it hath been received.” How
certain it is with you, whereof no man else but «you can see
any light of reason or necessity of conclusion, I know not;
but we are not so void of wit, if we lacked honesty, that we
would discredit Paul’s epistle by saying it was Peter’s, or
Augustine’s sermon by saying it was Ambrose’s, or Chrysos-
tom’s work by saying it was Basil’s. But if we would bring
any book out of credit by denying the author whose title it
hath borne, we would rather entitle it to some other writer
of less credit or later time, or by some other arguments
prove it unworthy of credit, not by only denying it to be the

author’s under whose name it hath been received.

Martin, But I come to the third point, of voluntary expositions of
the scripture, that is, when every man expoundeth according to his error
and heresy. This needeth no proof, for we see it with our eyes. Look
upon the Calvinists and Puritans at home; the Lutherans, Zuinglians,
and Calvinists abroad. Read their books written vehemently, one sect
against another. Are not their expositions of one and the same scripture
as diverse and contrary, as their opinions differ one from another? Let
the example at home be, their controversy about the distinction of eccle-
siastical degrees, archbishop, bishop, and minister ; the example abroad,

their diverse imaginations and fancies upon these most sacred words,
Hoe est corpus meum.

τῷ

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 85

Fulke. That every one of us expoundeth the scripture Furxe,
voluntarily according to his error or heresy, you say it needeth 1°:
no proof, for you see it with your eyes. You have very clear
sight to see a mote in other men’s eyes, but cannot see a
beam in your own. You make your demonstration by the
Calvinists and Puritans at home, and the Lutherans, Zuin-
glians, and Calvinists abroad; the one for the distinction of
ecclesiastical degrees, archbishop, bishop, and minister; the
other for their diverse imaginations and fancies of these
words, Hoe est corpus 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
lights of them both, Cyprian and Cornelius, dissented about
rebaptizing them that were baptized of heretics. The Afri- Cyprianus,
cans, not in one text only, but in the exposition of many, ¢oncilio’
differed from the Romans, and from the truth; yet it were
hard to condemn them both for heretics, and least of all
them that held the truth. St Augustine and St Jerome’
dissented about a text of St Paul to the Galatians, of Peter’s
dissembling, as their contrary epistles do testify. The truth
was of St Augustine’s side; yet was not the other an heretic,
following a wrong interpretation. And to come nearer home
unto you, the Dominican and Franciscan friars were at
daggers drawing, as we say, yea, at most sharp and bitter
contention between themselves, and all the popish church
was divided about their brawling, concerning the conception

Γ΄ Augustin. ad Hieron. Epist. xxvm. Vol. 1. p. 45. and Vol. x1. p. 85.
Hieronymus ad Augustin. Epist. yxxv1. de Petro reprehenso a Paulo.
Opera, Vol. 1v. pars 2. p. 629. edit. Benedict. 1706. The text was Gal.

ii. 14.
; 3—2

Martin,
14,

Whitak.
Ῥ. 17 and
120.

FuLKE,
14.

96 “THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

of the virgin Mary, whether she were conceived in sin, or
no; where many texts of scripture must needs receive 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 religion, And
when you have gathered the most voluntary expositions you
can find, yet shall you find none so gross, so absurd, so im-
pertinent, as you papists have coined for maintenance of
your errors and heresies, of which you yourself are ashamed,
though otherwise you have iron foreheads and brasen faces.
A few examples among a great many shall suffice. ‘“ God
made man according to his own image:” that is to say, we
must haye images in the church. “No man lighteth a candle
and putteth it under a bushel :” the meaning is, that images
must be set upon the altar. “God made two great lights,
the sun and the moon:’ that is, the pope to be above the
emperor’. ‘ Behold, here are two swords:” that is, the pope
hath power of both the swords. ‘‘ Put on the whole armour
of God:”’ that is, the priest must put on all his vestments,
before he say mass. “1 am become as sounding brass, or
as a tinkling cymbal:” that is, the bells in the steeple sig-
nify preaching of God’s word. I might fill many leaves,
yea, a whole book, of such popish expositions, as the papists
m our days dare not for shame abide by.

Martin. And if you will yet have a further demonstration, this one
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
brethren of love: briefly, themselves will be judges both of councils and
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. We had need of a better demonstration than the
former, by which you yourselves are proved heretics, rather

[᾿ Innocent III. who excommunicated king John, thus interpreted

Gen. i. 16, in a letter he addressed to the English monarch. See Marsh’s

Lectures, pp. 369, 370. ]

or
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 37

than we. But let us see how handsomely you begin. “ They
reject (say you) councils and fathers, and the catholic church’s
interpretation, unless it be agreeable to God’s word.” Thus
far you say well. We do reject not only those that you
name, but even an angel from heaven, except his message -
be agreeable to God’s word. But all the rest that you as-
sume, to the end of this section, is a stark staring lie, ex-
cept that ‘you say of H. N.* for the brethren of love, which
are more like to you than to us. For neither Luther, nor
Calvin, nor Cartwright is judge among us, whether any thing
be agreeable to the word of God; but whatsoever any of
them do say, it is examined and tried by the scriptures.
And the scriptures themselves, where they are so obscure,
that neither by common sense, knowledge of the original
tongue, grammar, rhetoric, logic, history, nor any other human
knowledge, nor judgment of any writers, old or new, the
certain understanding can be found out, they are either ex-
pounded by conference of other plainer texts of scripture,
according to the analogy of faith; or else they remain still
in obscurity, until it shall please God to reveal a more clear
knowledge of them. But none so like the family of love as
you papists are, which reject councils, fathers, interpretation
of the most ancient catholic church, yea, and manifest scrip-
ture itself, except it be agreeable to the judgment of your
P.M. Pontifex Maz. the pope, as those familiar devils submit
all. things to the sentence and authority of their H. N.
Shame you nothing therefore to quote Whitaker®, pp. 17 and
120, as though he affirmed, that we ourselves will be judges
both of councils and fathers, whether they expound the
scriptures well or no? because he writeth (percase), that we
ought to examine all men’s writings by the word of God.
Doth the apostle make every man judge of all things, when
he willeth every man‘to examine all things, and to hold that
which is good? If any youth, upon confidence of his wit
or knowledge, presume too much in divine matters, we count
it rashness. But that any youth among us, upon confidence
of his spirit, will saucily control all the fathers consenting
together against his fantasy, except it be some schismatic
or heretic, that is cast out from amongst us, I do utterly

[? Henry Nicholas. Vid. Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, Vol. 1.

p. 392. |
Γ᾿ Ad Rationes Campiani. edit. 1581. ]

Martin,
15.
Ibid. p. 101.

Pref. ad 6.1
theses.
Oxon. p. 25.
Lib. Con-
fess. 1. cap.

14, lib. 7.
cap. 20. -

Cicer. de
Senect.

FuLKE,
15.

38 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

deny ; neither are you able to prove it of any that is allowed
among us.

Martin. Whereupon it riseth, that one of them defendeth this as
very well said of Luther, “ That he esteemed not the worth of a rush a
thousand Augustines, Cyprians, churches, against himself.” And another
very finely and figuratively (as he thought), against the holy doctor and
martyr St Cyprian, affirming that the church of Rome cannot err in faith,
saith thus: “ Pardon me, Cyprian, I would gladly believe thee, but that
believing thee I should not believe the gospel.” This is that which 8.
Augustine saith of the like men: Dulcissime vanos esse, non peritos, sed
perituros, nec tam disertos in errore, quam desertos a veritate?. And I
think, verily, that not only we, but the wiser men among themselves,
smile at such eloquence, or pity it, saying this or the like most truly:
Prodierunt oratores novi, stulti adolescentuli.

Fulke. Why should you not, at your pleasure, upon your
false assumption general infer one or two slanders particular ?
Mr Whitaker defendeth that it was well said of Luther, “ That
he esteemeth not the worth of a rush a thousand Augustines,
Cyprians, churches, against himself.” Would God that every

- papist would read his own words in the place by you quoted,

that he might see your impudent forgery! For I do hope
there is no Christian that will imagine, that either Luther
would so speak, or any man of honesty defend him, so speak-
ing. For Luther was not so senseless, to oppose his own
person, but the truth of his cause, grounded upon the holy
scriptures, not only against one thousand of men holding the
contrary, but even against ten thousand of angels, if they
should oppose themselves against the truth of God. But I
am to blame to deal so much in Mr Whitaker’s cause, who,

-ere it be long, will display the falsehood of Gregory Martin,

in a Latin writing, to his great ignominy.

The next cayil is upon Mr Raimolds’ words, in his preface
to his Six Positions, disputed upon at Oxford, where against
Cyprian, affirming that the church of Rome cannot err in
faith, he saith, “ Pardon me, Cyprian, I would gladly believe
thee, but that in believing thee I should not believe the

[? Sex Theses de 8. Scriptura et Ecclesia. Rupelle. 1586, by John
Rainolds. |

[? This is garbled from two or more passages: Nam et Homerus,
peritus texere tales fabellas, et dulcissime vanus est, &c. Confess. 1. 14,
Ῥ. 146. edit. Bened. Garriebam plane quasi peritus, et nisi in Christo
Salvatore nostro viam tuam quererem, non peritus, sed periturus essem.
Ib. vu. 20. p. 247.]

ee δ

a

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 39

gospel.” These words you confess that he spake figuratively
and finely, as he thought; but that he used the figures of
irony and concession, you will not acknowledge, but all other
men may easily see. For first, he no where granteth that St
Cyprian affirmeth, that the church of Rome cannot err in
faith. But immediately before the words by you translated,
after he had proved out of the eleventh to the Romans, that
the particular church of Rome may be cut off, as well as the
church of the Israelites, which were the natural branches,
he asks the question, Quid? et Cypriano secus est visum ?
“ What? and did it seem otherwise to Cyprian? Pardon me,
Cyprian, &c.” His meaning is plain, that Cyprian thought
not otherwise than St Paul hath written; or if he did, it was
lawful to dissent from Cyprian. As a little after he saith,
Quare st Romanam ecclesiam errare non posse, &c. Where-
fore, if Cyprian thought that the church of Rome could not
err in that 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 Augustine saith when he was pressed with
his authority, Contra Crescon., lib. 2, cap. 31. Nos nullam
Cypriano facimus injuriam: “We do Cyprian no wrong,” when
we distinguish any writings of his from the canonical autho-
rity of the divine scriptures. And in truth the words which
Mr Rainolds before cited out of St Cyprian, lib. 1, ep. 3, ad
Cornel., are spoken of no matter of faith, but in a matter of
discipline. Neither doth Cyprian say that the church of Rome
cannot err in faith, but that those heretics which brought
letters from schismatics and profane persons, did not consider
that they are Romans, whose faith is praised by the com-
mendation or preaching of the apostle, to whom perfidia,
“falsehood, or false dealing,” can have none access*: meaning

[* Post ista adhuc insuper Pseudo-episcopo sibi ab hereticis 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 catholic churches. For
that he could not mean that the pope or church of Rome
cannot err in faith (as the papists affirm), it is manifest, for
that in a question of religion, he dissented both from the
bishop and church of Rome, as all learned men know he did,
which he would never have done, if he had believed they could
not err. And that his meaning was not that the bishop of
Rome could not err in matters of discipline, it is manifest in
the next epistle, where he complaineth, that Basilides, a
wicked man, “after his crimes were detected, and his conscience
made bare by his own confession, went to Rome, and deceived
our fellow-bishop, Stephanus, dwelling far off, and beimg igno-
rant of the case, so that he sought ambitiously to be unjustly
restored into the bishopric from whence he was justly deposed’.”
These things prove, that St Cyprian thought it no impossible
thing for the bishops and church of Rome to err in faith
or government. Wherefore that you cite out of Augustine
agreeth best unto yourself, and such as you are, who employ
all your eloquence and utterance to set forth lies and slanders.
Last of all, when you have nothing else to disgrace those
grave and learned writers, you would make them, by abusing
a piece of Tully, contemptible for their youth among such
as know them not; who if they wanted half a score years
apiece of that ripe and well-seasoned age they have, yet
with those gifts of godliness and learning, which God hath in
great measure bestowed upon them, they were worthy to be
reverenced. So that venomous traitor, which writeth of the
- persecution of the papists, maketh me a very young man, and

palem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, a schismaticis et prophanis
literas ferre ; nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo pre-
dicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia non potest habere accessum. Cypri-
ani Opera. Par. 1509. 4to. fol. 7. hodie Epist. 35. ]

[* Quod et apud vos factum videmus in Sabini college nostri ordi-
natione, ut de universe fraternitatis suffragio et de episcoporum qui in
presentia convenerant, quique de eo ad vos literas fecerant, judicio
episcopatus ei deferretur, et manus ei in locum Basilidis imponeretur.
Nec rescindere ordinationem jure perfectam potest, quod Basilides, post
crimina sua detecta et conscientiam etiam propria confessione nudatam,
Romam pergens Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum et geste
rei ac veritatis ignarum fefellit, ut exambiret reponi se injuste in epis-
copatum de quo fuerat jure depositus.—Cypriani Epistola uxvmi. edit.
Baluzii. 1706. p. 119.]

ee

2
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
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,
(in his Annotations upon the New Testament, set forth in the year 1556,)
thinketh zpwros is more than should be in the text Matt. x., and τὸ
ἐκχυνόμενον, Luc. xxii., and προσκυνεῖν αὐτοῖς, 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 yousee, 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-
ing you confess that neither they have, nor can alter or change
any thing of the original text, If Beza express his conjecture
upon some ground or similitude of reason, that πρῶτος in
Matthew x., τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον, Luke xxii., and προσκυνεῖν αὐ-
τοῖς, Acts vii., might perhaps be added to the text out of the
margin or otherwise, and yet doth not precisely affirm it, but
leave it to judgment and trial of ancient copies, if any shall
be found to favour his conjecture; what hath he like to the
mouse of Pontus, Marcion, which altered and corrupted the
text? You say he nibbleth and gnaweth about it, though
he cannot bite it off altogether: and for what advantage ?
forsooth, because the first word maketh for Peter’s supre-
macy, a poor supremacy that Peter can gain in that he is
named the first in the catalogue of the apostles, which is
but a primacy of order, not of honour ; or, as Ambrose* saith,
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

[? Hic ergo qui ante reticebat, ut doceret nos quod impiorum nee
verbum debeamus iterare; hic, inquam, ubi audivit, * Vos autem quid
me dicitis? statim loci non immemor sui, primatum egit; primatum
confessionis utique, non honoris; primatum fidei, non ordinis—Am-
brosii de Incarn. Domini Liber unus. cap. 4. Opera, Vol. τι. p. 710.

edit. Bened. Paris. 1690. |
* Matt. xvi. 15.

ey

Beza, the
mouse of
Geneva.
ἤγουν the
text of
scripture.

FuLKg,
16.

ed ——
cap. 73

Martin,
7;

FULKE,

17.

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. He doth the like in sundry places, which you may see in
his Annotations, Acts vii. 16; where he is saucy against all copies, Greek
and Latin, to pronounce corruption, corruption, avouching and endeayour-
ing to prove that it must be so, and that with these words, “To what pur-

‘pose should the Holy Ghost, or Luke, add this?” Acts viii. 26. But because

those places concern no controversy, I say no more but that he biteth at
the text, and would change it according to his imagination, if he might ;
which is too proud an enterprise for Beza, and small reverence of the
holy scriptures, so to call the very text into controversy, that whatsoever
pleaseth not him, crept out of the margin into the text, which is his com-
mon and almost his only conjecture.

Fulke. Where Beza noteth corruption in places that con-

‘cern no controversy, it appeareth that without partiality he

desireth to restore the text to sincerity. And yet he is
charged of you with pride and saucmess. 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 ΤῸ 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 ¢varoAy, Luke i. 78, and will Marr,
not translate that, but the Hebrew word of the Old Testament; but at he
ὠδῖνας, Acts ii. 24, much more, and at ἑβδομήκοντα πέντε, Acts vii. τ
14, exceedingly: but yet, after he hath said all that he could against it, No- Test.
he concludeth, that he durst not, and that he had a conscience, upon rabies
conjecture to change any thing. And therefore all this is gnawing only. pier δνὶ =

But in the third of Luke he maketh no conscience at all, to leave out Greek text

these words, verse 36, Qui fwit Cainan, not only in his own translation, efament
but in the vulgar Latin which is joined therewith, saying in his Annota- the Old by,
tions, Non dubitavimus exapungere ; that is, “We doubted not to put it Lym § se
out: and why? “ By the authority of Moses, Gen. xi.:” whereby he signi- text so much
fieth, that it is not in the Hebrew, Gen. xi., where this posterity of Shem hin. —
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 ἀνατολὴ Εσυτκε,
Luke i., and ὠδῖνας, Acts ii., and ἑβδομήκοντα πέντε, Acts νἱ!., 18.
seeing they concern no controversy, might have been contained
in the section next before, especially seeing you confess he saith
he durst not, and that he had a conscience, upon conjecture
to change anything. But in the third of Luke, verse 36, he
maketh no conscience at all to leave out the words, 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

AA 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, yerily, 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

Martin,
19.

Isai. vi. 9,
Gal. iii. 13.
πᾶς κρεμά-
μενος ἐπὶ
ξύλου.
son

4

now in question.

Martin.. But if he have no other way to reconcile both Testaments,
but by striking out in the Greek of the New all that agreeth not with
the Hebrew of the Old Testament, then let him alter and change so
many words of our Saviour himself, of the evangelists, and of the apostles,
as are cited out of the Old Testament, and are not in Hebrew. Which
places they know are very many, and when need is, they shall be gathered
to their hands. Let him strike out (Matt. xiii. 14, 15, and Acts xxviii.
26, 27) the words of our Saviour and St Paul, cited out of Isaiah, because
they are far otherwise in the Hebrew. Strike out of the Epistle to the
Galatians these words, “ upon a tree,” because in the Hebrew it is only
thus: ‘Cursed is he that is hanged.” Deut. xxi. in fine. Yea, strike
out of David’s Psalms that which concerneth our redemption upon the

a
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 4

cross much nearer, “They have pierced my hands and my feet,” (Psalm

xxi.) because in the Hebrew there is no such thing. Let them control

the apostle (Eph. iv.) for saying, dedit, “he gave gifts,” because it is ἔλαβες.
both in the Hebrew and Greek, (Psalm Ixvii.) accepisti, “ thou tookest 57?
gifts,” and (Heb. x.) for corpus aptasti let them put aures perforasti, be- Dae
cause it is so in the Hebrew, (Psalm xl.) To be short, if all must be > AMD
reformed according to the Hebrew, why doth he not in St Stephen’s δ
sermon cut off the number of five souls from seventy-five, because it is

not in the Hebrew ?

Fulke. Τῇ you had read Beza’s works as diligently to learn Lb ig

the truth out of them, as you have pried here and there 19
busily how to espy some fault or error in them, you should
easily have found that he hath other ways to reconcile both

the Testaments, and the difference that seemeth to be in the
allegations, than by striking out of the Greek in the New

all that agreeth not with the Hebrew of the Old Testament.
And therefore vainly you bid him alter so many words as

are cited in the New Testament out of the Old, which are not

in the Hebrew, and strike out of Matthew 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. ti. 13, strike out these words “upon a tree,” because

in the Hebrew it 15. 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 Ὑν ον
shall be in any person a sin to be adjudged to death, and he yoy
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- (Psa. xxii]
cerneth our redemption on the cross, “They have pierced

my hands and my feet,” because in the Hebrew there is no
such thing; you say most untruly, for there is nothing else

in the Hebrew, no, not in the common readings, as_ Johannes
Isaac, a popish Jew, will teach you, who hath confuted the

JIN

Martin,
20.

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
malice, you might have seen that St Jerome did read without
controversy jimerunt, “ they have pierced,” as also that the
most ancient copy of the Hebrew Psalms, supposed to have
pertained to St Augustine of Canterbury, hath charu, “they
have pierced ;” though you had been ignorant what is written
concerning this word in the Masoreth, and what Isaac also
writeth of that word, as it is commonly read, that it cannot
signify, as you fancy, sicut leo, “like a lion:” and therefore the
Chaldee paraphrase turneth it, “As a lion, they pierced my
hands and my feet.” But of this matter more hereafter, as
occasion shall be given. As for the apostle, Ephes. iv. saying
that Christ gave gifts, whereas of David it is said, he received
gifts, speaketh nothing contrary to the Hebrew; but sheweth
wherefore Christ hath received gifts, namely, to bestow upon
his church :—except you will say that Christ gave of his
own and received none, and so the apostle doth shew the
excellency of the truth above the figure, Christ above David.
Likewise, where the psalmist saith in the Hebrew, “Thou
hast opened mine ears,” the apostle doth rightly collect, that
Christ had a body, which in his obedience was to be offered
unto the Father. Last of all, you would have five souls cut
from seventy-five in St Stephen’s sermon, because it is not
in the Hebrew; but you are deceived. For St Stephen
gathereth the whole number of them that are named in the
46th chapter of Genesis, namely, the two sons of Judah that
were dead, and Jacob’s four wives, to shew how great his
family was at the uttermost, before he went down into Egypt,

and how greatly God did multiply him afterward. What is

there in any of these examples like to gui fuit Cainan, about
which you make so much ado?

Martin. Must such difficulties and diversities be resolved by chop-
ping and changing, hacking and hewing, the sacred text of holy scripture ?
See into what perplexities wilful heresy and arrogancy hath driven them.
To discredit the vulgar Latin translation of the bible, and the Fathers’
expositions according to the same, (for that is the original cause of this, )
and besides that they may have always this evasion, “It is not so in the
Hebrew, it is otherwise in the Greek,” and so seem jolly fellows and
great clerks unto the ignorant people. What do they? They admit
only the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, to be
the true and authentical text of the scripture. Whereupon this followeth,

ee πω.

oe
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 4

_ 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 Fofending ing
those places so disagreeing from the Hebrew are cited by Christ or graces fost

the evangelists and apostles, there also they must be rejected, because Testmment,

they disagree from the Hebrew; and so yet again it followeth that the δὰ Greek
Greek text of the New ἡ ψκλιρο 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 rues,
changing, or hacking and hewing, the sacred text of holy scrip- 29
tures? As for the perplexities, whereunto you feign that wilful
heresy and arrogance hath driven us, is of your weaving ; for
(God be praised!) we can well enough with good conscience
and sound knowledge, that may abide the judgment of all the
learned, in the world, defend both the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament and the Greek text of the New: not of purpose to
discredit the vulgar Latin translation and the expositions of
the Fathers, but to fetch the truth, upon which the hope of
our salvation is grounded, out of the first fountains and springs,
rather than out of any streams that are derived from them.
And this we do agreeable to the ancient Fathers’ judgments.
For who knoweth not, what fruitful pains St Jerome took in
translating the scripture out of the original tongue? Neither
would he be dissuaded by St Augustine’, who although he

[* Contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum
cognitio. Et Latine quidem lingue homines, quos nunc instruendos
suscepimus, duobus aliis ad scripturarum divinarum cognitionem opus
habent, Hebrea scilicet et Greca, ut ad exemplaria precedentia recur-
ratur, si quam dubitationem adtulerit Latinorum interpretum infinita
varietas. Quamquam et Hebrea verba non interpretata sepe invenia-
mus in libris, sicut Amen, et Hailleluia, et Racha, et Hosanna, et si qua
sunt alia; quorum partim propter sanctiorem auctoritatem, quamvis
interpretari potuissent, servata est antiquitas, sicut est Amen, et Hal-
leluia ; partim vero in aliam linguam transferri non potuisse dicuntur,
sicut alia duo que posuimus. Sunt enim quedam verba certarum lin-
guarum, que in usum alterius lingue per interpretationem transire
non possint. Et hoc maxime interjectionibus accidit, que verba mo-
tum animi significant potius, quam sententie concepte ullam particu-
lam; nam et hee duo talia esse perhibentur: dicunt enim Racha in-
dignantis esse vocem, Hosanna letantis. Sed non propter hee pauca,
que notare atque interrogare facillimum est, sed propter diversitates,

ut

48 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

misliked that enterprise at the first, yet afterward he highly

the infinite variety of the Latin interpretations; for thus he
writeth, De Doct. Christ. lib. 2, cap. 11: Contra rgnota signa

propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio. Et Latina, ὦ

&c. “Against unknown proper signs the knowledge of tongues

is a great remedy. And truly men of the Latin tongue, ἢ

whom we have now taken in hand to instruct, have need also
of two other tongues unto the knowledge of the divine serip-
tures, namely, the Hebrew and the Greek, that recourse may
be had unto the former copies, if the infinite variety of the
. Latin interpreters shall bring any doubt; although we find
oftentimes in the books Hebrew words not interpreted, as

Amen, Alleluia, Racha, Osanna, &c.,” and a little after, Sed

non propter hec pauca, ὅσ. “ But not for these few words
which to mark and inquire of it is a very easy thing, but for
the diversities (as it is said) of the interpreters, the knowledge
of those tongues is necessary. For they that have interpreted
the scriptures out of the Hebrew tongue into the Greek
tongue may be numbered, but the Latin interpreters by no
means can be numbered. For in the first times of the faith,

as a Greek book came into every man’s hand, and he seemed

to have some skill in both the tongues, he was bold to inter-
pret it. Which thing truly hath more helped the under-
standing than hindered, if the readers be not negligent; for
the looking upon many books hath oftentimes made manifest
sundry obscure or dark sentences.” This is St Augustine’s
sound judgment of the knowledge of tongues and diversity
of interpretations, for the better understanding of the scrip-
tures. But let us see what be the absurdities that you gather
of our defending the original texts of both the tongues.

First, we must needs reject the Greek of the Old Testament, —

ut dictum est, interpretum, illarum linguarum est cognitio necessaria.
Qui enim scripturas ex Hebrea lingua in Grecam verterunt, nume-
rari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique
primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Grecus, et aliquantu-
lum facultatis sibi utriusque lingue habere videbatur, ausus est inter-

;
commended the necessity of the Greek and Hebrew tongue —
for Latin men, to find out the certain truth of the text in —

:

pretari. Que quidem res plus adjuvit intelligentiam, quam impedivit, si _

modo legentes non sint negligentes. Nam nonnullas obscuriores sen-
tentias plurium codicum sepe manifestavit inspectio.—De Doctrina
Christiana, Lib. 1. cap. 11, 12. Opera, Vol. mr. pp. 24, 25. ]

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 49

called Septuagint, as false, because it differeth from the
Hebrew, where it is not only different in words, but also
contrary in sense. Why should we not? But if it retain the
sense and substance, although it express not the same words,
we need not reject it. St Jerome', who was required by Paula
and Eustochium to expound the prophets, not only accord-
ing to the truth of the Hebrew, but also after the translation
of the Septuagint, whereof he divers times complaineth,
upon the 1st of Nahum saith expressly, that it was against
his conscience always to follow the same. Ignoscite prolixi-
tatt, &c. “Pardon me that I am so long, for I cannot,
following both the story and the tropology or doctrine of
manners, comprehend both briefly; most of all, seeing that
{ am so greatly tormented or troubled with the variety of the
translation, and against my conscience sometimes I am com-
pelled to frame a consequence of the vulgar edition,” which
was the Septuagint. This was St Jerome’s opinion of the
Septuagint translation. But upon rejection of that trans-
lation (say you) it followeth, that wheresoever those places, so
disagreeing from the Hebrew, are cited by Christ, or the
evangelists and apostles, there also they must be rejected,
because they disagree from the Hebrew; and so the Greek’
text of the New Testament is not true, and consequently
the words of our Saviour and writings of his apostles, speak-
ing according to the Septuagint, must at least be reformed.
It is an old saying, and a true, that one inconvenience being
granted, many do follow; and so you may heap up an hundred
after this manner. But for answer I say, that neither our
Saviour, nor his apostles, citing any place out of the Old
Testament, do bring anything disagreeing in sense and sub-
stance of matter (the purpose for which they allege it consi-
dered) from the truth of the Hebrew text. Therefore there
is no need that the LXX. in those places should be rejected.
Although our Saviour Christ, speaking in the Syrian tongue,
is not to be thought ever to have cited the text of the LXX.,
which is m Greek. And his apostles and evangelists, using

Γ΄ Ignoscite prolixitati: non enim possum, et historiam et tropolo-
giam sequens, breviter utrumque comprehendere: maxime quum et
interpretationis varietate torquear, et adversus conscientiam meam cogar
interdum vulgate editionis consequentiam texere.—Comment. Hiero-
nymi in Nahum. cap. 1. Opera, Vol. mm. p. 1567.]

+
[ruLKe. |

50 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
.
that text, regard the substance of the sentence, and not the —
form of words. For many times they cite not the very words:
of the Greek LXX. neither; and St Jerome, in Catalogo script.
Eccles., which is set as a preface to St Matthew’s gospel, —
telleth you expressly, that in the Hebrew example of St
Matthew, which he had, wheresoever the evangelist St Matthew,
either in his own person, or in the person of our Lord and —
Saviour, useth the testimonies of the Old Testament, he fol-
loweth not the authority of the seventy translators, but the
Hebrew, of which these are two places: “ Out of Egypt have
I called my son,” and “he shall be called a Nazarite.’” See
you not what a perilous perplexity we are in by defending —
both the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek —
of the New, when neither are contrary to the other ?

Martin, Martin. All which must needs follow, if this be a good consequence,

21. “(1 find it not in Moses, nor in the Hebrew, therefore I struck it out,”
as Beza doth and saith concerning the foresaid words, qui fuit Catnan.
This consequence therefore let us see how they will justify ; and withal
let them tell us, whether they will discredit the New Testament because
of the Septuagint, or credit the Septuagint because of the New Testament;
or how they can credit one and discredit the other, where both agree
and consent together; or whether they will discredit both for credit
of the Hebrew; or rather, whether there be not some other way to
reconcile both Hebrew and Greek, better than Beza’s impudent pre-
sumption. Which if they will not maintain, let them flatly confess that
he did wickedly, and not.(as they do) defend every word and deed of
their masters, be it never so heinous, or salve it at the least.

Funke, Fulke. No whit of that doth follow by striking out qué

τ fuit Cainan, because it is not found in Moses; and therefore we
have nothing to do to justify your vain consequence, grounded
upon an absurdity of your own devising. But we must tell
you, whether we will discredit the New Testament because of
the Septuagint! No, not for a thousand millions of Septuagints,
nor for all the world will we credit the Septuagint against the
truth of the Old Testament. But whatsoever is cited out of
the LXX. in the New, is not contrary to the Hebrew in the
Old; and therefore the way of reconciliation is easily found,
without discrediting both, or either of both, in those places.
And in this place, which is a mere corruption, borrowed out of
the corruption of the Septuagint, or a Judaical addition,
Genesis xi. I think there is no better way of reconciling than
to strike it clean out, as Beza hath done; which generation

THE ANSWER ΤῸ THE PREFACE. 51

~ neither is in the Hebrew verity, nor in your own vulgar Latin

translation, either Genesis xi., or 1 Par. i. Beside that it
maketh a foul error in the computation of time, adding no
less than two hundred and thirty years between Arphaxad
and Sala, more than the Hebrew verity, or the vulgar Latin
agreeing therewith, doth number. And therefore he was
more presumptuous, that out of the corrupt and false text
of the Septuagint added the same unto the genealogy in St
Luke, than Beza, which by the authority of Moses removed
the same. If you will still persist to defend the authority of
the Septuagint against the Hebrew verity, which like an atheist
you deride, at leastwise defend your own vulgar Latin trans-
lation of the Old Testament, and deliver yourself out of that
perplexity in which you would place us between the Hebrew
of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament; seeing
no less doubts entangleth you between the Latin of the New,
and the Latin of the Old, differing altogether alike as the
Greek and the Hebrew do.

Martin. Alas! how far are these men from the modesty of the ancient
fathers, and from the humble spirit of obedient catholics, who seek all 2
other means to resolve difficulties, rather than to do violence to the
sacred scripture ; and when they find no way, they leave it to God.
St Augustine, concerning the difference of the Hebrew and the Greek,
saith often to this effect, that it pleased the Holy Ghost to utter by 43
the one that which he would not utter by the other. And St Ambrose?
thus: “We have found many things not idly added of the seventy Τὶ
Greek interpreters.” St Jerome, though an earnest patron of the He-

a RTIN,

i the
fathers re-
concile the
_ Hebrew
d Greek.
lib. 18. de
Civit. eap.

2 Lib. de
nog Neg

Hecatn. lib.
3. cap. 6.
In Procem.
lib. Paralip.

[* Multa enim non otiose a Septuaginta viris Hebraice lectioni ad-.

dita et adjuncta comperimus.—Hexaemeron. Lib. mm. cap. 5. Opera. Vol. 1.
p. 42.]

[ἢ Legimus in apostolo:» In aliis linguis et in labiis aliis loquor po-
pulo huic, et nec sic exaudient me, dicit Dominus. Quod mihi videtur
juxta Hebraicum de presenti sumptum capitulo: et hoc in veteri ob-
servavimus Testamento (absque paucis testimoniis, quibus Lucas solus
abutitur, qui magis Grece lingue habuit scientiam) ubiquumque de
veteri instrumento quid dicitur, non cos juxta Septuaginta, sed juxta
Hebraicum ponere, nullius sequentes interpretationem, sed sensum He-

᾿ braicum cum suo sermone vertentes. Symmachus, Theodotio, et LXX.

de hoc loco (nempe Isaie xxviii. 9-13) diversa senserunt: et quia
longum est de omnibus dicere, LXX. Interpretes, qui leguntur in ec-
elesiis, breviter transcurramus.—Comment. Hieronymi in Isai xxviii.
Opera, Vol. m1. pp. 237, 288.

Neque vero Septuaginta Interpretum, ut invidi latrant, errores ar-

4.—2

Comment. in
28. Isai.
and in Que-

stion. He-
brai.

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 ;

and concerning the foresaid places of St Luke, he doth give a reason —

guimus. “ * * * Nec nostrum laborem illorum reprehensionem
putamus, quum illi Ptolemeo, regi Alexandrie, mystica queque in
scripturis sanctis prodere noluerint; et maxime ea que Christi adven-
tum pollicebantur; ne viderentur Judi et alterum Deum colere: quos
ille Platonis sectator magni idcirco faciebat, quia unum Deum colere
dicerentur. Sed et evangeliste, et Dominus quoque noster atque Sal-
vator, necnon et Paulus apostolus, multa quasi de veteri Testamento
proferunt, que in nostris codicibus non habentur: super quibus in
suis locis plenius disseremus. Ex quo perspicuum est, illa magis vera
esse exemplaria, que cum novi Testamenti auctoritate concordant.—
Prefatio Hieronymi in Lib. Heb. Quest. in Genesim. Opera, Vol. m.
pp. 506, 507.

Si Septuaginta interpretum pura, et ut ab eis in Grecum versa
est, editio permaneret, superflue me, mi Chromati, episcoporum sanctis-
sime atque doctissime, impelleres, ut Hebrea volumina Latino sermone
transferrem: quod enim semel aures hominum occupaverat, et nas-
centis ecclesie roboraverat fidem, justum erat etiam nostro silentio
comprobari. Nunc vero, cum pro varietate regionum diversa ferantur
exemplaria, et germana illa antiquaque translatio corrupta sit atque
violata; nostri arbitrii putas, aut e pluribus judicare quid verum sit,
aut novum opus in veteri opere cudere, illudentibusque Judeis cor-
nicum, ut dicitur, oculos configere. Alexandria et Aigyptus in Sep-
tuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque
Antiochiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Medie inter has
provincie Palestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Euse-
bius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt: totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria
varietate compugnat. Et certe Origenes non solum exemplaria compo-
suit quatuor editionum, e regione singula verba describens, ut unus
dissentiens statim ceteris inter se consentientibus arguatur; sed, quod
majoris audacie est, in editione Septuaginta Theodotionis editionem
miscuit, asteriscis designans que minus ante fuerant, et virgulis que
ex superfluo videbantur apposita. Si igitur aliis licuit non tenere quod
semel susceperant ; et post Septuaginta cellulas, que vulgo sine auctore

jactantur, singulas cellulas aperuere, hocque in ecclesiis legitur quod

Septuaginta nescierunt; cur me non suscipiant Latini mei, qui invio-
lata editione veteri ita novam condidi, ut laborem meum Hebreis et,
quod his majus est, apostolis auctoribus probem? * * * * Christus Do-
minus noster, utriusque Testamenti conditor, in Evangelio secundum
Johannem, Qui credit, inquit, in me, sicut dicit scriptura, flumina de
ventre ejus fluent aque vive. Utique scriptum est, quod Salvator scrip-
tum esse testatur. Ubi scriptum est? Septuaginta non habent; apo-
erypha nescit ecclesia. Ad Hebreos igitur revertendum est, unde et
Dominus loquitur, et discipuli exempla presumunt.—Prefat. Hierony-
mi in Paralipom. Opera, Vol. 1. pp. 1022, 1023. ]

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE, 53

thereof, both for the seventy, and for the evangelist that followed them,
neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controlling them “ by the
authority of Moses” (as Beza speaketh), that is, by the Hebrew. Others
say concerning Cainan, that Moses might leave him out in the gene-
alogy of Shem by the instinct of the same Spirit, that St Matthew left Matt. i.
out three kings in the genealogy of our Saviour. Where if a man
would control the evangelist by the Hebrew of the Old Testament
that is read in the books of the Kings, he should be as wise and as
_ honest a man as Beza. Lastly, venerable Bede thinketh it sufficient Pref. in Act.
in this very difficulty of Cainan to marvel at it reverently, rather than
to search it dangerously. And thus far of picking quarrels to the
original text, and their good will to alter and change it as they list,
if they might be suffered.

Fulke. Were of pity you will shew unto us a piece of learn- Furxe,
ing, how the fathers reconcile the said Hebrew and Greek 22:
without violence to the text, as they do always, or else leave
the matter to God.

First, St Augustine, De Otvitate, lib. 18, cap. 48. De Doct.

Chr. lib. 2, cap. 15, of ther agreement, notwithstanding they
were separated. into several cells, gathereth, that those Septua-
gints were inspired with the same prophetical spirit of inter-
preting, that the prophets were in foreshewing. But this doth
St Jerome utterly deny, and derideth the ground of this Preft in
imagination, those seventy-two cells at Alexandria, as a fable
anda lie. That St Ambrose saith, “‘ we have found that many
things are not idly added of the seventy Greek interpreters ;” Bexam, lb.
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, which Moses had omitted. And we acknowledge with
St Jerome, that there may be many reasons given for the
difference of the one from the other. But concerning this
place of St Luke now in question, you say he giveth a reason
thereof, both for the LXX. and for the evangelist that fol-
lowed them, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor con-
trolling them by the authority of Moses. And for this you
quote Comment. in 28 Esa. and in Question. Hebrai. in neither
of which places is any mention of this place, much less any
reason given to reconcile it or the Septuagint with the
Hebrew. It seemeth, you read not the books yourself, but
trusted too much some man’s collection, which you understood
not. In the preface to the Hebrew Questions Jerome ex-

δ4 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

cuseth himself against envious persons, that barked against —
him as though he did nothing but reprove the errors of the
LXX., saying, “ That he thinketh not his labour to be ἃ
ouroherie of them, seeing they would not express unto
Ptolemeus, king of Alexandria, certain mystical things in ~
the scriptures, and especially those things which promised
the coming of Christ, lest the Jews might have been thought
to worship another God, whom that follower of Plato there- —
fore did greatly esteem, because they were said to worship
but one God. But the evangelists also, and our Lord and
Saviour, and St Paul the apostle, bring forth many things, —
as it were out of the Old Testament, which are not had in
our books, of which in their due places we will more fully
discuss. Whereof it is clear, that those are the more true —
examples, which agree with the authority of the New Testa-
ment.” Thus much Jerome in that place; but neither in
his questions upon Genesis, nor 1 Paralip. the proper places
for this text, is there any mention of this place of Luke, qué
uit Cainan. In the place cited by you upon the 28th of
Isaiah, he saith, Legimus in apostolo, &c. ‘“Weread 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 seemg neither St Ambrose
in his Commentary upon St Luke once toucheth this contro- _
versy, as he doth all other questions about that genealogy.
Where you say, St Jerome was “a great patron of the Hebrew,
not without cause, being at that time perhaps the Hebrew
verity indeed ;” it is without perhaps, or peradventure, that
not one iota or prick of the law of God can perish, by the
testimony of our Saviour Christ, Matthew v. And if you

fh

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 55

_ will believe Arias Montanus', an excellent learned papist, he
will tell you as much, out of the same text doubtless, in his
preface unto the great bible by him set out, with diligent
observation of all the accents and Hebrew points, which Christ
(saith he) will never suffer to perish. And if the Hebrew
verity were in Jerome’s time (as doubtless it was), whether
he had a perfect copy thereof or no, the same Arias Mon-
tanus testifieth, if you dare credit him, being one of your sect
for opinion, though in sincerity of mind and love of the truth,
which I pray to God to reveal unto him, I think him far
better than a number of you; he (I say) affirmeth in the
same preface, against the objection that is made of the Jews’
corruption of the Hebrew books: Htenim apud nonnull. “ For
we read in some authors that, through the fraud and impulsion
of the spirit of error, some of the nation of the Jews in
times past were brought to that point of insolence or madness,
that in the beginning of the christian church they changed
some words, which might altogether break off that their con-
tention of impugning the christian verity. But those places
so defiled by them were very few; and in the books of our
writers, and also in the copies both printed and written of
the Jews themselves, are all for the most part noted and
shewed out. For although either by the fraud of those men,
or by the ignorance of the book-writers, or by injury of the
times, some change hath been made in the Hebrew books
which we use; yet is there not one word, nor one letter, nor
point, that is mentioned to have been of old time, which is
not found to have been safely kept in that most rich treasury,
which they call the Mazzoreth. For in that, as in an holy
and faithful custody, appointed with uttermost diligence and
great study, the remnants, monuments, tokens, steps, and
examples of the ancient reading are all contained, and the
way how to compare the old and new reading is shewed ;
of which truly, being compared together, a very certain way

[* Nam preter excellentem formarum, charte, et characterum
prestantiam, integras etiam Chaldaicas in veteri Testamento paraphra-
ses, et Syriacee in novo lectionis libros, eosdemque diligenti studio et
censura examinatos, et commoda Latinarum interpretationum copia in-
structos, opus hoc Complutensibus Bibliis addit; et quod ad lectionis
et sententiarum distinctionem explicationemque plurimum confert, ac-

centus omnes, Hebraicosque apices, (quos nunquam perire Christus
patietur,) diligentissime observatos adjungit.—Prefatio, fol. 26. ]

δ THE ANSWER ΤῸ 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 Bede’, in his preface
unto his Retractation upon the Acts of the Apostles, speaking
of such difference as he found in the Greek text of the Acts
from the Latin, he saith: Que utrum negligentia interpretis
omissa, &c. “Which things, whether they were omitted through
negligence of the interpreter, or otherwise uttered, or for lack
of regard of the writers depraved, or otherwise left, as yet
we could not know. For I dare not so much as suspect
that the Greek copy was falsified: wherefore I admonish the
reader, that wheresoever we have done these things, he read
them for his learning; yet that he interlace them not in his

[? Que utrum negligentia interpretis omissa, vel aliter dicta, an
incuria librariorum sint depravata, sive relicta, nondum scire potui-
mus. Namque Grecum exemplar fuisse falsatum, suspicari non audeo :
unde lectorem admoneo, ut hec ubicunque fecerimus, gratia eruditionis
legat, non in suo tamen volumine velut emendatos interserat, nisi forte
ea in Latino codice sue editionis antiquitus sic interpretata repererit.—

Prefatio ad Retractationem in Acta Apostolorum. Bede Opera, Vol,
vi, p. 1. edit. Colonie Agrippin. 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 Lue. cap. 85, 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 gui fuit Cainan. What your vulgar

[? Nomen et generatio Cainan, juxta Hebraicam veritatem, neque in
Genesi neque in verbis Dierum invenitur ; sed Arphaxat Sala vel Sale
filium, nullo interposito, genuisse perhibetur. Sic enim habes: Porro
Arphawat vixit triginta annos et genuit Sale. Itemque in Paralipo-
menon, Arphaxat autem genuit Sala, qui et ipse genuit Heber. Scito
ergo beatum Lucam hanc generationem de Septuaginta interpretum
editione sumpsisse, ubi scriptum est, quod Arphaxat centum trigin-
ta quinque annorum genuerit Cainan, et ipse Cainan, cum 130 fuerit
annorum, genuerit Sala. Sed quid horum sit verius, aut si utrum-
que verum esse possit, Deus noverit. Nos simpliciter admonemus lec-
torem, tantam inter utrosque codices in serie temporum esse discre-
pantiam, ut a diluvio usque ad nativitatem Abrahe in Hebraica veritate
anni ccoxcn, in Septuaginta interpretum translatione mM. septuaginta sep-

tem reperiantur esse comprehensi.—Beda in Luce Evangelium, cap. iii.
Opera, Vol. v. pp. 256-7. |

58 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

Latin translation hath left out in the latter end of the Lord’s
prayer in St Matthew, and in the beginning and midst in
St Luke, whereby that heavenly prayer is made imperfect,
not comprehending all things that a christian man ought to
pray for, beside many other like omissions, whether of pur-
pose, or of negligence, and injury of time, yet still by you
defended, I spare to speak of in this place.

| Martin, Martin. Which also may be proved by all their false translations
23. (being the principal point I mean to speak of) most evidently. For
The 5th as now they translate falsely to their purpose, because they cannot

eel alter the text; so would they, if it were possible, have the text
Tranjation, agreeable to their translation. For example, he that translateth “or-

Nnument © dinances,” when it is in the original Greek text “justifications” and

a oe “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.

Fuixe, Fulke. You shall never be able to prove by any transla-

τῷ 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 ἢ
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 sentiores, “ elders,”
but seniors, or ancients. Neither would you translate pres-
byter always “a priest,” if you translated the Old Testament.
In the story of Susannah you would not call them priests, ,
that laid wait for her honesty and life; yet in your vulgar
Latin they are called priests. So are they called πρεσβύτεροι
in Greek in the New Testament, which you turn sometimes
priests, sometimes ancients, and sometimes seniors.

ee ας, e

Martin,
24. Martin. And this of all other is the most fine and subtle treachery

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 59

against the scriptures, to deceive the ignorant readers withal, (which

St Paul calleth “the secret things of dishonesty and adulterating of the 2 Cor. iv.
word of God,” as it were mingling water with wine, like false vintners, )

when they give them for God’s word, and under the name of God's

word, their own words, and not God’s, forged and framed, altered and
changed, according to differences of times, and variety of new opinions,

and diversity of humours and spirits, diversely and differently, one

heretic not only correcting his fellow every day, but one eagerly re- The here-
futing and refelling another: Bucer and the Osiandrians and Sacra- aol μαννα
mentaries against Luther for false translations ; Luther against Munster, jason.

lations.

Beza against Castalio, Castalio against Beza, Calvin against Servetus, y)3;,°°""

Illyricus both against Calvin and Beza. The puritans control the byt dubit.
grosser Calvinists of. our country; yea, the later translations of the ip ge ,
selfsame heretics control the former exceedingly, not only of over- τος τὴν
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. Το

years, from Tindal their first translator until this day: yea (which is carbo

more) the English translators of Beza’s New Testament control him ταν, ΩΣ
and his translation, which they protest to follow, being afraid some- Luke iii. 36.
times and ashamed to express in English his false translations in the

Latin.

Fulke. By false translations wilfully and of purpose to Fury,
falsify the truth of God’s word is as gross and as abominable wie
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 ox»
“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

᾿Ἤρχατχη. lib.
6. cap. 4.

De Doct.
Christ. lib.
2. cap. 11.

Martin,
25.

Acts i. 14,

ii. 23, iii. 21.

The German,
French, and

English cor-

ruptions of

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
brute beasts, to whom Ambrose? ascribeth the art of making
syllogisms (if they could speak), would not conclude thus
brutishly. Certain it is that Balaam’s ass did reason sub-
stantially. But much more, you say, the English translators
of Beza’s New Testament do control him and his transla-
tion, being sometimes afraid and ashamed to express his
false translations. If it be so, they are more modest than
you, which seem to be afraid or ashamed of nothing so
much, as lest you might seem to fail in unshamefacedness.
But to the purpose. If they think Beza (as all men may
err) hath somewhat trodden awry, is. it a fault to avoid his
step, or a proud controlling or accusing him of falsification ?
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.

Martin. But in this catalogue of dissensions, falsifiers, and dis-
agreeing translators, I will not greatly rip up old faults, neither abroad
nor at home. I leave Luther’s false translations into the German
tongue to the credit of Staphylus, Apolog., Part. u., and Emserus,
pref. Annot. in no. Test. Luth., and other German writers of his own

[? Ursa insidians licet, ut scriptura ait, (est enim plena fraudis fera,)
tamen fertur informes utero partus edere, sed natos lingua fingere, at-
que in speciem sui similitudinemque formare. Non miraris in fera tam
pii oris officia, cujus naturam pietas exprimit? Ursa igitur partus suos
ad sui effingit similitudinem: tu filios tuos instituere similes tui non
potes?—Hexaemeron. Lib. vi. cap. 4. p. 18. Ambrosii Opera, Vol. 1.
p. 119. }

ere
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 61

time, that saw them and read them, and reckoned the number of them, the N 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 83, rie

have noted them in their French books against the said heretics: Visr2n4

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 ar Dub.
their Latin writings testify it to the world.

Fulke. We are much beholding to you, that you will not Furxe,
rip up old faults abroad, nor at home; and leave Luther's 2°
Dutch translation with a 1400 heretical corruptions in the
New Testament only, with Calvin’s and Beza’s French cor-
ruptions noted by Vigor, and the rest: also Tyndal’s and
his companions’ corruptions in their first English bible, in
whose translation of the New Testament bishop Tonstal pro-
fessed openly in a sermon, that he found no less than two thou-
sand corruptions. This you know he protested with the same
tongue with which he forsware the pope, and sware to the
king’s supremacy, and with which he preached a solemn
sermon, which is in print, before the king, against the pope’s
usurped tyranny, pride, false doctrine, covetousness, cruelty,
treason, perverting of scriptures, as in the same sermon more
at large it appeareth; and therefore we need not Lindanus’s
writing to testify of his credit. But thanks be to God,
that when you have scraped all that unto you seemed to
have any shew of corruption, you cannot find two hundred
faults in the translation of the whole bible, nor in three
several translations of the same; which points you are fain
to dilate with such vain tautologies and repetitions, that
all learned men are ashamed of your tedious writing : and yet,
to make your book to be of some tolerable length, you had
no better shift than to note a sort of Beza’s corruptions in his
Latin Testament; who, if you would write against him in
Latin any thing worth the noting, would thank you for your
pains, and reform his errors; but if you brought nothing but
eavils, would so shake you up, as you should have small
joy of your insolent invective: but you provided well for that,
by writing against a Frenchman in English. And as for the
number of errors or corruptions that you would have the
ignorant believe to be in our English translations, you think

62 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

is so great, as must needs make the simple abhor it. But
look homeward a little into your authentical vulgar Latin
translation, how many faults be in that, which your Tridentine
council hath authorised. And here I will not charge it with
the adversaries thereof, as you do ours, but with great friends
of it and your doctrine; Lindanus, bishop of Ruremond, and
Isidorus Clarius', monk of Casine, and bishop Fulginatensis : of
De 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
Inhisepiss chapters and sections: the other, Isidorus Clarius, giving a
reader, reason of his purpose, in castigation of the said vulgar Latin
Junta i" 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 corrected®. This epistle the deputies

[* Isidore Clarius, or de Clario, bishop of Foligno, born in 1495,
in his youth a Benedictine of the monastery of Mount-Cassin. He dis-
tinguished himself greatly by his eloquence and talent on several occasions,
principally at the council of Trent, in the disputes upon the authority
of the text and versions of scripture. After having discussed the
different translations, he decides that none of them are equivalent to
the text of the original, though the version of Jerome, having been
used for a thousand years in the church, was entitled to preference over
the rest. In consequence of his stating in his Preface to an edition of
the Vulgate (1542) that he had corrected eight thousand passages in
it, his work was put among the prohibited, but subsequently allowed
to be sold, with the suppression of the preface and prolegomena.

The work to which Fulke here makes allusion is, Vulgata editio
Veteris et Novi Testamenti, quorum alterum ad Hebraicam, alterum ad
Grecam veritatem emendatum est quam diligentissime, ut nova editio non
facile desideretur, et vetus tamen hic agnoscatur. Venetiis. 1542, 1557,
and 1564, fol.]

Γ᾿ Nam in his horum omnium studiis atque laboribus editio illa, qua
totus Christianus orbis utitur, ac semper, ut facile conjecto, usurus est,
nondum squalorem suum deposuerat, nec ei quisquam errores, quibus
innumeris pene scatebat, adimere adhuc curaverat. * * * * Verum etsi ea,

or

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 63

of the council of Trent could not abide; and therefore in the
later edition of this bible, set forth with observation of their
censure, 1569, it is clean left out; as also a goodly collection
of the same Isidorus, of places of scripture, exhorting to the
study of holy scripture, and a like sound confession of those
things which the scriptures teach, &c.

Martin. But I omit these, as unknown to our country or to this

age, and will deal principally with the English translations of our time, 20

which are in every man’s hands within our country; the corruptions
whereof, as they are partly touched here and there in the Annotations
upon the late new English Testament catholicly translated and printed
at Rheims, so by occasion thereof I will by God’s help, to the better
commodity of the reader and evidence of the thing, lay them closer
together, and more largely display them, not counting the number,
because it were hard, but esteeming the weight and importance of so
many as I thought good to note, specially in the New Testament.
Where I have to advertise the reader of certain special things, which
he must observe.

Fulke. You should rather omit them as untrue; for albeit
it cannot be denied but some faults may escape the most
faithful and diligent translator, yet so many heretical corrup-
tions, either in the Dutch or English, are incredible, and turn
rather to the discredit of the accuser, in all wise men’s judg-
ment, than to the parties so charged; in like manner as
Surius® noteth no less than eleven thousand lies in Sleidan,

quam diximus, usi fuerimus moderatione, loca tamen ad octo millia
annotata atque emendata a nobis sunt.—lIsid. Clarii Prefat. In Vulg.
Edit. 1542. ]

[* The following passage will enable the reader to estimate the
value of the opinion of Surius:

Pestis hoc anno multis locis plurimos extinxit, presertim Argen-
tine et in locis Rhenanis, et inter alios etiam Johannem Sleidanum,
qui suis commentariis magnam orbi Christiano pestem invexit. Decre-
verant contra illum scribere viri duo longe clarissimi, Colonie Agrip-
pine preclara lumina, Johannes Grofferus designatus Cardinalis, et
Eberhardus Billicus Carmelitanus Provincialis, si et Sleidano et ipsis
vita prolixior contigisset. Nemo me putet hominis illius odio sepius
illum perstringere. Mihi ille nec de facie unquam notus fuit. Men-
dacia et errores tetros illius detestor. Multi, immo plurimi, norunt
Julium Pflugium Numbergensem Episcopum, quo ob multam etatem
nemo fere melius noverat res imperii. Is Sleidani Commentarios
volebat sibi a quodam mihi notissimo, qui tum in ejus aula versaba-
tur, legi. Porro vero inter legendum cum advertere res ipsi notas mala
fide a Sleidano narrari, sepius exclamabat, Ibi nebulo ille scelerate

Martin,

The au-

thor’s intent

in this book.

FuLkKe,
26.

ments to the
reader.

Futke,

Martin,
28.

FuLKE,
28.

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. First, that in this book he may not look for the proof
or explication and deciding of controversies, which is done in the
Annotations upon the New Testament, but only the refuting or con-
trolling of their false translations concerning the said controversies,
which is the peculiar argument of this treatise.

Fulke. 1 think there is no wise reader would look for
the deciding of so many controversies in so small a book ; and
he that shall seek them in your Annotations, shall find even
as little to the purpose, except he will take your determina-
tion without proof for a sufficient decision. As for the doc-
tors you quote without judgment, fraudulently, falsely, trun-
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.

Martin. Secondly, that we refute sometime one of their transla-
tions, sometime another, and every one. as their falsehood giveth occa-
sion. Neither is it a good defence for the falsehood of one, that it is
truly translated in another; the reader being deceived by any one,
because commonly he readeth but one. Yea, one of them is a con-
demnation of the other.

Fulke. That sheweth your malice rather than either
wisdom or honesty; for if we ourselves in our later trans-
lations have corrected some small and few errors, that have
overslipped us in our former translations, we have shewed
our sincerity and care of setting out the truth by all means.
And where you say it is no good defence, the reader being

mentitur. Quin et Carolus V. integerrimus et potentissimus imperator,
cum ipsi quoque legerentur Commentarii Sleidani, itidem subinde ex-
clamabat, Nebulo 1116 mentitur, nebulo 1116 mentitur. Et sane datum
erat ab eodem imperatore negotium cuidam, ut comitiorum acta, ob
Sleidani mendacia confutanda, sincere excuderentur; sed nescio quo
casu res illa impedita fuit, et omnia in Hispanas transferri jussa fe-
runtur. Certe heretico homini nunquam tuto credi potest.—Surii
Commentarius brevis rerum in orbe gestarum, pp. 870, 371. Colonie.
1674.

ae) ἢ ᾿
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 65

_ deceived by any one, because commonly he readeth but one;
{ answer you first, there is not in the worst translation any
fault escaped, that may of itself lead him into a damnable
error. Secondly, he hath the word of God expounded. by
catechising, sermons, and lectures, in which he may: learn
the substance of christian religion. Thirdly, he hath at
hand every where learned divines, unto whose counsel. he
may resort, if he be offended with anything that he readeth
in his bible, sounding contrary to the publicly received doc-
trine of the church. In that you say the one of our trans-
lations condemneth the other, it had been sufficient to have
said, reproveth: which is only where there is a manifest error
in the one; for otherwise, the diversities of translations, (as
St Augustine teacheth you,) may much profit the simple
_ readers; and they that be diligent students of the scriptures
in the English tongue will not satisfy themselves with every
translation, but will seek for the best. approved.

Martin. Thirdly, that we speak indifferently against Protestants, Marrry,
Calvinists, Bezites, and Puritans, without any curious distinction of 29-
them, being all among themselves brethren and pew-fellows, and
sometime the one sort of them, sometime the other, more or less
corrupting the holy scriptures.

Fulke. A wise advertisement. But this is to be noted, Furxer,
that now you acknowledge them to be all brethren among ἦν
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 50. far, nor marking all so narrowly and skilfully, as them- 22
selves know their own subtleties and meanings, who will smile at the
places which we have not espied.

Fulke. Ue that considereth your quarrels picked to words Furxe,
of one signification, as “church” and “ congregation,” “justice” ior
and “righteousness,” “elder” and “priest,” “image” and “idol,”

_ “works” and “ deeds,” and such hike, 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

5

[FuLKE.]

Martin,
31.

FuLKe,
31.

Martin,
32.

66 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

espied. You are like to those soothsayers mentioned in
Tully, of whom one said that he marvelled if, when they met —
together, one of them did not smile upon another, because |
they deluded the city, and got themselves much honour with |
such vain superstitions. So you, being newly become subtle
and partial translators, think other men to be like your-
selves, But even as the head of your church’ once jested
with his cardinal, how great wealth and honour that fable
of Christ (so the beast called the christian religion) had ~
brought them; even so you, his lewd limbs, make sport |
among yourselves of the holy word of God, which you have
corrupted somewhat with your blind translations, but much
more with your heretical annotations. So said your great
friend, Campion, in open audience, that he could make as
good sport upon the incarnation of Christ. According to |
your own affection, therefore, you judge of us, and not
according to the truth, as the ‘day will try, when the secrets
of all hearts shall be made manifest.

Martin. Fifthly, that the very use and affectation of certain terms,
and avoiding other some, though it be no demonstration against them,
but that they may seem to defend it for true translation, yet was it —
necessary to be noted, because it is and hath been always a token οὗ
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 πὸ.

But being persuaded by those (who themselves have no skill in the ὦ

said tongues) that every reader might reap commodity thereby, to the |
understanding and detesting of such false and heretical translations, it ||

[? This is told of Leo X.]

ad

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 ae
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 Marty,
refuted are either in all or some of their English Bibles printed in δ.
these years, 15622, 1577%, 1579%. And if the corruption be in one bible,
not in another, commonly the said bible or bibles are noted in the
margin: if not, yet sure it is that it is in one of them, and so the reader
shall find it, if he find.it not always in his own bible. And in this case
the reader must be very wise and circumspect, that he think not by
and by we charge them falsely, because they can shew him some later
edition that hath it not so as we say. For it is their common and

[? The great bible, or that of Coverdale’s translation, first printed
in 1535, and reprinted by Cranmer’s direction 1539. The edition of
1562, revised by Parker, will be quoted in the present volume for the
Old, and that of 1539 for the New Testament, as the case may require. |

[* The Genevan and Bishops’ bible were each printed in this year. |

5—2

Touching
St James’
Epistle.

FuLKE,

68 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

known fashion, not only in their translations of the bible, but in their
other books and writings, to alter and change, add and put out, in their
later editions, according as either themselves are ashamed of the former,
or their scholars, that print them again, dissent and disagree from their
masters. So hath Luther, Calvin, and. Beza’s writings and trans-
lations been changed both by themselves and their scholars in many
places; so that catholic men when they confute that which they find
evident faults in this or that edition, fear nothing more than that the
reader hath some other edition, where they are corrected for very
shame, and so may conceive that there is no such thing, but that they
are accused wrongfully. For example: call to mind the late pretended
conference in the tower, where that matter was denied and faced out
for Luther’s credit, by some one book or edition of his, which them-
selves and all the world knoweth, was most truly laid to his charge. .

Fulke. First, this is untrue; for some you have noted in
the New Testament printed 1580. Secondly, it is uncertain ;
for two of these translations might be printed in one year, and
so I think they were. Therefore I know not well which you
mean; but I guess that the bible 1562 is that which was of

Doctor Coverdale’s translation, most used in the church service ©

in king Edward’s time. The bible 1577, I take to be that
which, being revised by divers bishops, was first printed in the
large volume, and authorised for the churches, about ten or
twelve yearsago". That of 1679", I know not what translation
it be, except it be the same that was first printed at Geneva
in the beginning of the queen’s majesty’s reign. And this
conjecture, as the fittest I can make, I must follow, seemg
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. ]
[? It is the Genevan bible printed at Edinburgh in this year, that
Martin quotes. |

4

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 69

scholars presumed to alter their masters’ writings? If you
have an evasion in these cases, I trust we are not so pent in,
but we may change our own writings without shame of the
former, or corruption in the latter. As for the example of
St James’ epistle, denied (as you say) and faced out for
Luther’s credit, [it] will serve you for no proof. For so far
off is it, that we or the world do know, that it was most truly
laid to his charge, that now we know of a certainty, that it
was avery slander, as false as it was common; seeing Luther’s
words of that epistle are not absolute, but in comparison, as
is confessed by you, and found by some of us to be none
otherwise in deed, who have not stood upon one only book
or edition, but upon as many as they could come by, both in
the Latin and in the Dutch tongue.

Martin. Eighthly, in citing Beza, I mean always (unless I note Marr,
otherwise) his Latin translation of the New Testament, with his 34
annotations adjoined thereunto, printed in the year 1556.

Fulke. You were afraid, lest they that understood. not Ngee
Latin, for whose sake you wrote in English this treatise, might *4
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 his later.

all the unlearned in England know, what shameful corruptions he hath oui

fuit Cainan,

you have observed in Beza’s translation or annotations. pene

in the vulgar
Latin.

Martin. Lastly and principally is to be noted, that we will not Marr,
charge them with falsifying that which indeed is the true and authen- 99.
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 ποτα any
the ancient fathers of the Latin church, as is declared in the preface 7 (he old
of the New Testament: though it is much to be noted, that as Luther, though it be
only in favour of his heresies, did wilfully forsake it, so the rest red pg ΜΗ
followed, and do follow him at this day, for no other cause in the world, evident con-
but that it is against them. And therefore they inveigh against it, and ais
against the holy Council of Trent, for confirming the authority thereof, Fermitius.
both in their special treatises thereof, and in all their writings where ©

they can take any occasion.

_Fulke. Τὰ the margin, “ You will not charge us with for- Furxe,
saking the old approved Latin text, though it be an ill sign °°

70 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

and to our evident confusion.” St Augustine’, although a mere
Latin man, whom you yourself do after confess to have un-
derstood but one tongue well, and that was even his mother
tongue, learned (as he confesseth) of his nurses, is not so
addicted to the Latin translation, but that he would have
men to seek to the Hebrew and Greek fountains, which you,
like a blaphemous hypocrite, deny to be the true and authen-
tical scriptures indeed; allowing only the vulgar Latin trans-
lation, as though neither the churches of Greece, Syria, Ar-
menia, Aithiopia, nor any other in the world, which have not
the vulgar Latin, had not the true and authentical scriptures.
And though your vulgar Latin hath for many years been of
great authority in the Latin church, from the time when the
knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek tongues have decayed ;
yet is it utterly false, that you say, that it hath been of great
authority with all the fathers of the Latin church; whereas
there is not one that lived within 400 years after Christ that
knew it, but almost every one followed a several translation.
And St Augustine in the place before cited telleth you, that
there were innumerable translations out of the Greek into
the Latin. Agam, 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 ecclesie Latine tenent. Quamvis non defuerit
temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus et om-
nium trium linguarum peritus, qui non ex Greco, sed ex Hebreo in
Latinum eloquium easdem scripturas converterit.—Augustinus, De
Civitate Dei. Lib. xvi. c. 43. Opera, Vol. vi. p. 525. See also the
passage from Augustine De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. τι. c. 11. Opera,
Vol. 1. pars 1.-pp. 24,25, quoted at p. 47, beginning, Contra ignota, &c. ]

ἢ

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 Marni,
in their new translations, what greater argument can there be than this, 98.
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 canter
in St Peter these words, “ Labour that sy coop worKs you may make ?** ἢ
sure your vocation and election;” suddenly, after he had contrary to
his profession taken “a wife” (as he called her), and preached that all
other votaries might do the same, and that faith only justified, “ good
works” were not necessary to salvation; suddenly, I say, after he fell
to these heresies, he began to read and translate the former scriptures
accordingly, thus: “ Have not we power to lead about a sisTER A wIFE,
as the rest of the apostles?” and, “ Labour that you may make sure
your vocation and election :” leaving out the other words, “by good
works.” And so do both the Calvinists abroad, and our English Pro-
testants at home read and translate at this day, because they hold the
self-same heresies.

Fulke. ΤΆ there be no greater argument, as you confess rere
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 mulerem 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 rione argument at all of wilful, needless, or heretical avoid-
ing. For although the marriage of ecclesiastical ministers
generally 1 is proved by that scripture, yet the marriage of
votaries specially is nothing confirmed. And for the marriage
of bishops, priests and deacons, your own translation? of 1 Tim.
iii. and Tit. i., both Latin and English, will warrant them to

[? It behoveth therefore a bishop to be irreprehensible, the husband
of one wife. 1 Tim.i.2. And shouldest ordain priests by cities, as I
also appointed thee ; if any be without crime, the husband of one wife.
Titus i. 5,6. Rhemish Test. 1557. ]

Martin,
37.

FuLKE,

37.

72 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

be the husbands of one wife; so that every child may see
that he needed not for that purpose to corrupt the text, 1. Cor.
ix. And as for the other texts, 2 Pet. 1., although this word,
“by good works,” is not expressed in the most Greek eopies',
yet the whole circumstance of the place giveth it necessarily
to be understood; and yet it maketh nothing against justifi-
cation by faith only. or our election, which is most certain
and immutable in God’s determination, is made certainly known
unto us by good works, the fruits of justifymg faith, even
as the effects do necessarily prove the cause gone before. And
so doth Thomas Matthew’s bible note, likewise the Bishops’
bible, and the Geneva bible; for so I had rather call them,
than by the years in which they were once printed, which have
been often printed, and perhaps all m 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.

Martin. So do they in infinite places alter the old text, which
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. You were afraid belike to be overmatched in rail-
ing, and therefore you thought to bear us down at once

Γ᾿ It is not admitted into the text by either Griesbach or Scholz. |

we
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 73

with a whole flood of reproachful slanders; and that you utter
even with the same face with which you affirm, that all an-
tiquity with one consent allowed and embraced your vulgar
Latin text: for what else you should mean I cannot: con-
jecture, seeing you say afterward you will not charge us for
altering the ancient approved Latin translation. What say
you, Martin? Doth all antiquity with one consent allow and
embrace your vulgar Latin translation? What is the cause
then that the most of all antiquity of the Latin church used
not your vulgar. Latin text? Or dare you join issue with me,
that all the Latin doctors for 400 years after Christ used
none other Latin translation but that? or that they all knew
your vulgar Latin translation? You are never able to prove it.
The Seventy translation indeed was greatly esteemed, and
almost generally received in the Greek and Latin churches’,
and out of it were innumerable Latin versions, as St Augus-.
tine affirmeth. But your vulgar Latin followeth it not m
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 Le ARTIN,
Latin text, when the same agreeth with most ancient Greek ‘copies :
which notwithstanding is great partiality in them, and must needs be eg
of an heretical wilful humour, that among ‘the Greek copies themselves ΚΤ πη
they reject that which most agreeth with the vulgar Latin text, in the Gree Ἶ

° copies that
places of controversies. Yet will we not, I say, neither in this case ~ baat
lay falsehood and corruption to their charge, because they pretend to approved

x
translate the common Greek text of the New Testament, that is, one though this
0:

certain copy. But here at the least let them shew their fidelity, and their inate:
that they be true and exact translators. For here only shall they be nn
examined and called to account. .

[? August. De Civit. Dei. Lib. xvi. c. 49, Opera, Vol. vit. p. 843.]

FuLkKs,

In apparat.
Bibl. De opt.
Gen. inter-
pret. se. lib.
3.

Martin,
39.

We charge
them for for-
saking and
false trans-
lating their
own Hebrew
and Greek
text.

74 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFAUCE.

Fulke. In translation we follow the common, usual, and —
printed copies, as you do in your translation ;. and yet you
know there be as many, yea, ten times as many diverse read-
ings in the Latin as are in the Greek: witness hereof the
bible printed at Antwerp by Christopher Plantine, 1567, of
Hentenius’ castigation; where the margins almost of every
leaf be full of diverse readings, obelisks, asterisks, stigmates,
signifying the variety that is in many copies, by adding, de-
tracting, changing.

The same is confessed by Arias Montanus.

Lindanus likewise acknowledgeth as much.

Of that which you say, we reject that which best agreeth
with the vulgar Latin in places of controversy, you bring
none example. But that among your diverse readings you
reject that which agreeth best with the Hebrew and with

‘the Greek in places of controversy, I will give you an ex-

ample. Gen. ii. 15., where the Hebrew truth teacheth, that
the seed of the woman shall break the serpent’s head, and
the Greek translateth the pronoun in the masculine gender,
(he) meaning Christ, and some ancient. copies of your vulgar
Latin have ise; you nevertheless follow that blasphemous
corruption, that in these latter times hath been received in
your vulgar Latin bibles, and read still in your text tsa, 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. And if they follow sincerely their Greek and Hebrew text,
which they profess to follow, and which they esteem the only authen-
tical text, so far we accuse them not of heretical corruption. But if
it shall be evidently proved, that they shrink from the same also, and —
translate another thing, and that wilfully and of full intention to
countenance their false religion and wicked opinions, making the
scriptures to speak as they list; then we trust the indifferent reader,
for his own soul’s sake, will easily see and conclude, that they have no
fear of God, no reverence of the scriptures, no conscience to deceive
their readers: he will perceive that the scriptures make against them,
which they so pervert and corrupt for their purpose; that neither
the Hebrew nor Greek text is for them, which they dare not trans-
late truly and sincerely; that their cause is naught, which needeth
such foul shifts; that they must needs know all this, and therefore
do wilfully against their conscience, and consequently are obstinate
heretics.

-
THE ANSWER ΤῸ THE PREFACE. 75

Fulke. We crave no pardon, if it can be proved that 7 haere
we have wilfully translated another thing than is contained “~
in the Hebrew and Greek, to maintain any false religion or
wicked opinion. Provided always, that if any translator, or
all the translators, have ignorantly erred in misunderstanding
any word or phrase of the Hebrew or Greek text, that if it
may be plainly shewed unto them, they acknowledging the
fault, they may not be charged with heretical corruption, from
which it is certain their intention was most free.

Martin. And the more to understand their misery and wretched- Marrin,

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. Witherto I hope the indifferent reader will con- Fuxxs,
fess, that you have driven us to no jumps nor shifts, but 4°:
only uttered your own malicious and unlearned quarrels. And
how popish writers have pursued and chased us to extreme
refuge, and seely covert of false translation, let it appear by
the learned answers’ of Mr Jewell, Mr Horne, Mr Nowell,

Mr Bridges, Mr Calfhill, and others; that I speak nothing of

Γ΄ For instance, Jewel’s Defence of the Apology of the Church of
England, containing an answer to a certain book lately set forth by
Mr Harding. Lond. 1564. Jewel’s Answer to Mr Harding’s book,
entitled a detection of certain errors. Lond. 1565. Jewel’s Reply to
Mr Harding’s Answer. Lond. 1566.—This was translated into Latin
by Whitaker.

Letters between Jewel and Dr Henry Cole.

Rastel’s Return of Untruths, answered by Jewel.—This work has
hitherto escaped the notice of Jewel’s biographers.

Feckenham’s Declaration of scruples and stays of conscience touching
the oath of supremacy, answered by Horne, bishop of Winchester.

Nowell’s Reproof of a book entitled a proof of certain articles in
religion, denied by Master Jewel, set forth by Thos. Dorman. Nowell’s
Reproof of Mr Dorman’s Proof continued.

Nowell’s Confutation of Dorman’s last book, entitled a Defence
&e. ι

Bridges’ Reply to the Horn-blast of Thos. Stapleton.

Calfhill’s Answer to John Martiall’s Treatise of the Cross. |

Martin,
41.

The divers
shifts and
flights that
the protest-
ants are

catholics, as
it were the
jumps and
turnings of
an hare be-
fore the
hounds,

Fuixe,
41.

76 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

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 rejoimed 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 catholic church?
Unless perhaps you mean some wretched sophistry, by dis-
joining these that you here seem to join together. And if
you so do, we must first ask you, whether you yourselves
in all expositions of the scriptures will stand to the ar-
bitrement of every ancient father, or of every general council,
or of any custom in any time or place? I know, and you
cannot deny it, that you will stand to nothing, that is not
allowed by your pope, though fathers, councils, custom, time
or place, or all the world be against it, yea, the manifest
scripture, which is so plain that it needeth no exposition : as
the commandment against images in religion, Theodoret,
Gelasius, Vigilius, Chrysostom against transubstantiation,
Epiphanius against images, the sixth council of Constan-
tinople for condemning the pope of heresy, the councils of
Constance and Basil for deposing.the popes,.and decreeing
that. the council is above the pope, and many. other like

εν τ
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-
siasticus, Machabees. No, say they; we admit none of these for scrip-
ture. Why so? Are they not approved canonical by the same authority
of the church, of ancient councils and fathers, that the other books are?
No matter, say they, Luther admitteth them not; Calvin doth not
allow them.

Fulke. That the scriptures are plain and easy to be F naa
understood, of them that use the ordinary means to come to
it, for all doctrine necessary to be known, and sufficient to
determine every matter, the Holy Ghost himself doth testify,
2 Tim. iii. and some of the ancient fathers also do bear wit-
ness, as Augustine, de Doct. Christ. lib. 2, Chrysostom, in Gen.
hom. 13, de verb. Esai. Vidi dominum, &c. hom. 2.

If therefore you had the spirit of the ancient fathers,
you would be content to be tried by the scriptures, for re-
verence you owed to God’s most holy and perfect writings ;
and not because we will have it so, who are content in
many controversies to be tried by the judgment of the
ancient fathers, or general councils, or universal custom of
times and places; and in all controversies, wherein all the
ancient fathers, all councils, and universal custom of. all
times and places do consent, if any think such things can be
brought against us, as it is falsely and sophistically bragged.
But whereas we refuse the books of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus,
Machabees, for canonical scripture, it 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 catholic church of Christ for more than 400 years
after Christ, as I have shewed before.

Martin. Well, let us go forward in their own dance. You allow at Martin,
the least the Jews’ canonical books of the Old Testament, that is, all ay
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

Funke,

Martin,
44.

SIND

78 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

tried by the vulgar ancient Latin bible, only used in all the west church
above a thousand years? No. Will you be tried by the Greek bible
of the Septuagint interpreters, so renowned and authorised in our
Saviour’s own speeches, in the evangelists’ and apostles’ writings, in the
whole Greek church evermore? No. How then will you be tried?
They answer, only by the Hebrew bible that now is, and as now it is
pointed with vowels. Will you so? and do you think that only
the true authentical Hebrew, which the Holy Ghost did first put into
the pens of those sacred writers? We do think it (say they), and
esteem it the only authentical and true scripture of the Old Testament.

Fulke. Where so many of your own popish writers do
accuse your vulgar Latin text of imumerable 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? IfI 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 printed
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 haye
been in sundry ancient copies, to discern that which is proper

to the whole context, from that which by error of the writers

or printers hath been brought into any copy, old or new.

Martin. We ask them again, What say you then to that place of
the psalm, where in the Hebrew it is thus, “As a lion my hands and
my feet,” for that which in truth should be thus, “They digged or
pierced my hands and my feet ;” being an evident prophecy of Christ’s
nailing to the cross? There indeed (say they) we follow not the He-
brew, but the Greek text. Sometimes then you follow the Greek, and
not the Hebrew only. And what if the same Greek text make for the

a

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 79

catholics, as in these places for example, “I have inclined my heart
to keep thy justifications for reward,” and “ Redeem thy sins with
alms ;” might we not obtain here the like favour at your hands for the
Greek text, specially when the Hebrew doth not disagree? No, say
they, nor in no other place where the Greek is never so plain, if the
Hebrew word at the least may be any otherwise interpreted, and drawn
to another signification.

Fulke. We say to you first, that you have falsely pointed Fuxxe,
the Hebrew word in the margin; for all the printed books
that ever I have seen, as Bomberg, both in folio and
quarto, Stephanus, Basil, Plantine, Arias Montanus, Com-
plutensis, all place camets under caph, where you make patach.
But perhaps your Hebrew is most out of Munster’s dictionary,
where it is pointed as you make it. But for answer to your
question, we say, that there is a double testimony of the
Mazzorites to prove, that in the most ancient and best
corrected copies the Hebrew was caru, “they have digged or
pierced”: this is testified not only by our translators, but
also by Johannes Isaac, your own rabbin, against Lindanus,
a prelate of yours. And this the authors of the Complutensian
edition do acknowledge ; for thus they have pointed it, carw, 7*2
where is nothing but the redundance of aleph (which is un-
.derstood in every camets) differmg from the usual reading
and declining of the verb carah, that signifieth “to pierce or p15
dig.” Again, where it is read otherwise, if it be rightly Ὕ
pointed, as it is in Arias Montanus, caari, it cannot sig- Ἤν
nify sicut leo, “as a lion,” as both the Mazzorites do teach,
and Johannes Isaac, a grammarian, out of them by the points
and the note over iod doth plainly demonstrate. For what
should shurech sound in tod? or if you would contend it
should be daghes, to what purpose should it be in éod, if
the word should signify “as a lion”? Therefore, how-
soever this variety of copies came, either by negligence of
some writers, or by corruption of the Jews, we have suf-
ficient warrant for the ancient and true reading, which the
Greek translator did follow, which also was in St Jerome’s
copy; otherwise he would not have translated out of the
Hebrew jixerunt, “they have pierced.” Therefore Rabbi Jo-
seph, which made the Chaldee paraphrase upon the Psalter,
laboured to express both the copies, as well that which hath
. Plainly “they have pierced,” as that which hath it corruptly,

8.80. THE ANSWER TO THE. PREFACE.

as though it spake of a lion, and yet cannot rightly be so
translated, because the points are imperfect even for that
paina reading. Therefore he hath said, nikethin heich cheariah,
mx “they have indented and pierced like a lion my hands and
"my feet,” as it is in the Venice print of Daniel Bomberg, al-
though Arias Montanus, in his bible, have no more but |
yn 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), ὦ
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, Martin. We reply again and say unto them, Why? Is not the

ὩΝ 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.

Furxe, Fulke. St Jerome abundantly answereth this cavil, de- —
-. nying that supposed inspiration, and deriding the fable of ὁ
their 70 cells', (which yet pleased Augustine greatly,) yea,
calling in question, whether any more were translated by
Preft-in them, than the five books of Moses; because Aris-
tous, a writer in Ptolemy’s time, and after him. Josephus,
make mention of no more. The same cause therefore, that
moved St Jerome to translate out of the Hebrew, moveth
us: whose translation, if we had it sound and perfect, might

[ See before, p. 52.]

a

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, Vonne 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, Οὐκ ἂν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκης, &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, joming with
ours, discharge us of this fond and envious accusation.

Martin. Again, we condescend to their wilfulness, and say: What Marrin,
if the Hebrew be not ambiguous, but so plain and certain to signify one 46
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. Nw ve
Is not the one Hebrew word as proper for soul, as anima in Latin?
the other, as proper and usual for hell, as infernus in Latin? Here
then at the least will you yield? No, say they, not here neither; for
Beza telleth us, that the word which commonly and usually signifieth
“soul,” yet for a purpose, if a man will strain, it. may signify not only
“body,” but also “carcase,” and so he translateth it. But Beza (say
we), being admonished by his friends, corrected it in his later edition.
Yea, say they, he was content to change his translation, but not his
opinion concerning the Hebrew word, as himself protesteth.

Fulke. You have chosen a text for example, wherein Furxe,
is least colour (except it be with the unlearned) of an hun- 4
6

[ruLKE, |

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

earcase. Yea, there be that hold, that it is never taken

for the reasonable immortal soul of a man, as anima is,

specially of ecclesiastical writers. That Beza translated the

Greek of the New Testament after the signification of the

Hebrew words, although it was true in sense, yet in mine

opinion it was not proper in words; and therefore he him-

self hath corrected it in his latter editions, as you confess:

he hath not changed his opmion 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 omnio :
Let not the priest be defiled with the deaths of his coun- —

trymen ; and, The high priest shall not enter in to any dead
nisx3 In body at all: where the Hebrew is lenephesh, and nwara dyn —
ΝᾺ 85 mp. In the third place your vulgar Latin readeth —
- ᾿ pollutusque est super mortuo, they shall cast out him that is —
Ἐπ polluted by touching a dead carcase; where the Hebrew is —
ss ones In the first place your vulgar Latin hath indeed 7
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 7
concerning the Hebrew word, when he hath the authority of —|
your own vulgar translation? You that note such jumps |
and shifts in us, whither will you leap to save your honesty? 7
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, —

xa ib nn

ΨΩ:
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 83

in all these places, for the Hebrew word nephesh render the
usual signification ψυχὴ, adding in the xxi. of Lev. 11,
τετελευτηκυῖα, Which either you must translate a dead body,
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. 1 have shewed you before, that in the New Funxr,
Testament we like better to translate according to the 47:
proper and usual signification of the Greek word. But the
Hebrew word in the Old Testament may be translated, accord-
ing to the circumstance of the place, life, person, self, yea,
or dead body, and in some place perhaps carcase. You
_ follow us very near, to seek advantage of the English word
carcase, which commonly is taken in contempt, and. therefore

: 6—2

Cadaver.

τὸ πτῶμα.

Martin,
48,

84 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

we would not use ‘it, speaking of the body of our Saviour
Christ, when it was dead. But you hunt yourself out of
breath, when you would bring the same contempt to the

Latin word cadaver, which Beza used. For cadaver sig-

nifieth generally a dead body of man or beast, and by your
vulgar Latin translator is used for the dead bodies of sacri-
fices, of saints and holy men, as indifferently as for carrion
of beasts, or carcases of evil men: namely, in Job xxxix. 33,
«‘Wheresoever the dead body is, thither will the eagle resort;”
which similitude our Saviour Christ applieth to himself, Matt.
xxiv. 28, “ Wheresoever the dead body is, thither will the
eagles be gathered;” where he compareth himself to the dead
body, and the faithful to the eagles.

_ Now concerning the other Hebrew word, which you
say signifieth hell, because the Greek and vulgar Latin in-
terpreter do so translate it: when just occasion shall be
given afterward, cap. vu, I will shew that it properly signi-
fieth a grave, pit, or place for dead bodies; and that in this
place of the xvi. psalm it must needs so signify, not only
the 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 ἃ
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 of the
ungodly, whose reward is in hell. These be the poor shifts, —
turnings and windings, that you have to wreath in those
fables of imbus patrum and purgatory, which the church
of God from the beginning of the world unto the coming
of Christ never heard of, nor many hundred years after
Christ, until the Montanists, or such like heathenish heretics, —
brought in those fantasies.

Martin. In the New Testament, we ask them, will you be tried

by the ancient Latin. translation, which is the text of the fathers and
the whole church? No; but we appeal to the Greek. What Greek? ©

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 85

say we; for there be sundry copies, and the best of them (as Beza
confesseth) agree with the said ancient Latin. For example, in St Peter’s
words, “ Labour that by good works you may make sure your vocation 2 Pet. i.
and election,” doth this Greek copy please you? No, say they; we
appeal to that Greek copy which hath not these words, “by good
works ;” for otherwise we should grant the merit and efficacy of good
works toward salvation. And generally, to tell you at once, by what
Greek we will be tried, we like best the vulgar Greek text of the New
Testament, which is most common and in every man’s hands.

Fulke. We need not appeal to the Greek, for any —
thing you bring out of the vulgar Latin against us. As *
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 untrue affirmation of the vulgar Latin, that it is the text
of the fathers and the whole church; whereby you shew
yourself to be a Donatist, to acknowledge no church, but
where the Latin text is occupied: so that in Greece, Syria,
Armenia, AXthiopia, 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 > aa
pleasure in choosing your text. And if you will stand to it, grant 4
us that Peter was chief among the apostles, because your own Greek

Matt. x.

FuLKE,
49.

86 THE. ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.:

text saith, “ The first, Peter.” No, saith Beza, we will grant you no |

such thing; for these words were added to the Greek text by one that —
favoured Peter’s primacy. Is it so? then you will not stand to this _
Greek text neither? Not in this place, saith Beza. Ὁ}

Fulke. Τὰ granting Peter to be the first, we need not ὦ
grant him to be the chief; and if we grant him to be the chief, ὦ
it followeth not that he is chief in authority. But if that were —
granted, it is not necessary that he was head of the chureh. ὦ
And albeit that were also granted, the bishop of Rome could ©
gain nothing by it. But what saith Beza, where the text saith, |
“the first Peter” ? If we must believe you, he saith, “No, we —
will grant you no such thing; for these words were added to
the Greek text by one that favoured Peter’s primacy.” I pray
you, Martin, where hath Beza those words? will you never
leave this shameful forgery ? Beza, in the tenth of Matthew,
doth only ask the question : Quid st 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) against Erasmus, who, finding
it in some Greek copies, thought it was untruly added out
of Matthew. But Beza saith, Hgo vero non dubito quin hoc
sit germana lectio: ‘ But I doubt not but this is the true and 7
right reading of the text ;” and therefore he translateth Pri- 7
mum Simonem, “ the first Simon,” out of the few copies Eras- —)
mus speaketh of. Therefore it is an abominable slander to |
charge him with following the- common received text, where — |
it seemeth to make against you, when he contendeth for the ||
truth agamst the common text, yea, and against your own 7}

vulgar Latin, to give you that which you make so great |

account of, that Peter in the catalogue of the apostles was |)
first. So greatly he feareth to acknowledge that Peter was —
called first! and so true it is that you charge him to say, “No, —
we will grant you no such thing; for these words were added —
to the Greek text by one that favoured Peter’s primacy!” I |
hope your 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 |

oS
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. xxii. xxiv. where the posterity of Levi and Aaron are [1 Chron.
xiii. 16, 17.

rehearsed, as they were appointed by David in their orders xxiv: 1.1

or courses : Subuel primus, Rohobia primus, sors prima Joiarib,

&c. where lest you should think of any headship or princi-

pality, because the Hebrew is sometime wr , and the Greek

ἄρχων, you may see that Subuel is called primus of the sons

of Gerson, when there is no more mention; and more expressly,

Rohobia is called primus of the sons of Eleazer, of whom it is

said, that he had no more sons; and that wx% 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 Hien

Joiarib, where the Hebrew word is harishuon, and so follow ἡ

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) ἡ gs ἽΝ,
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 sei ρους i.

English Protestants in their writings of late. chap. xvii.
num. ll.

Fulke. Still Beza speaketh as you inspire into him, while Furxe,
he speaketh through your throat or quill. The truth is, Beza °°
saith, that either there is a manifest solacophanes, 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 Morals!, 21. definition.

vA

- ‘ , ς ᾿ , es, > ne ’ in
[2 Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινῇ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τῷ
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένῳ. Hic calix novum testamentum est in sanguine

88 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

᾿ς Nevertheless, all our old books, saith Beza, had it so

Martin,
δ].

1 Thess. ii.

FULKE,
51.

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. 1. 87, and cap. xvu. 11, where I will so justify that which
I have written before touching this place, as I trust all
learned and indifferent readers‘shall see how vainly you in-
sult against me, where you bewray grosser ignorance in Greek
phrases than ever I would have suspected in you, being ac-
counted the principal linguist of the seminary at Rhemes.

Martin. Well, yet, say we, there are places in the same Greek
text, as plain for us as these now cited, where you cannot say, it came
out of the margin, or it was added falsely to the text. As, “ Stand
and hold fast the traditions,” &c.: by this text we require that you
grant us traditions delivered by word of mouth, as well as the written
word, that is, the scriptures. No, say they, we know the Greek word
signifieth tradition, as plain as possibly ; but here and in the like places
we rather translate it “ ordinances,” “instructions,” and what else soever.
Nay, sirs, say we, you cannot so answer the matter, for in other places
you translate it duly and truly “ tradition ;’ and why more in one
place than in another? They are ashamed to tell why ; but they must
tell, and shame both themselves and the devil, if ever they think it
good to answer this treatise: as also, why they changed “ congregation,”
which was always in their first translation, into “church” in their
later translations, and did not change likewise “ ordinances” into “ tra-
ditions,” ‘‘elders” into “\priests.”

Fulke. That the Thessalonians had some part of chris-
tian doctrine delivered by word of mouth, that is, by the
apostle’s preaching, at such time as he did write unto them,

meo, qui pro vobis funditur. Basilii Moralia. Regula xx1. c. 3. Opera,
v. iii. p. 254. Edit. Garnier, Parisiis, 1722.]

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE, 89

and some part by his epistles, the text enforceth us to grant,
and we never purposed to deny: but that the church at this
day, or ever since the New Testament was written, had any
tradition by word of mouth of any matter necessary to sal-
vation, which was not contained in the Old or New Testa-
ment, we will never grant, neither shall you ever be able
out of this text or any text in the bible to prove. Make
your syllogisms when you dare, and you shall be answered.
But ‘we know,” you say, “that the Greek word sig-
nifieth tradition as plain as possibly; but here, and in like
places, we rather translate it ordinances, instructions, and what
else soever.” We know that it signifieth tradition, constitu-
tion, instruction, precept; also mancipation, treatise, treason :
for all these the Greek dictionaries do teach that it signi-
fieth. Therefore if in any place we have translated it “ordi-
nances”, or “ instructions”, or “ institutions’, we have not
gone from the true signification of the word; neither can you
ever prove that the word signifieth such a doctrine only as
is taught by word of mouth, and is not or may not be put
m 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 renzus,
heretics accused the scriptures, as insufficient of authority Duan
and ambiguously written, and that the truth could not be
found in them by those that knew not the tradition, which
was not delivered by writing, but by word of mouth, just
as the papists do. This abusing of the word “tradition” might
be a sufficient cause for the translators to render the Greek

90 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

word, where it is taken for such doctrine as is beside the
commandment of God, by the name of tradition, as the word
is commonly taken. But where the Greek word is taken in
the good part, for that doctrine which is agreeable with the
holy scriptures, they might with good reason avoid it, as
you yourself do not always translate tradere, to betray, but
sometimes to deliver. So did the translators give these words,
“ordinances”, “instructions’’, ‘institutions’, or doctrine deli-
vered.; which do generally signify the same that tradition, but
have not the prejudice of that partial signification in which the
papists use it, who, wheresoever they find tradition, straightway
imagine they have found a sufficient argument against the per-
fection and sufficiency of the holy scripture, and to bring in
all riff-raff and trish-trash of man’s doctrine, not only beside,
but also contrary to the manifest word of God, contained .
in his most holy and perfect scriptures. To the shame of
the devil therefore, and of, all popish maintainers of traditions
uncommanded by God, this reason may be yielded.

Now to answer you, why ecclesia was first translated “‘con-
gregation”, and afterward “church”; the reason that moved
the first translators, I think, was this: the word church of the
common people at that time was used ambiguously, both for
the assembly of the faithful, and for the place in which they
assembled ; for the avoiding of which ambiguity they trans-
lated ecclesia the congregation; and yet in their creed, and
in the notes of 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.” . δ}

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 91

Martin. The cause is, that the name of church was at the first Marmy,
odious unto them, because of the catholic church which stood against 5
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 Furxe,
the English tongue, and taught it to the people, and for 52-
that cause were accounted heretics of the antichristian Ro-
mish rabble? If the name of church were odious unto them,
why did they not suppress that name in the creed which
they taught to young and old, and instead of catholic church
call it the universal congregation or assembly ? Well, Davus,
these things be not aptly divided according to their times.
The first translation of the bible, that was printed in the
English tongue, in very many places of the notes useth the
name church, and most notoriously in the Song of Salomon,
where before every other verse almost it telleth which is the
voice of the church to Christ her spouse ; which no reason-
able man would think the translators would have done, if
the name of the church had been odious unto them, or that
they thought the catholic church stood against them. Look
Thomas Matthews’ bible, in the Canticles of Salomon, and
upon the xvi. of St Matthew’s Gospel, the 18th verse, the
words of Christ to Peter.. Therefore your senseless imagina-
tions shew no hatred of the catholic church in our translators,
but cankered malice and impudent folly in yourselves.

Martin. . To conclude, as I began, concerning their shifts and jumps, Marie,
and windings, and turnings every way from one thing to another, till 59.
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.

FuLKE,
53.

92 THE ANSWER ΤῸ THE PREFACE.

Fulke. By what windings and turnings, I pray you, are
we driven to that miserable refuge of palpable corruptions
and false translations ? for hitherto you have shewed none, but
such as shew your own ignorance or malice. Neither, I hope,
you shall be able to shew any, though you swear never so
sore at your work. Yes, I ween, this one case only of tradi-
tions, (for so you seem to say,) if it be considered, will discover
no less. It is marvel, if for your sake all the Greek diction-
aries in the world must not be corrected, and taught to say,
that παράδοσις can signify nothing but a tradition, that is, not

_ written. But yet you roll in your accustomed rhetoric, say-

ing, that “the ancient fathers, councils, antiquity, universality,
and custom of the whole church allow traditions :” and so do
we, so many as be good and agreeable to the holy scrip-
tures; but that there be traditions of matter necessary to
salvation not contained in the holy scriptures, when you bring
your fathers, councils, &c. you shall receive an answer to
them. That the canonical scripture alloweth any traditions
contrary to the doctrine thereof, or to supply any want or
imperfection thereof, as though all things required to make
the man of God perfect, prepared to all good works, were .
not contained in the scriptures, you shall never be able to
prove, although for spite against the perfection of the 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.
That the Protestants translate the holy Scripture falsely of pur-
pose, in favour of their heresies, throughout all controversies

CHAPTER II.
ΝΥΝ MHOROlical Graditions, 5.5.0scaseiiesads acssvoeeespessnescaedouperees

CHAPTER III.
NEON MOUNT: SOMME 5.5555. chin cindcnniet sac pesenwap *haees) nan τὰ μα τὰς δὴν

CHAPTER IV.

The ecclesiastical use of words turned into their original and
SIGIR αἰ ΟΉΤΗ δ δἰ δὲ νον τι qn vn 39555 4 ονϑνν τ ελον» οὐ δερὴν ἐν Deedes τον

εὐ ὙΕΤῸΝ Δ. τ τον ἢ ΤΥ Ἐκ τ 5 0s +scsniss vend ΡΤ τ τ νον éeospaes ον

CHAPTER VI.

Against priest and priesthood. Where much also is said of their
profaning of ecclesiastical Words ............secesseneeecneceeee eens

CHAPTER VII.
Against purgatory, Limbus Patrum, and Christ’s descending into
TDi ck og i oy ile Abo aR san ΤΉ ches Suariaarrs Hie

CHAPTER VIII.
Concerning justification, and God’s justice in rewarding good works

CHAPTER IX.
Against merits, meritorious works, and the reward for the same

CHAPTER X.
Against free will .............. oP he db ce vs badiatas vexteeee

CHAPTER XI.
For imputative justice against true inherent justice ...............

PAGE

95

164

179

217

225

240

278

94 THE ARGUMENTS OF EVERY CHAPTER.

CHAPTER XII.

PAGE »
For special faith, vain security, and only faith’.....................6. 415
CHAPTER XIII.
Against penance and satisfaction ......0.....0.cccccceeeeest 428

CHAPTER XIV.
Against the holy sacraments, namely baptism, and confession ... 450

CHAPTER XV.
Against the sacrament of holy orders, and for the marriage of

PENCE WIG WOLAKICR i An dale Ge ἀπ h Pes ecu sivsoesouns esse tgapins 460
CHAPTER XVI.
Against the sacrament of matrimony, -.... 00 5766 π Ἀλλ λλεενεεννεν γεεννενν 492
| CHAPTER XVII. |
Against the blessed sacrament, and sacrifice, and altars ............ 497
τ CHAPTER XVIII. )
Against the honour of saints, namely, of our blessed lady......... 526
CHAPTER XIX.
Against the distinction of Dulia and Latria ..............0.05 page ee
CHAPTER XxX.
Adding to the text ..... .......... ΤΟ Το το τὴ cock ver cea ΟΣ δ47

CHAPTER ΧΧΙ.

Other heretical treacheries and corruptions worthy of observa-
πο πϑαδαδι, εὐδόψιλῳ SvkG,, Gave GERDA RES” ccs ohseince bo o> 40,0 _ Bor

CHAPTER XXII.
Other faults Judaical, profane, mere vanities, follies, and novelties 571

A DISCOVERY Martin.

OF THE

MANIFOLD CORRUPTIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,

BY THE HERETICS OF OUR DAYS, SPECIALLY THE ENGLISH
SECTARIES, AND OF THEIR FOUL DEALING HEREIN, BY
PARTIAL AND FALSE TRANSLATIONS TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF THEIR HERESIES, IN
THEIR ENGLISH BIBLES USED AND
AUTHORISED SINCE THE
TIME OF SCHISM.

CHAPTER I.

That the Protestants translate the holy Scriptures falsely
of purpose, in favour of their heresies.

Martin. Tuoveu this shall evidently appear throughout this whole Marri, 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 peri: aren
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. Auruoven this trifling treatise was in hand two or Funke, 1.
three years ago, as by the threatening of Bristow’ and Howlet

Γ᾿ Richard Bristow, a most zealous advocate for the Roman Catholic
cause, was born at Worcester in the beginning of the 16th Century. He
left the University of Oxford in 1569, and becoming acquainted with
Dr Allen, was made public lecturer on Divinity at Doway. He wrote,
among other things, A brief treatise of divers plain and sure ways to
find out the truth in this doubtful and dangerous time of heresy, contain-
ing sundry motives unto the Catholic faith ; or, considerations to move a
man to believe the Catholics, and not the heretics. Antwerp, 1574. These
motives were answered by Fulke in his Retentive to stay good Christ-
ians in true faith and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristow.
London, 1580.

Bristow also wrote A Reply to William Fulke, in Defence of Dr
Allen’s Scroul of Articles, and Book of Purgatry. WLovaine; 1580. To

Such doth
Howlett
charge us
withal.

96 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

it may appear; yet, that it might seem new, and a sudden
piece of work compiled with small study, you thought good
by carping at my confutation of Howlet’ last made, and of
M. Whitaker’s? work, set forth later than it, as it were by
setting on new ears upon your old pot, to make it seem to
be a new vessel. And first of all, you would seem to have
taken occasion of my confident speech in my confutation of
Howlet’s nine reasons’, in rehearsing whereof you use such
fidelity as commonly papists used to bear towards God, the
church, your prince, and your country. For what face so-
ever I set upon the matter, with a whorish forehead and a

_ brasen face you make report of my saying; which, being

testified by a thousand copies printed, as it were by so many
witnesses, doth cry out upon your falsehood and injurious
dealing. For my words, out of the place by you quoted
against Howlet, are these: ‘That some error may be in trans-
lation (although by you it cannot be shewed) I will not deny ;

but that any shameless translations, or wilful corruptions, can

be found of purpose to draw the scriptures to any heretical

which Fulke rejoined the following year, in his book entitled A re-
joinder to Bristow’s Replie in defence of Allen’s Scroll of Articles and
Booke of Purgatorie, &c. 1581. p. 792. Wood’s Athene, Vol. 1. pp.
482—484. ]

Γ᾿ The Howlet here referred to was Persons the Jesuit, who pub-
lished under this name a treatise, entitled A brief Discourse, containing
the reasons why Catholics refuse to go to Church. Doway, 1580, It was
answered the same year, in A Check to Mr Howlet’s Screechings to her
Majesty, (Wood’s Athene, Vol. v. pp. 68, 69.;) and in a Caveat for
Parson Howlet, 1581, (Hartshorne’s Book Rarities of Cambridge, p. 442;)
and also by Fulke, in Howlet’s Nine Reasons; and seems to be the same
book as the one just mentioned. Wood’s Athene, Vol. τι. p. 60, and
Possevinus in Apparat. Sacr. Vol. 1., 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 diedin 1595.]

[* “A briefe confutation of a Papist Discourse: lately set forth, and
presumptuously dedicated to the Queen’s most excellent Majestie: by
John Howlet, or some other birde of the night, under that name,
contayning certaine Reasons, why Papistes refuse to come to Church,
which reasons are here inserted and set downe at large, with their —
several answers. By D. Fulke, Maister of Pembroke Hall, in Cam-
bridge. Seene and allowed. At London, printed for George Byshop,
1581. qto. b. 1. 58 leaves,”

2
a] 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 1 did confess that
there might be some errors even in the best and perfectest
of our translations. For to translate out of one tongue into
another is a matter of greater difficulty than it is commonly
taken, I mean exactly to yield as much and no more than
the original containeth, when the words and phrases are so
different, that few are found which in all points signify the
same thing, neither more nor less, in divers tongues. Where-
fore, notwithstanding any translation that can be made, the
knowledge of the tongues is necessary in the church, for the
perfect discussing of the sense and meaning of the holy scrip-
tures. Now, if some of our translators, or they all, have not
attained to the best and most.proper expressing of the nature
of all words and phrases of the Hebrew and Greek tongues in
English, it is not the matter that I will stand to defend, nor
the translators themselves, I am well assured, if they were all
living: but that the scriptures are not impudently. falsified
or wilfully corrupted by them, to maintain any heretical
opinion, as the adversary chargeth us, that is the thing”
that I will (by God’s grace) stand to defend against all the
papists in the world. And this end you have falsely and
fraudulently omitted in reporting my saying, whereupon de- ἡ
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~

7

[ruLKE. |

98 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

if our sayings be too short for your purpose, you strain them
to be longer ; if they be too long, you cut off their shanks ;
yea, that which is worse, the very head, as you play with me
in this place. I myself, and so did many hundreds beside me, —
hear that reverend father, M. Doctor Coverdale, of holy and
learned memory, in a sermon at Paul’s cross, upon occasion of
some slanderous reports that then were raised against his
translation, declare his faithful purpose in doing the same;
which after it was finished, and presented to king Henry VIII.
of famous memory, and by him committed to divers bishops
of that time to peruse, of which (as I remember) Stephen
Gardiner was one; after they had kept it long in their hands,
and the king was divers times sued unto for the publication
thereof, at the last being called for by the king himself, they
redelivered the book; and being demanded by the king what
was their judgment of the translation, they answered that there
were many faults therein. “Well,” said the king, “but are
there any heresies maintained thereby?” They answered, there
were no heresies, that they could find, maintained thereby.
“If there be no heresies,” said the king, “then in God’s name
let it go abroad among our people.” According to this judg-
ment of the king and the bishops, M. Coverdale defended. his
translation, confessing that he did now himself espy some
faults, which, if he might review it once over again, as he had
done twice before, he doubted not but to amend; but for any
heresy, he was sure there was none maintained by his trans-
lation. After the same manner, I doubt not (by God’s help)
so to defend all our translations, for all your evident marks to
know wilful corruptions, that not one shall be found of pur-
pose to maintain any heretical opinion, and not many errors
committed through negligence, ignorance, or human frailty.

Martin,2. Martin. The first mark and most general is: If they translate else- —
Evident —_ where not amiss, and in places of controversy between them and us most —
igasto know falsely ; it is an evident argument that they do it not of negligence, or
tions in ignorance, but of partiality to the matter in controversy. Thisis to be —
ον seen through the whole bible, where the faults of their translations are
altogether, or specially, in those scriptures that concern the causes in
question between us. For other small faults, or rather oversights, we
will no further note unto them, than to the end that they may the more

easily pardon us the like, if they find them.
Furxe, 2. Fulke. This mark is too general to know anything

1.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 99

thereby: when you do exemplify it in special, you shall
easily be answered: in the meantime, it is sufficient to deny
generally, that wherewith you so generally charge us, that
we have in places of controversy translated anything falsely.
If one word be otherwise translated in any place of contro-
versy, than it is in other places out of controversy, there may
be rendered sufficient reason of that variety, without that it
must needs come of partiality to the matter in controversy,
but rather of love of the truth, which in all matters of ques-
tion between us is confirmed by plain text of scriptures, or
necessary collection out of the same; so that if the translation
in those places were the same that yours is, of the New Tes-
tament, it should neither hinder our truth, nor fortify your
error. As for small faults and oversights, reason it is (as you
say) they should be pardoned on both sides.

Martin. If, as in their opinions and heresies they forsake the an- Marry, 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 2? 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. Wenever go from that text and ancient reading, Fung, 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 Marrtry, 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

ΕσπκῈ, 4.

Martin, 5. ‘

εἰδωλολα-
τρεία.

εἰδωλολά-

Fukeg, 5.

100 4 DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

ment of wilful corruption, This is done many ways, and is to be observed
also throughout the whole bible, and in all this book.

Fulke. We never flee from the Hebrew and Greek in
any place, much less im 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. If the Greek be idololatria and idololatra, and they trans-
late not idolatry and idolater, but, worshipping of images, and wor-
shipper of images ; and that so absurdly, that they make the apostle say,
‘ covetousness is worshipping of images ;’ this none would do but fools or
madmen, unless it were of purpose against sacred images, _ See chap. iii.
numb. 1, 2. ie

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.' Col. iu., “ covetousness is —
worshipping of images ;” I pray you, in whether order will you —
place Isidorus Clarius, of a monk of Casinas made bishop Ful-
ginas, which in the third to the Colossians upon your vulgar —
Latin text, (which according to the Greek calleth idololatria,
simulacrorum servitus, the service of images,) in his notes’
upon the place writeth this: Preeter cetera peccata avaritia
peculiare hoc nomen assecuta est, ut dicatur esse (horrendum —
nomen) cultus simulacrorum. Nam pecunia quid aliud est
quam simulacrum quoddam, vel argenteum vel aureum,
quod homines avari plus amant, et longe majore cultu atque
honore prosequuntur, quam ipsum Deum? “Above other sins,

᾿

[? The translations of Tyndale 1534, Cranmer 1539, and Bishops’

Ὁ Bible 1584, render Ephes. v. 5. ὅς ἐστι εἰδωλολάτρης, “which is a

worshipper of images.” The Geneva versions 1557, 1560, have it
the same as the Authorised version of 1611, “which is an idolater.”
The Vulgate has, “quod est idolorum servitus.” ]
. [5 Critici Sacri, vii, 284.]

nT TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 101

- covetousness hath obtained this peculiar name, that it is called
(which is an horrible name) the worshipping of images; for
what other thing is money but a certain image, either of silver
or gold, which covetous men do love more, and prosecute
with far greater worship and honour, than they do God him-
self?” Or, if you make no count of Isidorus Clarius, in what
degree will you account the deputies of the council of Trent’,
whose severe censure this note hath escaped? of fools, or of
madmen, or of enemies to sacred images? Yea, how will
you excuse your own vulgar Latin translation, which turneth
édololatria 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 stmulacrum doth signify, than the
father of eloquence in the Latin tongue, even Tully himself,
who in his oration pro Archia poeta useth simulacrum for
the same that statua and imago? Speaking of the cunning
image-makers of Greece, he saith, Statuw 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
effigues simulacrumque Mithridatis, “the shape and image of
Mithridates.” In his second book De Inventione he sheweth
that Zeuxis, that famous painter, did paint the image of He-
lena: ut excellentem muliebris forme pulchritudinem muta in
sese wmago contineret, Helene se pingere velle simulacrum
dixit. “That a dumb image might contain in it the excellent
beauty of a woman’s form, he said he would paint the simili-
tude or image of Helena.” Also in his familiar epistles,
Epist. Ixvii., Illi artifices corporis simulacra ignotis nota
Saciebant: “those workmen did make the images of the
bodies known to them that knew them not.” And so com-
monly he useth simulacrum justitie, virtutis, civitatis,
for the image or similitude of justice, of virtue, of a city or
commonwealth, &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 the
edition of 1542.] ᾿

102 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

that is religiously 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 vero Dei But Lactantius' calleth men viventia Det simulacra, “livmg
cap. 43. images of God,” which we ought to garnish rather than simu-
lacra insensibilia Deorum, “ 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,
error. lib. 2. A ° - Ω
cap. 2. “Of images and of the true image and worship of God”; in

which also he sheweth that stmulacrum is called of simili-
tude: and therefore the heathenish idols, having no resem-
blance of God, cannot properly be called stmulaera. St
Ambrose*, another writer of the church, upon 1 Cor, x., upon
that text, Non quia simulacrum est aliquid, &e., “not that
the image is anything”: (the Greek is tdolum :) Simulacrum
vere nihil est, quia imago videtur ret mortue : “The image
or idol is indeed nothing, because it seemeth to be an image
of a dead thing.” Also upon the 45th psalm: “God was
high in the patriarchs and prophets, which did not compare
him imaginibus terrenis et simulacris scrupeis®, to images
or similitudes of the earth and stone.” Tertullian* also, a
Latin writer, in his book De Spectaculis, speaking of cunning
workmanship of imagery, shewed in those plays, and the
authors of them, saith: Scimus enim nihil esse nomina mor-
tuorum, sicut nec ipsa simulacra eorum: ‘we know that the
names of those dead men are nothing, as also their images.”

Γ᾿ Nam si deorum cultores simulacra insensibilia excolunt, et quidquid
pretiosi habent, in ea conferunt, quibus nec uti possunt, nec gratias agere,
quod acceperint ; quanto justius est et verius, viventia Dei simulacra
excolere, ut promereare viventem? Lactantii De vero Cultu, Lib. vi
cap. 13. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 472. edit. Dufresnoy, Lutet. Paris. 1748.] _

[? Simulacrum vere nihil est, quia imago videtur rei mortue: sed
sub tegmine simulacrorum diabolus colitur. Ambros. Op. Vol. τι. p. 145. |

[ἢ In Psal. xv. Enarratio, prop. fin. ]

[* Tertullianus de Spectaculis, p. 15. edit. Rigalt. 1634. |

a
1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 105

Afterward to their names, nominibus, he joineth imaginibus,
to shew that simulacra and imagines are all one, which of
Christians at that time were greatly abhorred in detestation
of idolatry. St Augustine’ calleth the same 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 Augustine’, in his book
Octoginta Queestion., 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, inquirmg how Gideon’s ephod was
a cause of fornication to the people, when it was no idol’, he

[> Non igitur mirum est, si prevaricatores angeli, quorum duo
maxima vitia sunt superbia atque fallacia, per hunc aerem volitantes,
quod uni vero Deo deberi noverant, hoc sibi a suis cultoribus exe-
gerunt, a quibus dii putari voluerunt, dante sibi locum vanitate cordis
humani: maxime cum ex desiderio mortuorum constituerentur ima-
gines, unde simulacrorum usus exortus est. Augustini Contra Faustum.
Lib. xx. cap. 17. Opera, Vol. vit. p. 577. edit. Paris. 1837. ]

Γ΄ Ars illa summa omnipotentis Dei, per quam ex nihilo facta sunt
omnia, que etiam sapientia ejus dicitur, ipsa operatur etiam per arti-
fices, ut pulchra atque congruentia faciant ; quamvis non de nihilo, sed
de aliqua materia operentur, velut ligno, aut marmore, aut ebore, et
si quod aliud materie genus manibus artificis subditur. Sed ideo isti
non possunt de nihilo aliquid fabricare, quia per corpus operantur, cum
tamen eos numeros et lineamentorum convenientiam, que per corpus
corpori imprimunt, in animo accipiant ab illa summa sapientia, que ip-
sos numeros et ipsam convenientiam longe artificiosius universo mundi
corpori impressit, quod de nihilo fabricatum est; in quo sunt etiam
corpora animalium, que jam de aliquo, id est, de elementis mundi
fabricantur, sed longe potentius excellentiusque, quam cum artifices
homines easdem figuras corporum et formas in suis operibus imitantur.
Augustini Liber de diversis Questionibus, uxxvut. Vol. vi. p. 125.]

[7 Hoe ergo illicitum cum fecisset Gedeon, fornicatus est post illud
omnis Israel, id est, sequendo illud contra legem Dei: ubi non frustra
queritur, cum idolum non fuerit, id est, cujusquam Dei falsi et alieni
simulacrum, sed ephud, id est, unum de sacramentis tabernaculi quod
ad vestem sacerdotalem pertineret, quomodo fornicationem scriptura
dicat populi ista sectantis atque venerantis. Augustini Questiones in
Judices, xu. Vol. m. p. 939. ]

104 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH” [cue

plainly distinguisheth simulacrum from idolum, as the ge-
neral from the special, Cum idolum non fuerit, id est cujus-
piam dei falsi et alien simulacrum: “when it was no idol,

that is to say, an image of some false or strange God.” Again | Ἶ

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 Det simulacro. So that simulaerum
with St Augustine signifieth as generally as image, and can-
not be restrained to signify an idol in the evil part, except
you add, that it is an image of a false or strange god. Ar-
nobius, an ecclesiastical writer of the Latin church, useth the
word simulacrum for an image generally ; calling man also
simulacrum Dei, (as Lactantius' doth the image of God,)
Cont. gent. lib. vi. Putatis autem nos occultare quod colimus,
si delubra et aras non habemus ? Quod enim simulacrum
Deo jingam, cum st recte existimes sit Dei homo ipse simu-
lacrum ? “Think you that we do hide that which we worship,
if we have no temples and altars? For what image shalk
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
aliquod ex imaginum contemplatione solatium; sed paulatim
hune errorem, &c. “There were also certain valiant men, or’ —
builders of cities, who when they were dead, men which loved’
them made their images or counterfeits, that they might have
some comfort in beholding the images; but by little and little,
the devils persuading this error, it is certain that so it crept,
into their posterity, that those whom they honoured for the
only remembrance of their name, their successors esteemed

[* Itaque simulacrum Dei non illud est, quod digitis hominis ex
lapide, aut «re, aliave materia fabricatur; sed ipse homo, quoniam et
sentit, et movetur, et multas magnasque actiones habet. Firm. Lac-
tantii Divin. Institut. Lib. m. cap. 2.]

Κ᾽ TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 105

and worshipped as gods.” Again he saith, Simulacra
autem a similitudine nuncupata, ἕο. “Images are called
simulacra of the similitude, because by the hand of the
artificers of stone or other matter they resemble the counte-
nance of them in whose honour they are feigned; or they are
called a simulando, whereof it followeth they are false things”.”
These testimonies needed not for them that be but half-
learned, which know right well that simulacrum is synono-
mon with imago; but that our adversaries are so impudent,
that to serve their idolatrous affection they care not what
idols they invent, of words, of significations, of distinctions, so:
they may seem to say somewhat in the ears of the unlearned,
which are not able to judge of such matters. But perhaps
they will say, their vulgar Latin interpreter useth the word
simulacrum only for idols that are worshipped with divine
honour. Neither is that true; and although it were, seeing
it seldom useth similacra, 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 stmula-
erum for an image generally, as all other Latin writers do,
you may see 1 Sam. cap. xix.’, where speaking of the image
which Michol laid in the bed, to counterfeit the sickness of
David, first he calleth it statuam, and afterward the same
mage he calleth simulacrum. And sure it is, that David
had no idols in his house. And lest you should cavil about
the Hebrew word teraphim*, which the Septuaginta translate
κενοτάφια, Aquila calleth μορφώματα, St Jerome telleth you Quest. Heb.

[? Sed paulatim hunc errorem, persuadentibus demonibus ita ut
posteris constet irrepsisse, ut quos illi pro sola nominis memoria ho-
noraverunt, successores deos existimarent atque colerent. Simulacra
autem a similitudine nuncupata, eo quod manu artificis ex lapide
aliave materia eorum vultus imitantur, in quorum honorem finguntur.
Ergo simulacra, vel pro eo quod sunt similia, vel pro eo quod si-
mulata atque conficta, unde et falsa sunt. Etymologiarum, Lib. via.
cap. 5, 6, Vol. m1. p. 376. edit. Arevalo. |
_ [® The LXX. have 1 Sam. 13. καὶ ἔλαβεν ἡ Μελχὸλ τὰ κενοτάφια:
the Vulgate has, “'Tulit autem Michol statuam.” At the 16th verse
the LXX. have, καὶ ἰδοὺ ra Pdi the Vulgate, “inventum est
simulacrum.” |

[* Et furata est Rachel idola patris sui: (Gen. xxxi. 19.) ubi nune
‘idola legimus, in Hebreo ΤΉΒΒΑΡΗΙΜ (ODN) scriptum. est, que

106 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

they signify figuras or imagines, “figures or images,” which
sometimes were abused to idolatry, as those which Rachel stole,
and those which are mentioned Jud. xvii. Aben Ezra, and
other of the rabbins, say they were astronomical images, to
serve for dials, or other purposes of, astrology ; and such, it
is most like, was that which was placed in David’s bed, which
your interpreter calleth statuam and simulacrum. Therefore,
whereas we have translated zdololatria, Col. iii.’, “ 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 m your translation; for the
Latin being simulacrorum servitus, you call it the service of
idols, appealing to the Greek word, which you have set in
the margin, εἰδωλολατρεία, and dare not translate according to
your own Latin; for then you should have called coyetousness
even as we do, the worshipping or service of images. And
yet you charge us in your notes with a marvellous impudent
and foolish corruption. But I report me to all indifferent
readers, whether this be not a marvellous impudent aud fool-
ish reprehension, to reprove us for saying the same in English,
that your own interpreter saith in Latin; for simulacro-
rum servitus is as well the service of images, as simulacro-
rum artifer 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 μορφώματα, id est, figuras, vel imagines interpretatur. Hoe au-
tem ideo, ut sciamus quid Judicum libro Tuerapnim sonet. (Jud.
xvii. 5.) Hieronymi Questionum Hebraic. in Genesim. Opera, Vol. 1, —
p. 535. edit. Martianay. |
[2 καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία. Coloss. iii. 5. “ Et
avaritiam, que est simulacrorum servitus.” Vulg. ‘‘ And covetousness,
which is worshipping of idols.” Tyndale, Cranmer. “And covetousness, —
which is idolatry.” Geneva, Authorised. ‘‘ And covetousness, which
is worshipping of images.” Bishops’ Bible. “ And avarice, which is
the service of idols.” Rheims. |

yA
1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 107

acceptation of an idol. But of this matter enough at this
time.

Martin. If the apostle say, a Pagan idolater, and a Christian idol- Marri, 6.
ater, by one and the same Greek word, in one and the same meaning ; τς δὶ
and they translate, a Pagan idolater, and a Christian worshipper of rons.
images, by two distinct words and diverse meanings ; it must needs be TAD: ate 00s
done wilfully to the foresaid purpose. See chap. iii. numb. 8, 9.

Fulke. We translate not only pagan idolaters, but also Fuuxe, 6.

Jewish idolaters, nor Christians only worshippers of images,
but pagans also: wherefore this is a foolish observation.
And if we do any where explicate, who is an idolater, by
translating him a worshipper of images, both the word bear-
eth it, and it is not contrary to the sense of the scriptures,
in which we find the worshipping of images always forbidden,
but never commanded or allowed.

Martin. If they translate one and the same Greek word tradition, Mart, 7.
whensoever the scripture speaketh of evil traditions ; and never translate παράδοσις.
it so, whensoever it speaketh of good and apostolical traditions; their
intention is evident against the authority of traditions. See chap. ii.
numb. 1, 2, 3.

Fulke. This is answered sufficiently in confutation of Fuxxe, 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-
tamed 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 Marvin, 8.
is not in the Greek ; and translate it not so, where it is in the Greek, τί δογμα-
taken in good part ; it is more evidence of the foresaid wicked intention. ee:
See chap. ii. numb, 5, 6. .

[? τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ δογματίζεσθε; Col. ii. 20. “Quid adhuc
tamquam viventes in mundo decernitis?” Vulg. ‘Are ye led with tra-
ditions of them that say?” Tyndale. “ Are ye led with traditions?”

ΕσπΚΕ, 8.

Martin, 9.

Pag. 209.

108 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [om 7

Fulke. Our intention can be no worse than your vulgar
Latin interpreter’s was, who, where the Greek hath ἔθη,
translateth it traditions, Act. vi. And the right understanding
of the word δογματίζεσθε, according to the Apostle’s mean-
ing, will yield traditions, as well as ἔθη in the place before
mentioned.

}

Martin. If they make this a good rule, to translate according to the

usual signification, and not the original derivation of words, as Beza and

Master Whitakers do; and if they translate contrary to this rule, what
is it but wilful corruption? So they do in translating ido/um an image,

presbyter an elder ; and the like. See chap. iv. and chap. vi. numb.

FuLKe, 9.

6, 7, 8, &c., numb. 18, &e.

Fulke. Neither Beza, nor Master Whitaker, make it
a perpetual rule to translate according to the usual significa-
tion; for sometimes a word: is not taken in the usual signifi-
cation: as Fenerator', used by your vulgar Latin interpreter,
Luke vii., usually signifieth an usurer; yet do you translate
it a creditor. Likewise stabulum, used Luke x., usually
signifieth a stable, yet you translate it an mn. 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 idolwm 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 rule
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. π., n. 4.) | }
Γ᾿ Luke vii. 41. Avo χρεωφειλέται ἦσαν eer τινι. Vulgate;
“Duo debitores erant cuidam fceneratori.” Rhemish translation, “A

certain creditor.had two debtors.”

Luke x. 34. ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς πανδοχεῖον. Vulgate, “duxit in sta-
bulum”, rendered by the Rhemish translator, “brought him to an
inn. .
Mark viii. 10. ἐμβὰς εἰς τὸ πλοῖον. Vulg. “ascendens navim.”

Rhemish translation, “ going up into the boat.” : ᾿
Luke v. 8. ἐδίδασκεν ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου τοὺς ὄχλους. Vulgate, “do-

cebat de navicula turbas.” Rhemish version, “he taught the multi-
tudes out of a ship.” ;

22

a

1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 109

Martin. If presbyter; by ecclesiastial use, be appropriated to signify Martin,
a priest, no less than episcopus to signify a bishop, or diaconus a m,
deacon ; and if they translate these two latter accordingly, and the first
never in all the New Testament ; what can it be but wilful corruption in Whitak.
favour of this heresy, that there are no priests of the New Testament ? ” nye
_ See chap. vi. numb. 12.

Fulke. The word priest, by popish abuse, is commonly Futxx,10.
taken for a sacrificer, the same that sacerdos in Latin. But
the Holy Ghost never calleth the ministers of the word and
sacraments of the New ‘Testament ἱερεῖς, or sacerdotes.
Therefore the translators, to make a difference between
the ministers of the Old Testament and them of the New,
ealleth the one, according to the usual acception, priests,
and the other, according to the original derivation, elders.
Which distinction seeing the vulgar Latin text doth always
rightly observe, it is in favour of your heretical sacrificing
priesthood, that you corruptly translate sacerdos and pres-
byter always, as though they were all one, a priest, as though
the Holy Ghost had made that distinction in vain, or that
there were no difference between the, priesthood of the New
Testament and the Old. The name of priest, according to
the original derivation from presbyter, we do not refuse :
but according to the common acception for a sacrificer, we
cannot take it, when it is spoken of the ministry of the New
Testament. And although many of the ancient fathers have
abusively confounded the terms of sacerdos and presbyter,
yet that is no warrant for us to translate the scripture, and
to confound that which we see manifestly the Spirit of God
hath distinguished. For this cause we have translated the
Greek word πρεσβύτερος an elder, even as your vulgar Latin
translator doth divers times, as Acts xv.” and xx.*; 1 Pet. v.*,

[3 Acts xv. 22. Tére ἔδοξε τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις.
The Vulgate translates, “tunc placuit apostolis et senioribus.” This
latter word is rendered “elders” by the translations of 1534; 1539, and
Geneva, 1557. “ Auncients,” by the Rhemish version. |

Γ᾽ Acts xx. 17. μετεκαλέσατο τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους. Vulgate, “ Vocavit
majores.” |

[4 1 Pet. v. 1. mpeaButépovs τοὺς ἐν ὑμῖν παρακαλῶ. Vulgate,
“Seniores ergo, qui in vobis sunt.” Rhemish version, “The seniors
therefore that are among you.”

See also Acts ii. 17, καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, &e. Vulgate, “Seniores.”
Acts iv. 5. 14.:

Martin,
11.

FuLKE,
11.

τῷ RTIN,

110 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

and elsewhere calleth them seniores or majores natu,
which you commonly call the ancients, or seniors, be-
cause you dare not speak English, and say “the elders.”
Neither is presbyter by ecclesiastical use so appropriated to
signify a priest, that you would always translate it so in the
Old Testament, where your vulgar translator useth it for a
name of office and government, and not for priests at any
time. Neither do we always translate the Greek word
episcopus and diaconus for a bishop and a deacon, but some-
times for an overseer, as Act. xx., and a minister generally
oftentimes. ,

The word baptisma, by ecclesiastical use, signifieth the
holy sacrament of baptism; yet are you enforced, Mark vii.,
to translate baptismata “ washings.” Even so do we, to ob-
serve that distinction, which the apostles and evangelists
always do keep, when we call sacerdotes priests, for differ-
ence we call presbyteros elders, and not lest the name of
priests should enforce the popish sacrifice of the mass. For
this word presbyter will never comprehend a sacrificer, or
a sacrificing priesthood.

Martin. If for God’s altar they translate temple, and for Bel’s idolo-
latrical table they translate altar ; judge whether it be not of purpose
against our altars, and in favour of their communion-table. See chap.
xvii. numb. 15, 16.

Fulke. If there be any such mistaking of one word
for another, I think it was the fault of the printer rather
than of the translator; for the name of altar is more than
a hundred times in the bible: and unto the story of Bel
we attribute so small credit, that we will take no testimony
from thence, to prove or disprove anything.

Martin. If at the beginning of their heresy, when sacred images
were broken in pieces, altars digged down, the catholic church’s autho-
rity defaced, the king made supreme head, then their translation was
made accordingly; and if afterward, when these errors were well estab-
lished in the realm, and had taken root in the people’s hearts, all was
altered and changed in their later translations, and now they could not
find that in the Greek, which was in the former translation ; what was
it at the first, but wilful corruption to serve the time that then was?
See chap. ili. 5. chap. xvii. numb. 15, chap. xv. numb. 22.

Oo.

1.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 111

Fulke. For images, altars, the catholic church’s autho- Furxe,
rity, the king’s supremacy, nothing is altered in the latter 1
translations, that was falsely translated in the former, except
perhaps the printer’s fault be reformed. Neither can any
thing be proved to maintain the popish images, altars, church’s
authority, or pope’s supremacy, out of any translation of the
scriptures, or out of the original itself. Therefore our trans-
lations were not framed according to the time; but if any
thing were not uttered so plamly or so aptly as it might,
why should not one translation help another ?

Martin. If at the first revolt, when none were noted for heretics Martin,
and schismatics but themselves, they did not once put the names of “*
schism or heresy in the bible!, but instead thereof division and sect, Bib. 1562.
insomuch that for an heretic they said, an author of sects; what may anny
we judge of it but as of wilful corruption? See chap. iv. numb. 3.

Fulke. Yes, reasonable men may judge, that they did Furxe,
it to shew unto the ignorant people, what the names of es
schismatic and heretic do signify, rather than to make them
believe, that heresy and schism was not spoken against in
the scripture. That they translated heresy sect, they did
it by example of your vulgar Latin interpreter, who, in the
24th of the Acts, translateth the Greek word αἱρέσεως sect.

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. Αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν vov-
θεσίαν παραιτοῦ. 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.” ]

[? Acts xxiv. 5. τῆς τῶν Ναζωραίων αἱρέσεως. Vulgate, “Secte
Nazarenorum.” Rhemish version, “Sect of the Nazarenes.” “Sect of
the Nazarites,” edit. 1534, 1539, 1557.]

ΕὙΤΚΕ,
14.

112 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH” [om

king as having pre-eminence.” So did Beza first translate earcase, and 7

afterward soul’. Which alteration in all these places is so great, that it
could not be negligence at the first or ignorance, but a plain heretical |
intention. See chap. xvii. numb. 15, chap. v. numb. 4,-5, chap. xv.
numb. 22, chap. vii. numb. 2.

Fulke. N ay, 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 saymg, “the king as having ©
pre-eminence,” doth nothing derogate unto the former, and
the former is contained under the latter. For I hope you
will grant, that the king is chief head of his people; or if
the word head displease you (because you are so good a
Frenchman), tell us what chief doth signify, but an head?
Now this place of Peter speaketh not particularly of the
king’s authority over the Church, or in church matters:
therefore if it had been translated ‘“ supreme head,” we could
have gained no greater argument for the supremacy in ques-
tion, than we may by the word pre-eminence, or by the
word extolling, which you use*. That Beza altered the word
cadaver into animam, I have shewed he did it to avoid —

[2 Οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ἅδου. “Non derelinques E
animam meam,” Edit. 1582. “Non derelinques cadaver meum,” Edit. —
1556. Novy. Test, Beze. “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in ©
grave,” New Test. translated out of Greek by Beza, Englished by —
L. Tomson. C. Barker, 1583. fol. ]

[? Eztolling a mistake apparently for excelling. The translations a
alluded to here are of 1 Pet. ii. 18: Ὑποτάγητε οὖν πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ
κτίσει διὰ τὸν Κύριον᾽ εἴτε βασιλεῖ, ὡς ὑπερέχοντι. “Whether it be
unto the king as unto the chief head,” Tyndale, 1534; Cranmer, 1ὅ89:
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.] | aq

ae
1.] 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 Marry,

that namely, which now is read in their churches?: and if that which !*

is now read in their churches, differ in the points aforesaid from that

that was read in their churches in king Edward’s time; and if from

both these they fly to the Geneva bible, and from that again to the

other aforesaid: what shall we judge of the one or the other, but that

all is voluntary, and as they list? See chap. iii. numb. 10, 11, 12, chap.

x. numb. 12.

Fulke. If of three translations we prefer that which Futxe,
is the best, what sign of corruption is this? If any fault ἴδ"
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 chapter, concerning the translation of
édolum, is no flying from our translation to another, but
a confuting of Howlet’s cavil against our church service ;
because this word is therein read translated an image,

1 John v.‘, whereas in that bible, which by authority is
to be read in the church service, the word in the text is
idols, and not images; and yet will we justify the other to
be good and true, which readeth, “ Babes, keep yourselves

[? Archbishop Parker’s translation, commonly called the Bishops’
Bible, was first printed in folio in the year 1568, and in 4to. in
1569. It was ordered, in the Convocation of 1571, (Wilkins, Conc.
Vol. tv. p. 263.) that copies should be provided by all dignitaries for
their private houses, and by all church officers for the use of their
eathedral and parish churches. (See Constitutions and Canons Eccle-
siastical, in Dr Cardwell’s Synodalia, Vol. 1. p. 123. Documentary
Annals, Vol. u. p. 11.) The edition quoted in these notes is that
printed by Barker, fol. 1584.

The Injunctions of Edw. VI. 1547, do not specify what particular
translation shall be used: neither do Queen Elizabeth’s in 1559. |

[* Texvia, φυλάξατε ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων, 1 Johnv.21. “ Filioli,
custodite vos a simulacris,” Vulgate. “Babes, keep yourselves from
images,” Tyndale, 1534; Cranmer, 1539. “ Babes, keep yourselves
from idols,” Geneva, 1557, 1560 ; Bishops’ Bible, 1584 ; Rhemish, 1582 ;
Authorised Version, 1611. ]

[ruLKe. | :

Ma erin:
16.

FuLKE,
16.

Martin,
17.

FuLke,
17.

114 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ἀπὸ

from images,’ as your vulgar Latin text is @ stmulacris,
wherein you fly from your own authentical text to the Greek, —
which, except you think it make for your purpose, you are
not ashamed to count falsified and corrupted. ~

Martin. If they gladly use these words in ill part, where they are
not in the original text, procession, shrines, devotions, excommunicate,
images; and avoid these words which are in the original, hymns,
grace, mystery, sacrament, church, altar, priests, catholic traditions,
justifications ; is it not plain that they do it of purpose to disgrace or
suppress the said things and speeches used in the catholic church? See
chap. xxi. numb. 5, and seq. chap. xii. numb. 3.

Fulke. Who would be so mad, but. blind malice, to
think they would disgrace or suppress the things or names
of catholic church, whereof they acknowledge themselves
members; of grace, by which they confess they are saved ;
of hymns, which they use to the praise of God; of justi-
fications,. when they profess they are of themselves unjust; —
of sacraments and mysteries, by which the benefits of Christ —
are sealed up unto them; of altar, when they believe that
Jesus Christ is our altar; of priests, when they hold that
all good Christians are priests; of devotions, when they
dispute that ignorance is not the mother of true devotion, —
but knowledge; of excommunication, which they practise daily? —
As for the names. and things of procession, shrines, images,
traditions beside the holy Scriptures in religion, they have
just cause to abhor. Neither do they use the one sort of
terms, without probable ground out of the original text; —
nor avoid the other, but upon some good special cause, as —
in the several places (when we are charged with them) shall —
appear.

Martin. If in a case that maketh for them they strain the very —
original signification of the word, and in a case that maketh against —
them they neglect it altogether; what is this but wilful and of pur-
pose? See chap. vii. numb. 36. .

Fulke. Tanswer, we strain no words to signify other-

wise than the nature and use of them will afford us, ©

neither do we spare to express that which hath a shew against —
us, if the property or usual signification of the word, with —
the circumstance of the place, do so require it. |

a

1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 115

Martin. Jf in words of ambiguous and diverse signification they Marriy,
will have it signify here or there as it pleaseth them; and that so 18
vehemently, that here it must needs so signify, and there it must not;
and both this and that to one end, and in favour of one and the
same opinion; what is this but wilful translation? So doth Beza urge Bezain _
γυναῖκα to signify wife, and not to signify wife, both against virginity ie,
and chastity of priests: and the English bible translateth accordingly. 3!”
See chap. xv. numb. 11, 12.

Fulke. To the general charge I answer generally, Fuxxe,
We do not as you slander us; nor Beza, whom you shame- 18.
fully belie, to urge the word γυναῖκα, 1 Cor. vii. 1. not to
signify a wife, against virginity and chastity of priests; for
clean contrariwise, he reproveth Erasmus restraining it to
a wife, which the apostle 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. δ",

[ Bonum fuerit viro mulierem non attingere, is the rendering of
Beza’s version, upon which he has these remarks: Mulierem non at-
tingere, γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι. Erasmus, uxorem non attingere, id est,
(ut ipse interpretatur) ab uxore ducenda abstinere. Ego vero existi-
mo Paulum verbo ἅπτεσθαι significasse in genere viri cum muliere
congressum: quem tamen per se non damnat, quum eo velit homines
ut remedio uti, idque in matrimonio, si continere se non possint, minime
id facturus si malum esset conjugium. Nam precipit quidem humana
prudentia, ut ex duobus malis quod minus malum est eligamus:
ehristiana vero religio contra, ut quicquid malum est sine ulla ex-
ceptione vitemus. Falsa est igitur Hieronymi doctrina, qui adversus
Jovinianum disserens, verbum ἅπτεσθαι ita urget, quasi in ipso etiam
mulieris contactu sit periculum: quum constet virum non minus bona
conscientia uti posse ac debere uxore sua quam esca et potu, ut
recte defendit Augustinus. Nov. Test. 1556.]

[? The words are (1 Cor. ix. 5.), μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν
γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι : Translated in Tyndale’s
version of 1534: “Either, have we not power to lead about a sister
to wife, as well as other apostles?” In Cranmer’s, 1539: “Have we
not power to lead about a sister to wife, as well as other apostles?”
In the Geneva version, 1557: “Either, have we not power to lead
about a wife, being a sister, as well as other apostles?” The Rhemish

8—2

116 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH. [cH.

Beza doth truly translate ἀδελφὴν “γυναῖκα, “a sister to wife,”
because the word sister is first placed, which comprehendeth
a woman, and therefore the word «γυναῖκα following must
needs explicate, what woman he meaneth, namely, a wife.
For it were absurd to say, a sister a woman. Therefore
the vulgar Latin interpreter perverteth the words, and saith,
mulierem sororem. It is true, that many of the ancient fathers,
as too much addict to the singleness of the clergy, though
they did not altogether condemn marriage in them, as the
papists do, did expound the sister, whereof St Paul speaketh,
of certain rich matrons, which followed the apostles whither-
soever they went, and ministered to them of their substance ; as
we read that many did to our Saviour Christ, Matt. xxvii. 55.
Luke viii. 8. But that exposition cannot stand, nor agree
with this text for many causes. First, the placing of the
words, which I have before spoken of. Secondly, this word,
γυναῖκα, were needless, except it should signify a wife: for
the word sister signifieth both a woman and ἃ faithful
woman; and otherwise it was not to be doubted, lest the
apostle would lead a heathen woman with him. Thirdly,
the apostle speaketh of one woman, and not many ; whereas
there were many that followed our Saviour Christ, whereas
one alone to follow the apostle might breed occasion of ill
suspicion and offence, which many could not so easily.
Fourthly, those that are mentioned in the gospel our Saviour
Christ did not lead about, but they did voluntarily follow
him: but the apostle here saith, that he had authority, as
the rest of the apostles, to lead about a woman, which ar-
gueth the right that an husband hath over his wife, or of
a master over his maid. Fifthly, it is not all one, if women
could travel out of Galilee to Jerusalem, which was nothing
near an hundred miles, that women could follow the apostles
into all parts of the world. Sixthly, if the cause why such
women are supposed to have followed the apostles, was to
minister to them of their substance, the leading them about
was not burdenous to the church, but helpful: but the apostle
testifieth, that he forbare to use this liberty, because he would

version, 1582, has it: “Have we not power to lead about a woman, a
sister, as also the rest of the apostles?” The Authorised Version,
1611: “ Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as
other apostles?” ]

1] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE 117

not be burdenous to the church of Corinth, or to any of
them. Seventhly, seeing it is certain that Peter had a wife,
and the rest of the apostles are by antiquity reputed to have
been all married; it is not credible that Peter, or any of
the rest, would leave the company of their own wives, and
lead. strange women about with them. As for the objection
that you make in your note upon the text, To what end
should he talk of burdening the Corinthians with finding
his wife, when he himself clearly saith that he was single ?
I answer, Although I think he was single, yet is it not so
clear as you make it; for Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh
he had a wife, which he left at Philippi by mutual consent.
But albeit he were single, it was lawful for him to have
married, and Barnabas also, as well as all the rest of the
apostles. Again, to what end should he talk of burdening
the church with a woman, which was not his wife, when
such women, as you say, ministered to the apostles of their
goods? Whereby it should follow, that none of the apostles
burdened the churches where they preached with their own
finding, which is clean contrary to the apostle’s words and
meaning. Wherefore the translation of Beza, and of our
church, is most true and free from all corruption.

Martin, If the puritans and grosser Calvinists disagree about the Martin,
translations, one part preferring the Geneva English bible, the other the a
bible read in their church ; and if the Lutherans condemn the Zuinglians’
and Calvinists’ translations, and contrariwise ; and if all sectaries reprove
each another’s translation; what doth it argue, but that the translations
differ according to their diverse opinions? See their books written one
against another.

Fulke. Here again is nothing but a general charge of Furxz,
disagreeing about translations, of puritans and Calvinists, Lu- 19:
therans and Zuinglians, and of all sectaries reproving one ano-
ther’s translation, with as general a demonstration, ‘See the
books written one against another ;” which would ask longer
time than is needful to answer such a vain cavil, when it
is always sufficient to deny that which is affirmed without
certain proof.

Martin,

Martin. If the. English Geneva bibles themselves dare not follow 20.

their master Beza, whom they profess to translate, because in their (Uké"7,°°

118 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu τ

avr Ἴδα 21; opinion he goeth wide, and that in places of controversy; how wilful

2 Thess. ἢ ii, 15. was he in so translating! See chap. xii. numb. 6,.8 ; chap. xiii. numb. 1.
an

Funke, Fulke. Τὸ is a very impudent slander. The Geneva
50, bibles do not profess to translate out of Beza’s Latin trans-
lation’, but out of the Hebrew and Greek ; and if they agree
not always with Beza, what is that to the purpose, if they
agree with the truth of the original text? Beza oftentimes
followeth the purer phrase of the Latin tongue, which they
neither would nor might follow in the English. If in dis-
senting from Beza, or Beza from them, they or he dissent
from the truth, it is of human frailty, and not of heretical
wilfulness. The places being examined shall discover your —
vanity. ὃ

Martin, Martin. If for the most part they reprehend the old vulgar trans-

21. lation, and appeal to the Greek ; and yet in places of controversy some- —
time for their more advantage (as they think) they leave the Greek, —
and follow our Latin translation; what is it else, but voluntary and —
partial translation? See chap. ii. numb. 8, chap. vi. numb. 10, 21,
chap. vii. numb. 39, chap. x. numb. 6.

Furxe, Fulke. We never leave the Greek to follow your vulgar q
re translation, as in the places by you quoted I will prove mani- —
festly: but I have already proved that you leave the Latin —
and appeal to the Greek, in translating simulacra, idols, —
Col. iu. and 1 John v.

Martin, Martin. If otherwise they avoid this word justifications’ altogether,
“ll Luke1. 2nd yet translate it when they cannot choose, but with a commentary —
fom. ji. 9, that it signifieth good works that are testimonies of a lively faith; doth —
Bezain , not this heretical commentary shew their heretical meaning, when they

avoid the word altogether? See chap. viii. numb. 1, 2, 3.

ταν, Fulke. To avoid the word altogether, and yet sometime ἢ
: to translate it, I see not how they can stand together; for

[‘ The Geneva bible, edit. Rouland Hall, 1560, professes, on the —
title page, to be “translated according to the Ebrue and Greke, and —
conferred with the best translations in divers languages.’ ] Ὶ

[? πορευόμενοι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασι. Luke i. 6.
**Incedentes in omnibus mandatis et constitutionibus.” Vulgate. “ Ince- —
dentes in omnibus mandatis et constitutionibus.” Beza’s version. —
“Going in all the maundementis and justifiyngis.” Wiclif. “Walked
in all the laws and ordinances.” Tyndale, Cranmer. “Commandments —
and ordinances.” Geneva, Bishops’ Bible, Authorised. ]

47. TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 119

he that doth sometimes translate it, doth not altogether avoid.
it. But you will say, they do altogether avoid it in all such
places where they do not translate it. That is altogether
false; for the Geneva translation, Luke i.*, telleth you that
the Greek word signifieth justifications, and yieldeth a rea-
son why it doth in that place otherwise translate it: and
if to translate the Greek word δικαίωμα otherwise than
justification, must needs shew an heretical meaning, then must
you needs say, that your vulgar Latin translator had an
heretical meaning; for in the second place by you quoted,
namely, Rom. ii. 26, he translateth it justitias‘, likewise
Rom. i. 32°, justitiam, so likewise Rom. v. 18°. And if it be
an heretical commentary, to say that good works are a
testimony of a lively faith, you will also condemn the apostles
of heresy, which teach it to be impossible to please God
without faith, Heb. xi., and that whatsoever is not of faith,
is sin, Rom. xiy., if there be any good works that are
not testimonies of a lively faith. But it is sufficient for you
to call what you will heresy, and heretical falsification, and
corruption; for your disciples are bound to believe you,
though you say the gospel be heresy, and the apostles them-
selves heretics. Gregory Martin calleth this an heretical
commentary: what need you seek other proof?

Martin. When by adding to the text at their pleasure they make Marry,
the apostle say, that by Adam’s offence sin came on all men, but that 23.
by Christ’s justice the benefit only abounded toward all men, not that Ro; 18.
justice came on all; whereas the apostle maketh the case alike, with- 1680. Bi».
out any such iw additions, to wit, that we are truly made just by Rom. v.19.
Christ, as by Adam we are made sinners: is not this most wilful cor-
ruption for their heresy of imputative and phantastical justice? See
chap. xi. numb. 1.

[5 The Geneva Bible 1560, has this note on Luke i. 6. “The Greek
word signifieth justifications, whereby is meant the outward observation
of the ceremonies commanded by God.” |

[* Ta δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ. Rom. ii. 26. “Justitias legis
custodiat. ἤ Vulgate. 1

Γ οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες. Rom. i. 82. “Qui cum
justitiam Dei cognovissent.” Vulg. |

[Ὁ οὕτω καὶ δὲ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, εἰς δικαίωσιν
ζωῆς. Rom. v. 18. “Sic et per unius justitiam in omnes homines in
justificationem vite.” δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται of πολλοί. Rom. v. 19.
“Many schuln be just.” Wiclif. “Shall many be made righteous.”
Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised. ]

Fuk,
23.

120 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

Fulke. The verse by you quoted, Rom. vy. 18', is a
manifest eclipsis or defective speech, to make any sense
whereof there must needs be added a nominative case and
a verb. Now by what other nominative case and verb may
the sense be supplied, but by that which the apostle him-
self giveth before, ver. 15,? unto which all that followeth
must be referred for explication: where he saith, as you
yourselves translate it, “If by the offence of one many
died, much more the grace of God and the gift in the
grace of one man Jesus Christ hath abounded upon many.”
Seeing therefore that defective speech must be supplied for
understanding in this probation, what is so apt as that which
the apostle himself hath expressed before in the proposition ?
Although you in your translation are not disposed to supply
it, because you had rather the text should be obscure and
wondered at, than that it should be plain and easy, or able
to be understood: albeit in other places you stick not to
add such words as be necessary for explication of the text,
as every translator must do, if he will have any sense to
be understood in his translation. For that defective speech,
which in some tongue is well understood, in some other

[? “Therefore as by the guilt of one into all men into condemna-
tion, so by the righteousness of one into all men into justifying of
life.” Wiclif. ‘Likewise, then, as by the sin of one condemnation
came on all men, even so by the justifying of one cometh the right-
eousness that bringeth life upon all men.” Tyndale. “ Likewise, then,
as by the offence of one giltship came on all men to condemnation ;
even so, by the justifying of one, the benefit abounded upon all men
to the justification of life.” Geneva. ‘Therefore, as by the offence of
one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so, by the
righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification _
of life.” Authorised version.

“Apa οὖν ὡς δ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, εἰς
κατάκριμα᾽ οὕτω καὶ δὲ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος, εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, εἶς
δικαίωσιν ζωῆς.

“As by the sin of one (sin came) on all men to condemnation ;
even so by the righteousness of one (good came) upon all men, even
to the righteousness of life.” Rom. v. 18. edit. Jugge. 1568.

“ Likewise, then, as by the offence of one (the fault came) on all
men to condemnation ; 80 by the justifying of one (the benefit abound-
ed) toward all men to the justification of life.” Rom. ν, 18. edit.
1579.]

1.] 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 u. Post dies*, “after some days.”
Accumberet, “he sat at meat;”’ and many such like. But
where you charge our translation to say, the benefit (only)
abounded toward all men, not that justice came on all; you
do shamefully add to our translation: for the word ‘only’ is
of your own slanderous addition, and the rest is your mali-
cious collection. For we mean not to extenuate the benefit
of Christ’s redemption, but by all means to set it forth to.
the uttermost: as the word ‘abounded’ doth shew, if you
do not blemish the light of it by your blockish addition
of this word ‘only’. And that we are truly made just by
Christ, and yet by imputation, as we are truly made sinners
by Adam, and yet partly by imputation, as we are actually
by corruption, we do at all times and in all places most wil-
lingly confess: for the justice of Christ which is imputed
unto us by faith, is no false or phantastical justice, as you
do no less blasphemously than phantastically affirm; but a
true and effectual justice, by which we are so truly made
just, that we shall receive for it the crown of justice, which
is eternal life, as the apostle proveth at large, Rom. iv. and
v., whom none but an hell-hound will bark against, that
he defendeth “imputative and phantastical justice.”

Martin. But in this case of justification, when the question is Marrm,
whether only faith justify, and we say no, having the express words of gol ii, 14.
St James ; they say, yea, having no express scripture for it: if in this Pom. ti. 28
case they will add ‘only’ to the very text, is it not most horrible and £0}. 405. edit.
devilish corruption? So did Luther, whom our English protestants 160 ὑπ. Whitak,
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, Fouxx,
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

[? “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 saith’ “that a man is justified by faith without the
works of the law,” speaketh more plainly for justification by
faith only (as we do teach it), than if he had said a man is
justified by faith only. Which text of Rom. iii., and many
other, are as express scripture to prove that we teach and
believe, as that St James saith against justification by faith
only, where he speaketh of another faith, and of another
justification, than St Paul speaketh of, and we understand,
when we hold that a man is justified by faith only, or
without works of the law, which is all one.

Martin, Martin. If these that account themselves the great Grecians and
ash aa Hebricians of the world, will so translate for the advantage of their cause,

rance ofthe as though they had no skill in the world, and as though they knew
Greek and 3 ae: Ν, ὃ ὲ ἣ
Hebrew neither the signification of words, nor propriety of phrases in the said
ther false language; is it not to be esteemed shameless corruption ἢ ;
and wilful

translation

thereof Fulke. Yes; but if it cannot be proved that so they
Know edge translate, then is this an impudent slander, as all the rest
;? are; and so it will prove when it cometh to be tried.
Marr, Martin. I willnot speak of the German heretics, who to maintain this
26. heresy, that all our works, be they never so good, are sin, translated for

B ti -M ᾿ ᾽» “hes

Ianeth "See Tibi soli peceavi, “to thee only have I sinned,” thus, Tibi solum peccavi,
m 1, ὰ . . . >

Dial. 1,¢. 12. that is, I have nothing else but sinned: whatsoever I do, I sin :” whereas

Ey udu. neither the Greek nor the Hebrew will possibly admit that sense. Let

7725 7? these pass as Lutherans, yet wilful corrupters, and acknowledged of our
Whitak. pag- English protestants for their good brethren. But if Beza translate,
108.

[+ Rom. iii. 28.]
[? Lindani Dubitantium Dialogus: de origine Sectarum hujus seculi.
Colonie. 1571. 8vo. Foppen’s Bib. Belg. p. 411.]

1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 123

ἔτι ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν“, “when we were yet of no strength,” as the Rom. v. 6.
Geneva English Bible also doth interpret it, whereas every young
Grecian knoweth that ἀσθενὴς is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether

without strength: is not this of purpose to take away man’s free will
aitogether? See chap. x. numb. 13.

Fulke. know not what German heretics those be which ge
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, W712? 7?
tantummodo tibi peccant, &e. “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 45
or tantwm ? and therefore it may as well be translated solum =
tibi, as soli tibi. And the apostle, Rom. i., proving by

the latter end of that verse all men to be unjust, that

God only may be true, and every man a har, as it is
written, “that thou mayest be justified in thy words,” &c.
favoureth that interpretation of Bucer, or whosoever it is
beside. “But if Beza translate ἔτε ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν,
‘when we were yet of no strength,’ as the Geneva English
Bible doth also interpret it, whereas. every young Grecian
knoweth that ἀσθενὴς is weak, feeble, infirm, and not al-
together without strength: is not this of purpose to take
away man’s free will altogether?” Chapter x. numb. 13.

Nay, it is to shew, as the apostle’s purpose is, that we have no
strength to fulfil the law of God without the grace of Christ ;

[? “Quum adhuc nullis viribus essemus.” Beza’s version, edit. 1556.
“Quum adhuc infirmi essemus.” Vulg. Rom. v. 6.]

124 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Ὁ

even as Christ himself saith, “Without me you can do nothing,”
John xv. 5. But every young Grecian (say you) knoweth
that ἀσθενὴς is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether with-
out strength. And is there then any old*Grecian that will
prove, that ἀσθενὴς alway signifieth him that is weak, but
not void of strength? Doth ἀσθενὴς always signify him
that hath some strength? Certain it is, that the apostle
speaketh here of those that were void of strength; for the
same he calleth in the same verse ἀσεβεῖς, wngodly, or void
of religion, for whom Christ died. How say you then? had
ungodly persons any strength to be saved, except Christ had
died for them? Therefore he that in this place translateth
ἀσθενής, weak, feeble, infirm, must needs understand men so
weak, feeble, and infirm, as they have no strength. For
how might it else be truly said, “ What hast thou that thou
hast not received?” 1 Cor. iv. 7. Yes, say you, we have —
some piece of free will at least, some strength to climb to
heaven, even without the grace of God, without the death
and redemption of Christ. If you say no, why cavil you
at Beza’s translation and ours? The Greek word ἀσθενὴς,
as great a Grecian as you would make yourself, signifieth
weak or infirm, sometime that which yet hath some strength,
sometime that which hath no strength at all, as I will give
you a plain example out of St Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 43. The
dead body is sown ev ἀσθενείᾳ, in weakness: it riseth again
in power. Doth not weakness here signify privation of
all strength? It is marvel but you will say, a dead —
body is not altogether void of strength. Beza telleth you —
out of St Paul, Rom. vii. 6, that the wisdom of the
flesh without Christ is death, it is enmity against God, it —
is neither subject unto the law: of God, neither can it be: —
where is the strength of free will that you complain to be —
taken away by our translation? Beza doth also tell you, |
that St Paul calleth all the ceremonies of the law ἀσθενῆ, as —
they are separated from the Spirit of Christ, the weak and —
beggarly elements, Gal. iv. Are they not void of strength —
and riches, which are void of Christ’s grace and Spirit?
But your purpose was only to quarrel, and seek a knot —
in a rush; and therefore you regarded not what Beza hath
written to justify his translation.

1.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 125

Martin. If Calvin translate, Non ego, sed gratia Dei que mihi aderat, Martin,
may not mean Grecians control him, that he also translateth falsely { ρον. xy.
against free will, because the preposition σὺν doth require some other 7 σὺν ἐμοί.
participle to be understood, that should signify a co-operation with free
will, to wit, συγκοπιάσασα, “which laboured with me”? See chap. x.
numb, 2.

Fulke. The Greek is, ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ σὺν ἐμοὶ, Εσπκε,
“the grace of God which is with me.” A mean Grecian will “
rather understand the verb substantive, than the participle,
as you do, and then must needs again understand the verb
ἐκοπίασε, “hath laboured.” For thus the sense must be, if
your participle be understood, ‘I have laboured more than
they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which laboured
with me, hath laboured. Who would commit such a vain
tautology? The sense is therefore plain, which the apostle’s
words do yield in the judgment of better Grecians than
ever G. Martin was, or will be. ‘I have not laboured
more than the rest of the apostles, of mine own strength
or will; but the grace of God which is in me, or with me,
hath given me greater strength and ability to travail in
the gospel, than to them.’ But you are afraid lest it should
be thought, that the apostle had done nothing, like unto a
block, forced only: a blockish fear, and a forced collection.
For when the apostle first saith, he hath laboured, and after
denieth, and saith, I have not laboured; what sensible man
will not gather, that in the former he laboured as a man
endued with life, sense, and reason, and in the latter that
he laboured not by his own strength or virtue, but by the
grace of God, to which he attributeth all that he is in
such respect? “ΒΥ the grace of God I am that I am,” saith
he; which manifestly excludeth natural free will, to that
which is good and appertaining to the glory of God. For
which cause he denieth that he laboured more than the
rest: “Not I, but the grace of God which was present with
me.”

Martin. If when the Hebrew beareth indifferently, to say, Sin lieth Martin,
at the door’; and unto thee the desire thereof shall be subject, and thou τᾶ ιν. ἢ
shalt rule over it ; the Geneva English bible translate the first without 4, 1579,

[Γ᾿ Explained in the margin, “Sin shall still torment thy conscience.”
Geneva bible, 1560. |

FuLKE,
28.

ya
ONO
wy

Martin,
29

Calv. in 5.

ebr.
Bib. an. 1579.

FuLKE,
29.

126 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

scruple, and the latter not, because of the Hebrew grammar ; is not this
also most wilful against free will? See chap. x. numb. 9.

Fulke. 1 grant this to be done willingly against free
will, but yet no false nor corrupt translation. For in the
participle robets, which signifieth lying, is a manifest enal-
lage or change of the gender, to declare that in chataoth,
which word being of the feminine gender signifieth sin, is
to be understood auon, or some such word as signifieth the
punishment of sin, which may agree with the participle in
the masculine gender, that the antithesis may be perfect.
‘If thou doest well, shall there not be reward or remission ?
if thou doest evil, the punishment of thy sin is at hand.’
But that the latter end of the verse can not be referred to
sin, but unto Cain, not only the grammar, but also the plain
words and sense of the place, doth convince. For that which
is said of the appetite, must have the same sense, which
the same words have before, of the appetite of Eve towards
her husband Adam, that in respect of the law of nature, and
her infirmity, she should desire to be under his government,
and that he should have dominion over her. So Abel the
younger brother should be affected toward his elder brother
Cain, to whom by the law of nature he was loving and
subject, and therefore no cause why Cain should envy him
as he did. Otherwise it were a strange meaning, that sin,
which is an insensible thing, should have an appetite or
desire toward Cain, who rather had an appetite to sin, than
sin to him. But you are so greedy of the latter part, that
you consider not the former. I know what the Jewish
rabbins, favourers of heathenish free will, absurdly do ima-
gine to salve the matter; but that which I have said may
satisfy godly Christians.

Martin. If Calvin affirm that ἀπὸ εὐλαβείας cannot signify propter
reverentiam, because ἀπὸ is not so used, and Beza avoweth the same —
more earnestly, and the English bible translateth accordingly, (which may
be confuted by infinite examples in the scripture itself, and is confuted
by Illyricus the Lutheran ;) is it not a sign either of passing ignorance, —
or of most wilful corruption, to maintain the blasphemy that hereupon 4
they conclude ξ See chap. vii. numb. 42, 48. τὸ

Fulke. Tf Beza, Calvin, and the English translations be
deceived about the use of the preposition ἀπὸ, it proveth

1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 127

not that they are deceived in the translation of the word
εὐλαβείας, which is the matter in question. They have
other reasons to defend it, than the use of the preposition,
although you slander Calvin in saying he affirmeth that ἀπὸ
is not used for propter, For he saith no more, but that the
preposition is ἀπὸ not ὑπὲρ, or some such like, that may
design a cause, gue causam designet; that is, that certainly
may pomt out a cause, and cannot otherwise be taken.
Likewise Beza saith, Atqui non facile mihi persuaserim,
proferri posse ullum exemplum in quo ἀπὸ ita usurpetur:
‘But I cannot easily persuade myself, that any example may
be brought forth, in which ἀπὸ is so used,’ that is, for propter,
or secundum, for which διὰ, κατὰ, or ὑπὲρ were more proper
and usual. Now, if Illyricus have helped you with a few
examples where azo is so taken, what say Beza or Calvin
against it, but that it doth not usually and certainly sig-
nify so? Their judgment upon the place remaineth still
grounded upon other arguments, although that reason of
the acception of azo be not so strong, as if ἀπὸ had never
been so taken. But as for the blasphemy, you say, they con-
clude upon that’ place, [it] will redound upon your own neck;
for their exposition is honourable and glorious to God the
Father, and Christ his Son, and to the Holy Ghost, by
whom that epistle was indited, to the confusion of your
popish blasphemies, of the sacrifice propitiatory offered in
the mass.

Martin. If Beza in the self-same place contend, that εὐλάβεια Martin,
doth not signify reverence or piety, but such a fear as hath horror and
astonishment of mind ; and in another place saith of the self-same word
clean contrary ; what is it but of purpose to uphold the said blasphemy 2
See chap. vii. numb. 39, 40.

Fulke. Beza in the same place doth brmg many oi
examples to prove, that the Greek word εὐλάβεια doth
signify a great fear, and so is to be taken Heb. v. [71 But
it is an impudent lie to say, he doth contend that it never
signifieth reverence or piety: and therefore that he saith
it signifieth piety in another place, is nothing contrary to
that he spake in this place; for the word signifieth both, as
no man that will profess any knowledge in the Greek
tongue can deny.

Martin,
91.

πρόγνωσις.
Aesth 95

‘Annotat. in
No. Test.
post. edit.

Futxke,
91.

Martin,
32.

Annotat.in
one ii. 27.

νὼ

FULKE,

Martin,
33

128 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cn.

Martin. If he translate for God’s foreknowledge’, God’s providence;
for soul, carcase; for hell, grave”: to what end is this, but for certain
heretical conclusions? And if upon admonition he alter his translation

‘ for shame, and yet protesteth that he understandeth it as he did before;

did he not translate before wilfully according to his obstinate opinion?
See chap. vii.

Fulke. Beza doth indeed translate προγνώσει provi-
dentia ; but he expoundeth himself in his annotation: 7d est,
eterna cognitione. For what heretical conclusion he should
so do, you do not express, neither can I imagine. To
your other quarrels, of sowl and carcase, hell and grave, 1
have said enough in answer to your preface. Sects. 46
and 47.

Martin. If to this purpose he avouch that sheol signifieth nothing
else in Hebrew but a grave, whereas all Hebricians know that it is the
most proper and usual word in the scriptures for hell, as the other word
keber is for a grave; who would think he would so endanger his esti-
mation in the Hebrew tongue, but that an heretical purpose against
Christ’s decending into hell blinded him? See chap. vii.

Fulke. Nay, rather all learned Hebricians know, that
sheol is more proper for the grave, than for hell; and that
the Hebrews have no word proper for hell, as we take
hell, for the place of punishment of the ungodly, but either
they use figuratively sheol, or more certainly topheth, or
gehinnom. For sheol is in no place so necessarily to be —
taken for hell, but that it may also be taken for the grave, —
That keber signifieth the grave, it is no proof that sheol doth —
not signify the same; and therefore you shew yourself to —
be too young an Hebrician, to carp at Beza’s estimation in —
the knowledge of the tongue. |

Martin. And if all the English bibles translate accordingly, to wit, —
for hell grave, wheresoever the scripture may mean any lower place ~
that is not the hell of the damned ; and where it must needs signify that

[2 προγνώσει τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔκδοτον. Acts ii, 23. “Prescientia Dei traditum.” Ε
Vulgate. “ Providentia Dei deditum.” Beza. All the English versions
have foreknowledge, except the Rhemish, which has prescience.] =

Γ The versions of Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and of James, all —
render εἰς Gov hell; the only ones having grave, being the Genevan —
versions of 1557 and 1560. Ὶ

*‘Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in inferno.” Vulg.
“Cadaver meum in sepulecro.” Beza. Acts ii. 27.]

1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 129

hell, there they never avoid so to translate it; is it not an evident argu-
ment, that they know very well the proper signification, but of purpose
they will never use it to their disadvantage in the questions of limbus,
purgatory, Christ’s descending into hell? chap. vii.

Fulke. I have said before, there is no place in the Old Fuzxe,
Testament, where sheol must needs signify that hell, in™
which are the damned, but the place may be reasonably and
truly translated the grave: although, as in divers places
by death is meant eternal death, so by grave is meant
hell, or damnation. Concerning the questions of limbus,
purgatory, and the descending of Christ into hell, they are
nothing like: for the last is an article of our faith, which
we do constantly believe in the true understanding thereof ;
but the other are fables and inventions of men, which have
no ground, in the scripture, but only a vain surmise, builded
upon a wrong interpretation of the words of the scripture,
as in the peculiar places shall be plainly declared.

Martin. If further yet in this kind of controversy, Beza would be opm
bold to affirm (for so he saith), if the grammarians would give him leave, 94.
that chebel with five points signifieth funem, no less than chebel with six Acta i. 2.
points; is he not wonderfully set to maintain his opinion, that will ban
change the nature of words, if he might, for his purpose ? sn
Fulke. Wonderfully, I promise you; for he translateth woud tans.

ate, solutis

the word for all this, doloribus, and sayeth, Nihil tamen funibus mor-
ausus sum mutare ex coyectura: “Yet I durst change no- tis doloribus
thing upon conjecture.” Annotat. in Acts ii. 24°. You say, he Furxe,
would change the nature of words. Nothing so; but if the 34.
word might bear that signification, he thinketh it more
agreeable to the Hebrew phrase, which the evangelist doth

often follow. Is not this a great matter to make an evident

mark of corruption ?

Martin. If passives must be turned into actives, and actives into πόποι,
passives, participles disagree in case from their substantives, or rather be ®
plucked and separated from their true substantives, solecisms imagined,
where the construction is most agreeable, errors devised to creep out of
the margin, and such like; who would so presume in the text of holy
scriptures, to have all grammar, and words, and phrases, and construc-
tions at his commandment, but Beza and his like, for the advantage of

{® “Quem Deus suscitavit solutis doloribus mortis.” Beza. “Quem
Deus suscitavit solutis doloribus inferni.” Acts ii. 24. Vulg.]
9

[yurxs. ]

FuLkeE,

Martin,
6

36.
iii, 21.
Sétacba:t. himself misliketh, the Geneva English bible is afraid to follow, Illyricus

δέξασθαι.

Pag. 43.

FuLKE,
36.

_ follow the blind, yea, rather, when they see and will be blind: for certain

130 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

their cause? See chap. v. numb. 6, and the numbers next following in
this chapter.

Fulke. But if all these be proved to be vain cavils
and frivolous quarrels, as in the chap. v. numb. 6. and in the
numbers following in this chapter it shall be plainly declared,
then I hope all men of mean capacity and indifferent judg-
ment will confess, that ignorance hath deceived you, malice
hath blinded you, hatred of the truth hath overthrown you,
the father of lies and slanders hath possessed you.

Martin. For example, St Peter saith, ‘“‘ Heaven must receive Christ.”
He translateth, “Christ must be contained in heaven,” which Calvin

the Lutheran reprehendeth: and yet M. Whitakers taketh the advantage
of this translation, to prove that Christ’s natural body is so contained in
heaven, that it cannot be upon the altar. For he knew that this was his
master’s purpose and intent in so translating. This it is, when the blind

it is (and I appeal to their greatest Grecians) that howsoever it be taken
for good in their divinity, it will be esteemed most false in their Greek _
schools, both of Oxford and Cambridge ; and howsoever they may pre-
sume to translate the holy scriptures after this sort, surely no man, πὸ
not themselves, would so translate Demosthenes, for saving their credit
and estimation in the Greek tongue. See chap. xvii. numb. 7, 8, 9.

Fulke. Beza translateth quem oportet coelo capi, Acts
ii. 21. You say, “Heaven must receive Christ:’ Beza
saith, “Christ must be received of heaven.” Call you this
turning of actives into passives, and passives into actives? Or
will you deny us the resolution of passives into actives, or —
actives into passives? What difference is there in sense —
between these propositions? Your purse containeth money,
and money is contained in your purse: the church must.
receive all Christians, or all Christians must be received of —
the church. But Calvin, you say, misliketh this translation, —

[2 καὶ ἀποστείλῃ τὸν προκεχειρισμένον ὑμῖν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν, ὃν δεῖ,
οὐρανὸν μὲν δέξασθαι ἄχρι χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων. Acts iii, 4
20, 21. |

“ἘΠ miserit eum qui preedicatus est vobis, Jesum Christum. Quem .
oportet quidem ccelum recipere usque in tempora restitutionis omni-,
um.” Vulg. Rs

“Et miserit eum qui ante predicatus est vobis, Jesum Christan
Quem oportet quidem ccelo capi usque ad tempora restitutionis om-
nium.” Beza. |

I. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 131

and the Geneva bible is afraid to follow it. Yet neither of
them both misliketh this sense, nor can; for it is all one with
that which you translate, “whom heaven must receive.” Cal-
vin only saith, the Greek is ambiguous, whether heaven
must receive Christ, or Christ must receive heaven. But
when you grant that heaven must receive Christ, you can
not deny for shame of the world, but Christ must be re-
ceived of heaven: wherefore you understand neither Calvin
nor Illyricus, who speak of the other sense, “that Christ
must receive heaven.” And Master Whitaker, not of Beza’s
translation, but of the text, and even of your own translation,
may prove, that Christ’s natural body is contained in heaven. ἡ
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, ἔσο
amo te, and Tu amaris a me; “I love thee,” or “thou art
loved of me.” But it is strange divinity, that Christ should
be contained in heaven. Verily, how strange soever it seem-
eth to Gregory Martin, it was not unknown to Gregory
Nazianzen, as good a Grecian and as great a divine as
he is. For in his second sermon περὶ υἱοῦ, not far from the
beginning, he writeth thus of our Saviour Christ: det yap
αὐτὸν βασιλεύειν ἄχρι τοῦδε, καὶ ὑπὲρ οὐρανοῦ δεχθῆναι
ἄχρι χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως. “For he must reign until
then, and be received or contained of heaven until the
times of restitution.” _ Here you see Nazianzen* citing
this very place of Saint Peter, Acts i., for the mean verb
of active signification, doubteth not freely to use the passive
verb in the same sense that Beza translateth the place,
against which you declaim so tragically. And if you think
it be such an heinous offence, to render passively in the
same sense that which is uttered actively in the text, so
that no man for his credit would so translate Demosthenes,
as Beza doth Saint Luke; I pray you, what regard had
you of your credit and estimation? when Matt. iv. you trans-
late, out of Latin, Qui demonia habebant, “such as were
possest ;” and Luke ii. Ut profiterentur, “to be enrolled.”

(? Greg. Naz. Oratio xxxvi. Opera. edit. Lutet. Parisiis 1609, p.

579.
9—2

132 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

Belike you have a privilege to do what you list, when
other men may not do that which is lawful.

Martin, Martin. But yet there is worse stuff behind: to wit, the famous
a7. place Luke xxii., where Beza translateth thus, Hoc poculum novum tes-
tamentum per meum sanguinem, qui pro vobis funditur? : whereas in the

Greek, in all copies without exception, he confesseth that in true gram-

matical construction it must needs be said, quod pro vobis funditur ; and

therefore he saith it is either a plain solecophanes (and according to

that presumption he boldly translateth), or a corruption crept out of the

margin into the text. And as for the word solecophanes, we understand

_ him that he meaneth a plain solecism and fault in grammar, and so

Pag. 34,35. doth M. Whitakers: but M. Fulke saith, that he meaneth no such thing,

D’sand. Βαΐ that it is an elegancy and figurative speech, used of most eloquent
pea P98- 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
SeeComm. words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue. He sendeth us first to Budee’s
Bud. Figu- : .
ratacon- commentaries, where there are examples of solecophanes: and, indeed,
Cae °** Budee taketh the word for that which may seem a solecism, and yet is
Ἀττικόν, an elegancy,and all his examples are of most fine and figurative phrases,
but, alas! how unlike to that in St Luke! And here M. Fulke was very
foully deceived, thinking that Beza and Budee took the word in one
sense: and so taking his mark amiss, as it were a counter for gold, where
he found solecophanes in Budee, there he thought all was like to St
Luke’s sentence, and that which Beza meant to be a plain solecism, he
maketh it like to Budee’s elegancies. Much like to those good searchers
in Oxford (as it is said, masters of arts,) who, having to seek for papistical
books in a lawyer’s study, and seeing there books with red letters, cried
out, Mass books, Mass books: whereas it was the code or some other
book of the civil or canon law.

FuLKE, Fulke. This must needs be a famous place for the

ei real presence of Christ’s blood in the sacrament, that never —
one of the ancient or late writers observed, until within these ©
few years. But let us see what fault Beza hath com- —
mitted in translation. The last word in the verse, τό éxyu=
vouevov, he hath so translated, as it must be referred to
the word τῷ αἵματι, signifying blood, with which in case it
doth not agree. That is true; but that he confesseth that .
all Greek copies without exception have it as it is com- —
monly read, it is false: only he saith, Ommnes tamen ve-—

Γ΄ Beza’s words are, “Hoc poculum est novum illud testamentum —
per sanguinem meum, qui pro vobis effunditur.” Edit. 1556 and —
1582.]

1.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 183

tustt nostri codices ita scriptum habebant. “ All our old
Greek copies had it so written.” He speaketh only of his
own, or such as he had, and not of all without exception; for
since he wrote this note, there came to his hands one other
ancient copy, both of Greek and Latin, in which this whole
verse of the second delivery of the cup is clean left out.
For immediately after these words, τοῦτο ἔστι τὸ σῶμά
μου, πλὴν ἰδοὺ ἡ χεὶρ doth follow; and so in the Latin, Ve-
runtamen ecce manus qui tradet me, &c. Moreover, Beza
telleth you, that Basil in his Ethicks, 6p. κά. citing this whole
text of St Luke, readeth, τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένῳ in the
dative case, agreeing with τῷ αἵματι, the word next before.
By which it is manifest, that in S. Basil’s time the read-
ing was otherwise than now it is in most copies. Again,
where you say, he confesseth that in true grammatical con-
struction it must needs be said, Quod pro vobis funditur,
his words are not so; but that those words, if we look to
the construction, cannot be referred to the blood, but to
the cup, which in effect is as much as you say: ‘ His judg-
ment indeed is of these words, as they are now read, that
either it is a manifest solecophanes, or else an addition
out of the margin into the text; and as for the word
solecophanes, you understand him that he meaneth a plain
solecism and fault in grammar, and so doth M. Whitakers.’
How you understand him, it is not material, but how he
is to be understood indeed. M. Whitakers, whom you call
to witness, doth not so understand him, but sheweth that if
he had called it a plain solecism, he had not charged
St Luke with a worse fault than Jerome chargeth St Paul.
But what reason is there that you or any man should under-
stand Beza, by solecophanes, to mean a plain solecism ?
Think you he is so ignorant, that he knoweth not the dif-
ference of the one from the other? or so negligent of his
terms, that he would confound those whom he knoweth so
much to differ? ‘But Master Fulke (say you) saith that
he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancy and
figurative speech, used of most eloquent authors: and it is a
world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his devices,
striving to make St Luke’s speech here, as he construeth
the words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue.” Thus you
write; but if I give not all Grecians and Latinists. just oc-

184 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cx.

easion, 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. 3087.” I tremble to hear what words
you have there to charge me withal. Indeed in that page I
begin to speak of that matter against Saunder, who chargeth
Beza as you do, and moreover affirmeth that Beza should teach
that St Luke wrote false Greek, because he saith, that here is
a manifest solecophanes. But that neither you shall quar-
rel, that I choose some piece of my saying for my pur-
pose, nor any man doubt how honestly you charge me, I will
here repeat whatsoever I have written touching that matter
in the place by you quoted :

“ But the protestants do not only make themselves judges
of the whole books, but also over the very letter (saith he)
of Christ’s gospel, finding fault with the construction of the
evangelists, and bring the text itself in doubt.. Example
hereof he bringeth Beza in his annotations upon Luke xxii,
of the words, ‘ This cup is the new testament in my blood
which is shed for you.’ In which text, because the word
blood in the Greek is the dative case, the other word that
followeth is the nominative case, Beza supposeth that St Luke
useth a figure called solecophanes, 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 sactamentary heresy. For thus he should trans- _

[ In Fulke’s work, entitled “A retentive to stay good Christians —
in true faith and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristow.
Also, the Discoverie of the daungerous Rocke of the Popish Church,
Commended by Nicholas Saunder, Ὁ. of Divinitie. London, 1580.”]

ie
1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 135

late it: “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which
‘cup is shed for you.” Not the cup of gold or silver (saith
he), but the liquor in that cup, which is not wine, because
wine was not shed for us, but the blood of Christ. Why,
‘then the sense is this: This blood in the cup which is
‘shed for you, is the new testament in my blood. What
‘sense in the world can these words have? By which it is
manifest, that the words ‘which is shed for you’, cannot
be referred to the cup, but to his blood. For the cup was
the new testament in his blood, which was shed for us;
which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the
manifest word of God. Neither doth the vulgar Latin trans-
lation give any other sense, although M. Saunder is not
ashamed to say it doth. The vulgar Latin text is this:
Hic est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro
vobis fundetur. What grammarian, in construing, would re-
fer qui to calix, and not rather to sanguine? Again, Erasmus
translateth it even as Beza: Hoe poculum novum testa-
mentum per sanguinem meum, qui pro vobis effunditur.
Now, touching the conjecture of Beza, that those words by
error of the scrivener might be removed from the margin
into the text, [it] is a thing that sometime hath happened, as
most learned men agree, in Matthew xxvil., where the name
of Jeremy is placed in the text for that which is in Zachary,
and yet neither of the prophets was named by the evangelist,
as in most ancient records it is testified. The like hath
been in the first of Mark, where the name of Esay is set in
some Greek copies, and followed in your vulgar translation,
for that which is cited out of Malachi; which name was not
set down by the evangelist, but added by some unskilful
writer, and is reproved by other Greek copies. But this
place, you say, is not otherwise found im any old copy, as
Beza confesseth: then remaineth the second opinion, that St
Luke in this place useth solecophanes, which is an appear-
ance of incongruity, and yet no incongruity. Wherem 1
cannot marvel more at your malice, M. Saunder, than at your
ignorance, which put no difference between solewcismus and
solecophanes; but even as spitefully as unlearnedly you
affirm that Beza should teach that St Luke wrote false
Greek, whereas solecophanes is a figure used of the most
eloquent writers that’ ever took pen in hand, even Cicero,

196. _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 Budeus upon the word soleecophanes.
The appearance of incongruity is, that it seemeth, that τὸ
ἐκχυνόμενον, which is the nominative case, should agree with
τῷ αἵματι, which is the dative case; whereas indeed τὸ is
used as a relative for ὃ, as it is often, and the verb ἐστι;
which wanteth, is understood, as it is commonly in the Greek
tongue; and so the translation must be, 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. Conc. Const. Sess. xii. 21.”
Where find you that I affirm St Luke’s speech here to
be an elegancy in the Greek tongue? yea, or solecophanes
to be nothing else but an elegancy and figurative speech ?
A figure indeed I say that it is; but are all figures ele-
gancies, or all figurative speeches elegancies of speech ?
Some figures, I trow, serve to excuse similitudes of faults in
speech. But I say solecophanes is used of the most eloquent
writers. Very well; doth it thereof follow that it is always
an elegancy ? Have not the most elegant authors used hyper-
batons, perissologies, and other figures that are counted faults
of speech, and not elegancies and fine speeches? But “all the
examples of Budee, you say, to whose commentaries I send
you, are of most fine and figurative phrases.” If they be
such, they do the better prove that for which I called him
to warrantize, namely, that solecophanes is not a solecism,

or false Greek, wherewith Saunder accuseth Beza to charge |

St Luke. But where you utter your foolish pity, in saying,
Alas, how unlike they are to that in St Luke! I think
the case is not so clear as you make it; for I suppose those —
examples that he bringeth of the figure of the whole con-
struction changed after a long hyperbaton, or parenthesis,
may well be taken for figurative speeches, but not for ele-
gancies and fine figurative phrases: as again, those popular —
sayings which, being taken out of the common people’s speech,
Budeus saith, the most eloquent orators have translated into
their finest writings. Peradventure, as musicians use some-

“ἢ! TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 137

time a discord to set forth the harmony of concord, so they
by hardly ayoiding of a solectsm 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
soleecophanes 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 solecophanes
meaneth a plain solecism ? Think you that Beza is so simple
a child also, to term copper by the name of gold? If he
had meant a solecism, could he not have said so? But
you must play Procrustes’ part; for neither my saying nor
Beza’s meaning were large enough for you, to frame your
slanderous cavil against the truth, and therefore with a loud
lie you must lengthen my saying, and with proud and false
presumption you must stretch out his meaning. These be
your arts, this is your eloquence, these are the sinews of
your accusations. What “those good searchers in Oxford”
were, which, being masters of arts, could not discern between
mass books, and law books, for my part I never heard; but
I think it to be a matter of as good credit as that you report
of me and Beza.

Martin. This was lack of judgment in M. Fulke at the least, and Marry,

no great sign of skill in Greek phrases; and he must no more call Ὁ. ““"
Saunders unlearned for not understanding Beza’s meaning, but himself,
who indeed understood him not. For if Beza meant that it was an
elegancy used of the finest authors, and such as Budee doth exemplify of,
why doth he say, “that he seeth not why Luke should use solecophanes,”
but thinketh rather, it is a corruption crept into the margin? Tell us,
M. Fulke, we beseech you, whether is the better and honester defence,
to say, that it is an elegancy and fine phrase in St Luke, or to say, that
it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin, the gospel is here
corrupted? Think you Beza such a fool, that he would rather stand
upon this latter, if he might have used the former, and had so meant by
solecophanes? Yea, what needed any defence at all, if it had been an
usual and known elegancy, as you would prove it ?

Fuike,
38.

138 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

Fulke. 1 had rather it should be counted want of —

judgment in me, so it were by a man of judgment, than to

be taken so often with falsification and lack of truth. For —
my skill in Greek phrases, although I never professed any, —
yet I see nothing brought by you to change my opinion of |

Saunder’s unlearned slander, in railing against Beza, for say-
ing that St Luke should write false Greek. And if soleco-
phanes do differ as much from solecismus, as gold doth from

copper, as you seem to say, when you write that 1 take a |

counter for gold, I might think myself very unlearned in-
deed, if I did understand Beza speaking of solecophanes,
as though he spake of solecismus. But you demand why
Beza saith, that he seeth not why St Luke should use
solecophanes, if he meant that it was an elegancy used of
the finest authors. Still you thrust in your lie in every
corner: who saith he meant it was an elegancy ? Beza saith,
he seeth no cause why St Luke should use solewcophanes,
that is, depart from the usual and ordinary construction ;
and therefore passeth to another conjecture. But you speak
me fair to tell you, “whether is the better and honester
defence, to say that it is an elegancy and fine phrase, or
to say it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin,
the gospel is here corrupted.” First, I answer you, that Beza
affrmeth neither, but rather translateth as Basil did read,
Secondly, I say, there is no dishonesty in either of both
conjectures; for this solecophanes, though it be no elegancy,
yet may be defended from solecism, or false Greek. And
certain it is that some words have crept out of the margin
into the text, as the name of Jeremy in all copies that are
extant, Matt. xxvii, and of Esay in many, 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
solaecophanes ?” 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

ee Te a eS ee Φφὴν ο ΡΠ οο

bi ati =a

i
+
Εν

— =.
a

- RD ων

1] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 139

reading, and with the appearance of incongruity, which is
none in deed. “Yea, what needed any defence at all,” say
you, “if it had been an usual and known elegancy?” So
well you love a lie when you have made it, that you can
never leave it until you have worn it all to nought. Now
you have it, not only an elegancy,.but an usual and known
elegancy. Verily, I never said it was an elegancy, as my
words are plain to be read of every man, and much less that
it was an usual and known elegancy. Only I say it is usual
and common in the Greek tongue, that the prepositive article
is used for the relative; and so much in the next section you
yourself do grant me: and as for defence you talk of, I
see none needful, except it be for that this phrase here
used of St Luke is lawful, though it be not so common
as the ordinary construction.

Martin. For. you say further, that τὸ is taken for ὃ, and ἐστι ig
understood, and that this is a common thing in the best Greek. authors ;
but you must add, that the said relative must always be referred to the
antecedent of the same case, as this speech, τὸ ποτήριον τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον
may be resolved thus, τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐκχυνόμενόν ἐστι, or rather ὃ ἐκ-
χύνεται: but that ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον, may be resolved, ὃ ek-
χυνόμενόν ἐστι, you shall never be able to bring one example; and you
wilfully abuse whatsoever knowledge you have of the Greek tongue to
deceive the ignorant, or else you have no skill at all, that speak so
barbarously and rustically of Greek elegancies. For if you have skill,
you know in your conscience, that ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυ-
γνόμενον is as great ἃ 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, Hic 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 : asin the like, Acts xiv., Sacerdos quoque
Jovis qui erat ante civitatem eorum. Here qui is ambiguous, but in the
Greek we see that qui must be referred to Jovis, and cannot be referred
to Sacerdos.

Fulke. First, I take that you grant me, that it is a
common thing in the Greek tongue, that the article pre-
positive is taken for the subjunctive, and the verb substan-
tive may be understood where it is not expressed; which if

Martin,
39.

ee 2

ὁ ἱερεὺς
τοῦ διὸς
τοῦ ὄντος.

FuLke,
39.

106... ~—s A “DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

you would not have granted, might have been extorted from
you by confession of all Grecians and Greek writers. Se-
condly, where you teach me a general rule, to add to the
former concession, that the said relative must always be re-
ferred to the antecedent of the same case, as in the example
you bring, τὸ ποτήριον τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον, you shall pardon
me to learn of you. I take you for no such Aristarchus,
that you have power to make new rules in the Greek gram-
mar, and such as shall control not only Homer, but all
good authors that ever did write in that language, of sole-
_cism and incongruity. For if the relative must always be
referred to the antecedent of the same case, to agree with
it in case, or else it is false Greek, I will abide by it,
there is no Greek author whose works are extant, but he
hath committed solecism. The examples that hereof might
be brought out of every several writer, if they were heaped
together, would make a book as big as Ilias. But in this
so clear a case to cite any examples, I see not to what
purpose it should be, unless it were to make little children,
that learn τύπτω in the grammar schools, to be witnesses
of your intolerable arrogancy and incredible ignorance.
One example I will bring you out of St Mark, not unlike
this of St Luke, but that the verb ἐστι is expressed: καὶ
φέρουσιν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ ryoAyob0a τόπον, ὅ ἐστι μεθερμηνευό-
μενον κρανίου τόπος, “and they bring him to the place Gol-
gotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of sculls.” This
example is more than sufficient for so plain a matter. For
although it be an elegancy for the relative to agree in case
with the antecedent sometimes, yet to make a perpetual rule
thereof it proceedeth of too much rashness, want of know-
ledge and consideration. But I “shall never be able to bring
one example” like to this of St Luke, where, the relative not
agreeing in case with the antecedent, the participle may be
resolved by the verb substantive -that is not expressed; and
I “ wilfully abuse whatsoever knowledge I have of the Greek
tongue, to deceive the ignorant, or else I have no skill at
all, to speak so barbarously and rustically of Greek ele-
gancies, and I know in my conscience, it is as great a
solecism in Greek, and no more elegancy, than to say in
Latin, In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the school
deserveth whipping :” and I know not what beside. But

Ps

1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 141

touching the similitude of the solecisms, if you had made
your example alike, that is, put in the relative in the Latin,
as it is in the Greek, 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 : '

πολλοῖς ἀχρήστοισι θεὸς διδοῖ ἀνδράσιν ὄλβον

᾿Ἐσθλὸν, ὃς οὔθ᾽ αὑτῷ βέλτερος οὐδὲν ἐὼν,

Οὔτε φίλοις.
See you here the relative os, being the nominative case, not
agreeing with his antecedent, ὄλβον, of the accusative case,
but coming before the verb ἐστὶ, that is included in the
participle ἐών ἢ What can you here say? will you cavil at
the subjunctive article? Then read a few verses after, and
see whether this poet useth not as indifferently the preposi-
tive article as the subjunctive for the relative.

Ili’ οἶνον τὸν ἐμῆς κορυφῆς ἀπὸ Ταῦὔγέτοιο

ἼΑμπελοι ἤνεγκαν, τὰς ἐφύτευσ᾽ 6 γέρων.

And within two verses,

Τοῦ πίνων ἀπὸ μὲν χαλεπὰς σκεδάσεις μελεδώνας,

speaking of the same wine.
Also, Theocritus, in 24th Idyll:

Οὐλομένοις ὀφίεσσι, τὰ καὶ θεοὶ ἐχθαίροντι.
And in the 28rd Idyll:

3 σ“
Καὶ ποτὶ τὸν θεὸν ἦνθε τὸν ὕβρισε.

From Theocritus let us pass to Hesiodus, out of whom
it were over tedious to cite how often he useth the article
prepositive for the relative, and not agreeing in case. with
the antecedent: but an example or two shall serve, where
the verb substantive is understood, and not expressed, nor

142 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [or

any other verb to govern’ the relative, yet not agreeing in
case with the antecedent :

Κρήνης τ᾽ ἀενάου καὶ ἀποῤῥύτου, ἢ τ᾽ ἀθόλωτος.

Again, in "ΕΡΎ. Ἡμέρ.

» 3)»

Οἰωνοὺς κρίνας οἵ εἶτ ἐργματι τούτῳ ἄρισ' TOL.

Here, methinks, I hear you grudge against sock and
poetical licence, as doubtless you would quarrel against pro-
fane authorities, if I should bring you any like Ss
out of prosaical writers.

We must see therefore, whether we are not able to
bring examples of the like phrase out of the holy scriptures.
First, that solecophanes is found 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 xii. 6. But for the like
solecophanes to this in question, Luke xxi, I will send
you first to St Paul, Col. i. 25. πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον
τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸ μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν
αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν “γενεῶν, νυνὶ δὲ ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις
αὐτοῦ. In this verse τὸ μυστήριον must needs be the ac-
cusative case, as τὸν λόγον is, by apposition: then is τὸ
ἀποκεκρυμμένον for all the world as τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον, the
nominative case, signifying Quod absconditum fuit, which the
latter part of the verse, νυνὶ dé ἐφανερώθη, doth most plainly
declare: for what else should be the nominative case to
the verb ἐφανερώθη And even so your vulgar Latin text
hath it translated: Et impleam verbum Dei, mystervum
quod absconditum fuit a seculis et generationibus, nune
autem manifestatum est sanctis ejus. But because this is
not so evident, for that the nominative case and the accu-
sative of the neuter gender be of one termination, I. will
bring you yet more plain examples out of the Revelation
of St John, chap. 1, 4. “χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ τοῦ
ὁ ὦν, καὶ ὁ ἦν. καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. “Grace to you, and peace
from him (or from God, as icin copies have) which i is, and
which was; and which is to come.” Would not your grammar
say it is a plain solecism, because he saith not, τοῦ ὄντος,
_ and τοῦ ὀρχόμενου ? What have you here to quarrel? 15
not ἀπὸ Tov ὁ ὧν and ὁ ἐρχόμενος the same phrase ‘that
is in Luke, τῷ. αἵματι; τὸ. €xyuvouevov? Well, let us‘ go

ἘΠ TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 143

a little further, to the next verse of the same chapter, where
we read thus: καὶ ἀπὸ ‘Inoov Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς,
ὁ πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων
τῆς γῆς. “And from Jesus Christ, which is a faithful wit-
ness, the first-born from the dead, and prince over the kings
of the earth.” The more usual construction would require
that he should have said, ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χ ριστοῦ τοῦ μάρτυρος
τοῦ πιστοῦ, τοῦ προτοτόκου καὶ τοῦ ἄρχοντος, but that
he useth the same solecophanes which St Luke doth, chap.
xxii. (if the reading be not altered), where the article pre-
positive is put in the place of the subjunctive, and agreeth
not in case with the antecedent, as often it doth, but beng
the nominative case, cometh before the verb ἐστι, which is
not expressed, but must needs be understood ; as even your
vulgar translator doth acknowledge, rendering it in both
verses thus: ab 60 qui est, et qui erat, et qui venturus est,
and a Jesu Christo qui est testis fidelis, &c. These exam-
ples, I doubt not but they are sufficient to satisfy any rea-
sonable man, to shew that I have not invented a new
construction that never was heard of, to save Beza’s credit,
and whereof I am able to give not so much as one example.

But that I may overthrow M. Martin’s vain insultation
with a whole cloud of examples, I will yet add one or two.
more. In the same Revelation, chap. vil. 9, thus we read : καὶ
ἀπέθανε τὸ τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὰ
ἔχοντα ψυχάς, “and there died the third of all creatures
which are in the sea, which had lives.” Your vulgar Latin
text turneth it thus: Kt mortua est tertia pars creature,
eorum que habebant animas in mari: “And there died the
third part of the creatures, of those things which had life
in the sea.” In which translation, although the order of the
words which St John useth is somewhat inverted, yet the
sense remaineth the same; and τὰ ἔχοντα is translated, que
habebant, which agreeth not with τῶν κτισμάτων in. case,’
(as every child that can decline a Greek noun doth know,)
where otherwise the most common construction were to have
said, τῶν κτισμάτων, τῶν ἐχόντων. Therefore the phrase
and construction is the same, which is Luke xxii., τῷ αἵματι,
τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον. What can fine M. Gregorie, which carpeth
at my skill, that speak so barbarously and rustically of
Greek elegancies, what can Master Gregorie Martin, I say,

144. ΠΑ DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ~ [cu. q

the great linguist of the seminary of Rheims, allege, why
these phrases are not alike? or rather, changing the words,
in figure the very same? And if he have anything to cavil
against this example, as I see not what he can have, yet
have I another out of the same book, chap. imi. 12: καὶ
γράψω ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ μου, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς
πόλεως τοῦ Θεοῦ μου τῆς καινῆς ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ, ἡ καταβαίνουσα
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ μον. “And I will write upon
him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my
God, the new Jerusalem, which descendeth out of heaven
from my God.” The vulgar Latin translation differeth not
from this, which saith: Εἰ scribam super eum nomen Det
met, et nomen civitatis Det met, nove Jerusalem, que
descendit de celo a Deo meo. Here the antecedent is of
the genitive case, the relative of the nominative, which cometh
before the verb ἐστι, understood in the participle καταβαί-
vovoa, as in Luke xxii. it is in the participle ἐκχυνόμενον.
By these examples, in seeking whereof, I promise you,
I spent no great time, you may learn to be wiser hereafter,
and not to condemn all men, beside yourself, out of your
reader’s chair at Rheims, of ignorance, unskilfulness, bar-
barousness, rusticity, yea, wilfulness and madness, where you
yourself deserve a much sharper censure through your im-
moderate insultation, the matter thereof bemg both more false
and forged, than we might justly have borne, if we had
been overtaken with a little grammatical ignorance. By
these examples I trust you see, or if you will needs be
blind, all the young Grecians in England may see, that as
in the Latin translation you confess the relative standeth
more likely to be referred to the word sanguine than to
the word caliz, so in the Greek there is no help to remove
it from the next manifest and necessary antecedent to a
word further off, with which the signification of the participle
cannot agree. For who would say, that a cup is shed for
us? And though you. make a metonymy of the cup for.
that which is in the cup, what is that, I pray you? Not
wine, you will say, I am sure, but the blood of Christ. If
you so resolve it, then followeth that vain nugation which
. 1 have noted against Saunder: “This blood in the cup,
which blood is shed for you, is the new testament in my
blood.” Is that blood in the cup diverse from that blood

ΠΝ TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 145

in which the new testament is confirmed? If it be the
same, how often was it shed? If it were shed in the cup,
how holdeth your unbloody sacrifice? Or how can you
say that it was shed in the cup, where, by your rule of
concomitants, it is not separated from the body, as it was
in his passion? If it were not separated, as certainly his
blood was not separated from his body, in the supper, how
ean that which was in the cup, be his blood that was shed
for us? for the word of “shedding” signifieth separation.
Wherefore it cannot be referred to that in the cup, but
to his blood which was shed on the cross for us; so that
there is a manifest enallage, or change of the tense; the
present being put for the future, as it is manifest by the
other evangelists, where the word of shedding can be re-
ferred to nothing else, but to his blood shed upon the cross.
Wherefore the Greek text can here resolve you of no am-
biguity, as in the place you cite, Acts xiv. Neither was
there ever any ancient writer that stumbled upon this am-
biguity; but all with one consent refer the word of shedding
to his blood, and not to the cup or the content thereof,
so many as speak of it.

Martin. And this is one commodity among others, that we reap of Marz,
the Greek text; to resolve the ambiguity that is sometime in the Latin : 40.
whereas you neither admit the one nor the other, but as you list ; neither
doth the Greek satisfy you, be it never so plain and infallible, but
you will devise that it is corrupted, that there is a solecism, that the
same solecism is an elegancy, and thereupon you translate your own
device, and not the word of God. Which whence can it proceed, but of
most wilful corruption? See chap. xvii. num. 10, 11, 12.

Fulke. This is nothing but general railing, and im- Furxz,
pudent slandering, as in the particular sections before is =
proved. For we neither devise that the text is corrupted,
to alter any thing of the text, no, not where it is undoubtedly
corrupted, as in the name of Jeremy, Matt. xxvu.: neither
devise we a solecism, when we admonish that there is
a solecophanes', which of no papist that ever I heard of
was before observed: neither make we a solecism to be
an elegancy, when we say against them that confound a
solecism with solecophanes, that solecophanes is a figure
used sometimes of most eloquent writers, neither is it straight-

[{! That which seems to be a solecism, but yet is not.]

[ FULKE. |

Martin,
41.

Psal. exix.
Octon. Nun.
Ps. exxxix.

146 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

way a virtue or elegancy of speech, whatsoever eloquent
writers sometimes have used: wherefore we translate no-
thing of our own device, but we translate the word of God
without any wilful corruption.

Martin. lf in ambiguous Hebrew words of doubtful signification,
where the Greek giveth one certain sense, you refuse the Greek, and
take your advantage of the other sense; what is this but wilful par-
tiality? So you do in Redime eleemosynis peccata tua, Dan. iv.; and,
Inclinavi cor meum ad faciendas justificationes tuas propter retributionem ;
and, Nimis honorati sunt amici tui, Deus, etc.: and yet at another time
you follow the determination of the Greek for another advantage, as
Psalm xceviii. “ Adore his footstool, because he is holy.” Whereas in the

witp Hebrew it may be as in our Latin, “because it is holy.” See chap. xiii.
OT num. 18; chap. ix. num. 23, 24; chap. xviii. num. 1,2. So you flee

Lib. ii. cont.
Faust. cap.2?,

FuLkE,
Al.

from the Hebrew to the Greek, and from this to that again, from both
to the vulgar Latin, as is shewed in other places; and as St Augustine
saith to Faustus the Manichee, “ You are the rule of truth: whatsoever
is for you, is true ; whatsoever is against you, is not true.”

Fulke. If Hebrew words be ambiguous, we take that
sense which agreeth with other places that are plain and
without all ambiguity; and this is no partiality, but wisdom
and love of the truth: not to ground any new doctrine
upon such places only, where the Hebrew word is ambigu-
ous, and may have divers significations; as you do the
redemption of sins by alms, upon that place of Daniel iv. ;
where you confess that the Hebrew word is ambiguous,
and are not able to bring any one plain text for it, where
the words are not ambiguous. But we ground our refusal
upon a hundred plain texts, that ascribe the whole glory
of our ransom and redemption from sins to the only mercy
of God. But as well this text as the other two, that you |
cite in the chapters by you quoted, shall be throughly —
discussed, to see if you can have any advantage at our
translators of the same. But on the contrary side you ~
say that at another time we follow the determination οὗ
the Greek for another advantage, as in that text, Psalm —

[? Ps. exix. 112. i. 6. in the octonary, or division of eight verses,
which commences with the Hebrew letter ἃ, nun. |

[? Vides certe quam nescias, vel te nescire fingas, quid sit evan-
gelium, nec ex doctrina apostolica, sed ex vestro errore nomines evan-
gelium. Augustin. Contra Faustum, Lib. τι. 2. Opera. Vol. vu. p. 316. ]

os
1.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 147

xevill. ‘Adore his footstool, because he is holy,” whereas (Pa. xcix.]
in the Hebrew it may be as in your Latin, “because it is _
holy.” I answer, that we follow not the determination of

the Greek, as moved by the only authority thereof, for any
advantage, but because we learn our interpretation out of

the very psalm itself. For whereas the prophet in the 5th
verse hath said, ‘“‘ Exalt ye the Lord our God, and wor-

ship at the footstool of his feet, for he is holy : in the last
verse of the same he repeateth again the like exhortation :

“ Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship him in his holy

hill; for the Lord our God is holy.” In this verse for his
‘footstool’ he placeth the ‘holy hill,’ which expresseth where

his footstool was, namely the holy ark, and for cadhosh hu, > ΠΡ
‘holy is he,’ now he sayeth, cadosh Jehova, ‘holy is the Lord ων.
our God,’ which putteth the other verse out of ambiguity. esp
Wherefore if we take testimony of the Greek, we fly not K
to the Greek from the Hebrew, but shew that the Hebrew ' mm
may so be understood, having other more certain arguments
than the testimony of the Greek. Again, it is utterly false,
that you say we fly from both Hebrew and Greek to the
Latin; for we never fly from the Hebrew, but acknowledge
it as the fountain and spring, from whence we must re-
ceive the infallible truth of God’s word of the Old Testa-
ment, following the Latin or Greek so far as they follow
the truth of the Hebrew text, and no farther. As for the
saying of St Augustine to Faustus the Manichee, “You
are the rule of truth,” [it] doth most aptly agree to you
papists and to your pope: for you will not afford unto the
scriptures themselves any authority or certainty of truth,
‘but upon your approbation and interpretation. Wherefore
not only that which he saith to Faustus the Manichee
agreeth aptly to you, ‘ Whatsoever is for you is true, what-
soever is against you is not true: but that also which he
reporteth Tyconius the Donatist said of his sect, Quod vo-
lumus sanctum est, “Whatsoever we will is holy,” you your-
selves take upon you. For no doctrine is good nor holy,
though it be proved never so plainly out of the holy scrip-
ture, except it be allowed by you for catholic and holy.

Martin. What shall I speak of the Hebrew particle vau ? which ae
(Gen. xiv. 18.) must in no case be translated because, lest it should *

10—2

148 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

Ta) xT prove that Melchisedee offered sacrifice of bread and wine, as all the

Quia bene-
dictus, for et
bened ictus

ctus ven-
tris tui.

FuLkE,
42.

* fathers expound it: but (Luke i. 42) where they translate the equiva-
lent Greek particle xa’, there Beza proveth the said particle to signify
because, and translateth accordingly, and the English Bezites likewise.
I will not urge them, why: we like the sense well, and Theophylact
so expoundeth it. But if the Greek copulative may be so translated,
why not the Hebrew copulative much more, which often in the scripture
is used in that sense? See chap. xvii. num. 13, 14.

Fulke. That the Hebrew particle vaw is sometimes to
be taken for a causal conjunction, and signifieth because,
no man denieth: but that it must be taken so Gen, xiv.

' because καὶ is taken so Luke i. 42, what reason is this?

But all the fathers (say you) expound Melchisedec’s bring-
ing forth of bread and wine to be a sacrifice. I grant that
many do, but not all: yet do not they ground upon the
conjunction causal ; for Cyprian, Lib. πὶ Epist. 3, ad Ceeciliwm,
readeth thus, Fuit autem saeerdos, “and he was a priest.”
So doth Hierome, Epist. ad Evagrium, expounding the very
Hebrew text, say, Et Melchisedech rex Salem protulit pa-
nem et vinum, erat autem sacerdos Dei excelsi. The word
protulit also hath Ambrose, de mystertis initiand. Augus-
tine upon the title of the 33rd Psalm, Cyprian in the
epistle before named; and the vulgar Latin hath proferens.
Hierome, Ep. ad Evagrium, sheweth that the best learned
of the Hebrews’ judgment was, that Melchisedec Victort
Abraham obviam processerit, et in refectionem tam tpsius,
quam pugnatorum ipsius*®, panes vinumque protulerit: “Mel-
chisedec came forth to meet Abraham the conqueror, and for
refection, as well of him as of his warriors, brought forth
bread and wine.” And after many interpretations of the
Greek writers which he rehearseth, in the end he will de-
termine nothing of his own judgment. The author of Scho-
lastica Historia, cap. 64, agreeth with the interpretation of
the Hebrews. *At vero Melchisedech rex Salem obtulit et

[2 Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶ, καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας
gov. Luke i. 42.

“And blessed is the fruit of thy womb,” Cranmer, Tyndale, Rheims,
Authorised. “Because the fruit of thy womb is blessed,” Geneva.

[? ejus. Edit. Martianay, Vol. 1. p. 56. ]

[ἢ Genesis xiv. 18. The Vulgate has, “At vero Melchisedech rex
Salem, proferens panem et vinum.” Augustine says, Et tantus erat

1.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 149

panem et vinum: quod quast exponens Josephus ait: Mi-
nistravit exercitui xenia, et multam abundantiam rerum
opportunarum simul exhibuit, et super epulas benedixit
Dewn, qui Abrahe subdiderat nimicos. Erat enim sacerdos
Dei altissimi. “But Melchisedec, king of Salem, offered unto
him bread and wine; which Josephus as it were expounding
of it saith: ‘He ministered to his army the duties of hos-
pitality, and gave him great plenty of things necessary, and
beside the feast, or at the feast, he blessed God, which had
subdued unto Abraham his enemies: for he was a priest of
the highest God’.” Therefore not all the fathers so judged
of Melchisedec’s bread and wine. But against all them
that referred the same to his priesthood, we oppose the
apostle to the Hebrews, chap. vii., who, searching of pur-
pose whatsoever was in Melchisedec, wherein he resem-
bleth Christ, so that he omitteth not the interpretation of
his name nor of his city, maketh no mention of his sacri-
fice of bread and wine; whereas nothing seemeth to have
greater resemblance than that, which deceived many of
the ancient fathers, but yet was not observed of the Holy
Ghost.

Martin. But I would ask rather, why κεχαριτωμένη may not in any ya esin
case be translated, “full of grace ;” whereas. ἡλκωμένοςδ is translated, *° oe, Ht nh
“full of sores ;” both words being of like form and force. See chap. Luke xvi. 20.

xviii. num. 4, 5.

Fulke. The former word, being a participle, is best Furxs,
translated by a participle ‘freely beloved: for the other, if *
we had a participle in English, to say, ‘sored or botched,’

Melchisedec, a quo benediceretur Abraham. Protulit panem et vinum,
et benedixit Abraham, et dedit ei decimas Abraham. Videte quid pro-
tulit. Augustin. Enarratio in Psalmum xxx. cap. 5. Opera, Vol. rv.
p- 301.

Et Melchisedech rex Salem protulit panem et vinum. Fuit autem
sacerdos Dei summi, et benedixit Abraham. Cypriani Epist. uxm.
Opera, edit. Baluzi, Paris. 1726. p. 105.]

{* χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη. Luke i, 28. “Ave, gratia plena,” Vulg.
“ Hail, full of grace,” Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, Rheims. “ Hail, thou
that art freely beloved,” Geneva. “ Hail, thou that art in high favour,”
Bishops’. “ Hail, thou that art highly favoured,” Authorised version. |

[ ὃς ἐβέβλητο πρὸς τὸν πυλῶνα αὐτοῦ ἡλκωμένος. Luke xvi. 20.
“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 κεχρυσωμένος full of
gold, or gilded? And so of all other verbs of that form,
where there is in English a participle: why ought not like-
wise κεχαριτωμένος be translated by the participle ?

Martin, Martin. Again, why say they (Heb. xiii.) “ Let your conversation
pad rs be without covetousness,” and say not, ‘“ Let marriage be honourable
pos! ὁ mbm in all, and the bed undefiled;” both being expressed alike by the
πος. τίμιος apostle, and by way of exhortation, as the rest that goeth before and
ὃ γάμον. FNoweth? See chap. xv. num. 15.

Fux, Fulke. Although the sense were not so greatly different,

yet the participle dé following in the latter part of the verse,
mopvous δὲ, &e., “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
ὯΝ translated “that which he feared ;” “ repentance,” “ them that repent
oie 7 or amend their life ;’ “tradition,” the doctrine delivered; “temples,”

Acts xxvi- 20. shrines ; “idols,” devotions ; “every human creature,” all ordinances of

pada. man; “foreknowledge,” providence; “soul,” carcase; “ hell,” grave ;
3 8 3 gra
“altar,” temple; “table,” altar; and such like ?

fF ἀφιλάργυρος 6 τρόπος. Heb. xiii. 5. “Sint mores sine avaritia,”
Vulg. “Let your conversation be without covetousness,” Tyndale,
Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops’ Bible, Authorised version. “Let your
manners be without avarice,” Rheims. |

[? τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσι, καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος. 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. ]

1] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 151

Fulke. We think you not more suspicious, than mali- Fouxe,
cious. “From his fear,” may well (for explication sake) be *-
translated, “from that which he feared,” Heb. v. 7, even as
hope is sometime taken for that which we hope for, as
Col. i. 5. Tit. ii. 13. So may “repentance” in Beza Acts xxvi.‘
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 1
pray what doth ‘tradition,’ 2 Thess. ii. and iu. signify, but
the doctrine delivered’? Doth not the apostle declare, what
his tradition was, when he delivereth this doctrine, that if
any man will not work, let him not eat, 2 Thess. ii. 10.?
The word ναοὺς, as it is used, Acts xix. 24, signifieth neither
temples nor shrines®, but certain idolatrous cos, on which
was stamped the figure of Diana’s temple, more like to your
popish shrines than to the temple of God. Where “idols”

Γ΄ καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας. 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.]

[* τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγέλλων μετανοεῖν. Acts xxvi. 20. “ Annuntia-
bam ut pcenitentiam agerent,” Vulgate. ‘“ Annuntiavi ut resipisce-
rent,” Beza, edit. 1566. “That they should repent,” New Test.,
Englished by W. Tomson, from Beza’s version, 1583.]

[ἢ καὶ κρατεῖτε ras παραδόσεις. 2 Thess. ii. 15. “Εὖ tenete traditio-
nes,” Vulgate. ‘Et retinete traditam doctrinam,” Beza, 1582. “ Et
tenete traditam doctrinam,” Beza, 1556. “ Keep the instructions which
ye have been taught,” Tomson’s translation of Beza, Geneva. “ Holde
ze the tradiciouns,” Wiclif. ‘“ Keep the ordinances,’ Tyndale, Cran-
mer. “Hold the traditions,” Rhemish, Authorised.

καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρέλαβε. 2 Thess. iii. 6. “Εἰ
non secundum traditionem,” Vulgate. “Et non ex tradita doctrina,”
Beza, 1566. “And not after the techynge,” Wiclif. “And not after
the institution,” Tyndale, Cranmer. “ And not after the instruction,”
Geneva, Tomson’s version. “And not according to the tradition,”
Rhemish. “ And not after the tradition,’ Authorised.]

[® ποιῶν ναοὺς ἀργυροῦς ᾿Αρτέμιδος. Acts xix. 24. “Faciens edes ar-
genteas Diane,” Vulg. “ Qui faciebat templa argentea Diane,” Beza,
1566. ‘“ Which made silver shrines for Diana,” Tyndale, Cranmer,
Geneva, Authorised. ]

152 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH,

are translated ‘devotions’, I know not, except you mean
Acts xvii. 23, where the word is σεβάσματα', which your
yulgar Latin translator, 2 Thess. ii., calleth quod colitur,
“that which is devoutly worshipped,” and so the word
signifieth ‘whatsoever is religiously worshipped or adored,’
and not “idols,” as you say, nor simulacra, “images,” as your
translator calleth them, Acts xvii.; for it is derived of ceBaCw,
or σεβάζομαι, which signifieth ‘to adore,’ ‘to worship,’ ‘to
honour devoutly or religiously®.’ ‘Every human creature”
signifieth in that place, 1 Pet. ii, every magistrate, of what

creation or ordination soever he be; and so is meant by

Martin,
6.

Sue Ixxxvi.

Bib. 1579.

Psal. xlix.

Titus iti,

FuLKE,
46.

that translation (all ordinances of men), not all laws of men,
which yet were not impious, if you add the restraint, “for
the Lord,” for whom nothing can be that is against his law.
The rest of your quarrels be all answered before.

Martin. What caused these strange speeches in their English bibles?
“Thou shalt not leave my soul in the grave.” “Thou hast delivered
my soul from the lowest grave.” ‘A covetous man is a worshipper of
images.” ‘By laying on of the hands of the eldership.” “ Hail, freely
beloved.” “Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt rule over him.”
“Break off thy sins with righteousness,” for “redeem with alms.”
“ Jealousy is cruel as the grave,” for “as hell.” Cant. viii. Bib. anno
1579. “The griefs of the grave caught me.” Psalm exvi. And, “God
will redeem my soul from the power of the grave.” “Ὁ grave, I will
be thy destruction.” Os. 13, and such like. What made Calvin so
translate into Latin, that if you turn it into English, the sense is, that
God ‘ poured water upon us abundantly,’ meaning the Holy Ghost ? what
else, but because he would take away the necessity of material water in
baptism, as in his commentary and Beza’s it is evident ?

Fulke. These speeches are not strange in God’s church,
howsoever they sound in your ears. Se many of them as

[2 ἀναθεωρῶν τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν. Acts xvii. 28. “Videns simu-
lacra vestra,” Vulgate. ‘‘Contemplans sacra vestra,” Beza. “For
as I passed by and beheld your devotions,’ Geneva 1560, Tomson’s
translation of Beza, 1583, though this appeared a year later than
Martin’s book: it may, however, be from the first edition of the trans-
lation, printed in 1576. ]

[ Ὑποτάγητε οὖν πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει. 1 Pet, ii. 138. “ Subjecti
igitur estote omni humane creature,” Vulgate. “ Subjecti estote
cuivis humane ordinationi,” Beza, 1566. ‘Submit yourselves unto all
manner ordinance of man,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised.
“Be subject, therefore, to every human creature,’ Rhemish. |

,

ἪΝ TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 158

translate for sheol the “ grave,” have their answers, sect. 32,
and chap. vii., which is appointed for that question: ‘“ The
covetous man a worshipper of images,” sect. 5 of this chap.
and chap. iii, numb. 12. The “laying on of hands of the
eldership” is warranted by the signification of the Greek
word πρεσβυτέριον, which signifieth a company of elders,
as it is translated by your own vulgar Latin interpreter,
Luke xxii. 66. Seniores plebis: “The elders of the people ;”
and Acts xxii. 5, he calleth πᾶν τὸ πρεσβυτέριον, Omnes
majores natu. And for a consistory of elders is the word
presbyterium used in Latin by Cyprian, Lib. m1. Epist. 11,
and Lib. π. Epist. 8,10. Of “hail, freely beloved,” we spake
lately, sect. 43.; of the text Gen. iv. 7, “sin lieth at the
door,” &c. sect. 28, and chap. x. sect. 9; of Dan. iv. “ break,”
for “redeem thy sins,” sect. 41.

If Calvin, Tit. iii, did wrongly interpret that which is
spoken of water, to be meant of the Holy Ghost, what is
that to our translation? But certain it is, that Calvin never
meant to take away the necessity of material water from
the sacrament of baptism, although he taught that the want
of the external sacrament, where it cannot be had, doth
not deprive God’s elect from eternal salvation: neither hath
Beza any other meaning in his annotation.

Martin. I had meant to have but briefly skimmed over these Marry,
things, but multitude of matter maketh me too long, as it chanceth to 47.
aman that wadeth through miry and foul places ; and yet the greatest
demonstration that they are wilful corrupters, is behind, which only I
will add, and for the rest refer the reader to the whole book.

Fulke. Vt is a small sign, that multitude of matter is Furxe,
cause of your length, when you repeat one matter in so 4”
many sections: your similitude of a man wading in foul and
miry places doth well agree unto you; for you have been
all this while wading in the puddle of your slanders, mis-
prisions, and false accusations, in which you have so berayed
yourself, as you shall not easily purge yourself from the
mire of them. But because you say the greatest demon-
stration that we are wilful corrupters, is behind, though it
be tedious for us to rake in such a gogmire® of your forge-
ries and false accusations, yet we will take courage, and

[? Quagmire.]

154 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

consider what main demonstration you can make, to prove
us in our English translations to be wilful corrupters.

Martin, Martin. Doubt you whether they translate of purpose and par-
48. tiality, in favour of their opinions? you shall hear themselves say so,
Tom. ἃ. fol. and protest it. If I dealt with Lutherans, this one testimony of Luther
Witteb. anno were sufficient, who, being asked why he added “only” into the text,
a Rom. iii., answered that he did it to explicate the apostle’s sense more
dhe express plainly, hat is, to make the apostle say more plainly, that faith only
pore. (vhom justified. And his disciple Illyricus disputeth the matter, that the the
heretical apostle saying, “by faith without works,” saith in deed, “ only faith.

translations

ote here- But because I deal rather with our English Calvinists, and Beza is their

doth wilfully chief translator, and a captain among them, whom they profess to follow —

persnacek in the title of the New Testament, anno 1580, and by the very name of
scp pag their Geneva bibles, let us see what he saith.

eatholie
assertions.

Funke, Fulke. I think there is no man doubteth but they trans-

48. lated the scripture with purpose to maintain their opinions; but
whether they have wittingly and wilfully translated falsely,
to maintain any errors or heretical opinions, that is the matter
in question, and which hath need of your greatest demonstra-
tion to make it apparent. That Luther might rightly inter-
pret the place, Rom. ii., of only faith justifying, by the
excluding of works, I have before acknowledged, and Illyricus
doth rightly defend it. But that he did put in the word
“only” in his translation, which is not in the original, I will
not take upon me to excuse, seeing the truth of that doc-
trine is manifest without that addition; and Luther himself,
in his later editions, hath reformed it. Again, what fault
soever other men have committed in their translation, we are
unjustly charged therewith, except we follow the same in ours.
That we profess to follow Beza by the very name of our
Geneva bibles, it is a very ridiculous argument: for our Bibles
are so commonly called, because they were translated and first
printed at Geneva, not by Beza, (who at that time had scarce
finished his translation of the New Testament, and never dealt
with translating of the old, so far as we know,) but by certain
godly and learned Englishmen, which lived there in queen
Mary’s time, to enjoy the liberty of a good conscience, which
they could not have in their own country.

Martin, Martin. First, concerning μετανοεῖτε, which the vulgar Latin and
49. Erasmus translate, Agite penitentiam, or “ Do penance.” “ This interpre-

1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 155

tation,” saith he, “I refuse for many causes, but for this especially, ᾿
that many ignorant persons have taken hereby an occasion of the false
opinions of satisfaction, wherewith the church is troubled at this day.”
Lo! of purpose against satisfaction he will not translate the Greek
word as it ought to be, and as it is proved to signify, both in this book
and in the annotations upon the New Testament. A little after speak-
ing of the same word, he saith, ““Why I have changed the name peni- Matt. iii. 8. ᾿
tentia, I have told a little before ;” protesting that he will never use

those words, but resipiscere, and resipiscentia, that is, amendment of tel supra
life ; because of their heresy, that repentance is nothing else but a mere
amendment of former life, without recompence or satisfaction or penance

for the sins before committed. See chap. xiii.

Fulke. Of purpose against the heresy of satisfaction, Fuxxe,
Beza will not translate the Greek word, as the vulgar Latin 39:
translator doth, but yet as the Greek word ought to be trans-
lated. Erasmus, finding the vulgar Latin insufficient, hath
added wite prioris, that is, “repent ye of your former life.”
Neither doth Beza find fault with the English word “repent,”
but with the Latin agite peenitentiam, when you translate it,
“do penance,” meaning thereby pain or satisfaction for sins
passed, to be a necessary part of true repentance, which is
not contained in the Greek word μετανοεῖν", which signifieth
changing of the mind; that is, not only a sorrow for the sin
past, but also a purpose of amendment, which is best expressed.
by the Latin word resipiscere, which is always taken in the
good part, as μετανοεῖν is in the scripture, whereas the Latin
words penitere and penitentia are used in Latin of sorrow
or repentance that is too late: as panitere and penitentia
may be said of Judas’ grief of mind, which caused him to
hang himself, but not μετανοεῖν, or μετάνοια, or resipiscere
and resipiscentia: and therefore the Holy Ghost, speaking of
his sorrow, useth another word, μεταμέλειν, and μεταμέλεια.
And this is the cause why Beza refused the word penitentia,

Γ᾿ Ferte igitur fructum dignum resipiscentia. Matt. iii. 8., Beze
Vers. 1556. Ceterum μετανοεῖν quum est verbum absolutum, proprie
significat post factum sapere, et de errore admisso ita dolere ut cor-
rigas: quod (ut opinor) Latinis proprie significat resipiscere. Beze,
Annot. in v. 2.

Tertullian’s definition of μετάνοια is this: Nam et in Greco sono pe-
nitentie nomen, non ex delicti confessione, sed ex animi demutatione
compositum est. Adversus Marcionem, lib. ii. Opera, p. 472. Edit.
Rigaltii, 1641.] .

Martin,
50.

δικαιώ-.
ματα.
Luke i. 6.

156 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [on.

having a Latin word that more properly doth express the
Greek word; as we might lawfully do in English, if we had
another English word proper to that repentance. which is
always joined with faith and purpose of amendment, for want
whereof we are constrained to use the words repent and
repentance, which may be taken in good part, or in evil: for
we say, repentance too late, and Judas repented too late;
but there is no μετάνοια that can be called too late. But
where you say, that resipiscere and resipiscentia is nothing
but amendment of life, and that repentance, in our heresy, is

nothing else but a mere amendment of former life, you speak

untruly : for those words do signify not only amendment of
life, but also sorrow for the sins past, although without re-
compense or satisfaction, which you call penance for the sins
before committed; for we know no recompence or satisfaction
made to God for our sins, but the death of Christ, who “is the
propitiation for our sins.” 1 John ii. Neither hath your blas-
phemous satisfaction any ground in the Greek word μετανοεῖν,
but only a foolish colour by the Latin translation, agite pent-
tentiam, which it is like your Latin interpreter did never
dream of, and therefore he useth the word restpiscere, 2 Tim. ii.
Of them to whom God should give μετάνοιαν, “repentance to
the acknowledging of the truth,” et resipiscant, and so they
may repent, or, as you translate it, “recover themselves from
the snare of the devil.” Seeing, therefore, repentance is the
gift of God, it is no recompence or satisfaction made by us to
God, to answer his justice; but an earnest and true grief of
mind for our transgression of God’s law, and offending against
his majesty, with a certain purpose and determination of
amendment, so near as God shall give us grace. Hitherto
therefore we have no demonstration of any wilful corruption,
but a declaration of the cause that moved Beza to use a more
exact translation, and such as cometh nearer to the original
word, than that which the vulgar translation hath used, upon
which occasion of a great blasphemy hath been taken, and is
yet maintained.

Martin. Again, concerning the word “ justifications,” which in the
scripture very often signify the commandments, he saith thus: “The
Greek interpreters of the bible (meaning the Septuaginta) applieth this
word to signify the whole law of God, and therefore commonly it is
wont to be translated word for word, justificationes: which interpreta-

ti i κυ. .- «« “ὦ

—

ι.} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 157

tion therefore only I rejected, that I might take away this occasion also
of cavilling against justification by faith ;’ and so for “ justificationes”
he putteth “constituta,” Tully’s word, forsooth, as he saith. Can you
have a more plain testimony of his heretical purpose ?

Fulke. Concerning the Greek word δικαιώμασι, which Futxe,
Beza translateth constitutionibus, “ constitutions;” and you °°
confess that in scripture it doth very often signify the com-
mandments; he saith first, that as the whole law of God is
_ divided into three parts, moral, ceremonial, and judicial, so
the Hebrews have three several words to express the several
precepts of those laws. For the Hebrew word which signifieth
the ceremonial precepts, the Greeks use to translate δικαιώ-
pata. So the sense is, that Zachary and Elizabeth were just,
walking in all the moral commandments, and observing the
holy rites and ceremonies, as much as concerned them: but
the third word, which signifieth “ judgments,” St Luke doth
not add, because the exercise of judicial cases did not belong
unto them, being private persons. After this he saith, that
the Greek interpreters of the Bible transferred this word unto
the whole law of God, and especially to the holy ceremonies :
so, verily, exceedingly commending the law, that it is a certain
rule of all justice ; and therefore men are wont commonly, in
respect of the word, to turn it “justifications.” And this word |
in this place, Beza indeed confesseth that he refused to use,
for avoiding of cavillations against justification by faith, seeing
he hath none other word; neither would he for offence seek
any new word to express justification by faith, whereas the
word δικαιώματα, in this text, Luke i. 6., signifieth not that
by which they were made just, but the commandments or pre-
cepts of God, by walking in which they were declared to be
just. For “by the works of the law” (such as St Luke here
speaketh of) “no flesh shall be justified” before God. Therefore
δικαιώματα in this place must have another sense than justi-
fications, namely, commandments, as you say it is often taken,
or constitutions, as Beza calleth them, which before God and
the world are not of such difference, that you should charge
him with wilful corruption for translating that word constitu-
tions, which you confess signifieth very often commandments.
Wherefore here appeareth no heretical purpose, except you
will say that justification by faith, which St Paul so often, so
diligently, and so purposedly doth teach, is an heresy.

Martin,
61].

* Lo! how
simply, Ani-
ma, carcase.
Infernus,
grave.

Futke,
51.

i A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu..

Martin. Again, when he had rejected this translation, Act ii. 27,
Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, “thou shalt not leave my
soul in hell,” ‘because,’ as he saith, ‘hereupon grew the errors of
Christ’s descending into hell, of limbus, and of purgatory; at length
he concludeth thus: ‘Whereas the doubtful interpretation of one or
two words hath brought forth so many monsters, I chose rather simply*
for ‘soul’ to say carcase ; for ‘hell,’ grave; than to foster these foul
errors. ;

Fulke. Beza sheweth, that because the doubtful inter-
pretation of the Hebrew word sheol into ἄδης, which doth not
properly signify “hell,” but a dark place, such as the pit is

wherein the dead are put, and of the poets is taken for hell,

Martin,
52.

ὃν δεῖ
οὐρανὸν
δέξασθαι.
Acts iii. 21.

Flac. Illyr.

FuiKe,
52.

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 raismg up of Christ’s
body out of the grave; which, if he had ‘translated out of He-
brew, as he did out of Greek, had not been offensive nor
untrue, as I have shewed in answer to your preface, sect. 46,
and of this chapter, sect. 32. But seeing Beza himself hath
altered that translation, and it was never followed of our
English translators, what demonstration is this, that we are
wilful corrupters of the holy scriptures ?

Martin. Again, when he had translated for “Whom heaven must
receive,” thus, “ who must be contained in heaven,” he saith: ‘ Whereas
we have used the passive kind of speech, rather than the active,’ which
is in the Greek, ‘we did it to avoid all ambiguity. For it is very
expedient that there should be in the church of God this perspicuous
testimony against them, that for ascending by faith into heaven, so to
be joined to our Head, obstinately maintain that Christ must be called
again out of heaven unto us:’ meaning his presence in the blessed
sacrament, and inveighing no less against the Lutherans than the
catholics, as the Lutherans do here against him for this wilful inter-
pretation, and that by Calvin’s own judgment, who thinketh it a forced
translation.

Fulke. True it is, that he meant concerning the manner
of Christ’s presence in the blessed sacrament, and that he so
translated, to exclude the carnal manner of presence, which
the papists have invented: but all this while the translation
is true, and warranted by Gregory Nazianzen, as I have
shewed before, sect. 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 ee

1.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 159

that Beza doth none otherwise translate, than you do, Qui
demonia habebant; which is actually thus to be translated,
“those who had devils,” and you say, ‘which were possest of
devils,’ that is, were had of devils. That the Lutherans did
find fault with Beza’s translation, it proveth it not to be false:
he hath justified it sufficiently in his answer to 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, Marin,
whereas Erasmus had put propagatum est, indifferently, both of KS
Adam’s sin, which made us truly sinners, and of Christ’s justice, which
maketh us truly just; he rejecting it, among other causes why it dis-
pleased him, saith: “That old error of the sophists,” meaning catholics,

“which for imputative justice put an inherent quality in the place, is
so great and so execrable to all good men, that I think nothing is so
much to be avoided as it.”

Fulke. A manifest eclipsis, or want of words, being in Furxe,
that verse, for which Erasmus hath put propagatum est, Bs
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 guiltiess 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: Mempe
igitur, sicut per unam offensam reatus venit in omnes homi-

Martin,
84.

Cal. Heb
y. 7. and
Titus iii. 6.

160 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

nes ad condemnationem ; ita per unam justificationem bene-
ficium redundavit in omnes homines ad justificationem vite.
‘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
supplied the text, and useth such words for that purpose, as
the apostle himself in the verses precedent doth offer, for this
necessary supply : which seeing it must be made, that there
may be a sense and understanding, who can mislike that it
should be made by the apostle’s own words? or who can
suppose that the apostle would leave any other words to be
understood, than such as he himself had before expressed ?
And as for the heresy of inherent justice, [it] can have no hold
in this verse, except some such word be added for supply, as
the apostle never used in this case. That Christ’s justice doth
make us as truly just, as Adam’s sin made us truly sinners,
there is no question: but by what means we are made just, we
say, as the scripture teacheth us to speak, that justice is im-
puted to us through faith, Rom. iv. The papists say it 15 a
quality inherent within us; for which words and matter they
have no warrant in the holy scripture.

Martin. These few examples prove unto us that the scriptures
translated verbatim, exactly, and according to the proper use and signi-
fication of the words, do by the heretics’ confession make for the
catholics ; and therefore Beza saith he altereth the words into other:
and, I think, it may suffice any indifferent reader to judge of his purpose
and meaning in other places of his translation, and consequently of theirs
that either allow him, or follow him, which are our English Calvinists
and Bezites. Many other ways there are to make most certain proof

of their wilfulness, as when the translation is framed according to their -

false and heretical commentary ; and when they will avouch their trans-

‘lations out of profane writers, Homer, Plutarch, Pliny, Tully, Virgil,

and Terence, and reject the ecclesiastical use of words in the scriptures
and fathers; which Beza doth for the most part always. But it were
infinite to note all the marks, and by these the wise reader may conceive
the rest.

———_— eh

‘
i
;

1.7 TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 161

Fulke. These examples prove nothing less. For to run Furxe,
over them all briefly, the first two we translate verbatim, °*
“A man is justified by faith without the works of the law,”
and “repent” and “repentance” we say for μετανοεῖν and
μετάνοια. What make these for popery? If Luke i. 6, we
should call δικαιώματα, “justifications,” what should popery
gain but a vain cavil, when yourselves confess, that those
justifications are often used for commandments? Acts ii. 27,
all our English translations are as you would have them,
“Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy holy
one to see corruption ;” by which verse no descent into
limbus, but the resurrection from death, can be proved.
If we translate as you do Acts ii. 21, “whom heaven
must receive,” we will easily convince that Christ must be
received of heaven. In the last example the question is not,
how the word is to be translated, but by what word the
want of the text is to be supplied; which we supply not with
words of our own, but with the apostle’s own words.

Have you not gained greatly by translating verbatim,
exactly, and according to the proper use and signification of
the words? I like well, that every indifferent reader may
judge by these examples of Beza’s purpose im 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. 1 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

il

[ruLKe.]

Martin,
55

Annot.
Acts x. 46.

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 παῖς for
a “boy,” or “servant:” but when the same word is applied to
our Saviour Christ in the prayer of the apostles, Acts iv. 27,

who would not translate it “child,” or “son,” as the word doth

sometime, but more seldom, signify ? How the fathers of the
church 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 μετάνοια for a public testification of repentance,
which we call “penance,” χειροτονία for “imposition of hands,”
and such like; in which sense these words were never used
before the apostles’ times, and therefore it is not like that
they would begin a new use of them, without some manifest
explication of their meaning, without the which no man
could have understood them; as they have done in the use
of these words πίστις, βάπτισμα, ἐκκλησία, and such like,
Τὸ 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. But would you think that these men could notwithstand-
ing speak very gravely and honéstly 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, or 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, but that expresseth the sense. So
it cometh to pass, that whiles every man will rather freely follow his
own judgment, than be a religious interpreter of the Holy Ghost, he

1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 163

doth rather pervert many things than translate them.” Is not this well
said, if he had done accordingly? but doing the clean contrary, as hath
been proved, he is a dissembling hypocrite in so saying, and a wilful
heretic in so doing, and condemned by his own judgment.

Fulke. No wise man doubteth, but they could both Fuxe,
speak very gravely and avoid most religiously all voluntary Sg
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 vention
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 Marty,
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 50 indifferent) of traditions.

Fulke. The more particularly you’ examine our trans- Furxg,
lations, the freer, I hope, they shall be found from false- 56.
hood and wilful corruption. And the more at large you
argue the case, and press us to answer, the more you shall
make the case to appear worse on your side, and the truth
clearer on our part. And as God is witness of our con-
science and sincerity in setting forth his word, without adulte-
ration or corruption; so I appeal to the consciences of all
indifferent readers, whether hitherto you have gotten any
advantage against us in this whole chapter, which yet you
profess to be the abridgement and sum of your whole
treatise.

1]—2

λπτιν, 1.

¢ See the an-
notations of
the new tes-
tament,

2 Thess. ii. 15.

,
παράδοσις.

Βυ ΚΕ, 1.

164 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

CHAPTER II.

Heretical Translation of Holy Scripture against Apostolical
Traditions.

Martin. Tus isa matter of such importance, that if they should
grant any traditions of the apostles, and not pretend the written word
only, they know that by ‘such traditions, mentioned in all antiquity, their
religion were wholly defaced and overthrown. For remedy whereof,
and for the defacing of all such traditions, they bend their translations

‘against them in this wonderful manner. Wheresoever the holy scrip-

ture speaketh against certain traditions of the Jews, partly frivolous,
partly repugnant to the law of God, there all the English translations
follow the Greek exactly, never omitting this word “tradition.” Con-
trariwise, wheresoever the holy scripture speaketh in the commendation
of traditions, to wit, such traditions as the apostles delivered to the
church, there all their said translations agree, not to follow the Greek,
which is still the selfsame word; but for “traditions,” they translate
*‘ ordinances,” or “instructions.” Why so, and to what purpose? We
appeal to the worm of their conscience, which continually aceuseth
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 alltraditions are naught, and none good; all reproveable,
none allowable.

Fulke. Traditions indeed is a matter of such import-
ance, as if you may be allowed whatsoever you will thrust
upon us under the name of unwritten traditions, the written
word of God shall serve to no purpose at all. For first,
as you plainly profess, the holy scripture shall not be ac-
counted sufficient to teach all truth necessary to salvation,
that the man of God may be perfect, prepared to all good
works. Secondly, with the Valentinian heretics, you accuse
the scriptures of uncertain understanding without your tra-
ditions; under pretence of which you will bring in what
you list, though it be never so contrary to the holy scrip-
ture’s plain words, by colour of interpretation, as you do the
worshipping of images, and many other like heresies. As
for the mention that is made of apostolical traditions in
divers of the ancient fathers, some of them are such as you
yourselves observe not, and not for the tenth part of those
that you observe can you bring any testimony out of the

π.} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 165

ancient fathers; as is proved sufficiently by so many propo-
sitions as were set down by the bishop of Salisbury, M.
Jewel, whereof you can bring no proof for any one to have
been taught within 600 years after Christ. Now concern-
ing the traditions of the apostles, what they were, who can
be a better witness unto us than Ignatius, the disciple of the
apostles, of whom Eusebius writeth, that when he was led
towards Rome, where he suffered martyrdom, he earnestly
exhorted the churches by which he passed, to continue in
the faith, and against all heresies, which even then began
to bud up, he charged them to retain fast the tradition of
the apostles, which by that time he protested to be com-
mitted to writing; for by that time were all the books of
the new testament written. The words of Eusebius concern-
ing this matter are, Lib. mi. cap. 35: προὔτρεπέ τε ἀπρὶξ
ἔχεσθαι τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως, ἣν ὑπὲρ ἀσφαλείας
καὶ ἐγγράφως ἤδη μαρτυρόμενος διατυποῦσθαι ἀναγκαῖον
ἡγεῖτο. “And he exhorted them straitly to keep the tra-
dition of the apostles, which, testifying that it was now for ἡ
assurance committed to writing, he thought necessary to be
plainly taught.” Against this tradition of the apostles, which
for certainty and assurance is contained in their holy and un-
doubted writings, we say nothing, but strive altogether for it. _
But because the word “traditions” is by you papists taken to
signify a doctrine secretly delivered by word of mouth, with-
out authority of the holy scriptures, we do willingly avoid
the word in our translations, where the simple might be
deceived, to think that the Holy Ghost did ever commend
any such to the church, which he would not have to be com-
mitted to writing in the holy scriptures; and instead of that
word so commonly taken, although it doth not necessarily
signify any such matters, we do use such words as do truly
express the apostle’s meaning, and the Greek word doth also
signify. Therefore we use the words of “ordinances,” or “in-
structions,” or “institutions,” or “the doctrine delivered,” all
which, being of one sense, the Greek word παράδοσις doth
signify, and the same doth “tradition” signify, if it be rightly
understood: but seeing it hath been commonly taken, and is
urged of the papists to signify only a doctrine delivered
beside the word of God written, in such places where the
Holy Ghost useth the Greek word παράδοσις in that sense,

Martrn, 2.

παράδοσιν.

2 Thess. ii. 15.

παραδό-
σεις,
traditiones.

2 Thess. iii. 6.

1 Cor. xi. 2.

166 ‘A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISIT [cn.

we translate by that word “tradition ;” where he useth it for
such doctrine as is grounded upon the holy scriptures, our
translators have avoided it, not of any heretical meaning,
that all παράδοσεις, “traditions,” are naught, but that all such
as have not the holy scripture to testify of them, and to war-
rant them, are evil, and to be avoided of all true Christians;
which cannot without blasphemy acknowledge any imper-
fection in the holy scriptures of God, which are able to make
a man wise unto salvation, if they should thmk any doctrine
necessary to salvation not to be contained therein.

Martin. For example, Matt. xv.’, thus they translate, “Why do thy
disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” And again, “ Why do
you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” And
again, “ Thus have you made the commandment of God of no effect
by your tradition.” Here, I warrant you, all the bells sound “ tradition,”
and the word is never omitted ; and it is very well and honestly trans-
lated, for so the Greek word doth properly signify. But now on the

other side, concerning good traditions, let us see their dealing. The
apostle by the selfsame words, both in Greek and Latin, saith thus:
“Therefore, brethren, stand and hold fast the traditions which you have

learned either by word, or by our epistle?.” And again, “ Withdraw
yourselves from every brother walking inordinately, and not according
to the tradition which they have received of τι." And again, according
to the Greek which they profess to follow: “I praise you, brethren,

[2 Διατί of μαθηταί cov παραβαίνουσι τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσ-
βυτέρων; Matt. xv. 2.7 :

[2 Καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε. 2 Thess. ii. 15,
“Tenete traditiones quas didicistis,’ Vulg. ‘“'Tenete traditam doctri-
nam, quam edocti estis,” Beza.

“Hold ye the traditions that ye have learned,’ Wiclif. ‘ Keep
the ordinances which ye have learned,”. Tyndale, Cranmer. ‘‘ Keep
the instructions which ye have learned,” Geneva. ‘Hold the tradi-
tions which you have learned,” Rheims. ‘Hold the traditions which
you have been taught,” Authorised version. |

[? Kat μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρέλαβον παρ᾽ ἡμῶν. 2 Thess. iii. 6.
“ἘΠ᾿ 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. ]

11. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 167.

that in all things you are mindful of me, and as I have delivered unto καθὼς

Vue ᾿ παρέδωκα
you, you keep my traditions ‘,” μὲ παρα-

δόσεις
Fulke. No marvel, though you cannot avoid the bells Rorke, 2,
sounding against man’s traditions; which sound must needs
pierce your conscience more than it offendeth your ears,
seeing you know that many of those things which you defend
under the name of traditions, against the holy scriptures,
have not God for their author, which forbiddeth to be wor-
shipped in such sort, but man, or rather Satan, which hath
inspired such things unto men, thereby to dishonour God,
and to discredit his holy and most certain written word. Yet
you say it is well and honestly translated. God knoweth
how fain you would there were no such text extant in the
gospel against your superstition and will-worshipping. But
now let us see our crafty dealing (as you count it) against
good traditions. In the first text, 2 Thess. 1. 15, you may
see your understanding of traditions quite overthrown. For
the apostle speaketh of such traditions as were delivered to
them partly by preaching, and partly by his epistle. There-,
fore tradition doth not signify a doctrine delivered by word
of mouth only. But yet you will say it signifieth here a
doctrine delivered by word of mouth also, which is not writ-
ten. How prove you that? because all that the apostle
preached was not contained in his epistles to the Thessa-
lonians, therefore was it nowhere written in the scriptures?
- What the tradition was in the second text, 2 Thess. iii. 6, is
expressed by and by after: “that he which will not labour
must not eat.” Was this doctrine never written before?
when God commandeth every man to labour in his vocation.
As for the third place, 1 Cor. xi. 2, your own vulgar Latin
translator both teacheth us how to translate it, and also dis-
chargeth our translation of heresy and corruption; for he
calleth παράδοσεις in that place, “pracepta’,” precepts, or
instructions, or commandments, or ordinances: I see no great
difference in these words. By which his translation he
sheweth, that in the other places, 2 Thess. ii. and iii, he
meaneth the same thing by traditiones, “traditions,” that we

[+ Ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοὶ, ὅτι πάντα μου μέμνησθε, καὶ καθὼς
παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε. 1 Cor. xi. 2.
[° “Et sicut tradidi vobis, precepta mea tenete,” Vulg. |

Martin, 9.

Yet M. Fulke
saith, it is
found there,

he give not
us an in-
stance, let
him give
himself the
lie.

2 Thess. ii.
and iii.
παραδό-
σεις.

FuLxg, 3.

168 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ° [ cx.

do by “ordinances” or “instructions”, and might as well have
used the word pracepta in those two places, as he did in
this one, if it had pleased him.

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,
and thou shalt not once find the word “ tradition,” but instead thereof,

ordinances,” “instructions,” “preachings,” “institutions,” and any word
else rather than “tradition.” Insomuch that Beza, their master, trans-
lateth it “traditam doctrinam,” “the doctrine delivered,” putting the
singular number for the plural, and adding “doctrine” of his own: so

framing the text of holy scripture according to his false commentary, or

rather putting his commentary in the text, and making it the text of
scripture. Who would think their malice and partiality against tradi-
tions were so great, that they should all agree with one consent so duly
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 ἢ

Fulke. There is no question but the apostles by word
of mouth, that is, by preaching and teaching, delivered the
doctrine of the gospel to the churches; but that they preached,
taught, or delivered any doctrine as necessary to salvation,
which they proved not out of the holy scriptures, and which
is not contained in the new testament or the old, this is
not yet proved, neither ever can it be proved. Such matters
of ceremonies, order, and discipline, which are mutable, no
man denies but they might and did deliver; but yet in
them nothing but agreeable to the general rules set down
in the scripture. But in all these places the word “ tradi-
tion” cannot once be found. Yet M. Fulke saith it is found.
Yea, doth? where saith he so? You answer, p. 153,
against D. Saunders’ Rocke. Therefore, if he give not an
instance, let him give himself the lie. But he that chargeth
Fulke to say it is found, 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 im the
better part, cannot be suffered to be in the English bible,
as though there were some decree of the synod, or act of

parliament against it; and saith, it may be and is suffered

in that sense which the Holy Ghost useth it, but not to

u. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE; 169

bring prayer ‘for the dead, or any thing contrary to the
scripture under the name of traditions apostolic. By which

words I mean, that there is no prohibition or edict to the
contrary, but if any man will use the word tradition in trans-
lation of the Bible, he is permitted so to do: I do not affirm
it is so found. But as if I should say, The papists in
England are suffered to live as becometh good subjects, I
affirm not that they are, or shall be found so to live. But
to omit this foolish quarrel, Beza our master is said to have
translated παράδοσεις, “the doctrine delivered,” putting the
singular number for the plural, and adding “ doctrine” of his
own. What an heious matter here is! The word “doctrine”
is a collective, comprehending many precepts or traditions ;
and in the next chapter the apostle useth the same word in —
the singular number. Again, the 1 Thess. iv. 2, he calleth the
same παραγγελίας, “precepts” or “documents,” which word
signifieth the same that παραδόσεις : witness your vulgar Latin
translator, which gives one word for both, precepta, 1 Cor. xi.
and 1 Thess. iv. And that the word doctrine is added to
the text, it is a fond cavil: for the word doctrine is con-
tained in παραδόσις, which signifieth a “delivery ;” but where-
of, if not of doctrine? Our Saviour Christ also, Matt. xv. 9,
by the testimony of Esay reproveth the tradition of the
Pharisees, “teaching the doctrines precepts of men;” which
testimony of Esay could take no hold of them, if traditions
were not doctrines and precepts. So that in this transla-
tion of Beza (cry out as loud as you can) there is neither
fraud nor corruption, malice nor partiality; but a prudent
declining of that term, which might give occasion of error,
and the apostle’s meaning truly and faithfully delivered. To
shew that one word may be diversely translated, especially
when it signifieth divers things, to wise men is needless.
- I have said before, you yourselves translate, (or else you
should: be taken for madmen,) the Latin word tradere, of
which tradition is derived, sometimes “‘to deliver,’ sometimes
“to betray,” and yet the Greek and Latin word being all
one in all the said places.

Martin. Yea, they do elsewhere so gladly use this word, Marmn, 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-

Col. ii. 10.
τί doypa-
τίζεσθε".

170 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ou.

sent as before, when it is not in the Greek at all: as when they
translate thus, “If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the
world, why, as though living in the world, ΑΒΕ YE LED WITH TRA-

me the year prrions?” and, as another English translation®* of theirs readeth more

Col. ii. 24.
Eph. ii. 15.
δόγμασιν.
ἐν δόγ-
μασιν.

Futxe, 4.

heretically, “ Why are ye burdened with traditions?” ‘Tell us sincerely,
you that profess to have skill in the Greek, and to translate according to
the Greek; tell us, we beseech you, whether this Greek word δόγμα
do signify “tradition,” and δογματίζεσθαι “to be led or burdened with
traditions,” You cannot be ignorant that it doth not so signify; but as a
little before in the same chapter, and in other places, yourselves translate
δόγματα, “ordinances,” “decrees,” so τί δογματίζεσθε must be (as in the
vulgar Latin it is) quid decernitis ὁ Why do you “ordain, ” or “ decree,”
or, “why are you led with decrees ?”

Fulke. It grieveth you that tradition should be men-
tioned in the ill part as it is. And it seemeth you would
defend the Colossians against St Paul, who reproveth them
because they were led by ordinances according to the “ pre-
cepts and doctrines of men.” But you seem to make light
of such traditions, and therefore you count that the more
heretical translation, which saith, ‘ why are you burdened
with traditions?” Wherefore, I pray you, is that more
heretical? Do you not think that such traditions as are the
commandments and doctrines of men, are burdensome to men’s
consciences ? But they that have skill in the Greek tongue
must tell you sincerely, whether this word doyua doth signify
“tradition,” and δογματίζεσθαι “to be led or burdened
with traditions.” I answer you, if δόγματα, as you confess,
signify “ordinances” and “decrees” or “doctrines,” and the
word tradition signifieth the same, why should not δογμα-
τίζεσθαι “to be led or burdened with traditions,” as well as
with ordinances, customs, or decrees? These words differ
much in sound, but not greatly in signification. Dogmata

Γ᾽ In the original, τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ δογματίζεσθε; in Tyn-
dale’s version, 1534, “ Why,\as though ye yet lived in the world, are
ye led with traditions of them that say—” Cranmer’s version 1539,
and the Bishops’ bible, “ Why, as though ye yet lived in the world,
are ye led with traditions?” The Geneva version, 1557, “‘ Wherefore,
if ye be dead with Christ and are free from the ordinances of the

world, why, as though ye yet lived in the world, are ye burdened with

traditions?” In the Authorised version, “Why, as though living in
the world, are ye subject to ordinances?” |

It. ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 171

Pythagorea, that might never be put in writing, what were
they but the traditions of Pythagoras? Such were the
philosophical decrees called δόγματα, whereof Tully speaketh
in his book De jinibus, which were dictata, taught by
word of mouth, which to set forth among them was counted
an heinous offence: might not those rightly be called tra-
ditions ?

Martin. Justify your translation, if you can, either out of scriptures, Martin, 5.
fathers, or lexicon. And make us a good reason why you put the word
“traditions” here, where it is not in the Greek ; and would not put it
in the places before, where you know it is most evidently in the Greek.

Yea, you must tell us why you translate for tradition, “ ordinance,” and pfs
contrary for ordinance, “tradition ;” so turning cat in pan (as they say) inte Ὑ ordi
at your pleasure, and wresting both the one and the other to one end, sepa, rs
that you may make the very name of traditions odious among the pA anion ἘΝ
people, be they never so authentical, even from the apostles, which your tary.

conscience knoweth, and you shall answer for it at the dreadful day.

Fulke. First, out of scripture I justify it thus: those Furxzg, 5.
dogmata, against which the apostle writeth, were according
to the precepts and doctrines of men: but such the scripture
calleth traditions, Matt. xv. Therefore these were traditions.
Secondly, out of the fathers: Chrysostom* upon this place
saith, Traditiones Grecorum taxat, he reproveth the tra-
ditions of the Greeks, saying, all is but a human doctrine.
‘Secondly, St Ambrose* upon this text : ‘Love not the world,”

[2 Πῶς δὲ οὐ κόσμου παρατηρήσεσι; καὶ ὅρα πῶς αὐτοὺς κωμωδεῖ,
μὴ θίγῃς, μὴ ἅψῃ, μὴ γεύσῃ, ὡς μεγάλων τινων ἀπεχομένους" ἅ ἐστι
πάντα εἰς φθορὰν τῇ ἀποχρήσει. καθεῖλε τῶν πολλῶν τὴν φυσίωσιν,
καὶ émpyaye’ κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων. τί
λέγεις; κἂν τὸν νόμον εἴπῃς, λοιπὸν διδασκαλία ἐστὶν ἀνθρώπου μετὰ
τὸν καιρόν. ἢ ὅτι παρεποίουν αὐτὸν, οὕτως εἶπεν, ἢ τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων
aivirrerat’ ὅλον ἀνθρώπινον τὸ δόγμα ἐστί, φησίν. Chrysost. in Epist.
ad Coloss. cap. 11. Hom. vu. Opera, Vol, x1. p. 372. edit. Benedict. 7"

[* Nolite, inquit, diligere mundum, neque ea que in mundo sunt;
id est, neque elementa, quibus compactus est mundus, neque errores
quos humana adinvenit traditio, deligamus; sed solum Christum qui
mortuus est pro nobis. Ambros. Comment. in Epist. ad Coloss. ii. 2.
Opera, Vol. π. 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 [ on.

saith he, “nor those errors quos humana adinventt traditio,
‘‘which the tradition of men hath invented.” And afterward,
Sagina enim carnalis sensus humana traditio est: “For
the tradition of man is the pampering of carnal sense; by
which, he saith, men are so burdened, that they cannot be
joined. to the head which is above.” Yet “ burdening with
traditions” is called of you the more heretical translation.
Say as much to Ambrose, that he maketh an heretical com-
mentary. The interpreter of Theodoret, printed at Collen,
1573, hath translated in the very text, for διδασκαλίας,
““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
English word, as it is used by you, is not so indifferent, to
signify the doctrine of God delivered out of the scriptures,
as to signify doctrines of men devised beside the scriptures.
If we must answer why. we call tradition “ ordinance,” and
ordinance “ tradition;” let your vulgar Latin interpreter an-
swer us, or you for him, why he calleth tradition “ precept,”
and usage or precept “tradition”? The one he doth 1 Cor.
xi. 2, the other Acts vi. 14, where the Greek is ἔθη, signify-
ing there “ precepts,” or “observations commanded,” he trans-
lateth traditiones, as in the other place the Greek being
παραδόσεις he translateth “precepta.” If this be lawful for
him, why should it be counted corruption or false trans-
lation in us? seeing we are moved with as good reason
as can be yielded for him. As for authentical and apos-
tolical traditions, that are grounded upon the doctrine of the
apostles expressed in their writings, we shall be ready to
receive them, whensoever they shall be brought forth. If
they cannot be proved by the scriptures, which are ‘ written
that we might believe, and believing have eternal life,” and
‘‘which are able to make us wise unto salvation,’ we have
nothing to do with them: we may well spare them: nay,
we dare not admit them, lest we should answer for blas-
phemy against the holy scriptures in that dreadful day, if
‘by admitting of such traditions we should profess, that the
doctrine contained in the holy scriptures is unperfect or
insufficient to salvation.

Ἢ

ὁ. ee

π.} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. byt a

Martin. Somewhat more excusable it is, but yet proceeding of the Maxi, 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- 1 Pet. i. 18.
versation received by the tradition of the fathers.” Where the Greek is ἐκ τῆς μα-

thus rather to be translated, “from your vain conversation delivered by cae ee

the fathers.” But your fingers itched to foist in the word “tradition,” στροφῆς
and for “delivered” to say “received,” because it is the phrase of the ™*7pome-
catholic church, that it hath “received” many things “‘ by tradition,” ν ᾿
which you would here controul by likeness of words in this false trans-

lation.

Fulke. I marvel why you should count it an heretical Furxe, 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, “ delivered by the fathers,”
but that our fingers itched to foist in the word “ tradition.”
What, I pray you, hath your vulgar translator foisted in
that word? did his fingers itch against such catholic phrases,
that he would controul them by a false translation? Do you
not perceive that while you rail upon us, you revile your
own vulgar Latin translation, which hath the same word
“tradition,” for which you storm against us? But for de-
livered, we have said, received. See whither frowardness
driveth you: the apostle saith, “they were delivered from
the vain conversation of their fathers’ tradition.” Do you
then understand, that it was delivered by the fathers, but
not received by their sons? Certainly they were delivered
from that vain conversation which they had received. For
receiving doth necessarily import delivering. And because
you called for a lexicon in the next section before, Scapula
will teach you, that πατροπαράδοτος doth signify as in-
differently a patre traditus as a patre acceptus, “ delivered
by the father,” and “ received by the father.” What wrangling
then is this, about the moon-shine in the water, to cry

Martin, 7.

Tradidi
σπαρέδωκα.

ΕὙ1ΚΕ, 7.

Manrtin, 8.

174 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

out “false translation,” “foisting,” ‘itching fingers,” and 1
know not what?

Martin. But concerning the word “ tradition,” you will say perhaps
the sense thereof is included in the Greek word, “delivered.” We
grant. But would you be content, if we should always expressly add,
“tradition,” where it is so included 2? Then should we say, 1 Cor. xi. 2,
“41 praise you that as I have delivered you (by tradition), you keep
my precepts,” or “ traditions.” And again, v.23: “For I received of
our Lord, which also I delivered unto you,” (by tradition,) &e. And
Luke i. 2: “As they (by tradition) delivered unto us, which from
the beginning saw,” &c., and such like, by your example, we should
translate in this sort. _ But we use not this licentious manner 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. We will say it is contained in the Greek word
πατροπαραδότου, which signifieth “received by tradition or
delivery from the fathers,” and not in the verb παραδίδωμι,
which signifieth otherwise many times, than simply “to de-
liver ;”. and when it signifieth “to deliver,” it doth not alway
signify to deliver by word of mouth, without writing, as
you understand tradition, but as well by writing, as by
preaching. As when St Paul saith, “TI received of the Lord
that which I delivered unto you,” speaking of the institution
of the supper, he meaneth that which the evangelists had
written, and he himself doth write. So 2 Thess. 1., when
he willeth them to hold the traditions which they had
learned of him, he speaketh not only of such as they learned
by his preaching, but such also as they learned by his
epistle. Wherefore if you should expressly add the word
“tradition” in your partial signification, wheresoever you find
the word delivered, you should not only translate ridiculously,
but also heretically and falsely. Words in derivation and
composition do not always signify according to their pri-
mitive.

Martin. And if you will yet say, that our vulgar Latin translation
hath here the word, “tradition,” we grant it hath so, and therefore we

also translate accordingly. But you profess to translate the Greek, and

not the vulgar Latin, which you in England condemn as papistical, and
say it is the worst of all; though Beza, your master, pronounce it to be

a δον

11. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 175

the very best'; and will you, notwithstanding, follow the said vulgar. ia gd
Latin, rather than the Greek, to make traditions odious? Yea, such is ag. 147. τ Ὁ
your partiality one way, and inconstancy another way, that for your Novum Test.
heretical purpose you are content to follow the old Latin translation, ἰδ"
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 Furxs, 8.
to be true, and sufficient to discharge our translation from
your foolish and malicious quarrelling. But we profess (you
say) to translate the Greek, and not the vulgar Latin. And,
I pray you, what doth your vulgar Latin interpreter pro-
fess to translate, but the Greek ? If he then, translating out of
Greek, could find “tradition” in the Greek word, why should
not we find the same, especially being admonished by him ?
who if he translated truly, why are we blamed for doing

[? Beza’s opinion was not. quite what Martin has here represented
it. In the preface alluded to, he says as follows: “Vulgate illius
editionis, qua jampridem utimur, quis auctor fuerit, video inter doctos
homines non constare. Hoc quidem constat, preterquam quod pluri-
mis locis a librariis est depravata, sepe illam a Grecis discedere, sepe
obscure multa interpretari, quedam pretermittere, quedam adjicere ;
ut minime mirum sit, eruditis hominibus nunquam satisfecisse, impe-
ritis autem multis magnos errores objecisse. Eruditos voco, non eos
-duntaxat qui precipué hoc nomine digni sunt, quales sane perpauci
semper extiterunt; sed eos quoque qui vel mediocrem utriusque lin-
gue peritiam ad pietatis cognitionem attulerunt. Ceteros autem, quod
ad id attinet de quo agimus, nihil moror; quorum tamen duo genera
esse video: unum eorum qui. per imperitiam, quod pleraque errata
non modo non intelligunt, sed ne suspicari quidem possunt, idcirco in
recepta illa interpretatione acquiescunt ; qui tamen proculdubio meliora
amplecterentur, siquis illa commonstraret: alterum eorum qui, perverso
quodam ingenio et ignobili natura prediti, ita in crassis illis et ob-
scuris tenebris versantur, ut veritatis lucem sponte refugiant. Illi com-
miseratione sane aliqua digni sunt: isti vero plane indigni quorum
corruptis et depravatis judiciis quisquam commoveatur; gquinimo
aperti sunt veritatis hostes; mirus enim est inter mendacium et igno-
rantiam, qua isti tantopere delectantur, consensus.......... Quum igitur
in illa Vulgata editione (quam tamen ego maxima ex parte amplector,
et ceteris omnibus antepono) permulta requirantur, laudandus est
profecto eorum labor qui illam emendare studuerunt. Prefatio in
Noy. Test. edit. Beze, 1556. ]

176 ᾿ A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ' | cH:

as he did? if his translation be false, why is it allowed
as the only authentical text? We follow not, therefore, the
Latin translation, but 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 fenerator, “a cre-
ditor,” which signifieth an usurer, Luke vi.; stabulum, “ an

inn,” and stabularius, “an host,” Luke x.; wna sabbati, “the

first of the sabbath,” John ii.; ecclesia, “the assembly,” Acts
vil. ; baptismata, “washings,” Mark vii., and such like.

But we in England (say you) condemn the Latin trans-
lation, as papistical. We accuse it as not true in many places,
and we say it is the worst of all, though Beza, our master,
pronounce it to be the very best. This toucheth me some-
what; for in the margin is noted “Discovery of the Rock,
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? Speaking of the divers
Latin translations of the New Testament only, he saith of
the vulgar Latin, that he followeth it for the most part,
and preferreth it before all the rest: maxima ex parte am-~
plector, et ceteris omnibus antepono. So that I speak of
the whole Bible, Beza of the New Testament only: I speak
of the vulgar Latin text, in comparison of the original He-
brew and Greek, and the Septuagint’s translation; Beza,
of the Latin translation of the New Testament, in comparison,
of all other Latin translations, that were before him, as
Erasmus, Castalio, and such like. According to your old
manner therefore, you rehearse out of my writings, either
falsifying the words, or perverting the meaning. These
things considered, you have no cause to accuse us of par-
tiality and inconstancy, for following or leaving your Latin
text, which we never did but upon good ground and reason
sufficient.

eee

u.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE: 177

Martin. So that a blind man may see you frame your translations Marri, 9.
to bolster your errors and heresies, without all respect of following
sincerely either the Greek or the Latin. But for the Latin no marvel;
the Greek at the least why do you not follow? Is it the Greek that
induceth you to say ordinances for traditions, traditions for decrees, παρα-
ordinances for justifications, elder for priest, grave for hell, image for abe
idol? Tell us before God, and in your conscience, whether it be because δικαιώ-
you will exactly follow the Greek : nay, tell us truly, and shame the ἀφρόν
devil, whether the Greek words do not sound and signify most properly “pat
that which you of purpose will not translate, for disadvantaging your

ξἴδωλον.
heresies? And first, let us see concerning the question of images,

Fulke. A blind man may see, that you cavil and slan- Furxe, 9.
der, quarrel and rail, without respect either of conscience
towards God, or honesty toward the world: insomuch, that
most commonly you forget the credit of your own vulgar
Latin translation, so you may have a colour to find fault
with ours. And yet again you ask, whether it be the Greek
which induceth us to say, for παραδόσεις ordinances, and
for δόγματα traditions, &c. I tell you, the Greek alloweth
us so to say, which is sufficient, when other godly causes
move us beside so to translate. Is it the Latin that m- Fenerator.
duceth you to say, for ‘an usurer,’ ‘a creditor;’ for ‘a stable,’ Quodfactum,
‘an inn;’ for ‘what was done,’ ‘what was chanced’;’ for ‘fas- Ailigentes,
tening to,’ ‘crucifying*;’ for ‘be you saved,’ ‘save yourselyes?;? Savarn,

for igrantures, ‘ereation;’ for ‘confessed,’ ‘promised’; τ for.s a Acts
culas,
boat,’ ‘a ship;’ for ‘a ship,’ ‘a boat ;’ for ‘singing,’ ‘pipin silgke y
3 > εἶ

[? Acts vy. 7. Καὶ ἡ γυνὴ. αὐτοῦ μὴ εἰδυῖα τὸ γεγονὸς εἰσῆλθεν.
“Et uxor ipsius, nesciens quod factum fuerat,” Vulg. “And his
wife not knowing what was chaunced,” Rhemish version. |

[? Acts ii, 23, διὰ χειρῶν ἀνόμων mpoomp artes ἀνείλετε. 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.]

[* Acts ii. 40. Σώθητε ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς τῆς σκολιᾶς ταύτης. * Sal-
vamini a generatione ista prava,” Vulg. ‘Save yourselves from this
perverse generation,” Rhemish version. ]

[* Acts vii. 17. Καθὼς δὲ ἤγγιζεν 6 χρόνος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἧς ὥμοσεν
ὁ Θεὸς τῷ Ἀβραάμ. “Cum autem appropinquaret tempus promis-
sionis, quam confessus erat Deus Abrahe,” Vulg. ‘‘And when the
time drew near of the promise which God had promised to Abra-
ham, &c.” Rhemish translation. ]

[° Matt. xi. 17, Ἡὐλήσαμεν ὑμῖν, καὶ οὐκ ὠρχήσασθε. Cecinimus
vobis, et non saltastis,” Vulg. ‘We have piped to you, and you
have not danced,” Rhemish version. ]

[FuLKE. | 3 a

Navis,
Mark iv.
Cecinimus,
Matt. xi.
Foenum,
Matt. xiv.
Refectio,
ark τὰς
Nsipieni
ake ΠΕ
Simula-
crum.

178 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ° [ous

for ‘hay,’ ‘grass’; for ‘refection,’ ‘refectory*;’ for ‘foolish-
ness,’ ‘madness*;’ for ‘an image,’ ‘an idol, &c.? I blame
not all these as false translations; yet every man may see
they are neither usual nor proper: yet as for some of these
(though not for all) 1 know you may give good reason, 80.
may we, for any shew of alteration or departing from the
usual signification of the Greek word, that you are able to
allege against us.

Γ' Matt. xiv. 19. Ἀνακλιθῆναι ἐπὶ τοὺς χόρτους: Discumbere su-
per foenum,” Vulg. “Τὸ sit. down upon the grass,” Rhemish

- version. |

[? Mark xiv. 14. Ποῦ ἐστι τὸ κατάλυμα; “Ubi est refectio mea?”
Vulg. “Where is my refectory?” Rhemish version. ]

[* Luke vi. 11. ᾿Επλήσθησαν ἀνοίας. “Repleti sunt insipientia,”
Vulg. “And they were replenished with madness,” Rhemish version. ]

πι.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 179

CHAPTER III.

Heretical Translation against Sacred Images.

Martin. I beseech you, what is the next and readiest and most proper Marry, 1.
English of idolum, idololatra, idololatria? is it not, “idol, idolater, εἴδωλον.
idolatry”? Are not these plain English words, and well known in our ea ga
language? Why sought you further for other terms and words, if you had eldwhoha-
meant faithfully 2 What needed that circumstance of three words for τρεία.
one, “ worshipper of images,” and “ worshipping of images*” ? Whether, Bib. 1577.

I pray you, is the more natural and convenient speech, either in our
English tongue, or for the truth of the thing, to say, as the holy scripture

doth, “covetousness is idolatry,” and consequently, “the covetous man Eph. v.
is an idolater ;" ;” or, as you translate, “covetousness is worshipping of ἩΒῊΣ
images,” and, “the covetous man is a worshipper of images ”?

Fulke. If you ask for the readiest and most proper Furxe, 1.
English of these words, I must needs answer you, ‘an image,
a worshipper of images, and worshipping of images,’ as we
have sometimes translated. The other that you would have,
‘idol, idolater, and idolatry,’ be rather Greekish than English
words; which though they be used of many Englishmen,
yet are they not understood of all, as the other be. And
therefore I say, the more natural and convenient speech
for our English tongue, and as convenient for the truth of
_ the thing, it is to say, ‘covetousness is the worshipping of
images, and the covetous man is a worshipper of images,’
as to say, ‘covetousness is idolatry, and the covetous man
is an idolater, as I have proved before; seeing zdolum by
your own interpreter is called simulacrum, and _ simula-
crum signifieth as much as imago, an image, cap. 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, The absur-
ῤ Ps dity of this
‘whose belly is their god,” Phil. iii.; and generally every creature is Ganslation,
our idol, when we esteem it so exceedingly that we make it our god. hell

But who ever heard in English, that our money, or belly, were our co, .

[* The versions of 1584 and 1539 render ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία,
Col. iii. 5, “Which is worshipping of images.” The Geneva transla-
tion has, like the Authorised version of 1611, “Which is idolatry.”
The Vulgate has, “Que est simulacrorum servitus.”]

; 12—2

Futxe, 2.

180 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cr.

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 2 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. Before you can shew that absurdity of this
translation, ‘a covetous man is a worshipper of images,’ you

must defend your own vulgar Latin translation, which calleth

εἰδωλολατρεία simulacrorum servitus, which I have proved to
signify the serving or worshipping of images, cap. i. numb, 5,
Now to our English phrase, ‘a rich man maketh his money
his god, a glutton his belly,’ and so of other creatures
honoured above measure; I say, the worshipping of images
may be after two sorts, either when they are worshipped as
gods, (as among the grosser sort of the gentiles and papists,)
and then it is against the first commandment, “Thou shalt
have none other gods but me”; or else when men pretend to
worship God by them, as the Israelites did in the calf,
Exod. xxxi., and in Jeroboam’s calves, and in the brasen
serpent, and the wiser sort of the gentiles and papists pretend
to do in worshipping their images; and then it is a sin -
against the second commandment, “Thou shalt make to thy-
self no graven images: thou shalt not fall down to them,
nor worship them.” By similitude therefore of them that
trusted in images as their gods, and so honoured them which
were not able to help them, the apostle calleth the covetous
man a worshipper of images, and covetousness, worshipping of
images; and not properly, but because their money is to
them the same occasion of departing from God, that the
images was to the worshipper of them. So if we will speak
unproperly, as the apostle saith, “their belly is their God,” we
may say it is their idol, or their image, which they worship
as God: not that the belly, or any such thing, is God, or an
idol, or an image properly ; but that it is so termed, for that
to such vile creatures is given that divine honour which is due

_ to God, but by worshippers of idols and images is given to

idols or images. I confess the use of the English tongue, in
these speeches, is rather to call them idols than images, and

ut. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 181

to extend the name idol (which is always taken in the evil
part) to that which the word image cannot so aptly signify :
yet in truth of the thing there is no difference between idol
and image, worshipping of idols, and worshipping of images,
whether you speak of such as be idols and images, so properly
called, or of such as be only by similitude figuratively so
named, If any of our superimtendents 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 Marr, 3.
bible, printed the year 1562, you read thus: “ How agreeth the temple 2 Cor. vi.
of God with images??” Can we be ignorant of Satan’s cogitations herein,
that it was translated of purpose to delude the simple people, and to
make them believe that the apostle speaketh against sacred images in
the churches, which were then in plucking down in England, when this
your translation was first published in print? Whereas in very truth
‘you know, that the apostle here partly interpreteth himself to speak of
men as of God’s temples wherein he dwelleth, partly alludeth to Salo-
mon’s temple, which did very well agree with images (for it had the satomon’s
cherubins, whick were the representations of angels, and the figures of pa pry
oxen to bear up the lavatory), but with idols it could not agree, and ¥ithimase

therefore the apostle’s words are these, “‘ How agreeth the temple of God ‘4°!

_ with idols 2”

Fulke. We had need to see more, before we be con- Futxe, 3.
--vieted of corruption ; for hitherto we have seen nothing but a
foolish cavil, grounded upon the common use of the word “idol”
in English, in which speech it is taken only for unlawful
images, although in the Greek it signifieth as generally as
imago in Latin, and by Tully himself is used for the same.
But in the English bible, printed 1562, we read thus,
2 Cor. vi., “ How agreeth the temple of God with images* ?”
Here you cannot be “ignorant of Satan’s cogitations, that it

Γ Tis δὲ συγκατάθεσις ναῷ Θεοῦ peta εἰδώλων; 2 Cor. vi. 16.
«What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?” Rhemish,
Authorised version. |

[? It is “images” in the Bibles of 1534, 1539, 1557, but “idols”
in the Authorised version, 1611. ]

Reisen, 4. .

μετὰ τῶν
εἰδώλων.
The brasen
serpent, first
an image,
and lawful:
afterward an
idol, and
unlawful.
Numb. xxi.
Lib. x. de
Civit. ο. 8.

2 Kings xviii.
Exod. xxxii.

182 ‘A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

was translated of purpose to make the simple people believe,
that the apostle speaketh against sacred images in churches,
which were then in plucking down in England, when this
translation was first published in print.” You are so cunning
in Satan’s cogitations, that he hath inspired into you a mani-
fest untruth ; for this text was so translated and printed near
thirty years before 1562, in king Henry the VIIIth’s time,
when images were not in plucking down. And when it was
printed again, 1562, which was the fifth year of her majesty’s
reign (God be thanked!) there was no need to pluck down
images out of churches, which were plucked down in the first
and second years of her reign. Wherefore that purpose is
vainly imagined of you: for the translator’s purpose was the
same that the apostle’s, to shew that the religion of God
hath nothing to do with images made by man’s -device to
honour them as gods, or to honour God by them. And
where you say that the apostle “alludeth to Salomon’s temple,
which did well agree with images, but not with idols;’ I
answer you, Salomon’s temple did not agree with 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
religion to worship God in them or by them, but for use and
garnishing of the house appointed by God in his law, and by
direction of his Spirit in Salomon. For the commandment,
‘Thou shalt not make to thyself,” is no restraint unto God, but
unto men of their own brain or private intent to make images
to serve in religion. Therefore the apostle, speaking of such
images as were forbidden by God’s law, is not otherwise to be
understood ; and no more is our translation.

Martin. When Moses by God’s appointment erected a brasen
serpent, and commanded the people that were stung with serpents to
behold it, and thereby they were healed ; this was an image only, and as
an image was it erected and kept and used by God’s commandment.
But when it grew to be an idol, saith St Augustine, that is, when the
people began to adore it as God, then king Ezechias brake it in pieces, to
the great commendation of his piety and godly zeal. So when the

children of Israel, in the absence of Moses, made a calf, and said, “ These

are thy gods, O Israel, that brought thee out of Egypt,” was it but an
image which they made? was that so heinous a matter, that God would

a —_

mt. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 183

so have punished them as he did? No, they made it an idol also, saying, oie 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- rare) tah
late most falsely, “Be not worshippers of ares. as some of them.”

Fulke. The brasen serpent first and last was an image, Fuxxe, 4.
holy when it was commanded by God to be made as a sacra-
ment of our redemption by Christ, lawful when it was reserved
only for memory of that excellent miracle; unlawful, cursed,
and abominable, when it was worshipped, and therefore justly
broken in pieces by the godly king Ezechias. You cite Au-
gustine as it pleaseth you, to follow your own context:
Quem sane serpentem, propter factti memoriam reservatum,
cum postea populus errans tanquam idolum colere cepisset,
Ezechias, &c. “Which serpent truly, being reserved for the
memory of the fact, when afterward the people going astray
began to worship as an idol, Ezechias the king, serving God
with religious power, with great praise of his piety brake in
pieces.” Here it is certain that Augustine, as most ecclesias-
tical writers, useth the word idolwm for an image abused.
But that the people began to adore it as God, he saith not ;
for they only worshipped God by it, falsely indeed and super-
stitiously, but yet not believing that image to be God him-
self, but a holy representation of his power, which was shewed
by it in the days of Moses. That Ezechias, by religious or
ecclesiastical power and authority, did put down idolatry, you
pass it by, as though you saw it not in St Augustine. But
you bring another example to prove that images, except they
be worshipped as gods, be no idols. In truth, seeing all
religious worship is due only to God, although the idolaters
intend not to worship their images as gods, yet by worship-
ping of them they make unto themselves gods of them, and
so offend both against the first and second commandments.
Yet how prove you that the Israelites made a god of their
calf? Because they said, “These are thy gods, Ὁ Israel,
that brouglit 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 [cu.

could not think it was the same God that brought them out of
the land of Egypt, but that they would worship God by that
visible shape, which they saw before them. And Aaron by
his proclamation confirmeth the same: “To-morrow,” saith
he, “shall be holy day to Jehovah,” that is, to the only true
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 thereby.

Martin, 5.

Psal. evi.

In cap. xxv.

zech.
The protest-
ants are like
to the Am-
monites and
Moabites.

Futxe, 5.

But if either image or idol, worshippers of images or idolaters,
would please you, we have both in our translations, the one
expressing what we mean by the other ; that these cavillations
were needless, but that malice against the truth incenseth you
to pick quarrels, and that translation which useth the terms of
idols and idolaters, was then in printing at Geneva, when
images were in pulling down in England, namely, the first and
second years of the queen’s reign, being finished the 10th of
April, 1560; which notably confuteth the fond purpose, that
you slander our translators to have had.

Martin. We see then that the Jews had images without sin, but
not idols. Again, for having idols they were accounted like unto the
gentiles, as the Psalm saith: “They learned their works, and served
their graven idols.” But they were not accounted like unto the gentiles
for having images, which they had in Salomon’s temple, and in the
brasen serpent. St Jerome writeth of the Ammonites and Moabites
(who were gentiles and idolaters), that coming into the temple of Jeru-
salem, and seeing the angelical images of the cherubins covering the
propitiatory, they said, “ Lo, even as the gentiles, so Juda also hath idols
of their religion.” These men did put no difference between their own
idols and the Jews’ lawful images. And are not you ashamed to be like
to these? They accused Salomon’s temple of idols, because they saw
there lawful images: you accuse the churches of God of idolatry, because
you see there the sacred images of Christ and his saints,

Fulke. We know that the Jews had images without
sin, and so have we; but to have images in any use of
religion without God’s express commandment, neither is it

_ lawful for them nor us, because we have a general com-

mandment to the contrary. They were accounted like the
gentiles therefore, for having images contrary to God’s com-

Ill. 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 m Ezech,
Jerome writeth', that coming into the temple, and seeing Pre
the cherubins covering the propitiatory, they said, “Lo, even

as the gentiles, so Juda also hath idols of their religion,”

as we accuse the church of God of idolatry, because we see

there the sacred images of Christ and his saints.

This that you say St Jerome writeth, he only reporteth
it as a ridiculous fable of the Jews: Ridiculam vero in
hoc loco Hebrei narrant fabulam. ‘The Hebrews in this
place tell a ridiculous fable.” But fables are good enough
to bolster false accusations. Secondly, he reporteth them
to say: Sicut cuncte gentes colunt simulacra, ita et Juda
habet suc religionis idola. ‘As all nations worship images,
so hath Juda also idols of their religion.” By which words
you see, that he calleth images and idols the same things.
For simulacrum to be taken as largely as imago, I have
proved before, insomuch that man is called simulacrum Dei,
“the image,” not the idol, “of God,” as idol is taken in the
evil part. But neither are you like to Juda, nor we to
Ammon and Moab, in this case. For Juda had God’s com-
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 Marmy, 6.
either Testament speak of all manner of images, or rather of the idols of
the gentiles? Your conscience knoweth that they speak directly against the holy
the idols and the idolatry that was among the pagans and infidels; from speaketh
the which as the Jews in the Old Testament, so the first Christians in 2¢4™stthe

idols of the

the New Testament, were to be prohibited. But will you have a demon- gentile, not
stration that your own conscience condemneth you herein, and that δον af

apply all translation to your heresy? What caused you, being otherwise

[* Ridiculam vero in hoe loco Hebrei narrant fabulam. Postquam
urbs aperta, templumque reseratum est, filiique Ammon et Moab et
Seir ingressi sunt templum, videruntque Cherubim protegentia pro-
pitiatorium, dixerunt: Sicut cuncte gentes colunt simulacra, ita
et Juda habet sue religionis idola. Comment. Hieronymi in Ezech.
cap. xxv. v. 8. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 870.]

Fu.xe, 6.

Martin, 7.
Rom. i.
‘What were
the idols of
the Pagans.

186 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

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. Verily the commandment of God, being a com-
mandment of the first table, unto. which whatsoever is said
in the scriptures of images, or the worship of them forbidden,
must be referred, speaketh generally of all manner of images
made by the device of man for any use of religion, whether
they be of Jews, pagans, or false Christians. But we are
offered a demonstration, that our own conscience condemneth us
herein, and that we apply all translations to our heresy. And
that is this: in Esai. xxxi. and Zachar. xiii. with one con-
sent all translate “idols,” because God speaketh of the time
of the New Testament, where if they had translated “images,”
they “had made the prophecy false, because images in chris-
tian countries are with honour, but idols of the gentiles are
destroyed out of the world so far as gentility is converted
to Christ.” A goodly demonstration, I promise you! That
the translators had no such respect, it is plain; for that
they do not understand the xxxi. of Esaias of the time of
Christ, but of the reformation made by Ezechias. But
in Esai, xliy., 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 religion of Christ, which is verified
only in true Christians; for otherwise both idolatry of pagans
and of false Christians hath remained in many places, and
yet remaineth to this day.

Martin. And what were the pagan idols or their idolatry? St Paul
telleth us, saying: “They changed the glory of the incorruptible God
into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds and
beasts and creeping things, and they served (or worshipped) the creature
more than the Creator.” Doth he charge them for making the image of

ut. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 187

man or beast? Yourselves have hangings and cloths full of such paint-
ings and embroiderings of imagery. Wherewith then are they charged ?
With giving the glory of God to such creatures, which was to make them
idols, and themselves idolaters.

Fulke. That the pagans changed the glory of God Furs, 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 religion was not the offence
of idolatry in them nor us, that have them in hangings,
and paintings, and other lawful images.

Martin. The case being thus, why do you make it two distinct things Marr, 8.
in St Paul, calling the pagans “idolaters,” and the Christians doing the ἢ gO
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., εἰδωλολά-
but that ye company not together, if any that is called a brother be a ρα δ:
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 εἰδωλολά-
so? Forsooth, to make the reader think that St Paul speaketh here not 7°”*:
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 Furs, 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” m both, the other “worshipper
of idols” in the latter place. And we think the latter to
be understood of idolatrous papists, which worship idols made
with hands of men, as crosses, roods, and other images, to

Martin, 9,

FuLKy, 9,

VIARTIN,

V. Fulke,
fonfutat. of
ohn How-
et, fol. 35.

sib. 1577.
Jol. iii, 5,

188 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH - [ cH.

as great dishonour of God and danger of their souls as
pagans did. So that if it had been “worshippers of images”
in both, the translation had not been amiss.

Martin. Where if you have yet the face to deny this your malicious
and 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. 1 think the cause was, that Christians might
understand who was an idolater, and what the word “idolater”
signifieth, which was used in the former part of the sentence.
And if the translator’s purpose was by this explication to.
dissuade the readers from worshipping of popish images, L
see not what cause he hath to be ashamed thereof, seeing
the Greek word signifieth as much as he saith: not as
though idols were proper only to the gentiles, and images
to Christians; for in other places he useth the name of images,
speaking both of the pagans and the Christians, 1 Cor, viii.
Although for my part, I could wish he had used one word.
in both places, and either called them both idolaters or
both worshippers of images.

Martin. But to this the answer belike will be made, as one of them’
hath already answered in the like case, that in the English bible ap-
pointed to be read in their churches it is otherwise, and even as we
would have it corrected ; “and therefore,” saith he, “it had been good
before we entered into such heinous accusations, to have examined our
grounds that they had been true.” As though we accuse them not truly
of false translation, unless it be false in that one bible which for the,
present is read in their churches ; or as though it pertained not to them
how their other English bibles be translated; or as though the people
read not all indifferently without prohibition, and may be abused. by
every one of them; or as though the bible which now is read (as we
think) in their churches, have not the like absurd translations, yea,
more absurd, even in this matter of images, as is before declared ; or as

—. sll. lc ee

111. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 189

though we must first learn what English translation is read in their
church (which were hard to know, it changeth so oft), before we may be
bold to accuse them of false translation; or as though it were not the
same bible that was for many years read in their churches, and is yet in
every man’s hands, which hath this absurd translation whereof we have
last spoken.

Fulke. Mine answer was framed to Howlet’s reason, Furxe,
who would prove that our service was naught, because the 1
scriptures were therein read in false and shameless transla-
tions, example of which he bringeth, 1 John v.: ‘ Children,
keep yourselves from images.” To whom mine answer was
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.”
Tf you will accuse that translation which is read in our
church, as -Howlet doth, reason would you should first learn

Martin,
ll.

Bib, 1562.

John xix. 26,

Fu.xs,
11,

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 English ears is
more obscure and less understood.

Martin. Surely the bible that we most accuse, not only in this point,
but for sundry other most gross faults and heretical translations, spoken
of in other places, is that bible which was authorised by Cranmer, their
archbishop of Canterbury, and read all king Edward’s time in their
churches, and (as it seemeth by the late printing thereof again, anno
1562) a great part of this queen’s reign. And certain it is, that it was
so long read in all their churches with this venomous and corrupt trans-
lation of “images” always instead of “ idols,” that it made the deceived
people of their sect to despise, contemn, and abandon the very sign and
image of their salvation, the cross of Christ, the holy rood, or crucifix,
representing the manner of his bitter passion and death, the sacred
images of the blessed virgin Mary, the mother of God, and of St John
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.

Fulke. That bible perhaps you mislike more than the
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

m1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 191
it less esteemed with any indifferent or wise man. If it
have caused the people to contemn and abandon all popish
idols, there is cause that we should give God thanks for it.
Albeit not the translation only, but preaching of the gospel,
and. Christ crucified especially, by which Christ hath been
truly and lively painted forth unto them, and even crucified
among’ them, hath made them contemn, yea, and abhor all
carnal and human devices of the image of our salvation,
or representation of his passion by vain and dead images,
to be any helps of faith, religion, or the worship of God.
Where you say it is “seen by experience, that all other images
of infamous harlots and heretics, of heathen tyrants and
persecutors, are lawful in England, to garnish houses, when
sacred images are esteemed idolatrous, defaced, and burned,”
I know not well your meaning. For if you have any true
images of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, or other holy
persons, I think they be as lawful to garnish private houses
as the other you speak of. Yea, the stories of the whole
bible painted, both of the Old Testament and the New, are
not forbidden, but in many places used: provided always, that
in the places appointed for the public service of God such things
are not lawful, for danger of idolatry, nor in private places to
to be abused, as they are of papists; but rather, though they
were as ancient and as goodly monuments as the brasen
serpent was, which no images at this day can be, it is to the
great honour of God that they should be despised, defaced,
burned, and stamped to powder, as that was, which sometime
was erected by the commandment of God, by which not only
great miracles were wrought, but the wonderful mystery of
our salvation through faith in Christ was prefigured.

Martin.» And as concerning the bible that at this day is read in their 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
images.” And Ephes. v. it readeth as absurdly as the other: “A w. Fulke,
covetous man, which is a worshipper of images'.” Lo, this is the En- $2" Το].

[* “Covetousness, which is worshipping of images,” edit. 1568.
“‘Covetousness, which is idolatry,” 1579. Col. iii. 5. “A covetous per-
son, which is a worshipper of images,”. Ephes. v. 5. edit. 1568. “ Nor
covetous person, which is an idolater,” edit. 1579.]

Fol. 36.
Bib. 1579.

FuLkKe,
12.

192 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH [cu.
5

glish bible, which they refer us unto, as better translated and as correcting
the fault of the former. But because it is evident by these places, that
this also is partly worse and partly as ill as the other, therefore this
great confuter of master John Howlet fleeth once more to the Geneva
English bible, saying, “Thus we read,” and, “so we translate ;” to wit,
“A covetous person, which is an idolater.’ Where shall we have these
good fellows, and how shall we be sure that they will stand to any of
their translations? From the first read in their churches they flee to
that that is now read, and from this again to the later Geneva English
bibles, neither read in their churches (as we suppose,) nor of greatest
authority among them ; and we doubt not but they will as fast flee from
this to the former again, when this shall be proved in some places more
false and absurd than the other.

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 εἰκὼν and εἴδωλον in Greek do signify
the same thing, which you cannot deny. And where you
say, in your scornful mood, “ Lo, this is the bible, which
they refer us unto, as better translated and as correcting
the fault of the former,” you follow your accustomed vein of
lying. For I acknowledge no fault of the former in this
point of images, but confute the frowardness of that foolish
reason, which accuseth our service of reading the bible in
shameless translations, in that text, 1 John 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 against us. And

mt. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 193

if im 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, bemg admonished,
wilfully to continue it or defend it.

Martin. But what matter is it how they read in their churches, or Martin,
how they correct their former translations by the later; when the old ““"
corruption remaineth still, being set of purpose in the top of every
door within their churches, in these words: “Babes, keep yourselves 1 John ν.
from images*”? Why remaineth that written so often and so con-
spicuously in the walls of their churches, which in their bibles they
correct as a fault? Their later bibles say, “ Keep yourselves from idols :”
their church walls say, “Keep yourselves from images.” St John,
speaking to the lately-converted gentiles, biddeth them beware of the
idols from whence they were converted: they, speaking to the: old-
instructed Christians, bid them beware of the sacred image of Christ
our Saviour, of the holy crucifix, of the cross, of every such represen-
tation and monument of Christ’s passion and our redemption. And
therefore in the very same place where these holy monuments were
wont to stand in catholic times, to wit, in the rood-loft and partition
of the church and chancel, there now stands these words as confronting
and condemning the foresaid holy monuments: “ Babes, keep yourselves
from images.” Which words whosoever esteemeth as the words of
scripture, and the words of St John, spoken against Christ’s image,
is made a very babe indeed, and sottishly abused by their scribbled
doors and false translations, to count that idolatry, which is indeed to
no other purpose, than to the great honour of him whose image and
picture it is.

Fulke. Still you harp on the old untuneable string, Furxs,
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 religion. Not that all images be idols,
(as the word idol in the English speech is taken,) nor that
all idols be images, but as images that are worshipped. But

[* Texvia, φυλάξατε ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων. 1 John v. 21.)

13

[FuLKE. |

Irenzeus, lib.
- eap. 20.
Epiphani

iphanius,

lib. 1. Tom,
uz H. 27.

194 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ou,

St John (you say), speaking to the converted gentiles, bid-
deth them beware of the idols, from whence they were
converted. That is true, but not only from them, but from
all other idols. Except perhaps you think, that Christians
by that text should not abhor the images of Simon Magus,
and Selene, and the images of the Valentinians, and Gnosticks,
and other hereticks, which worshipped the image of Christ
and of St Paul, as Irenzeus' and Epiphanius’ do testify. And
it seemeth, you so think in deed. For you say soon after,
“Whosoever esteemeth those words as the words of scripture

(if images be put for idols,) spoken against Christ’s image,

is made a very babe.” Such babes were Irenzus and Epipha-
nius, that they condemned this worshipping of images for
heresy. Such a babe was Epiphanius, that finding the image
of Christ painted in vail hanging in a church at Anablatha,
he judged it to be contrary to the scriptures, and rent it
in pieces. Such a babe was Tertullian*, that, speaking of
that very text of St John, “ Little children, keep yourselves
from idols,” he writeth: Non jam ab idololatria quasi ab
officio, sed ab idolis, id est, ab ipsa effigie eorum. Indignum
enim ut imago Dei vivi imago idoli et mortui fiat. “He
biddeth them take heed, not now from idolatry, as from
the service, but from the idols themselves, that is to say,
from the very images or shapes of them. For it is un-
worthy that the image of the living God should be made
the image of an idol, and that being dead.” Fimally, 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 universe libidinis. Utuntur autem et hi ma-
gia, et imaginibus, et incantoribus, et invocationibus, et reliqua uni-
versa periergia: nomina quoque quedam affingentes quasi angelorum,
annuntiant hos quidem esse in primo ccelo, hos autem in secundo; et
deinceps nituntur CCCLXV. ementitorum celorum et nomina, et prin-
cipia, et angelos, et virtutes exponere. Irenei, Lib. 1. cap. 23. Opera,
p- 102. edit. Venet. 1734. ]

[2 Ti δὲ ἄλλο ἢ πᾶσαν ἀῤῥητουργίαν καὶ τὴν ἀθέμιτον πρᾶξιν ἣν οὐ
θεμιτὸν ἐπὶ στόματος φέρειν, οὗτοι πράττουσι; καὶ πᾶν εἶδος ἀνδρο-
βασιῶν, καὶ λαγνιστέρων ὁμιλιῶν πρὸς γυναῖκας ἐν ἑκάστῳ μέρει σώμα-
τος, μαγείας τε καὶ φαρμακείας καὶ εἰδωλολατρείας ἐκτελοῦντες. Epiphan.
adv. Her. Lib. 1. Tom. u. 27. Opera, p. 105. edit. Paris. 1622.]

[5 De Corona. edit. de la Cerda. p. 678.]

πι.} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 195

custodite vos a simulacris, which is all one, as if he should
have said ab imaginibus, (as I have plentifully proved,)
“Children, keep yourselves from images.” As for the pur-
pose you pretend to have 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 δ προ

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,” κατὰ τὴν
as Tyrannus, a “king,” (which is very true, both being absurd ;) and εἰκόνα,
here he cited many authors and dictionaries idly, to prove that idolum εἴδωλον.
may signify the same that image. εἰκών.

Fulke. But this scornful replier, with whom I have gaia,
to do, is so accustomed to false and unhonest dealing, that |4
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 saymg. 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 English tongue, for the
great dishonour that is done to God in worshipping of images,

13—2

Martin,
15.

Rom. viii.
Imagini.

1 Cor. xv.

Imaginem.

2 Cor. iii.

Heb. x.

Col. i.
2 Cor, iv.

196 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

is become so odious that no christian man would say, that
God made man according to his idol, no more than a good
subject would call his lawful prince ‘a tyrant,’ yet according
to the Greek word, εἴδωλον may be as truly translated an
image, as τύραννος a king.”

Here, if I were disposed to give the rein to affection,
as you do often, beng unprovoked by me, were sufficient
occasion offered to insult against your falsehood. But I
will forbear, and in plain words tell you, that if you be
so simple, that you cannot understand the difference of these

_ two propositions, εἴδωλον, wheresoever it is read in Greek,

may be truly translated “an image;” and this, wheresoever
the word image is used in English, you may use the word
idol ; you are unmeet to read a divinity lecture in England,
howsoever you be advanced in Rhemes. If not of ignorance,
but of malice, you have perverted both my words and
meaning, let God and all godly men be judge between you
and me. My words are not obscure nor ambiguous, but
that every child may understand my meaning to be no more
but this, that this English word idol is by use restrained
only to wicked images. The Greek word εἴδωλον signifieth
generally all images, as τύραννος did all kings, until kings,
that were so called, became hateful for cruelty, which caused
even the name tyrannus to be odious.

Martin. But I beseech you, Sir, if the dictionaries tell you that
εἴδωλον may, by the original property of the word, signify “an image,”
(which no man denieth,) do they tell you also, that you may commonly
and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signification thereof ?
or do they tell you that “image” and “idol” are so all one, that where-
soever you find this word “image,” you may truly call it “idol”? For
these are the points that you should defend in your answer. For an
example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus? “God
hath predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of his Son.”
And again, “ As we have borne the idol of the earthly (Adam,) so
let us bear the idol of the heavenly” (Christ). And again, “We are
transformed into the same idol, even as our Lord’s spirit.” And again,
“The law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very
idol of the things.” And again, “Christ who is the idol of the invisible
God.” Is this, I pray you, a true translation? Yea, say you, according
to the property of the word: but “because the name of idols in the
English tongue, for the great dishonour done to God in worshipping
of images, is become odious, no christian man would say so.”

111, | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 197

Fulke. No man denieth (you say) that εἴδωλον may, Furxe,
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 zmago,
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, τῇ
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,’
ὅθ. I pray you, Sir, pardon me to defend that I never
said nor thought : you yourself confess in the end, that I
say, that no christian man would say so: wherefore when
you say that I affirm, this is a true translation according
to the propriety of the word; can I say less? Then you
lie like a popish hypocrite.

Martin. First, note how foolishly and unadvisedly he speaketh here, Magri,
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 [ ox.

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. Nay, first note how falsely, and then how
foolishly, and yet how impudently, he continueth a slander
against me of his own devising, that I would confound
those English words, “images” and ‘‘idols.” For first he will
teach me to speak English, that where I said the name of
idol is become odious in the English tongue, because of
worshipping of images, I should have said, “the dishonour
done to God in worshipping of idols made the name of
idols odious.” And what, I pray you, were those idols, the
worshipping of which made the name odious, but images ?
May I not be so bold, under your correction, to use the
general name images, which you say are not idols, until
they be abused? When the image of Jupiter, king of Crete,
was first made, and nothing else done unto it, would you
call it an image, or an idol? Sure I am, you called the
brasen serpent first an image, and then an idol. Even
so I trust I may, without offence of Englishmen, say, that
the abuse of images, called first without note of infamy
εἴδωλα, “ idols,’ made the name of idols to be odious, and
therefore not applied, but to such abused images: and the
example I brought of ¢yrannus, which first did signify
a king, is very plain and like, but that you are disposed

i ea

111. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 199

to play the peevish quarreller. And trow you, I will not
say, that for the fault of kings the name of tyrant became
odious? Yes, verily, I will not spare to say, and so I said
before, that for the fault of such cruel kings, as were called
tyranni, though the name itself first signified not so, that
name of tyrant became odious. As for your fomblitudes*
of Manlius and Judas, two proper names, compared with
image, and idol, king, and tyrant, which be common names,
I will not vouchsafe to answer them. But the name of
“ministers” (you say) is odious, for the faults of ministers,
and not for the faults of priests. Popish priests are odious
enough for their own faults; so that they need not be
charged unjustly with the faults of our evil ministers: which
1 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, “"" ARTIN,
which be too many and too tedious, (as when he saith in the same sentence, ἢ
“‘ Howsoever the name ‘idol’ is grown odious in the English tongue,”
as though it were not also odious in the Latin and Greek tongues, but
that in Latin and Greek aman might say according to his fond opinion,
Secit hominem ad idolum suum, and so in the other places, where is imago,)
to omit these rash assertions, I say, and to return to his other words,
where he saith, that though the original property of the words hath

[* Danish, famier, to hesitate, stammer, falter: this word of Fulke’s
is deduced from fumble. Or is it a misprint for similitudes 9]

Ab idolis.
ἀπὸ τῶν εἰ-
δώλων.

1 Joh. v.

Fuk,
17.

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 fyrannus is commonly taken and understood: even so we may

not now translate, “ My children, keep yourselves from images,” as the -

word may, and doth sometime signify, according to the original pro-
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. 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 English
tongue, he gathereth, that I mean it to be odious only in
the English tongue, and not in the Latin and Greek. I have
shewed before, that in Tully’s time it was not odious in
Latin; and it is not long since Master Martin confessed the
Greek word, according to the original propriety, to signify as
generally as εἰκών, “an image,” which is not odious. Although
in later times, among Christians, both of the Greek and the
Latin church, the name of zdolwm became odious, as well
as the word ‘idol’ in English. Therefore it is not my fond
opinion, but M. Martin’s foolish collection, that a man may
say in Latin, fecit hominem ad idolum suum: and yet I
am charged with rash assertions, when nothing is reproved
that I affirm, but that which he himself doth imagine.

But now you will return to those words of mine, where
I say, that though the original propriety of the words hath
that signification, yet no christian man would say, that
God made man according to his idol, no more than a good
subject would call his lawful prince a tyrant. These words,
you say, do tell us, that we may not speak or translate

παρ =,

πι.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 201

according to the original propriety of the word, but ac-
cording to the common, usual, and accustomed signification
thereof. For speaking, I grant, as the words are used in
our time: but for translating, I say you must regard how
the words were used in time of the writer, whose works
you translate. As if you would translate out of Euripides,
τίς γῆς Tupavvos, would you say, “ Who is tyrant of this
land”? or rather, “Who is king”? or in Aristophanes, Ζῆνα
θεῶν τύραννον, would you translate, “ Jupiter, tyrant of the
gods,” or “king of the gods”? I think, not. But in St John,
seeing at that time that he wrote εἴδωλον signified an image
generally, it may be translated an image generally; and
seeing he speaketh of the unlawful use of images, it may
also be translated an idol, as the word is now taken to
signify. How the late petty prelates of the second Nicene
Council were disposed to use the word, to colour their
blasphemous idolatry, it is not material. The ancient dic-
tionaries of Suidas, Phavorinus, Hesychius, with the examples
of Homer, Plato, and other ancient Greek authors, are of
more credit for the true and ancient signification of that
word.

Martin. This then being so, that words must be translated as their Martin,
common use and signification requireth, if you ask your old question, 18.
what great crime of corruption is committed in translating, “keep your- Loco citato.
selves from images,” the Greek being εἰδώλων, you have answered ΜΝ
_ yourself, that in so translating, “idol” and “image” are made to signify
one thing, which may not be done, no more than “tyrant” and “king”
can be made to signify all one. And how can you say then, that “this
is no more absurdity, than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of
the same signification”? Are you not here contrary to yourself? are
“idol” and “image,” “tyrant” and “king,” of one signification? Said
you not, that in the English tongue “idol” is grown to another significa-
tion than “image,” as “tyrant” is grown to another signification than
“king”? Your false translations, therefore, that in so many places
make “idols” and “images” all one, not only forcing the word in the
holy scriptures, but disgracing the sentence thereby, (as Ephes. v. and ὦ τὰ v. A co-
Col. iii.) are they not in your own judgment very corrupt ; and, as your isa fa mocap:
own consciences must confess, of a malicious intent corrupted, to disgrace bd Col. fi
thereby the church's holy images, by pretence of the holy scriptures that opera age

speak only of the pagans’ idols ? ping of

images.

Fulke. Again I repeat, that words must, or may be Furxe,
translated according to that signification they had in time ὃ

Martin,
19.

τῇ Baad,
subaud.
στήλῃ.
Num. xxii.

Loy
TO OLOTTE-

,
TES,

202 ΠΑ DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

of the writer whom you translate. And to my question,
what absurdity is it in that text of St John, for εἴδωλον
to translate “image”; you answer, by that means idol and
image are made to signify one thing. But that is not so;
for image signifieth more generally than idol in English,
and “image” answereth properly to the Greek word εἴδωλον,
“idol” to the meaning of St John, that is, of wicked images ;
so that the translation is good: even as τύραννος may.
be translated “a king,” generally, according to the word;
and if the author mean of a cruel king, it may be trans-
lated “ὦ tyrant.” For king is a general word, applied to
good kings and to evil, as image is to lawful and un-
lawful images. Therefore our translations, that for εἴδωλον
say an image, are not false, much less any malicious cor-
ruptions. And if the translators, in so doing, intended to
disgrace popish images, I think they did well, and according
to the meaning of the Holy Ghost; who, forbidding generally
all images, that may be had in religious reverence, did not
restrain the signification of the word εἴδωλον to the wicked
idols of the gentiles, but left it at large, to comprehend
all such images, and all kinds of worshipping them, as are
contrary to the law and commandment of God.

Martin. But of the usual and original signification of words (whereof
you take occasion of manifold corruptions) we will speak more anon,
if first we touch some other your falsifications against holy images; as,
where you affectate to thrust the word “image” into the text, when
there is no such thing in the Hebrew or Greek, as in that notorious
example’, 2 Par. xxxvi. (Bib. 1562.) “Carved images that were laid to
his charge:” again, Rom. xi., “To the image of Baal?;” and Acts xix.,

[) Kal τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν λόγων ᾿Ιωακὶμ καὶ τὰ πάντα & ἐποίησεν, οὐκ
ἰδοὺ ταῦτα γεγραμμένα, &c, 2 Chron. χχχνὶ. 8. “ Reliqua autem ver-
borum Joakim, et abominationum ejus, quas operatus est, et que
inventa sunt in eo, continentur in libro Regum, &c.” Vulg. “The
rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and
carved images that were laid'\to his charge, behold, they are written,
&c.” Bible 1562. ‘And his abominations which he did, and that which
was found upon (found in, Authorised version) him,” Geneva Bible,
1560.]]

[? οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ. Rom. xi. 4. “Qui non

curvaverunt genua ante Baal,” Vulg. ‘“ Which have not bowed the

knee to the image of Baal,” Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised. ‘ Which

U1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 203

“The image that came down from Jupiter*.” Where you are not content
to understand “image” rather than “idol,” but also to thrust it into the
text, being not in the Greek, as you know very well.

Fulke. Three places you note, where the word image ΤΗΝ
is thrust into the text, being neither in the Hebrew nor
Greek. The first, 2 Par. xxxvi. bib. 1562, which I con-
fess is a fault, but I marvel how it crept in. For Thomas
Matthew’s Bible, which was printed before it, hath not that
word, “carved images.” It is reformed also in both the trans-
lations that followed. ,

The second, Romans xi., is no corruption; for seeing you
acknowledge that a substantive must be understood to bear
up the feminine article; what reason is there, why we should
not understand εἰκόνι, rather than στήλῃ, seeing it is certain
Baal had an image that was worshipped in his temple?
2 Reg. x. The third place is Acts xix., where the word
image is necessarily to be understood, “which fell down from
Jupiter,” as it was feigned. Hereunto Pliny beareth witness,
Lib. xv1., cap. 40, and sheweth by whom it was made, and
of what matter: of the like speaketh Herodianus. And the
similitude of this image is yet to be seen in those ancient
coins that yet remain, which were called ναοὶ, “temples*.”
Wherefore your vulgar translation, which turneth τοῦ διοπε-
τοῦς Jovis prolis, is not right; and therefore is corrected
by Isidorus Clarius, a Jove delapsi simulacri, with the
consent of the deputies of the council of Trent.

have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal,” Bishops’ bible,
1584.]

[5 ὃς οὐ γινώσκει τὴν ᾿Εφεσίων πόλιν νεωκόρον οὖσαν τῆς μεγάλης
Ἀρτέμιδος καὶ τοῦ Διοπετοῦς. Acts xix. 35. “Qui nesciat Ephesiorum
civitatem cultricem esse magne Diane, Jovisque prolis?” Vulg.
“And of the image which came down from heaven,” Tyndale. “Of
the image which came from heaven,” Cranmer. “ Of the image
which came from Jupiter,” Geneva. “And of the [image] which
came down from Jupiter,’ Bishops’ bible. “To be a worshipper of
great Diana, and Jupiter’s child,” Rhemish. “And of the image
which fell down from Jupiter,” Authorised version. ]

[* The Scholiast upon the Rhetoric of Aristotle 1. 16, says, that
ναοὶ are εἰκονοστάσια, capellule cum imaginibus inclusis. Ammianus
Marcellinus says, that Asclepias secum semper circumferret Dee cce-
lestis argentum breve figmentum. Such was meant by τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ
Μολὸχ, Acts vii. 48. Beza calls those coins ναοὶ, which have the

Martin,
20.

εἴδωλον.

ODD

The meaning
of the first
eommand-
ment con-
cerning false
gods and
graven idols.

The cross in
the queen’s
chapel.

Images in the
Lutheran
churches.

1 Kings ii.
Psal. ev. 35.

FULKE,
20.

204 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ox.

Martin. Of this kind of falsification is that which is crept as a
leprosy throughout all your bibles, translating sculptile and conflatile,
“ graven image,” “molten image,” namely in the first commandment,
where you know in the Greek it is “idol,” and in the Hebrew such
a word as signifieth only “a graven thing,” not including this word
“image ;” and you know that God commanded to make the images of
cherubins, and of oxen in the temple, and of the brasen serpent in the

desert ; and therefore your wisdoms might have considered, that he

forbade not all graven images, but such as the gentiles made and wor-
shipped as gods: and, therefore, non facies tibi sculptile, concurreth with
those words that go before, “ Thou shalt have none other gods but me.”
For so to have an image as to make it a G@d, is to make it more than
an image; and therefore, when it is an idol, as were the idols of the
gentiles, then it is forbid by this commandment. Otherwise, when the

cross stood many years upon the table in the queen’s chapel, was it

against this commandment? or was it idolatry in the queen’s majesty
and her counsellors, that appointed it there, being the supreme head of
your church? Or do the Lutherans, your pue-fellows, at this day com-
mit idolatry against this commandment, that have in their churches the
crucifix, and the holy images of the mother of God, and of St John
the evangelist? Or if the whole story of the gospel concerning our
Saviour Christ were drawn in pictures and images in your churches,
as it isin many of ours, were it, trow you, against this commandment ?
Fie, for shame! that you should thus with intolerable impudence and
deceit abuse and bewitch the ignorant people, against your own know-
ledge and conscience. For wot you not, that God many times expressly
forbade the Jews both marriages and other conversation with the gen-
tiles, lest they might fall to worship their idols, as Salomon did, and
as the Psalm reporteth of them? This then is the meaning of the
commandment, neither to make the idols of the gentiles, nor any other
like unto them, and to that end, as did Jeroboam in Dan and Beth-el.

Fulke. This is a sore complaint, that we have falsified
the scripture, as it were with a leprosy, in translating sculp-
tile and conflatile, “a graven” and “a molten image,” and

representation of the temple of Diana upon them, in the same way as
others are called boves, puelle, pulli, testudines, from having those re-
spective figures upon them. Casaubon, however, says, that though
this is a probable conjecture, it is not satisfactory, since no one of
the ancients mentions them by the name. A medal of this descrip-
tion, exhibiting an octostyle temple, with the image of Diana in the
centre, may be seen in Calmet’s Dictionary, p. 342. edit. Taylor, 1833.
Chrysostom’s opinion is, that ναοὶ were a sort of ambrey or ciborium.

A a a > ~
Tloav, φησι, ναοὺς ἀργυροῦς Ἀρτέμιδος. καὶ πῶς ἔνι ναοὺς ἀργυροῦς

γενέσθαι; ἴσως ὡς κιβώρια: μικρά. Acts xix. 24. Hom. xlii. Edit.
Savilii iv. 845. ]

i. | 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.” 5p5
You say it signifieth a graven thing, not including the word ὁ
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. ii. taken for p>’
quarries of stone, doth declare. Beside this, the word next
following, signifying a similitude or image, sufficiently sheweth
that it is not taken generally for any graven work, but
for such, wherein the likeness or similitude of God, or any
creature, is meant to be resembled: and the same doth also
the Greek word εἴδωλον testify. As for the cherubins, oxen,
brasen serpent, or any thing which God commandeth, [it] is
not forbidden by this precept ; but that which man maketh of
his own head, to honour as God, or to worship God by it.
Wherefore, very absurdly, to cloke such abominable idolatry,
you say that this commandment, Non facies sculptile, doth
concur with those words, “Thou shalt have none other Gods
but me.” By which, not only two several commandments
are confounded, but also a vain tautology committed: or else
that added for interpretation, which is more obscure than the
text interpreted. Touching the cross, that stood sometimes
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 like absolute commandment, to forbid mar-
riage and conversation with the heathen, as this is for images

Martin,
21.

Gillulim.

Miphletseth.
Gr.

εἴδωλα.

ἀγάλματα.

χειροποί-
ητα.
γλυπτά.
μορφή:
εἰκών.
στῆλαι.
στύλοι.
χωνευτά.
All image
and images,
in their
translations.
Fuk,

21.

206 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.
in religion and worshipping of them, we may have some
regard of your similitude: otherwise the meaning of this
commandment is generally to forbid all images of God, and
of his creatures, to honour God by them; for to honour
them as Gods is a breach of the first commandment, as
properly as of the second.

Martin. This being a thing so plain as nothing more in all the
holy scriptures, yet your itching humour of deceit and falsehood for
the most part doth translate still “images,” “images,” when the Latin,
and Greek, and Hebrew, have divers other words, and very seldom that
which answereth to “ image.” For when it is “image” in the Latin,
or Greek, or Hebrew texts, your translation is not reprehended; for |
we also translate sometimes “images,” when the text of the holy scrip-
ture requireth it. And we are not ignorant that there were images
which the pagans adored for their gods; and we know that some idols
are images, but not all images idols. But when the holy scriptures
call them by so many names, rather than images, because they were not
only images, but made idols; why do your translations, like cuckoo
birds, sound continually “images,” “images,” more than “idols,” or
other words equivalent to idols, which are there meant ?

Fulke. Indeed there is nothing more plain in all the
holy scriptures, than that the worshipping of images of all
sorts is forbidden; but that our “itching humour of deceit
and falsehood,” (as it pleaseth you to speak,) hath corrupted the
text, to establish any false opinion of the use of images, it
is not yet proved. But now you set upon us with thirteen
Hebrew words, and nine Greek words at once, which we for
the most part do translate still “images,” “images :” and you
say we “sound with cuckoo birds continually, ‘images, images,’
more than ‘idols’ or other words equivalent to idols.” How
many times the word image is sounded, I never had care to
seek, and now 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

πι.]} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 207

know not any, and we are loth to make any new words of
that signification, except the multitude of Hebrew words of
the same sense coming together do sometimes perhaps seem
to require it. Therefore as the Greek hath fewer words
to express this thing than the Hebrew, so hath the Latin
fewer than the Greek, and the English fewest of all, as will
appear if you would undertake to give us English words for
the thirteen Hebrew words: except you would coin such
ridiculous inkhorn terms, as you do in the New Testament,
azymes, prepuce, neophyte, sandale, parasceve, and such like.

Martin. Two places only we will at this time ask you the reason Marrin,
of: first, why you translate the Hebrew and Greek that answereth to ἊΝ
statua, “image,” so often as you do? Whereas this word in the said oni: ;
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 ad
word matsebah so often an image; it had been reason you τ
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. xxy., 2 Sam. xviii. But whensoever we
translate it an image, the circumstance of the place so re-
quireth, as 2 Kings x. where it is said, that Baal’s images were
taken out of his temple, broken and burnt. For they were
images of Baal, that were worshipped in his temple, and not
titles or pillars. Likewise, 2 Kings xvii. where it is said,
that “the Israelites made unto themselves statuas, images,
and groves under every high hill and under every thick tree :”
as appeareth by Ezechiel vi. where they be called gillulim,
idols, which had the similitude of men, as Baalim and such
other.

Martin,
23

Of the year
1570.

εἴδωλα.

ὍὉΞ
HDS

hed
ὅτι ἔγλυ-
Wav αὐτὸ

χώνευμα.
Of the year
1579.

Fuke,
23.

208

A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

Martin. Secondly, we demand why your very last English bible
hath (Esai. xxx. 22) for two Hebrew words, which are in Latin sculp-
tilia and conflatilia, twice, “images,” “images;” neither word being

- Hebrew for an “image,” no more than if a man would ask, what is

Latin for an “image”? and you would tell him sculptile ; whereupon
he seeing a fair painted image in a table, might happily say, Ecce egre-
gium sculptile ; which every boy in the grammar school would laugh
at. Which therefore we tell you, because we perceive your translations
endeavour, and as it were affectate, to make sculptile and “ image” all
one; which is most evidently false, and to your great confusion ap-
peareth Abac. ii. 18', where for these words, Quid prodest sculptile, quia
sculpsit illud fictor suus, conflatile et imaginem falsam ? which is according
to the Hebrew and Greek, your later English translation hath, “ What

profiteth the image? for the maker thereof hath made it an image, and

a teacher of lies.”

Fulke.
the molten or cast images of gold,” I know not what advan-
tage it had been to you, or loss to us. But neither word
(you say) is Hebrew for an image. Alack! this is poor
sophistry, when all the world of Hebricians know, they are
Hebrew for nothing else, but for graven or cast images, and
by the figure synecdoche are taken generally for images,
of what making or matter soever they be. And the question
is not, by what art images are made, but to what use and
how they be used, that they may be condemned for unlawful.
This I take to be the cause, why the interpreter neglected
the difference of the Hebrew words, which sometimes is not
observed, and in English unpossible always, and unprofitable
to be kept. As for your own conceit, whereat you think boys
might laugh, I leave it to yourself. For if we were asked,
what is Latin for an image, we could answer somewhat
else than sculptile. But if a boy should ask [what] pesilim
or massecath in this place of Esay doth signify, we would
not answer a graven thing, or a molten thing, lest he might
shew us the mantel-tree of a chimney, and a brass pot hang-
ing over the fire, and demand further whether Esay in this

[2 Ti ὠφελεῖ γλυπτὸν, ὅτι ἔγλυψαν αὐτό; ἔπλασεν αὐτὸ χώνευμα,
φαντασίαν ψευδῆ, ὅτι πέποιθεν 6 πλάσας ἐπὶ τὸ πλάσμα αὐτοῦ, τοῦ

Habakkuk ii. 18. “Quid prodest sculptile,

ποιῆσαι εἴδωλα Kod.

quia sculpsit illud fictor suus, conflatile, et imaginem falsam? quia

speravit in figmento fictor ejus ut faceret simulacra muta,” Vulg.
The English version is given from the Bishops’ bible in loco. |

If it had said, “the graven images of silver, and

=. aa

Hil. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 209

text spake of them, and all such things as they are. But
it is most evidently false (you say) that sculptile and image
are all one, and this appeareth to our great confusion, Abacuc
the second, &c. But I say, to your shame it will appear
by this very text} that pesel and massecah signify one and
the same thing, and that most evidently. For thus the text
is: “ What profiteth the image (pesel,) for his maker (dotsero)
hath made it, or (as you will have it) hath graven it (pesalo:)”
what followeth now, but massecah, an image? you had rather
say conflatile,a molten image. But then you must remem-
ber, that the maker of it by graving made it a molten image ;
which is a strange piece of work, except you will say, that
first he did cast it, and then he did grave it: but say which
way you will, the same image is called pesel and massecah,
without difference. The last words are wmoreh shaker, “and
a teacher of lies;” for which words your translation hath
imaginem falsam, ‘a false image,” whereas moreh never sig-
nifieth an image. But of that afterward.

Martin. Iwould every common reader were able to discern your Martin,
falsehood in this place. First, you make sculpere sculptile, no more than 2A.
“to make an image”: which being absurd, you know, (because the
painter or embroiderer making an image cannot be said sculpere sculptile)
might teach you that the Hebrew hath in it no signification of image,
no more than sculpere can signify “to make an image : and therefore Sculptile.
the Greek and the Latin precisely (for the most part) express neither Ὑλύπτόν. _
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 simulucrum, idolum, conflatile, and sometime imago.
In which sense of signifying “idols,” if you also did repeat “ images”
so often, although the translation were not precise, yet it were in some
part tolerable, because the sense were so; but when you do it to
bring all holy images into contempt, even the image of our Saviour

Christ crucified, you may justly be controlled for false and heretical
translators.

Fulke. 1 would “every common reader were able to dis- Fuxe,
cern” your foolish malice in this place. For first, while you 3:
eavil 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

[FULKE. | | 14

210. A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH. [cu.

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

Martin,
25.

Hab. ii.

φαντασίαν
ψευδῆ.

1 Cor. viii.
Acts xix.

Fuike,
25.

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. As in this very place (which is another falsehood like to
the other) confiatile you translate “image”, as you did sculptile, and so
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
false images, or as the Greek hath, “false phantasies,” or as you trans-
late the Hebrew, “such images as teach lies,” representing false gods
which are not, as the apostle saith, idolum nihil est ; and non sunt Dit
qui manibus fiunt. Which distinction of false and true images you will.
not have, because you condemn all images, even holy and sacred also ;
and therefore you make the holy scriptures to speak herein accord-
ingly to your own fancy.

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 lies. And whereas
you repeat, that the two words do “signify each another
diverse thing from image,” because the one signifieth a
graven thing, the other a molten thing, you speak without

ut. } TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 211

all shame and sense of honesty: for pesel signifieth not every
graven, carved, or hewn thing, but only an image. For who
would say, that a morter or a gutter of hewn stone were in
Hebrew to be signified by the word pesel, or a pewter pot
or a dish by the word massecah? Seemg the use of the
Hebrew tongue therefore hath appropried these names only
to images, it is great frowardness, and no learning, to quarrel
about the etymology or derivation of them. As this name
building, in English, is taken only for houses: as when we
say, Here are goodly buildings; which if a man would extend
according to the derivation, and shewing nothing else but
walls of brick or other matter, praise them for goodly build-
ings, he should be thought to speak strangely in our tongue,
and yet, according to the derivation, building may signify
anything that is builded. But for imaginem falsam, a false
image, you charge us to “translate another thing, without any
necessary pretence, either of Hebrew or Greek.” Such af-
firmations will make us think meanly of your knowledge in
the Hebrew tongue. For what, I pray you, else can moreh m0
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 m his notes upon the text: Quod ait
amaginem 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 116. 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. ἢ.
but fies 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, DSI
and afterward misco, for the same image made by the arti- 750)
ficer, without distinction of graving or melting, at leastwise
for the sense, though the words be diverse. Even so your
: 14—2

Martin,
26

Bib. 1562.
1577.

Fuk,
26.

Dan. xiv.4.

212 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

vulgar Latin translator useth sculptile, conflatile, imaginem et
simulacrum, for one and the same thing. The scripture
therefore telling us that all images are false, because they,
being void of life, are set up to represent the living, it is
not our fantasy, but the authority of God’s word, that causeth
us to reject your fantastical distinction of true and false
images,

Martin. Wherein you proceed so far, that when Daniel said to the
king, “I worship not idols made with hands,” (εἴδωλα χειροποίητα,)
you make him say thus, “I worship not things that be made with

_hands?,” leaving out the word “idols” altogether, as though he had said,

“nothing made with hand were to be adored ;” not the ark, the propi-
tiatory, no, nor the holy cross itself, that our Saviour shed his blood
upon. As before you added to the text, so here you diminish and take
from it at your pleasure.

Fulke. That “thing” is put for idol, I confess it to be
a fault in some translations; but in the Geneva bible it is
reformed. Contempt of the authority of that apocryphal
chapter (as it seemed) did breed that negligence. Where
you write, that he should by saying, “I worship not things
made with hands,” have denied the ark and the propitiatory
to be worshipped, it is very true; for neither of both was to
be worshipped, as they were made with hands; but God was
to be worshipped where they were, and those things to be
reverently esteemed, as the sacraments of God’s presence.
As for the cross whereon Christ died, I see no cause why
it should be worshipped, if it were to be had; but rather, if
it were to be worshipped, it should be served as the brasen
serpent was. None of the apostles made any account of it:
Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, if there had been any
matter of religion in it, might have preserved it, and not
have suffered it to be buried in the earth with the two other
crosses, aS the story of the invention saith, if it be true.
At the finding whereof, Helena, as St Ambrose writeth, Regem
adoravit, non lignum utique, quia hic gentilis est error et vanitas

[ The story of Bel and the Dragon. “ Because I may not worship
things that be made with hands,” v. 4. edit. 1568. ‘“ Because I may
not worship idols made with hand,” y. 5. ed. 1579. “ Because I
may not worship things that be made with hands,” 1562. (1584,
Bishops’ bible.) ]

Hr. } TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 213

impiorum : “She worshipped the king, not the tree verily ;
for this is an heathenish error, and vanity of ungodly men.”
De obit. Theodosii’.

Martin. But concerning the word “image,” which you make to Marr, —
be the English of all the Latin, Hebrew, and Greek words, be they 27.
never so many and so distinct, I beseech you, what reason had you to
translate γλυπτὰ “images”? Wisd. xv. 13. Doth the Greek word so sig-
nify ? doth not the sentence following tell you that it should have been
translated, “graven idols’? for thus it saith, “ They judged all the
idols of the nations to be gods*.” Lo, your images! or rather, lo, the
true names of the pagans’ gods, which it pleaseth you to call “ images”,
“images.”

Fulke. 1 think you are not able to prove that we make Furxe,

“image” the English to all the Hebrew words, though you 27.
boldly affirm it. But in the place by you mentioned, I sup-
pose they translated the Greek word “ graven or carved
images,” rather than idol, because the writer in that place,
Wisd. xv. 13. speaketh of the first framing and fashioning of
those images, which, though the purpose of the workman be
never so wicked, yet cannot properly be called idols, before
they be abused by them that worship them.

Martin. But, to conclude this point: you might, and it would have Marri,
well becomed you, in translating or expounding the foresaid words, to “ἡ
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. “ Scuilptile,” saith he, “and conflatile, I take to be perverse opinions, Comment.
which are adored of the authors that made them. See Arius, that graved icuce
to himself this idol, that Christ was only a creature, and adored that
which he had graven. Behold Eunomius, how he molted and cast a
false image, and bowed to that which he had molten‘.” Suppose he had

[? Opera, Vol. π. p. 1211.]

[3 Otros yap παρὰ πάντας oidey ὅτι ἁμαρτάνει, ὕλης γεώδους εὖὔ-
θραυστα σκεύη καὶ γλυπτὰ δημιουργῶν. Sapient. Solomonis, xy. 13.
“Now he that of earth maketh frail vessels and images, knoweth
himself to offend above all other,’ Bishops’ bible 1584, Cranmer
1562, Geneva 1560. Ὅτι πάντα τὰ εἴδωλα τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐλογίσαντο
θεούς. Ibid. χν. 1ὅ. “For they judge all the idols of the heathen to be
gods,” Bishops’ bible. ] |

[* “Sculptile” et “ conflatile” reor dogmata esse perversa, que ab his
a quibus facta sunt adorantur. Vide Arium sculpsisse sibi idolum

ΕὝΤΚΕ,
28.

Mantin,
29.

Zech, xiii.
Loco citato},

Hos. xi.

Hos. xii.

214 ‘A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

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 meaning of
the Holy Ghost. As for the two senses which Jerome telleth,
[they] stand whole and untouched for our translation. There
is a difference between a translation and a commentary. In
commenting upon the text, they that see it convenient may
apply the idols of the gentiles and the worship of them to

‘the heresies of our times, of the papists, anabaptists, libertines,

and such like, as the apostle doth by similitude to covetous-
ness. As for old condemned heresies, which you charge us
to worship as idols, you are able to prove none, whatsoever
you babble of Vigilantius and Jovinian: neither of both do
we follow in any error, much less in any heresy. '

Martin. These only (I mean heresies and heretics) are the idols
and idolaters (by the ancient doctors’ judgment) which have been among
Christians since the idolatry of the gentiles ceased, according to the
prophets. Therefore St Jerome saith again: “If thou see a man that
will not yield to the truth, but when the falsehood of his opinions is
once shewed, persevereth still in that he began; thou mayest aptly say,
sperat in figmento suo, and he maketh dumb or deaf idols®.” And again,
“ All heretics have their gods; and whatsoever they have forged, they
adore the same, as sculptile and conflatile; that is, ‘as a graven and
molten idol®.’” And again, “He saith well, I have found unto myself
an idol; for all the forgeries of heretics are as the idols of the gentiles ;

creature, et adorasse quod sculpsit. Cerne Eunomium conflasse ima-
ginem falsam, et conflationi sue curvare cervicem. Comment. Hie-
ronymi in Abacue. ii. 18. Opera, Vol. mm. p. 1615. ]

[* Sive hee idola, de quibus apostolus loquitur (1 Tim. iv. 1, 2.).
Sicut enim idola fiunt manu artificis; ita hereticorum perversa doc-
trina, quodcunque simulaverit, vertit in idolum; et facit Christo
adorari antichristum. Comment. Hieronymi in Zachar. xiii. Opera,
Vol. ur. p. 1787.]

[3 Si quando videris aliquem nolle credere veritati, et ostensa su-
orum dogmatum falsitate in cepto studio perseverare, congrue poteris
dicere, Sperat in figmento suo, et facit simulacra muta vel surda.
Comment. Hieronymi in Abacue. ii. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 1615. ]

[? Singuli enim hereticorum habent deos suos: et quodcunque
simulaverint, quasi sculptile colunt atque conflatile. Comment. Hie-
ronymi in Osee. xi. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 1811.]

ut. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 215

neither do they much differ in impiety, though in name they seem to

differ*.” And again, “Whatsoever according to the letter is spoken In Amos. v.
against the idolatry of the Jews, do thou refer all this unto them, which

under the name of Christ worship idols, and forging to themselves per-

verse opinions, carry the tabernacle of their king the devil, and the

image of their idols. For they worship not an idol, but for variety of

their doctrine they adore divers gods. And he put in very well, ‘ which

you made to yourselves ;’ for they received them not of God, but forged

them of their own mind®.” And of the idol of Samaria he saith, “‘ We In Amos. viii.
always understand Samaria (and the idol of Samaria) in the person of

heretics, the same prophet saying, ‘Woe be to them that despise Sion, Chap. vi.
and trust in the mount of Samaria.’ For heretics despise the church of

God, and trust in the falsehood of their opinions, erecting themselves

against the knowledge of God, and saying, when they have divided the

people (by schism), ‘ We have no part in David, nor inheritance in the

679

son of Jesse®’,

Fulke. Not these only, but the idols of the Simonists, Furxe,
Valentinians, Gnostici, Carpocratits, Collyridians, and such 29.
like, made with hands, of Christ, and his mother, of Paul,
and Simon, and Selene, and Pythagoras, &c. and such other,
were idols of false Christians, since the idolatry of the gentiles
gave place, by the judgment of Irenzus, Epiphanius, and
other ancient doctors. And whatsoever you cite or can cite
out of St Jerome against the idols of heresies, agreeth most

[* Et pulchre, Inveni, ait, idolum mihi: omnia enim hereticorum
figmenta idola sunt et simulacra gentilium: nec multum differunt in
‘impietate, licet in nomine discrepare videantur. Comment. Hieronymi
in Osee. xii. Opera, Vol. uz p. 1821. ]

[> Quidquid autem juxta litteram dicitur contra populum Jude-
orum, hoc omne refer ad eos qui sub nomine Christi venerantur
idola, et prava sibi dogmata confingentes portant tabernaculum regis
sui diaboli, et imaginem statuarum et idolorum suorum. Non enim
unum colunt idolum: sed pro varietate doctrine diversos adorant
deos et sidus dei sui. Comment. Hieronymi in Amos. v. Opera,
Vol. ur. p. 1422. ]

[® Deficientibus autem virginibus, ét adolescentes -deficient, qui
prius vicerant mundum: et idcirco deficient, quia jurant in idolo
Samarie, quam in hereticorum persona semper accipimus, dicente
hoc eodem propheta: Ve qui despiciunt Sion, et confidunt in monte
Samarie. Despiciunt enim heretici ecclesiam Dei, et confidunt in
falsitate dogmatum suorum, erigentes se contra scientiam Dei, et scisso
populo ejus.dicentes: Non est pars nobis in David, neque hereditas in
filio Jesse. Comment. Hieronymi in Amos. viii, Opera, Vol. m.
pp- 1444, 1445.]

Martin,
30.

FunKe,
80,

210 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. 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’ 3
judgment deserveth answer, because it is so general.

ἌΝ

tv. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 217

CHAPTER IV.

The Ecclesiastical use of Words turned into their Original
and Profane signification.

Martin. We spake a little before of the double signification of Mart, 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’
grant) are to be translated in their vulgar and usual signification, not
as they signify by their original property. As for example: major in
the original signification is “greater.” But when we say, “the mayor
of London,” now it is taken and soundeth in every man’s ear for such
an officer; and no man will say, “the greater of London,” according ™°
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
not be always translated according to their original and
general signification, but according to such signification, as
by use they are appropried to be taken. We agree also,
that words taken by custom of speech into an ecclesiastical
meaning are not to be altered into a strange or profane sig-
nification. For such vanities and novelties of words the
apostle prohibiteth; whereof the popish translation of the
New Testament is fraught full. Notwithstanding our meaning
is not, that if any Greek terms, or words of any other
language, have of long time been usurped in our English
language, the true understanding of which is unknown at
this day to the common people, but that the same terms

ον. iii.
um. a 18.
See also M
Whitaker, p-
209; and the
6th chap. of
this book,
num. 6, 7, 8,
13, &e. *much
ἘΝῚ μὴ this

Fux, 1.

218 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

may be either in translation or exposition set out plainly,
to inform the simplicity of the ignorant, by. such words as
of them are better understood. Also when those terms are
abused by custom of speech, to signify some other thing
than they were first appointed for, or else be taken ambigu-
ously for divers things; we ought not to be superstitious
m 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

Martin, 2.

*See chap.
xv. num. 18.

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 vu.

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 “ atho-
lic,” “secret” for “sacrament,” “overseer” for “bishop,” “messenger”

and3, 4.; and for “angel*,” “ambassador” for “ apostle,” “minister” for “deacon,” and

Ce δ εαν

1v. | TRANSLATIONS 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 τος iit
in the holy scriptures; to dissemble the word “schism” (as they do

also “heresy” and “heretic*”) for fear of disgracing their schisms and ~ ag
heresies; to say of “matrimony,” neither “sacrament,” which is the 1 Cor. xi.
Latin, nor “mystery,” which is the Greek, but to go as far as they

can possibly from the common usual and ecclesiastical words, saying,

“ This is a great secret,” in favour of their heresy, that matrimony is no Eph. v. 32.
sacrament! 2

Fulke. Absurd translations of the English bibles, you say, Furxe, 2.
are “congregation” for “church,” “elder” for “priest,” “image”
for “idol,” and such like. The word “church” being 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 vii. 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, i your
translation, which is a name of authority, as overseer is of
diligence, minister of service, pastor of feeding; all which
names set forth a true bishop, pastor, and elder, and if you
will needs have it, of a true priest. Of “image” for idol is
said enough in the next chapter before. “Schism” I know not
how Englishmen should understand, except it were Englished by
dissension, division, rending, or some such like. Of “general”
for catholic, we shall speak anon. “Secret” for sacrament
we use, because we would retain the ecclesiastical use of this
word sacrament, which is to signify the seals of God’s pro-

Γ' διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις. Gal. v. 20. “ Dissensiones, sect,” Vulg.
“Dissensions, sects,” Wiclif, Rhemish. “Sedition, sects,” Tyndale,
Cranmer. “Sedition, heresies,’ Geneva, Authorised.

Αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον. Tit. iii. 10. “Hereticum 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.

det yap καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι. 1 Cor. xi. 19. “Nam oportet
et hereses esse,” Vulg. ‘“ For it behoveth heresies to be,” Wiclif.
“For there must be sects among you,” Tyndale, Cranmer 1539,
1562. “ For there must be even heresies among you,” Geneva.
“For there must be heresies also,’ Rheims. “For there must be
also heresies,” Bishops’, Authorised. ]

Martin, 8.

1 Cor. i. 10.

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, &c., or else made

general and common the proper use of this ecclesiastical term:

“sacrament” to every mystery, and called the sacrament of
preaching, of publishing the gospel to the gentiles, of the
seven stars, as you do, and yet in the sacrament of the whore

of Babylon you leave it and call it mystery, Rev. xvii. 7,

as you should be enforced to do, if you would translate the
Old Testament out of Latin, Dan. i., divers times, except
you would call Nabuchadonozor’s dream a sacrament, and
Dan. iv., where the kimg saith, that to Daniel no secret is
impossible, meaning unknown or not understood, you would
say no sacrament, and Tob. xii., you would translate sacra-
mentum regis abscondere bonum est, “It is a good thing to
hide the king’s sacrament,” where you should say secret, and
where the English phrase would hardly bear you to say
the king’s mystery. Of the other terms, in the places by
you quoted it shall be sufficient to speak. But I have ren-
dered reasonable causes of these terms hitherto, so that no
man, but mad with malice, would think we conceal the name
of church and dignities thereof in hatred of them, or do
dissemble the names of schism and heresy in favour of those
abominations, which are as well set forth to their detestation
in the terms of dissension and sects. As for the name sacra-
ment, we find [it] not in the Greek; but mysterium we trans-
late “a secret” or “a mystery,” as the word signifieth, which
nothing favoureth the pretended sacrament of matrimony.

Martin. St Paul saith as plain as he can speak’, “I beseech you,
brethren, that you all say one thing, and that there be no schisms among

Γ' Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοὶ, διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες, καὶ μὴ ἦ ἐν ὑμῖν σχίσ-
ματα. 1 Cor. i. 10. “ Obsecro autem vos, fratres, per nomen Domini

nostri Jesu Christi, ut idipsum dicatis omnes, et non sint in vobis -

schismata.” Vulg.
“1 beseech you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye all speak one thing, and that there be no dissension among,

ἄν ee a_i a a) ψαν» I SS ee - .

rv. ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 221

you.” They translate for “schisms” “dissensions ;” which may be in
profane and worldly things, as well as in matters of religion. But
schisms are those that divide the unity of the church, whereof they
know themselves guilty. St Paul saith as plainly as is possible, “ A Tit- iii.

4 ὶ 4 Ke αἱρετικὸν
man that is an heretic, avoid after the first and second admonition :” ἄνθρωπον.

they translated in their bible of the year 1662, “ A man that is an author

of sects.” And where the Greek is “ heresy,” reckoned among damnable αἱρέσεις.

sins, they say “sects ;” favouring that name for their own sakes, and mada

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 Furxe, 3.
if you speak English and say schisms, forty thousand of the
people in England will swear they understand you not. But
schisms (you say) are those “that divide the unity of the
church : dissensions may be in profane and worldly things.”
Verily, all schisms divide not the church, for they were not
all the church, of whom it is said in St John ix., “ There
was a schism among them:”’ for I think the best of the
Pharisees were scarce good members of the church. Again,
where St Paul doth say, “lest there should be a schism in the
body,” 1 Cor. xii., he speaketh of the natural body, where-
unto he compareth the church. St Paul also saith, as plainly
as he can speak in Greek, 1 Cor. xi. 18., “I hear that
there be schisms among you:” yet your vulgar Latin trans-
lator is bold to say 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. i1., Acts xxiv. divers times, xxvi. and xxviii.,
in all which places you yourselves translate “sects”? [5 it
because he or you favour heresies and heretics ? Will you
never leave this foolish wrangling, which always turneth
you to the greater discredit ?

Martin. As also they suppress the very name “catholic,” when it ΝΜ ARTIN, 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 “7

you,” Tyndale, Cranmer 1539, 1562, Geneva, Bishops’ 1584. “And
that there be no divisions among you,” Authorised Version.]

292 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [on,

Euseb. lib. ii. out in the title of all those epistles, which have been known by the

Eecl. Hist.
cap. 22. in
fine.

1579.

Lind. in Du-
bitant,

FuLKE, 4.

name of Catholice Epistole ever since the apostles’ time: and their later
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.”
So that by this rule, when St Augustine telleth that the manner was in
cities where there was liberty of religion, to ask, Qua itur ad catholicam ?
we must translate it, “Which is the way to the general?” And when
St Jerome saith, “If we agree in faith with the bishop of Rome,” ergo
catholici sumus ; we must translate it, “Then we are generals.” Is
not this good stuff? Are they not ashamed thus to invert and pervert

‘all words against common sense, and use, and reason? Catholic and

general or universal (we know) is by the original property of the word
all one: but according to the use of both, as it is ridiculous to say,
“A catholic council,” for “A general council ;” so is it ridiculous and
impious to say “general” for “catholic,” in derogation thereof, and for
to hide it under a bushel.

Fulke. I do not know where the name of “ catholic” is
once expressed in the text of the bible, that it might be
suppressed by us, which are not like to bear malice to the
catholic church or religion, seeing we teach even our young
children to believe “the holy catholic church.” But not find-
ing the word catholic in the text, you run to the title of the
seven epistles, called as commonly canonical as catholic or
general, But Eusebius belike testifieth that they have been
so called ever since the apostles’ time, lib. π. cap. 22.' 1
marvel you are not ashamed to ayouch 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 80,
that he pronounceth the epistle of St James in the same
place to be a bastard, and speaketh doubtfully of the epistle
of St Jude*. But whereas in one translation we use the

Γ᾿ See the passage quoted before, p. 16.]

[? Jacobus, qui appellatur frater Domini, cognomento Justus, ut
nonnulli existimant, Josephi ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur,
Marie sororis matris Domini, cujus Johannes in libro suo meminit,
filius, post passionem Domini statim ab apostolis Jerosolymorum

_ episcopus ordinatus, unam tantum scripsit epistolam, que de septem

catholicis est; que et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita
asseritur. Hieronymi Catal. Scrip. Eccles. τι. Opera, Vol. 1v. p. 101.

Iv.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 223

word “general” for catholic, you make a great maygame of
it, shewing your wit and your honesty both at once. For
these five of James, two of Peter, one of Jude, and the first
of John, which are properly and rightly so entitled, have
that title, because they are not sent to any particular church
or persons, but to all in general, as the Greek scholiast
truly noteth. &cumenius before the epistle of St James
saith expressly, Catholic, id est, wniversales dicuntur he,
&c*. “ These epistles are called catholic, that is to say, univer-
sal or general, because not distinctly to one nation or city (as
St Paul to the Romans, or Corinthians) this company of our
Lord’s disciples doth dedicate these epistles, but generally
to the faithful, or to the Jews that were dispersed, as also
Peter, or else to all Christians living under the same faith.”
For otherwise, if they should be called catholic in respect of
the soundness of the doctrine contained in them, what reason
were there more to call them so, than to call all the epistles
of St Paul? Wherefore in this title, which yet is no part of
the holy scripture, it is rightly translated “general.” The
other translators, seeg 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 Marri, 5.
καθολικὴ “general”? Even as just as when they turn εἴδωλον “image,” Catholice.
παράδοσιν “instruction,” δικαίωμα “ordinance,” σχίσμα “ dissension,”
αἵρεσιν “sect,” μυστήριον “secret,” and such like; where they go as
far from the Greek as they can, and will be glad to pretend for answer

Jacobus, Petrus, Johannes, Judas, Apostoli, septem epistolas edi-
derunt tam mysticas quam succinctas, et breves pariter et longas:
breves in verbis, longas in sententiis, ut rarus sit qui non in earum
lectione cexcutiat. Hieron. Epist. 11. ad Paulinum. Opera, Vol. rv.
Ῥ. 574. See answer to preface, p. 33.]

[ἢ Καθολικαὶ λέγονται αὗται, οἱονεὶ ἐγκύκλιοι. οὐ γὰρ ἀφωρισμένως
ἔθνει ἑνὶ ἢ πόλει, (ὡς ὁ θεῖος Ἰπαῦλος τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις ἢ Κορινθίοις)
προσφωνεῖ ταύτας τὰς ἐπιστολὰς ὁ τῶν τοιούτων τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητῶν
θίασος, ἀλλὰ καθόλου τοῖς πιστοῖς, ἤτοι ᾿Ιουδαίοις τοῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ,
ὡς καὶ ὁ Πέτρος, ἢ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτὴν πίστιν Χριδτιανοῖς
τελοῦσιν. (Ecumenii Argument. Cathol. Jacobi Epist, Opera, Vol. 1.
p. 439. Edit. Lutet. Paris. 1631.]

Fux, 5..

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. It is because we would have the Greek under-
stood, as it is taken in those places, when we turn “ catholic”
general, idolum, image, παράδοσιν, instruction, δικαίωμα, or-
dinance, σχίσμα, dissension, αἵρεσιν, sect, μυστήριον, secret,
and such like. And where you say, we would be glad for
our word “sect” to pretend to follow your Latin translation, it
is a fable. For in translating “sect,” we follow the Greek
as truly, as your Latin translation doth; which if it be true
and sincere, as you confess, what devilish madness possess-
eth your malicious mind to burden us with such purposes,
as no reasonable man would once imagine or think of, that
we should use that term in favour of heresy and heretics,
whom we thmk worthy to suffer death, if they will not
repent, and cease to blaspheme or seduce the simple?

΄

ὦ ἡ eee ~ ——

v.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 225

CHAPTER V.
Heretical Translation against the Church.

Martin. As they suppress the name “catholic,” even so did they Marr, 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- pip. 1562.
gregations we cannot once find the name thereof. Judge by these places,
which seem of most importance for the dignity, preeminence, and autho-
rity of the church.

Fulke. Wow can we suppress the name “catholic,” which Furxe, 1.
the holy scripture never useth? As for the name of church,
I have already shewed divers times, that for to avoid. the
ambiguous taking of that term, it was at the first less used,
but never refused for doubt of any objection of the catholic
church against us: the profession of which, being contained
in our English creed, how could we relinquish, or not ac-
knowledge to be contained in the scripture, in which we
taught that all articles of faith necessary to salvation are
comprehended? But we are content to be judged “by those
places which seem of most importance for the dignity, pre-
eminence, and authority of the church.”

Martin. Our Saviour saith, “Upon this rock I will build my church, Marri, 2.
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ They make him to Matt. xvi.
say, “Upon this rock I will build my congregation.” Again, “If he spate. xviii.
hear not them, tell the church; and if he hear not the church, let him
be to thee as an heathen and as a publican ;” they say, “congregation®.”

& οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Matt. xvi. 18 “1 will build
my congregation,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops’ bible. “1
will build my church,” Wiclif, Rhemish, Authorised. ]

Γ᾿ εἰπὲ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. Matt. xviii. 17. “Tell it unto the congrega-
tion,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva. “Tell it to the church,” Wiclif,
Bishops’ bible, Rhemish, Authorised version. |

[ FULKE. | 16

Eph. v.

1 Tim. ii.

Eph. 1.
Heb. xi 23.

226 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH | cr:

Again, who would think they would have altered the word “church”
in the Epistle to the Ephesians? Their English translation for many
years read thus: “Ye husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the
congregation, and cleansed it to make it unto himself a glorious congre-
gation without spot or wrinkle.” And, “This isa great secret, but I
speak of Christ and of the congregation.” And to Timothy, “The house
of God, which is the congregation of the living God, the pillar and ground
of truth.” Here is no word of “church,” which in Latin and Greek is,
Ecclesia Dei vivi, columna et firmamentum veritatis. Likewise to the
Ephesians again, “He hath made him head of the congregation, which
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."

Funxy, 2.

Fulke. In the first English bible printed, where it was
thus translated, Matt. xvi. “Upon this rock I will build
my congregation®,” the note in the margin is thus: ‘ Upon
this rock, that is, as saith St Augustine, upon the con-
fession which thou hast made, knowledging me to be Christ,
the Son of the living God, I will build my congregation
or church*®!” Was not this translator, think you, sore 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.

Γ΄ The versions of Tyndale and Cranmer render ἐκκλησία at Eph. v.
23, 24, 25, “congregation :” those of Wiclif, Geneva, Bishops’ bible, and
Authorised, render it “church.” And also the same translation of
ἐκκλησία is given by these several versions respectively at 1 Tim.
iii. 15.

Tyndale and Cranmer also translate the word “congregation” at
Ephes. i. 22.: all the other versions render it “church.” At Hebrews
xii. 28, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, and the Bishops’ bible, have it
“congregation:” Wiclif, Rhemish, and Authorised version, “church.” ]

[3 Tu es Petrus, et super hance petram edificabo ecclesiam meam ;
ut super hunc intelligeretur quem confessus est Petrus, dicens, Tu es
Christus filius Det vivi; ac sic Petrus ab hac petra appellatus perso-
nam ecclesie figuraret, que super hane petram edificatur, et accepit
claves regni coclorum. Non enim dictum est illi, Tu es petra, sed, tu
es Petrus. Petra autem erat Christus; quem confessus Simon, sicut
eum tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. Augustini Retractio-
num, Lib. 1. 6. 21. Opera, Vol. 1. pp. 67, 68. edit. Bened. Paris. 1836, |
ο [3 Matthew’s Bible 1537.]

ν.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 997

Martin. So that, by this translation, there is no more church mili- Marrin, 3.
tant and triumphant, but congregation, and he is not head of the
church, but of the congregation; and this congregation, at the time of
the making of this translation, was in a few new brethren of England,
for whose sake the name “ church” was left out of the English bible,
to commend the name of “congregation” above the name of “church.”
Whereas St Augustine telleth them, that the Jews’ synagogue was a In Ps. Ixxxi.
. - - ° in initio.
congregation, the church a convocation ; and that a congregation is of συναγωγή.
beasts also; a convocation, of reasonable creatures only; and that the ἐκκλησία“.
Jews’ congregation is sometime called “the church,” but the apostles
never called the church “congregation.” Do you see then what a
goodly change they have made, for “church” to say “ congregation,”
so making themselves a very synagogue, and that by the property of the
Greek word; which yet (as St Augustine telleth them most truly) sig-
nifieth rather a “ convocation” ?

Fulke. A strange matter, that the church militant and Furx«e, 3.
triumphant should be excluded by using the word congre-
gation, when by it nothing is signified but the congregation
or church militant and triumphant; and that Christ should
no more be head of the church when he is head of the
congregation, where the difference is only in sound of words,
not in sense or meaning. Your vain and ridiculous surmise,
why the name of church should be left out of the bible, I
have before confuted, shewing that in every bible it is either
in the text, or in the notes. But St Augustine telleth us (say
you) that the Jews’ synagogue was a congregation, the
church a convocation; and that a congregation is of beasts
also, a convocation of reasonable creatures only. But St
Luke in the person of St Stephen telleth us, (and Augustine
telleth us as much,) that the synagogue of the Jews is called
also ecclesia, which signifieth the church and congregation.

[* The LXX. read in the first verse of the eighty-second Psalm,
ὁ Θεὸς ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, which is translated by the Vulgate,
“Deus stetit in synagoga deorum.” Upon these words Augustine
speaks as follows: “ In synagoga populum Israel accipimus; quia et
ipsorum proprie synagoga dici solet, quamvis et ecclesia dicta sit.
Nostram vero apostoli nunquam synagogam dixerunt, sed semper
ecclesiam; sive discernendi causa, sive quod inter congregationem
unde synagoga, et convocationem unde ecclesia nomen accepit, distet
aliquid; quod scilicet congregari et pecora solent, atque ipsa proprie,
quorum et greges proprie dicimus; convocari autem magis est uten-
tium ratione, sicut sunt homines. Augustini Enarratio in Psalmum
Ixxxi. 1.]

15—2

Mart, 4.

Confut. of
M. Howlet,
fol. 35.

Fuk, 4.

228 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH: [ση.

That congregatio, the Latin word, may be of beasts also, it
skilleth not; for the church of Christ is called also a flock,
and sheep of his pasture. But he that should say in English
“a congregation of beasts,” might be taken for as wise a man,
as he that said “an audience of sheep.” And whereas St Au-
gustine telleth you, that the Jews’ congregation is sometime
called the church; what is the cause that you do translate
it “the assembly,” Acts vii., even as you do “the congregation
of the idolatrous Ephesians,” Acts xix.? But further (you say)
Augustine telleth us, that the apostles never called the church
“congregation.” It is a world to see what foolish fetches
you have to deceive the ignorant. Augustine sayeth, the
apostles never called our assembly synagoga, but always
ecclesia: and yet he is a little deceived; for St Paul calleth
our gathering together unto Christ ἐπισυναγωγὴ, but congre-
gatio, “a congregation,” he saith not. And although he make
a nice distinction between the words “congregation” and
“convocation,” yet all men which know the use of these words,
will confess no necessity of a Jewish synagogue to be im-
plied in the word “congregation” more than in the word
ἐκκλησία, which of the Holy Ghost is used for an assembly or
gathering together, either of Jews, Christians, or Gentiles.
And therefore, it seemeth, the translator used the word “con-
gregation,” which is indifferent for all, even as the word
ecclesia is used both in the Greek and vulgar Latin.

Martin. If they appeal here to their later translations, we must
obtain of them to condemn the former, and to confess this was a gross
fault committed therein; and that the catholic church of our country
did not ill to forbid and burn such books which were so translated by
Tyndal and the like, as being not indeed God’s book, word, or scripture,
but the devil’s word. Yea, they must confess that the leaving out of
this word “church” altogether was of an heretical spirit against the
catholic Roman church, because then they had no Calvinistical church
in any like form of religion and government to theirs now. Neither
will it serve them to say after their manner, “ And if a man should trans-
late ecclesiam ‘congregation,’ this is no more absurdity, than instead
of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification.” This, we
trow, will not suffice them in the judgment of the simplest indifferent
reader.

Fulke. We need not to appeal to the later transla-
tions for any corruption or falsification of the former, no,

a

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 herem committed; except you
will count it a gross fault in St Luke, to use the word
ἐκκλησία without any scrupulosity for all three, as the trans-
lator doth the word “ congregation,” and you in two signifi-
eations the word “assembly.” Neither can your heathenish
and barbarous burning of the holy scriptures so translated,
nor your blasphemy in calling it the devil’s word, be excused
for any fault in translation which you have discovered as
yet, or ever shall be able to descry. That stinking cavil
of leaving out of the bible this word “church” altogether,
being both foolish and false, I have answered more than
once already. It is not left out altogether, that in con-
tents of books and chapters, and in notes of explication of
this word “ congregation’,” is set down. Neither could there
be any purpose against the catholic church of Christ in
them that translated and taught the creed in English, pro-
fessing to believe “the holy catholic church.” As for our
hatred of the malignant antichristian church of Rome, we
never dissembled the matter, so that we were afraid openly

to profess it: what need had we then after such a fantas-

tical manner (as is fondly imagined) to insinuate it?

Martin. But, my masters, if you would confess the former faults Marri, 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 gee his New
instead of “Christ’s soul in hell,” his “carcase in the grave:” and jin Latin

of the year
because some friend told him of that corruption, and he corrected it in 1561 rinted
the later editions, he should nevertheless in your judgment be counted a Sven, i} fol.
right honest man. No, be ye sure, the discreet reader cannot be so
abused ; but he will easily see that there is a great difference in mending

some oversights which may escape the best men, and in your gross false

[! Congregation. See No. 2.]

Matt. xvi. 18.
Bib. 1577.

Fue, 5.

230 - A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cr.

translations, who at the first falsify of a prepensed malice, and afterwards
alter it for very shame. Howbeit, to say the truth, in the chiefest and
principal place, that concerneth the church’s perpetuity and stability,
you have not yet altered the former translation, but it remaineth as before,
and is at this day read in your churches thus, “Upon this rock I will
build my congregation.” Can it be without some heretical subtilty,
that in this place specially, and (I think) only, you change not the word
“ congregation” into “church”? Give us a reason, and discharge your
credit.

Fulke. You are very hardly, and in very deed mali-
ciously, bent against us, that you will accept no confession
of faults escaped, never so plainly made. As for corrupt
dealing in the holy scriptures, and falsifying of the word
of God, you are not able, no, not if you would burst your-
self for malice, to 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 1. 27, if your dogged
stomach will not accept, he shall notwithstanding with all
godly learned men be accounted, as he deserveth, for one
who hath more profited the church of God with his sin-
cere translation and learned annotations, than all the popish
seminaries and seminarists shall be able to hinder it, jangle
of gross and false translations as long as you will. But
“the chiefest and principal place, that concerneth the church’s
perpetuity,” is not yet reformed to your mind. For in the
bible 1577, we read still, Matt. xvi, “Upon this rock 1
will build my congregation.” If Christ have a perpetual
congregation, ‘ builded upon the foundation of the prophets
and apostles, himself being the corner-stone,” his church is
in no danger ever to decay. Yet you ask, whether it can
be without some heretical subtilty, that in this place spe-
cially, and (as you think) only, the word “congregation” is not
changed into “church.” It is an homely, but a true proverb:
The good wife would, never have sought her daughter in
the oven, had she not been there first herself. You are
so full of heretical subtilties and traitorous devices, that
you dream of them in other men’s doings, whatsoever cometh
into your hands; yea, where you yourself can have no pro-
bable imagination what to suspect. And therefore we must
give you a reason in discharge of our eredit. For my part,

v.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 231

I know not with what special reason the translator was

moved; but I can give you my probable conjecture, that

he thought it all one, (as indeed it is,) to say “my congre-

gation,” or “my church.” For what is Christ’s congregation,

but his church ? or what is Christ’s church, but his congre-

gation ? And yet, to put you out of all fear, the Geneva trans-

lation hath the word “church,” that you make so great ac-

count of, as though it were not an indifferent word to the true
church of true Christians and the false church of malignant

heretics; being usurped first to signify the congregation of
Christians, by a metonymy of the place containing for the

people contained. For the etymology thereof is from the

Greek word κυριακὴ, which was used of Christians for the

place of their holy meetings, signifying “the Lord’s house ;”

therefore in the northern, which is the more ancient English

speech, is called by contraction kyrke, more near to the sound

of the Greek word.

Martin. What shall I say of Beza, whom the English bibles also Martin, 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. 1. 91. 23.

τοῦ πλη-
1

ουμενου-".

[* The following extract from Beza’s New Testament will serve he
to explain the matter in dispute in this and the two succeeding num-
bers: Ἥτις ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι
πληρουμένου Ephes. i. 28. Rendered by Beza, “Que est corpus ip-
sius, et complementum ejus qui omnia implet in omnibus:” upon
which he has this note:

Complementum, πλήρωμα, sive supplementum. Is enim est Christi
in ecclesiam amor, ut quum omnia in omnibus ad plenum prestet,
tamen sese veluti mancum et membris mutilum caput existimet, nisi
ecclesiam habeat sibi instar corporis adjunctam. Hine factum ut
Christus interdum collective pro tota ecclesia capiti suo adjuncta ac-
cipiatur, ut 1 Cor. xii. 12, 18, et Gal. iii. 16. Hinc etiam illud “in
Christo,” toties repetitum; quod multe expressius aliquid significat
quam cum Christo, vel per Christum. Hine factum ut diceret apo-
stolus se in Christo, et Christum in se vivere, Gal. ii, 20. Hine illa
Christi vox, Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris? Quo etiam pertinet
quod scriptum est, Col. i. 24. Hine denique nostra spes omnis et
consolatio proficiscitur. Qui implet, τοῦ πληρουμένου. Chrysostomus
passive accipit, ut. sit sensus, Christum prorsus impleri in omnibus,

ΕσχκΕ, 6.

232 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

things to the church, which (church) is his body,.the fulness of him that
filleth all in all.” ‘ St Chrysostom,” saith Beza, (he might have said, all
the Greek and Latin ancient fathers,) “taketh it passively in this sense,
that Christ is ‘ filled’ all in all, because all faithful men as members,
and the whole church as the body, concur to the fulness and accomplish-
ment of Christ the head. But this,’ saith he, “seemeth unto me a
forced interpretation.” Why so, Beza ?

Fulke. That Beza translateth the participle, τοῦ πλη-
poupevou, 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 indi-
gere hoc supplemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus revera ;
nedum ut suppleatur a quoquam, nisi quatenus pro emmmensa
sua bonitate ecclesiam dignatur sibi quasi corporis instar
adjungere. “This the apostle hath added altogether for this
end, that we may know that Christ of himself hath no need
of this supply, as he which worketh in truth ‘all things
in all;’ so far it is, that he should be supplied by any body,
but that of his infinite goodness he vouchsafeth to adjoin
his church unto himself as his body.” Who but the devil
would find fault with this godly and catholic saying ? wherein
it is affirmed, that Christ, which according to the perfec-
tion of his divine nature needeth no supply, yet of his in-
finite mercy vouchsafeth to become head of his church, as
of his body; so that he will not be counted perfect with-
out it. Is this to say, Christ may be a head without a
body ? or is it for his benefit, or the benefit of his church,
that he is the head thereof? But the more to lay open
this malicious slander and impudent falsifying of Beza’s
words and meaning, I will set down his saying, going im-

id est, singulos fideles conferre ad Christi complementum, uti corpus
ipsum ex singulis membris est.compactum. Mihi videtur coacta ista
interpretatio, [qui potius active istud accipio, edit. 1582, p. 291.1 quum
τὸ πληροῦσθαι pro πληροῦν Xenophon usurparit, Lib. νι. Hellen. et
συμπληροῦσθαι pro. συμπληροῦν ‘Plato in Timeo. Omnino autem hoc
addidit apostolus, ut sciamus Christum per se non indigere hoe sup-
plemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus revera; nedum ut sup-
pleatur a quoquam, nisi quatenus pro immensa.sua bonitate ecclesiam
dignatur sibi quasi corporis instar adjungere. Edit. 1556, p. 249. |

ve] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 233

mediately before, upon the word πλήρωμα, which he calleth
complementum sive supplementum, “a fulfilling or supplying :”
Is enim est Christi in ecclesiam amor, &c. “For such is the
love of Christ toward his church, that. whereas he performeth
all things to all men unto the full; yet he esteemeth him-
self as an unperfect head, and maimed of the members, unless
he have his church adjoined to him, as his body. Hereof it
cometh, that Christ is taken sometime collectively for the whole
church, adjoined to her head, as 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13, and Gal. i.
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? O monstrous malices of godless papists!
His exposition of the place being such, as you see, let us
now examine what can be said against his translation: 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-
eation. But why doth Beza say, that the exposition of
Chrysostom is “ forced,” which taketh it passively? He saith
not in respect of Chrysostom’s sense, which he himself fol-
loweth, and it is contained in the word πλήρωμα, but in
respect of the grammar, that πάντα should be put abso-
lutely without any word to govern it, seeing the participle
of the mean verb may be taken actively, and govern πάντα,
being the accusative case.

Martin. Mark his doctors whom he opposeth to the fathers, both Marri, 7.
Greek and Latin. “ Because Xenophon” saith he, “in such a place, and
Plato in such a place, use the said Greek word actively.”. I omit this
miserable match, and unworthy names of Xenophon and Plato, in trial
of St Paul’s words, against all the glorious doctors; this is his common
custom. I ask him rather of these his own doctors, how they use the
Greek word in other places of their works? how use they it most com-
monly ? yea, how do all other Greek writers, either profane or sacred,

πληροῦ-
μαι.

331 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

use it? What say the Greek readers of all universities? Surely, not
only they, but their scholars for the most part, cannot be ignorant, that
the use of this word and the like is passive, though sometime it may
also signify actively: but that is so rare in comparison of the other, that
no man lightly will use it; and I am well assured it would be counted
a fault, and some lack of skill, if one now in his writings that would
express this in Greek, “God filleth all things with his blessing,” should
say, πληροῦται πάντα : and, “The wine filleth the cup,” ὁ οἶνος πληροῦ-
ται τὸ ποτήριον. Ask them that have skill, and control me. Contrariwise,
if one would say passively, “All things are filled with God’s blessing,”
“The cup is filled with wine,” “Such a prophecy is fulfilled ;’ what
mean Grecian would not say, as St Chrysostom here expoundeth this

- word, πληροῦται, using it passively ?

Futxe, 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 πληροῦμαι,
which the meanest grammarian in the world knoweth to be
taken both actively and passively by the grammar rule De
verbo medio, Beza proveth out of Xenophon and Plato that
it is and may be used actively. Why not therefore in this
place of St Paul, where both the sense requireth it, that one
thing be not repeated twice without necessary cause, and the
construction of the word πάντα calleth for it, which other-
wise is left at random without any government? Seeing
therefore we have the common rule of grammar, and the
example of eloquent writers for use, I marvel what M. Martin
meaneth to waste so many words about so clear a matter.
No man that knoweth any thing doubteth, but that πληροῦμαι
may be, and is often, taken passively: but seeing it is also
found to be a verb mean, who need to be afraid to use it
actively (having Xenophon and Plato for his warrant), yea,
even in those examples you put, of God’s blessing filling all
things, or the wine filling the cup, if any man would speak
so. But if, because the word is more usually taken passively,
men would refrain so to speak ; yet why should we think that
St Paul did not use it actively ? when the active signification
is more agreeable, both with his words and with his meaning.
But lest you should think Beza is alone, which taketh it
actively, what say you to Philippus Montanus, one of your
own profession? which in his animadversions upon Theophy-
lact’s translation, by him corrected, saith upon this place:

v.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 235

πληρουμένου gui adimplet, vel adimpletur, verbum enim est
medium, passive autem videtur accipere Theophylactus: ‘Which
filleth, or which is filled; for it is a verb of indifferent
signification, active or passive, but Theophylact seemeth to
take it passively.” What say you to Isidorus Clarius, who
although in his text he readeth passively, yet in his note
confesseth it may be taken either passively or actively ?
For this is his note: Plenitudo ejus| per omnia enim membra
adimpletur corpus Christi, quia omnia in omnibus implet, dum
ipse agit in omnibus, vel per omnes homines hoec implet membra.
Sive plenitudinem et complementum omne suum habet ipsa
ecclesia ab illo, quia omnia im omnibus adimplet': “That is the
fulness of him] for by all the members the body of Christ
is filled, because he filleth all in all, while he worketh 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 δέξασθαι “to be contained,” which Recipere.
neither Xenophon nor Plato nor any Greek author will allow him to
do, and ψυχὴν “carcase,” and πρόγνωσιν “providence,” and μετάνοιαν Animam.
“them that amend their lives,” may much more in this place dissemble tian,
his forced interpretation of πεπληρουμένου. ‘But why he should call St tian”
Chrysostom’s interpretation forced, which is the common and usual in-
terpretation, that hath no more reason than if a very thief should say -
toan honest man, “ Thou art a thief, and not I.”

Fulke. 1 have shewed how it is enforced, because in στε, 8.
taking the participle passively you must either be enforced
to admit a plain solecism, where none needeth; or else you
must hardly understand the preposition κατὰ to govern the
accusative aavra, as Montanus telleth you in Theophylact,

[* Critici Sacri, Vol. vu. Pars τι. p. 98.]

286 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

and as CE&cumenius doth, and the sense will be no more
than is contained in the word complementum: whereas by
taking it actively, the wonderful goodness of Christ shineth
toward his church; who although he needeth nothing to
make him perfect, as Chrysostom saith, but supplieth “all
things in all things,” yet it is his gracious pleasure to account
himself imperfect without his church, which he hath united
to him as his body, in which he is not perfect without all
his members.

As for your vain and tedious repetition, like the cuckoo’s

_ song, of Beza’s misprisions, I will not stand so often to an-

Marty, 9.

Eph. i.

Futke, 9.

swer, as you are disposed to rehearse them: only I must
admonish the reader of a piece of your cunning, that im
repeating the participle you change the tense, and for
πληρουμένου you say πεπληρουμένον, as though it were
the preterperfect tense, which cannot be taken but only
passively. I know the printer shall bear the blame of this
oversight, but in the mean time it maketh a little shew
to a young Grecian, that considereth it not.

Martin. 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
the fulness of Christ, saying, “ Which is the fulness of him that is filled
all in all”? If the church be the fulness of him, then is he filled or
hath his fulness of the church, so that he is not a maimed head without
a body. This would St Paul say, if you would give him leave; and this
he doth say, whether you will or no. But what is the cause that they
will not suffer the apostle to say so? “ Because,” saith Beza, “Christ
needeth no such complement.” And if he needeth it not, then may he
be without a church, and consequently it is no absurdity, if the church
hath been for many years not only invisible, but also not at all. Would
a man easily at the first imagine or.conceive, that there were such secret
poison in their translation ?

Fulke. You should urge Beza with a Latin epistle,
seeing you are so earnest in the matter. I have told you
that the sense of Chrysostom is true, but not flowing easily
from the words of St Paul. That Christ hath his fulness
of the church, it is granted by Beza upon the word plenitudo
or complementum, as you cannot be ignorant, if you have
read Beza’s annotations, as you pretend. But you charge
Beza to say, that “Christ needeth no such complement.” Beza’s
words are, as I have set them down before, wt sciamus

a Ν

ν.] 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 unperfect
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- Bi 1579.
sensions, and the true church is known by unity, and hath this mark
given her by Christ himself, in whose person Salomon speaking saith,
Una est columba mea, that is, “One is my dove,” or, “My dove is one ;” cant. vi. 8.
therefore instead hereof the foresaid bible saith, “My dove is alone ;” pia'.
neither Hebrew nor Greek word having that signification, but being as IS
proper to signify one, as unus in Latin.

Fulke. He that hath any nose may smell that this cen- Furxs,
sure cometh from the stinking puddle of popish malice. 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

[2 Mia ἐστὶ περιστερά pov. Canticles vi. 8. “Una est columba
mea,” Vulg. “One is my dove, one is my darling,” Cranmer 1562,
Bishops’ bible. “ My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only
one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her,’ Au-
thorised version. “ My dove is alone,” Geneva, 1560. |

Martin,
ll.

FuLke,
11.

238 A ‘DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

number ;” if you add thereto “my dove is one;” it may be
thought she is one of those last mentioned. But if you say,
as the Geneva bible doth, but “my dove is alone, and my
undefiled is the only daughter of her mother ;” now the
church is excepted from all the rest of the queens, concu-
bines, and damsels. And where you say, the Hebrew hath
not that signification, I pray you go no further but even’ to
the same verse, and tell me whether the sense be, that she
is one of her mother’s daughters, or the only daughter of
her mother? Here therefore (as almost everywhere) you

_ do nothing, but seek a knot in a-rush.

Martin. But we beseech every indifferent reader, even for his soul’s
health, to consider that one point specially before mentioned, of their
abandoning the name of “church” for so many years out of their English
bibles, thereby to defeat the strongest argument that might and may
possibly be brought against them and all other heretics; to wit, the
authority of the church, which is so many ways and so greatly recom-
mended unto all Christians in holy scriptures. Consider, I pray you,
what a malicious intention they had herein: first, that the name
“church” should never sound in the common people’s ears out of the’
scriptures; secondly, that 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. We trust every indifferent reader will consider,
that they which translated the Greek word ecclesia, “the con-
gregation,” and admonished in the notes that they did by
that word mean “ the church ;” and they which in the creed
might have translated ecclesiam catholicam, ‘“ the universal con-
gregation,” taught all children to say, “1 believe the catholic
church,” could have no such devilish meaning as this malicious
slanderer of his own head doth imagine. For who ever
heard any man reason thus: This word “church” is not found
in the scripture, therefore the church must be despised, &c. ?.
Rather it is like (beside other reasons before alleged) that

ve] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 239

those first translators, having in the Old Testament out of the
Hebrew translated the words cahal hadath, and such other for
“the congregation” (where the papists will not translate “the
church,” although their Latin text be ecclesia, as appeareth
Acts vii., where they call it “assembly”), thought good to retain
the word “congregation” throughout the New Testament also,
lest it might be thought of the ignorant, that God had no
church in the time of the Old Testament. Howsoever it
was, they departed neither from the word nor meaning of
the Holy Ghost, nor from the usage of that word ecclesia,
which in the scripture signifieth as generally any assembly,
as the word “congregation” doth in English,

Martin, ].

940 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. -

CHAPTER VI.
Heretical Translation against Priest and Priesthood.

Martin. Bur because it may be, they will stand here upon their
later translations which have the name “church,” (because by that
time they saw the absurdity of changing the name, and now their num-
ber was increased, and themselves began to challenge to be the true
church, though not the catholic; and for former times when they were
not, they devised an invisible church ;) if then they will stand upon

their later translations, and refuse to justify the former; let us demand

Ευχκε, 1.

Martin, 2.

of them concerning all their English translations, why and to what end
they suppress the name “ priest,” translating it “elder” in all places
where the holy scripture would signify by presbyter and presbyterium the
“ priests” and “priesthood” of the New Testament ?

Fulke. If any error have escaped the former transla-
tions, that hath been reformed in the later, all reasonable
men ought to be satisfied with our own corrections. But
because we are not charged with oversights and small faults
committed either of ignorance or of negligence, but with
shameless translations, wilful and heretical corruptions, we
may not acknowledge any such crimes whereof our conscience
is clear. That we “ devised an invisible church,” because we
were few in number, when our translations were first printed,
it is a lewd slander. For being multiplied, as we are, (God
be thanked!) we hold still that the catholic church, which is
the mother of us all, is invisible, and that the church on
earth may at some times be driven into such straits, as
of the wicked it shall not be known. And this we held
always, and not otherwise. Now touching the word pres-
byter and presbyterium, why we translate them not “ priest
and priesthood of the New Testament,” we have given suf-
ficient reason before: but because we are here urged afresh,
we must answer as occasion shall be offered.

Martin. Understand, gentle reader, their wily policy therein is this:
to take away the holy sacrifice of the mass, they take away both altar
and priest ; because they know right well that these three, priest, sacri-
fice, and altar, are dependents and consequents one of another, so that
they cannot be separated. If there be an external sacrifice, there must
be an external priesthood to offer it, an altar to offer the same upon.

ΕΣ

vi. | 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 bake xxi:
unbloody manner, until the world’s end. ᾿

Fulke. Τὰ denying the blasphemous sacrifice of the Fuxxs, 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 Marmin, 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 wnitaker’s,
against St Augustine, who in one brief sentence distinguisheth priests ?- 1
16

[ruLKE. |

See the Puri-
tans’ Reply,
Wie

ni 5
Defence

inst the

uritans, p.

722.

Futxe, 3.

242 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

properly so called in the church, and priests as it isa common name
to all Christians. Lib. xx. de Civit. Dei, cap. 10.1 This name then of
“priest” and “priesthood” properly so called, as St Augustine saith,
which is an order distinct from the laity and vulgar people, ordained to
offer Christ in an unbloody manner in sacrifice to his heavenly Father
for us, to preach and minister the sacraments, and to be the pastors of
the people, they wholly suppress in their translations; and in all places
where the holy scripture calleth them presbyteros, there they never
translate “priests,” but “elders.” And that they do observe so duly and
so warily, and with so full and general consent in all their English bibles,
as the puritans do plainly confess, and M. Whitgift denieth it not, that a
man would wonder to see, how careful they are that the people may not
once hear the name of any such “ priest” in all the holy scriptures.

Fulke. Now you have gotten a fine net to dance naked
in, that no ignorant blind buzzard can see you. The masks
of your net be the ambiguous and abusive significations of
this word “priest”; which indeed, according to the original deri-
vation from presbyter, should signify nothing else but an
“elder,” as we translate it, that is, one appointed to govern
the church of God according to his word, but not to offer
sacrifice for the quick and the dead. But by usurpation it
is commonly taken to signify a sacrificer, such as ἱερεὺς is
in Greek, and sacerdos in Latin; by which names the minis-
ters of the gospel are never called by the Holy Ghost.
After this common acceptation and use of this word “priest,”
we call the sacrificers of the Old Testament, and of the gen-
tiles also, because the scripture calleth them by one name,
cohanin, or ἱερεῖς : but because the scripture calleth the minis-
ters of the New Testament by divers other names, and never
by the name of ἱερεῖς, we thought it necessary to observe
that distinction which we see the Holy Ghost so precisely
hath observed, Therefore, where the scripture calleth them
πρεσβυτέρους, we call them, according to the etymology,
“elders,” and not priests ; which word is taken up by common
usurpation to signify sacrificers of Jews, gentiles, or papists,

[Γ᾿ Quod autem cum dixisset, Jn istis secunda mors non habet potestatem ;
adjunxit atque ait, Sed erunt sacerdotes Dei et Christi, et regnabunt cum eo
mille annis: non utique de solis episcopis et presbyteris dictum est, qui
proprie jam vocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes ; sed sicut omnes Christianos
dicimus propter mysticum chrisma, sic omnes sacerdotes, quoniam mem-
bra sunt unius Sacerdotis. Augustin. de Civitat. Dei. Lib. xx. c. 10.
Opera. Vol. νι. p. 944. ]

vi. | 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 ἱερεῖς, which signify the ministers of the Old Testament ;
yet the authority of the Holy Ghost, making a perfect dis-
tinction between these two appellations and functions, ought
to be of more estimation with us. The fathers were content
to speak in Latin and Greek, as the terms were taken up
by the common people newly converted from gentility; but
yet they retained the difference of the sacrificing priesthood
of the one, and the ministerial office of the other. This
may suffice therefore to render a reason, why we use not
the word “priest” for “ministers” of the New Testament : not
that we refuse it in respect of the etymology, but in respect
of the use and common signification thereof.

Martin. As for example in their translations, when there fell a Martin, 4.
question about circumcision, “They determined that Paul and Barnabas πρεσβυτέ-
should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this Sresbyteros.
question.” Acts xv*. And again, “ They were received of the congrega-

[? In Acts xy. 4, τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων is ren-
dered, in the Vulgate, “ab apostolis et senioribus:” also, in verses
20, 22, 28. In verse 41, seniorum is used, though there is not any
corresponding clause in the Greek. See also chap. xvi. 4.

πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ πρεσβυτέρους, Acts xv. 2, is rendered
thus in the different versions: “To the apostolis and _preestis,”
Wiclif, 1380. ‘To the apostles and elders,’ Tyndale, Cranmer,
Geneva, and Authorised.

ἀπεδέχθησαν ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν πρεσ-
βυτέρων. Acts χν. 4. “ They werun resceyued of the chirche, and of
the apostlis, and of the elder men,” Wiclif. “They were received of
the congregation, and of the apostles and elders,’ Tyndale, Cranmer.
“They were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders,”
Geneva version, and Authorised.

Συνήχθησαν δὲ of ἀπόστολοι καὶ of πρεσβύτεροι. Acts xv. 6. “ And
the apostlis and elder men camen ’togidre,” Wiclif. “And the apo-
stles and elders came together,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Autho-
rised. “And the apostles and ancients assembled,” Rhemish version.

Τότε ἔδοξε τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις σὺν ὅλῃ TH ἐκ-
κλησίᾳ. Acts xv. 22. “Thanne it plesid to the apostles and to the
elder men with alle the chirche,” Wiclif. “Then pleased it the
apostles and elders with the whole congregation,” Tyndale, Cranmer.
“Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church,”
Geneva, Authorised version. οἱ

‘ 16—2

* The later
bibles read
**church.”

Acts xvi.

FuLKE, 4.

9.4.4, A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

tion,* and of the apostles and elders.” Again, “‘ The apostles and elders
came together to reason of this matter.” Again, “ Then pleased it the
apostles and elders with the whole congregation to send,’ &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
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. 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 ἀπόστολοι καὶ of πρεσβύτεροι καὶ of ἀδελφοὶ τοῖς κατὰ τὴν
Ἀντιόχειαν καὶ Συρίαν. .... χαίρειν. Acts xv. 23, “ Apostlis and elder
britheren,” Wiclif. “The apostles, elders and brethren, send greet-
ings,” Tyndale, Cranmer. “The apostles and the elders and the bre-
thren send greetings,” Geneva. “The apostles and elders and brethren,”
Authorised version.

παρεδίδουν αὐτοῖς φυλάσσειν τὰ δόγματα τὰ κεκριμένα ὑπὸ τῶν
ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ. Acts xvi. 4.
“They delivered them the decrees for to keep ordained of the apo-
stles and elders,’ Tyndale, Geneva. “They delivered them the de-
crees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders,”
Cranmer, Authorised version.]

vi. TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 245

Martin. But let us go forward. We have heard often and of old Marry, 5.
time, of making of priests ; and of late years also, of making ministers ;
but did ye ever hear in all England of making “elders”? Yet by these
men’s translations it hath been in England a phrase of scripture this
thirty year; but it must-needs be very strange, that this making of
“elders” hath not all this while been practised and known, no, not among
themselves in any of their churches within the realm of England. To
Titus they make the apostle say thus: “For this cause left I thee in Tit. i.
Creta, that thou shouldst ordain elders in every city,” &c. Again, of
Paul and Barnabas: “When they had ordained elders by election in τοὺς πρεσ-
every congregation.” Acts xiv.' If they had said plainly, as it is in the ails cna
Greek, and as our forefathers were wont to speak, and the truth is, Bib. an.1562.
“ Titus was left in Creta to ordain priests in every city ;” and, “ Paul
and Barnabas made priests in every church ;” then the people would
have understood them: they know such speeches of old, and it had been
their joy and comfort to hear it specified in holy scriptures. Now they
are told another thing, in such newness of speeches and words, of “ elders”
to be made in every city and congregation, and yet not one city nor
congregation to have any elders in all England, that we know not what
is profane novelty of words, which the apostle willeth to be avoided, if 1 Tim. vi.
this be not an exceeding profane novelty.

Fulke. When you have gotten a bauble, you make more Futxs, 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 πρεσβυτέρους, and the bishop’s letters of orders, testi-
fying of their ordination, call them by none other name, but
by the name of presbytert, which the scripture useth: which
term though in English you sound it priests, elders, ancients,
seniors, or ministers, which is the common people’s word,

[ kat καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους. Titus i, 5. “ And
ordeyne preetis by citees,’ Wiclif. “And shouldest ordain elders in
every city,” Tyndale, Cranmer, 1539, 1562, Bishops’ bible, 1514,
Geneva; Authorised version.

Χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς πρεσβυτέρους κατ᾽ ἐκκλησίαν. Acts xiv. 23.
“Et cum constituissent illis per singulas ecclesias presbyteros,” Vulg.
v. 22. “And whanne thei hadden ordeyned preestis to him bi alle
citees,” Wiclif. ‘And when they had ordained them elders by elec-
tion in every congregation,” Tyndale, Cranmer. “And when they
had ordained them elders by election in every church,” Geneva.
“And when they had ordained them elders in every church,” Au-
thorised version.]

Martin, 6.

χειροτο-
. νεῖν.
Acts xiv}.

χειροτονή-
σαντες
αὐτοῖς.

καταστῇ -

σαι.
Tit. i.

246 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

it is the same office which is described by the Holy Ghost,
Tit. 1., and in other places of scripture. As for the “profane
novelty,” wherewith this word “elder” is changed, we will con-
sider of it in the next section.

Martin. 'That it is novelty to all English christian ears, it is evident.
And it is also profane, because they do so English the Greek word of
ordaining (for of the word presbyter we will speak more anon), as if
they should translate Demosthenes or the laws of Athens concerning
their choosing of magistrates, which was by giving voices with lifting
up their hands. So they do force this word here, to induce the people’s
election; and yet in their churches:in England the people elect not
ministers, but their bishop. Whereas the holy scripture saith, they
ordained to the people ; and whatsoever force the word hath, it is here
spoken of the apostles, and pertaineth not to the people ; and therefore
in the place to Titus it is another word which cannot be forced further
than to “ordain and appoint.” And they might know, if malice and
heresy would suffer them to see and confess it, that the holy scriptures,

‘and fathers, and ecclesiastical custom, hath drawn this and the like

Futxe, 6.

words from their profane and common signification to a more peculiar
and ecclesiastical speech: as episcopus, an “overseer” in Tully, is a
“bishop” in the New Testament.

Fulke. The name “ elders,’ used in our translation, is
neither more novel to English ears, nor more profane to
godly ears, than the name “ancients,” which your translation
useth. And yet I think the apostle, 1 Tim. vi., spake not
of novelty to English ears, but of that which was new to
the ears of the church of God. But the word “elders” (I
ween) must be profane, because we “English the Greek word
of ordaining, as if we should translate Demosthenes or the
laws of Athens concerning the choosing of magistrates.” Doth
not this 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

[1 Χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς πρεσβυτέρους κατ᾽ ἐκκλησίαν. Acts xiv. 29,
“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.
Καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους. Titus i. 5. “ Ordain

elders,” all the versions, except the Rhemish, which has, “Ordain
priests.” ]

vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 247

might use for choosing’ of their magistrates? But this word
we “enforce (you say) to induce the people’s election, and yet
the bishop, not the people, elect our ministers.” We mean not
to enforce any other election than the word doth signify.
Neither doth our bishops (if they do well) ordain any ministers
or priests without the testimony of the people, or at least-
wise, of such as be of most credit where they are known.
Where you urge the pronoun αὐτοῖς, “ to them,” as though the
people gave no consent nor testimony, it is more than ridicu-
lous; and beside that, contrary to the practice of the primitive
church for many hundred years after the apostles; as also
that you would enforce upon the words καταστῆσαι, used by
St Paul, Tit. i, as though that word of “constitution” did ex-
clude election. That the word χειροτονία by the fathers of
the church since the apostles hath been drawn to other signi-
fication than it had before, it is no reason to teach us how
it was used by the apostles. Election is an indifferent thing :
the election of bishops, elders, or priests, is an holy thing,
the holiness whereof is not included in the word χειροτονεῖν,
but in the holy institution of Christ, and authority by his
appointment delivered by imposition of the hands of the
eldership.

Martin. And concerning χειροτονία, which we now speak of, St. Marriy,7.
Jerome® telleth them in chap. lviii. Esai. that it signifieth clericorum Greg. Nazian.
ordinationem, that is, “ giving of holy orders,” which is d yt ae tere

, that is, “giving of holy orders,” which is done not only 1 4 5. "μετὰ
by prayer of the voice, but by imposition of the hand, according to St τὴν τοῦ
Paul unto Timothy, manus cito nemini imposueris, “ Impose or put hands pie was
quickly on no man :” that is, be not hasty or easy to give holy orders. Toviav, and
_ Where these great etymologists, that so strain the original nature of this gy eiporo.
word to profane stretching forth the hand in elections, may learn νήθη. Ignat.
another ecclesiastical etymology thereof, as proper and as well deduced tehore.
of the word as the other, to wit, putting forth the hand to give orders ; βαπτίρου-

Ἶ a

and so they shall find it is all one with that which the apostle calleth γοῦσι, χει-

‘imposition of hands,’ 1 Tim. iv. 2 Tim. i.; and consequently, for ni ῥα ah ty
χειροθε-

[5 Plerique nostrorum χειροτονίαν, id est, ordinationem clericorum,
que 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 Isaie
6. lviii. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 432.]

[? Gregor. Nazian. Edit. Paris. Morell. 1630. 1. 6. 7. The titles
quoted are from 1 and 7.]

248 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ox.

τοῦσι. * ordaining elders by election,” they should have said, “ ordaining or

Χο τον Making priests by imposition of hands ;” as elsewhere St Paul, 1 Tim. v.

τῶν xet- and the Acts of the Apostles, Acts vi. and xiii., do speak in the ordain-
ie ing of the seven deacons, and of St Paul and Barnabas.

Fuuxe, 7. Fulke. The testimony of St Jerome, whom you cite,

In Isai. Iviii you understand not; for speaking there of the extension of
the finger, which the Septuaginta translate χειροτονίαν, “ and
God requireth to be taken away,” he saith: “ Many of our
interpreters do understand it of the ordination of clerks,
which is performed not only at the imprecation of voice, but
also at the imposition of hands, lest (as we have laughed at
in some men) the secret imprecation of the voice should
ordain clerks, being ignorant thereof.” And so proceedeth
to inveigh against the abuse of them that would ordain clerks
of their basest officers and servitors, yea, at the request of
foolish women. By which it is manifest, that his purpose is
not to tell what χειροτονία properly doth signify, but that
imposition of hands is required in lawful ordination, which
many did understand by the word χειροτονία, although in
that place it signified no such matter. And therefore you
must seek further authority to prove your ecclesiastical
etymology, that χειροτονία signifieth putting forth of the
hands to give orders. The places you quote in the margin,
out of the titles of Nazianzen’s sermons, are to no purpose,
although they were in the text of his homilies. For it ap-
peareth not, although by synecdoche the whole order of
making clerks were called χειροτονία, that election was ex-
cluded, where there was ordination by imposition of hands.
As for that you cite out of Ignatius, [it] proveth against you,
that χειροτονεῖν differeth from “imposition of hands ;” be-
cause it is made a distinct office from χειροθετεῖν, that signi-
fieth to “lay on hands”: and so χειροτονία and ἐπίθεσις
τῶν χειρῶν by your own author do differ.

Martin, 8. Martin. But they are so profane and secular, that they translate the
Greek word πρεσβύτερος in all the New Testament, as if it had the old
profane signification still, and were indifferent to signify the “ancients of
the Jews,” “the senators of Rome,” “the elders of Lacedemonia,” and

τοὺς πρεσ- “the christian clergy.” Insomuch that they say, “Paul sent to Ephesus,

βυτέρου.. and called the elders of the church,” Acts xx. ; and yet they were such as

“Ὥς 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 χάρισμα.
had rather say than “grace,” lest holy orders should be a sacrament,) oi.
“given thee with the laying on of the hands of the eldership,” or, “by τοῦ πρεσ-
the authority of the eldership'.” 1 Tim. iv. What is this company of siecle
“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 Svetent and
hand upon his head, let all the priests also that are present hold their Subseribed.
hands by the bishop’s hand upon his head.” So do our priests at this

day, when a bishop maketh priests; and this is the laying on of the

hands of the company of priests, which St Paul speaketh of, and

which they translate, “the company of the eldership.” Only their

former translation of 1562 in this place (by what chance or conside-

ration we know not) let fall out of the pen, “by the authority of
priesthood.”

Fulke. We desire not to be more holy in the English Furxzg, 8.
terms, than the Holy Ghost was in the Greek terms: whom
if it pleased to use such a word as is indifferent to signify
the “ancients of the Jews,” “the senators of Rome,” “ the
elders of Lacedemonia,” and “the christian clergy,’ why
should we not truly translate it into English ?

[} Μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας
μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίουι 1 Tim. iv. 14. “Noli
negligere gratiam, que in te est, que data est tibi per prophetiam,”
Vulg. “The grace which is in thee,” Wiclif. ‘ Despise not the gift
that is in thee, which was given thee through prophecy, and with
laying on of the hands of an elder,” Tyndale, 1534. ‘ Despise not the
gift that is in thee, which was given thee through prophecy, with the
laying on of hands by the authority of the priesthood,” Cranmer,
1539, 1562. “Despise not that gift that is in thee, which was given
thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands by the eldership,” "
Geneva Test. 1557. ‘‘Despise not the gift, &c. with the laying on
of the hands of the company of the eldership,” Geneva bible, 1560.
* Despise not the gift, &c. with the laying on of hands by the au-
thority of the eldership,” Bishops’ bible, 1584. “Neglect not the
grace that is in thee, which is given thee by prophecy, with impo-
sition of the hands of priesthood,” Rheims. 1582. “Neglect not the gift
that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying
on of the hands of the presbytery,” Authorised version. “Despise not
the gift,” Edit. 1579, 1568.]

250 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

But I pray you in good sadness, are we so profane and
secular, Acts xx., in calling those whom Saint Paul sent for
out of Ephesus, “elders”? What shall we say then of the
vulgar Latin text, which calleth them mayjores natu, as
though they obtained that degree by years, rather than by
anything else? And why do you so profanely and secularly
call them the “ ancients of the church”? Is there more pro-
faneness and secularity in the English word “elders,” than in
the Latin word majores natu, or in your French-English
term, “ancients”? Surely you do nothing but play with the

noses of such as be ignorant in the tongues, and can perceive
no similitude or difference of these words, but by the sound
of their ears. But now for the word πρεσβυτέριον, used by
St Paul, 1 Tim. iv., which we call the “eldership,” or “ the
company of elders,” I have shewed before, how it is used by
St Luke in his gospel, chap. xxii., and Acts xxii. You say,
we “will not speak plainly, lest the world should hear that
Timothy was made priest or bishop even as the use is in
the catholic church at this day.” And then you tell us, out
of the council of Carthage, 4 chap. that all the priests present
should lay their hands on the head of him that is ordained,
together with the bishop. We know it well, and it is used
in the church of England at this day. Only the term of
“eldership” displeaseth you, when we mean thereby the com-
pany of elders. But whereas the translators of the bible,
1562, called it “ priesthood,” either by priesthood they meant
the same that we do by “eldership;” or if they meant by
“priesthood” the office of priests, or elders, they were de-
ceived. For πρεσβυτέριον signifieth “a company of elders,”
as it is twice used by St Luke, and oftentimes by the ancient
writers of the church, both Greeks and Latins.

Martin,9. Martin. Otherwise in all their English bibles all the bells ring
one note’, as, “ The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour.”

[Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν.
1 Tim. ν. 17. “Qui bene presunt presbyteri, duplici honore digni ha-
beantur,” Vulg. “The elders that rule well are worthy of double
honour,” Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539, 1562; Bishops’ bible, 1584,
Geneva, 1560. “ Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double
honour,” Authorised version. “The priests that rule well, let them be
esteemed worthy of double honour,” Rheims.

vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 951

And, “Against an elder receive no accusation, but under two or three
witnesses,” 1 Tim. v. And, “If any be diseased among you, let him τοὺς πρεσ-
call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, and tte bahons
anoint him with oil,” &c. Jacob. v. Whereas St Chrysostom out of σίας.
this place proveth the high dignity of priests in remitting sins, in his Pape sa
book entitled, “‘ Of Priesthood,” unless they will translate that title περὶ iepw-
also, “Of Eldership.” Again, they make St Peter say thus: “The elders σύνης.
which are among you 1 exhort, which am also an elder, feed ye Christ’s

flock, as much as lieth in you,” &c. 1 Pet. v.

Fulke. Τὰ these three texts you triumph not a little, Fuixe, 9.
because your vulgar Latin text hath the Greek word pres-
byter. ‘The high dignity of priests, or elders, in remitting
sins,’ we acknowledge with Chrysostom, in his book entitled
“ Of Priesthood :” which seeing it is περὶ ἱερωσύνης, we will
never translate “eldership.” But we may lawfully wish, that
both Chrysostom and other ancient writers had kept that
distinction of terms, which the apostles and evangelists did so
precisely observe. In the last text, 1 Pet. v., your vulgar Latin
saith, seniores and consenior, yourselves in English, “ seniors,”
and ‘fellow senior.” What trespass then have we committed,
in saying “elders,” and “fellow elder,” or an elder also ?

Martin. Where if they will tell us, as also in certain other places, Marry,
that our Latin translation hath seniores, and majores natu: we tell 10.
them, as heretofore we have told them, that this is nothing to them, ee
who profess to translate the Greek. Again we say, that if they meant Presbyteros

no worse than the old Latin translator did, they would be as indifferent byter, BD. 85.
a

‘ ° ° ° Evag. et
as he to have said sometime “priests” and “priesthood,” when he hath jni. ad Gal.

proving the

Kara πρεσβυτέρου κατηγορίαν μὴ mapadéxov. 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.

προσκαλεσάσθω τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας. James vy. 14.
“Inducat presbyteros ecclesie,” Vulg. ‘Let him call for the elders
of the congregation,” Tyndale, Cranmer. “ Let him call for the elders
of the church,” Geneva, Bishops’ bible, 1584. Authorised version. “Let
him bring in the priests of the church,” Rheims. Πρεσβυτέρους τοὺς
ἐν ὑμῖν παρακαλῶ ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος. 1 Pet. ν. 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
its 5 .. . . . . °
vet in Gal. iv. translation, saying “seniors” and “ancients,” when we find it so in our

accodieto atin; being well assured that by sundry words he meant but one

Tain eee, thing, as in Greek it is but one, and as both Erasmus and also Beza

ae himself always translate it, keeping the name presbyter and presbyteri ;

consenior et_of whom by reason they should have learned, rather than of our Latin
by itisevi- translator, whom otherwise they condemn. And if they say they do

isa priest, major natu, but the word presbyter, or πρεσβύτερος, an “elder,” in all
trary, pres- Places; we tell them, and herein we convent their conscience, that they
byter,an do it to take away the external priesthood of the New Testament, and
to suppress the name “ priest,” against the ecclesiastical, and (as now
. since Christ) very proper and usual signification thereof, in the New
Testament, councils, and fathers, in all common writing and speaking ;
specially the Latin presbyter, which grew to this signification out of the

Greek, in the foresaid places of holy scripture.

Fuuxe, Fulke. Ihave told you already, and you could not but
i 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 presbyteritum. I answer, presbyterium he
hath but once, and for that you have “ priesthood” once, as you
confessed before. And if the name “ priest” were of the same
understanding in common English that the word presbyter
is, from whence it is derived, we would never have sought
more words for it, than we do for the words “bishop,” “dea-
con,” and such like. :
The words presbyter and presbyterium you confess
that Beza doth always use: and so do we, when we write
or speak Latin; but we cannot use them in English, except
we should be as fond as you in your gratis, depositum, and
such fantasies. And to tell you plamly, as our conscience
beareth us witness, we will never dissemble, that we avoid
that word “ priest,” as it is used to signify a sacrificer, because
we would shew a perfect distinction between the priesthood
of the law and the ministry of the gospel, between sacerdos
and presbyter, a sacrificer and a governor of the church.
And I appeal to your own conscience, whether, if the English

vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 253

word “ priest” were as indifferent as presbyter, and sounded
no more towards a sacrifice than either presbyter or your own
English words “ancient” and “senior,” whether (I say) you
would make so much ado about it, for to have it in all places
of the New Testament, where πρεσβύτερος is in the Greek ?
But seeing your popish sacrificing power, and blasphemous
sacrifice of your mass, hath no manner ground at all in the
holy scriptures, either in the original Greek, or in your own
Latin translation, you are driven to seek a silly shadow for
it in the abusive acception and sounding of the English word
“priest” and “priesthood.” And therefore you do, in the
second section of this chapter, in great earnest affirm, that
“ priest, sacrifice, and altar” are dependents, and consequents,
one of another, so that they cannot be separated. If you should
say in Latin sacerdos, sacrificium, altare, or in Greek ἱερεὺς,
θυσία ἢ προσφορὰ, καὶ θυσιαστήριον be such consequents,
we will also subscribe unto you: but if you will change the
word, and say presbyter, sacrificium, altare, or πρεσβύτε-
pos, θυσία, θυσιαστήριον, every learned man’s ears will glow,
to hear you say they are dependents and consequents in-
separable. Therefore we must needs distinguish of the word
“priest” in your corollary : for [if] you mean thereby sacerdo-
tem, we grant the consequence of sacrifice and altar; but
if you mean presbyterium [ presbyterum], we deny that ever
God 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 mayor natu, or
ancient, or elder.

Martin. Insomuch that immediately in the first canons and councils Marrin,
of the apostles and their successors, nothing is more common than this “
istincti saati 4 Bie See Can.
distinction of ecclesiastical degrees and names, si episcopus, vel presbyter, Apost.Cone.i.
vel diaconus', &c.: “If any bishop, or priest, or deacon” do this or that. (oe

Ignat. Cone.

Which if the protestants or Calvinists will translate after their manner Carl jv. βόα
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.

Γ᾿ Aut, not vel, in Labbe, Vol. 1. p. 52.]

FULKE,
] 11

Martin,
12.

διάκονος.
Diaconus.

S. Tim. iii.

Bib. 1577.
1579.

Prebstre.
Prete.

254 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

Fulke. The distinction of episcopus-and presbyter to
signify several offices, we grant to be of great antiquity ;
albeit we may not admit the counterfeit canons of the, apostles,
nor the epistles of Ignatius, for such men’s writings as they
bear the name to be. We make presbyter, or “elder,” a
common name to all ecclesiastical persons, none otherwise than
you do this word “priest:” for deacons with us are not
called presbyteri, or “elders.” As for the distinction of
bishops’ and elders’ names, which the scripture taketh for the
same, doth no more “ condemn all antiquity” in us, than 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 πρεσβύ-
Tepot, which you translate “ancients,” and expound “priests ;”
and thus you write: ‘ Bishops or priests (for those names
were sometimes used indifferently), governors of the church
of God, and placed in that room and high function by the
Holy Ghost.” But it seemeth you have small regard to
defend your own notes, so you might find occasion to quarrel
at our words.

>

Martin. And here we must ask them, how this name “ minister
came to be a degree distinct from a deacon, whereas by their own rule
of translation, “deacon” is nothing else but a “minister ;” and why
keep they the old and usual ecclesiastical name of ‘‘ deacon” in trans-
lating diaconus, and not the name of “ priest” in translating presbyter ?
Doth not “priest” come of presbyter as certainly and as agreeably as
“deacon” of diaconus? Doth not also the French and Italian word
for “priest” come directly from the same? Will you always follow
fancy and not reason, do what you list, translate as you list, and not as
the truth is, and that in the holy scriptures, which you boast and vaunt
so much of? Because yourselves have them whom you call bishops, the
name “bishops” is in your English bibles; which otherwise by your

‘ own rule of translation should be called an “overseer” or “ superin-

tendent :” likewise ‘‘ deacon” you are content to use as an ecclesiastical
word so used in antiquity, because you also have those whom you call
“deacons.” Only “priests” must be turned contemptuously out of the
text of the holy scriptures, and “elders” put in their place, because
you have no priests, nor will none of them, and because that is in con-
troversy between us. And as for elders, you have none permitted in
England, for fear of overthrowing your bishops’ office and the Queen’s

‘ supreme government in all spiritual things and causes, Is not this to

follow the humour of your heresy, by Machiavel’s politic rules, without
any fear of God ἢ

vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 255

Fulke. Here I must answer you, that we have no Fourxz,
degree of ministers distinct from deacons, but by vulgar and 12.
popular use of speaking, which we are not curious to control.
Otherwise, in truth, we account bishops, elders, and deacons,
all ministers of the church. It is no more, therefore, but
the common speech of men, which useth that word, which is
common to all ecclesiastical persons, as peculiar to the elders,
or priests. Why we keep the name of “ deacons” in translating
diaconus, rather than of “ priests” in translating presbyter,
I have told you often before. The name “ priest” being by
long abuse of speech applied to signify sacrificers of the Old
Testament, called ἱερεῖς, we could not give the same name
to the ministers of the New Testament, except we had some
other name, whereby to call the ministers of the Old Testa-
ment: wherein we follow reason, and not fancy; for it is
great reason we should retain that difference in names of
the ministers of both the testaments, which the Holy Ghost
doth always observe. But you follow fancy altogether,
imagining that “ priests” only are put out of the text, because
we have no priests: whereas we have priests as well as we
have bishops and deacons; and so they are called in our Book
of Common Prayer indifferently “ priests,” or ‘ ministers.”
And where you say, we “have no elders permitted in England,”
it is false ; for those that are commonly called bishops, ministers,
or priests among us, be such “elders” as the scripture com-
mendeth unto us. And although we have not such a con-
sistory of elders of government, as in the primitive church
they had, and many churches at this day have; yet have
we also elders of government to exercise pen 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 Μ’ ARTIN,
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 a ἔν τα er
writeth thus: “I cannot in this place dissemble the boldness of certain ἔς ‘mum. ἃς
men, which would God it rested within the compass of words only! {4+ τύχη.

These men therefore, concerning the word baptizing, though used of Baptizo.

Baptism.

Baptizo.
Mediator.

256 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

sacred writers in the mystery or sacrament of the new testament, and
for so many years after, by the secret consent of all churches, consecrated
to this one sacrament, so that it is now grown into the vulgar speeches
almost of all nations, yet they dare presume rashly to change it, and in
place thereof to use the word “washing.” Delicate men forsooth, which
neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so many ages, nor by
the daily custom of the vulgar speech can be brought to think that
lawful for divines, which all men grant to other masters and professors of
arts; that is, to retain and hold that as their own, which by long use and
in good faith they have truly possessed. Neither may they pretend the
authority of some ancient writers, as that Cyprian saith tingentes
for baptizantes, and Tertullian in a certain place calleth sequestrem
for mediatorem. For that which was to those ancients as it were new,

to us is old: and even then, that the selfsame words which we now use

FuLke,
13.

Martin,

14.

μετάνοια.
μετανοεῖν.

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. If im any place we use not the name of the
“apostles,” “prophets,” -“ evangelists,” “angels,” and such like,
we are able to give as sufficient a reason why we translate
those words according to their general signification, as you
for translating sometime baptismata, “washings,” and not bap-
tisms ; ecclesia “the assembly,” and not the church, with such
like. Therefore as Castaleo and such other heretics are
justly reprehended by Beza for leaving (without cause) the
usual ecclesiastical terms; so when good cause or necessity
requireth not to use them, it were superstition, yea, and

almost madness sometimes, in translating to use them; as:

to call the Pharisees’ washings “ baptisms,” or the assembly
of the Ephesian. idolaters “ the church ;” yet both in Greek and
Latin the words are baptismata, ecclesia.

Martin. He speaketh against Castaleon, who in his new Latin trans-
lation of the bible changed all ecclesiastical words into profane and
heathenish ; as angelos into genios, prophetas into fatidicos, templum into
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

ie

vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 257

of life? Whereas in the Greek church penitentes, that is, they that
were in the course of penance, and excluded from the church, as
catechumeni and energumeni, till they had accomplished their penance,
the very same are called in the Greek οἱ ἐν μετανοίᾳ ὄντες.

Fulke. That Castaleo “did for foolish affectation of fine- Εὐτικὲ,
ness,” you slander us to do “for furthering of heresy.” And i. ὃ
here again with loathsomeness you repeat your rotten quarrel Her. cap. 3
of idols translated “images,” which was to discover your abo-
minable idolatry, cloaked under a blind and false distinction
of images and idols. The word μετάνοια we translate “re-
pentance ;” as you do sometimes, when you cannot for shame
use your popish term “penance,” by which you understand
satisfaction for sin, which in divers places you are enforced to
give over in the plain field, and to use the term “repentance ;”
as in the fifth of the Acts*: “This Prince and Saviour God
hath exalted with his right hand to give repentance to Israel
and remission of sins*;” likewise Acts xi., where the scripture
speaketh of God giving “repentance to the gentiles.” And
when you speak of Judas, you say also “repenting him*:” so
that the repentance of Judas, and that which God gave to
Israel and to the gentiles, is uttered in one term; whereas
else you have almost everywhere “penance,” and “doing of
penance.” Where you say we make repentance nothing but
changing of the mind, or amendment of life, you speak un-
truly ; for not every changing of the mind is godly repent-
ance, neither is only amendment of life all repentance: but
there must be contrition and sorrow for the life past. That
in the Greek church they that were catechumeni, and ener-

[* Martin appears to have had the following passage of the 19th
Canon of the Council of Laodicea in his mind, when he wrote this:
“Mera τὸ ἐξελθεῖν τοὺς κατηχουμένους, τῶν ἐν μετανοίᾳ τὴν εὐχὴν γίνεσθαι.
Quibus (catechumenis) egressis, orent etiam hi qui in poenitentia sunt
constituti.” Ed. 1559. p. 34.]

[? δοῦναι μετάνοιαν τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, Acts v. 31. “To
give repentance to Israel and remission of sins,” Rhemish Version, 1582.]

[5 "Apaye καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὁ Θεὸς τὴν μετάνοιαν ἔδωκεν εἰς ζωὴν,
Acts xi. 18. “God then to the Gentiles also hath given repentance
unto life,” Rhemish version, 1582. ]

[Γ΄ ὅτι κατεκρίθη, μεταμεληθεὶς, Matt. xxvii. “Seeing that he was
condemned, repenting himself,” Rhemish version. |

[ FULKE. | , 17

Martin,
ib:

Latria.
Dulia.

Beza in 4.
Mat. num, 10.
λατρεύω
and Χα-
τρείαϑ inthe
scriptures, al-
most always
used for the
service and
honour pro-
per to God.
August. de
Civit. Dei. fi.
= os, Oa By

258 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

gument, were called ἐν μετανοίᾳ ὄντες; “such as are in re-
pentance,” it maketh nothing against the true use of the Greek
word, as it is used in the scriptures. We know the discipline
of the church appointed an outward exercise of praying, fast-
ing, and other humbling, for a trial and testimony of true

and hearty repentance, which was sometimes called by the

name of repentance by a metonymia signi ; which he that will
enforce by that name to be parts of true and inward re-
pentance, is as wise as he that will contend the ivy-bush to
be a part of wine, because some men, seeing it hang over the
house, will say, Lo, here is wine.

Martin. They therefore leaving this ecclesiastical signification, and
translating it according to Plutarch, do they not much like to Castaleo?
Do they not the same against the famous and ancient distinction of
latria and dulia, when they tell us out of Eustathius upon Homer, and
Aristophanes the grammarian, that these two are all one? Whereas we
prove out of St Augustine! in many places, the second council of Nice,
Venerable Bede, and the long custom of the church, that according to
the ecclesiastical sense and use deduced out of the scriptures they differ
very much. Do they not the like in mysterium and sacramentum, which

[: Hic est enim divinitati vel, si expressius dicendum est, deitati
debitus cultus, propter quem uno verbo significandum quoniam mihi
satis idoneum non occurrit Latinum, Greco ubi necesse est insinuo,quid
velim dicere. λατρείαν quippe nostri, ubicumque sanctarum scrip-
turarum positum est, interpretati sunt servitutem. Sed ea servitus, que
debetur hominibus, secundum quam precepit apostolus servos dominis
suis subditos esse debere, alio nomine Grece nuncupari solet: λατρεία
vero, secundum consuetudinem qua locuti sunt qui nobis divina eloquia
condiderunt, aut semper, aut tam frequenter ut pene semper, ea dicitur
servitus que pertinet ad colendum Deum. Augustini de Civitate Dei,
Lib. x. c. i. Opera, Vol. vz. p. 381.]

[? Upon the 33rd verse of the 23rd chapter of Exodus, Augustine
thus speaks: Hic Grecus δουλεύσῃς habet, non λατρεύσῃς. Unde intelli-
gitur, quia et δουλεία debetur Deo tanquam Domino, λατρεία. vero non-
nisi Deo tanquam Deo. \Questiones in Exodum. xciv. Opera, Vol. m1.
p- 711.

This distinction between the two words is frequently alluded to
by Augustine: for instance, in his treatise against the sermon of the
Arians, he says, “‘ Et tamen, si apertissime legerent in sanctis scripturis
Salomonem regem lignis et lapidibus jussu Dei templum struxisse Spi-
ritui Sancto, Deum esse Spiritum Sanctum dubitare non possent, cui
tanta religionis servitus, que latria dicitur, legitime exhiberetur in

vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 259

they translate a secret in the profane sense; whereas they know how these Bin. an. 1562.
words are otherwise taken, both in Greek and Latin, in the church of
God? Did they not the like in the word ecclesia, when they translated
it nothing else but “congregation”? Do they not the like in χειροτονία,
which they translate, ordaining by election, as it was in the profane court
of Athens; whereas St Hierom telleth them, that ecclesiastical writers
take it for giving holy orders by imposition of hands? Do they not the
like in many other words, wheresoever it serveth their heretical purpose?
And as for profane translation, is there any more profane than Beza
himself, that so often in his annotations reprehendeth the old translation
by the authority of Tully and Terence, Homer and Aristophanes, and
the like profane authors? yea, so fondly and childishly, that for o/factum,
which Erasmus useth, as Pliny’s word, he will needs say odoratum,
because it is Tully’s word.

Fulke. In translating the scripture, we use the word “re- Furxe,
pentance” in the same signification that the scripture useth 15:
μετάνοια. In other ecclesiastical writers, we can neverthe-
less understand it as they mean it. Concerning that un-
learned distinction of Jatria 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 λατρένω and λατρεία

populo Dei, ut illi etiam templum fabricaretur; cum Dominus dicat,
Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies: quod in Greco est,
λατρεύσεις." Cap. xx. also cap. xxix. Opera, Vol. 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 creature, sed creatori: non eo modo quo jubemur
per caritatem servire invicem, quod est Grece δουλεύειν, sed eo modo
quo tantum Deo servitur, quod est Greece λατρεύειν." (Opera, Vol. vu.
p- 1164.) Other passages of a similar kind may be quoted; but these
are sufficient to shew the opinion of Augustine.

On the other hand may be produced the following passages of scrip-
ture, to shew that it is doubtful whether there exists this nice distinction
betwixt the two words. See Matt. vi. 24. Luke xvi. 13. Romans vii. 25;
xvi. 18. Col. iii. 24. Gal. iv. 8. 1 Thess. i. 9. in which places δουλεύω
is used for serving God. The two words are frequently used promis-
cuously in scripture : λατρεύω is applied to the service of men, as well
as God. Compare Deut. xxviii. 48. Lev. xxiii. 7, where λατρεύω is used
ina servile sense. In the whole of the 4th chapter of Galatians δουλεύω
is applied to the worship of God. Nonnus interprets λατρεία py dov-
'λοσύνη and δοῦλος : for, says Casaubon, that unsound distinction which
confines λατρεία to God, and δουλοσύνη to angels, had not arisen.

17—2

Martin,
16.

Futxg,
16.

260 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH , [ cu.

do not signify the service and honour that is proper to
God: as for δουλεύω, [it] is in more than an hundred places
used for the service and honour proper to God. ‘St Augus-
tine, you confess afterward, knew well but one tongue; and
therefore he is no meet judge of distinction of Greek words.
Bede followeth Augustine’s error. The idolaters of the
second Nicene council were glad of a cloak for the rain, con-
trary to the property of their tongue; as is proved by
Kustathius, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Suidas, and by later
writers, no protestants, Laurentius Valla, and Lmudovicus
Vives. Mysterium we translate a “secret,” or a “mystery,” in-

differently ; the word signifying no more an holy secret, than.

a profane and abominable secret, as the “ mystery of iniquity,”
“the mystery of Babylon.” For the words ecclesia, and
χειροτονία, we have said sufficiently, and very lately. To
use Tully’s words, when they answer the Greek as properly
as any barbarous words, or less commendable words, I know
not why it should be counted blame-worthy in Beza, or in
any man, except it be of such a sycophant as liketh nothing
but that which savoureth of his own spittle.

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? 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.

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 peculiar and usual word for a ‘priest,’ as
long as baptismus for the sacrament of regeneration.” For
peculiar you can never prove it, seeing it is used in the
scripture so often for such elders and ancients as you your-

κὰν ee

vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 261

self would not call priests. So that, if you did translate
the whole bible out of your own vulgar Latin, you must
translate presbyter thrice an “elder” or “ancient,” for once
a “ priest.”

Martin. In the first and second canon of the apostles we read thus: Marrm,
Episcopus a duobus aut tribus episcopis ordinetur. Presbyter ab uno 17.
episcopo ordinetur, et diaconus, et alii clerici’: that is, “ Let a bishop be past ieee
consecrated or ordained by two or three bishops.” “Let a priest be mon oans.
made by one bishop.” See in the fourth council of Carthage the diverse pine hese
manner of consecrating bishops, priests, deacons, &c. where St Augus- Can. 2, 3, 4.
tine was present and subscribed. Again, Si quis presbyter contemnens oan Apost.
episcopum suum, &c.: “If any priest contemning his bishop,” make a 33:
several congregation, and erect another altar, that is, make a schism or
heresy, let him be deposed. So did Arius, being a priest, against his
bishop Alexander. Again, “ priests and deacons, let them attempt to do can. 40.2
nothing without the bishop.” The first council of Nice saith: “The holy can. 3.3
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. 14.4
that in certain places and cities deacons give the sacraments to priests.

This neither rule nor custom hath delivered, that they which have not
authority to offer the sacrifice, should give to them that offer the body

of Christ.” The third council of Carthage, wherein St Augustine was,

and to the which he subscribed, decreeth, “'That in the sacraments of can. 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.” Which

the sixth general council of Constantinople repeating and confirming,

addeth: “If therefore any bishop or priest do not according to the order εξ τις οὖν
given by the apostles, mingling water with wine, but offer an unmingled ἢ xpertbe
sacrifice, let him be deposed,” &c. But of these speeches all councils be τεροςὅ,
full: where we would gladly know of these new translators, how presby-

ter must be translated, either an “elder,” or a “ priest.”

Fulke. 1 think you have clean forgotten your promise Furxe,
so lately made. That this word presbyter hath always been 17.
peculiar for a “priest,” you bring many testimonies, some coun-
terfeit, some authentical, in which the name of πρεσβύτερος
and presbyter is found; but that in all them it is peculiar

[* Vel tribus Episcopis. Et reliqui cleri. Canon xxx. Concilia edit.
Labbe, Vol. x. p. 26, not. xxxii.]

[? Can, xxxviii. Edit. Labbe.] [ἢ Can. iii. Vol. m. p. 28.]

[* Can. xviii. ] [5 Vol. um. p. 1170.]

[® Can, xxxii. Vol. νι. p. 1157. ]

Marr,
18.

Ep. 2. ad
Trallianos.
τὸ πρεασ-
βυτέριον.
οἱ πρεσβύ-
τεροι.

Comment.
ine. 7. Mi-
chea.

τὰ. 85. ad
vangelum.
Epitaph. Ne-

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. 11, 6. 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 therem. After which
phrase also, they called the ministers ἱερεῖς and sacerdotes,
“sacrificers.” So they called that which indeed was a table
of wood, an altar, and the inferior ministers Levites; by
which it appeareth they did rather allude to the names used
in the Old Testament, than acknowledged a sacrificing priest-
hood, that might as properly be so called, as the priesthood
after the order of Aaron was. Sometime they used the
name of “sacrifice” and sacerdos generally, for religious ser-
vice, and the minister of religion, as the gentiles did. And
hereof it is, that we read often of the sacrifices of bread and
wine; and in the canon of Carthage by you cited, Nec
amplius in sacrificiis offeratur quam de uvis et frumentis*:
«And let no more be offered in the sacrifices, than that which
is made of grapes and corn.” ‘This was bread and wine, not
the natural body and blood of Christ. Wherefore these
improper speeches prove not a sacrificing priesthood, whereby
the natural body and blood of Christ should be offered in the
mass, which is the mark you shoot at.

Martin. Do not all the fathers speak after the same manner, making
always this distinction of “bishop” and “ priest,” as of the first and
second degree? St Ignatius, the apostle’s scholar, doth he not place
presbyterium, as he calleth it, and presbyteros, “ priests,” or the “college
of priests,” next after “bishops,” and “deacons” in the third place, re-
peating it no less than thrice in one epistle, and commending the dignity
of all three unto the people? Doth not St Jerome the very same, saying,
“‘ Let us honour a bishop, do reverence to a priest, rise up to a deacon? ?”
And when he saith, that as Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in
the temple, so are bishops, priests, and deacons in the church, for place

potiani, ο. 9.

[? Vol. π. 1170.]

[? Nolite credere in ducibus, non in episcopo, non in presbytero,
non in diacono, non in qualibet hominum dignitate. **** * Honoremus
episcopum, presbytero deferamus, assurgamus. diacono; et tamen non
speremus in eis: quia hominis vana, et certa spes est in Domino. Com-
ment. Hieronymi in Michee, c. vii. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 1549. |

Ἵ

νι. 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.*

when he saith of Nepotian, fit clericus, et per solitos grudus presbyter
ordinatur ; “he becometh a man of the clergy, and by the accustomed
degrees is made,” what? a “priest,” or an “elder”? when he saith, Mihi

ante presbyterum sedere non licet, &c., doth he mean he could not sit above

an elder, or above a priest, himself as then being not priest? When he

and Vincentius, as St Epiphanius writeth, of reverence to the degree, sabe
_ 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 E Bp. ad
John’s diocese ?

Fulke. Before the blasphemous heresy of the popish Furxe,
sacrifice of the mass was established in the world, the fathers 18:
did with more ices use the terms of “sacrifice” and. “ sacri-
ficing priests ;” which improper speeches, since they have
given occasion in the time of ignorance to maintain that
blasphemous heresy, there is good reason that we should
beware how we use any such terms, especially in translation
of the scriptures. All the rest of the authorities you cite in
this section, and five hundred more such as they are, speak
of presbyter or πρεσβύτερος, which words we embrace : but
of the English word “priest,” as it is commonly taken for a
sacrificer, or against this word “elder,” they speak nothing ;
for in all those places we may truly translate for presbyter
an “elder.”

Martin. When all antiquity saith, Hieronymus Presbyter, Cecilius Marr,
Presbyter, Ruffinus Presbyter, Philippus, Juvencus, Hesychius, Beda, 19:
presbyteri ; and when St Jerome so often in his Catalogue saith, such a
man, presbyter; is it not for distinction of a certain order, to signify that
they were priests, and not bishops? namely, when he saith of St Chry-

[* Et ut sciamus traditiones apostolicas sumtas de veteri testamento,
quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levite in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi epis-
copi et presbyteri et diaconi vendicant in ecclesia. Hieronymi Epist.
ὁ. 1. ad Evangelum. Opera, Vol. rv. p. 803. ]

[* Capti episcopi, interfecti presbyteri, et diversorum officia cleri-
corum. Subverse ecclesix, ad altaria Christi stabulati equi, martyrum
effosse reliquie. Hieronymi, Epitaph. Nepotiani. Opera, Vol. tv.
p- 274. ] .

FuLKE,
19,

Martin,
20.

Inter Episto-
las Hiero. Ep.
97. in fine.

264 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

sostom, Joannes presbyter Antiochenus, doth he not mean he was as then
but a priest of Antioch? Would he have said so, if he had written of
him after he was bishop of Constantinople ?

Fulke. All this while here is nothing for the English
word “priest,” in that respect we avoid it in translation; nor
against the word “elder,” which we use, by which we mean
none other thing than the scripture doth give us to under-
stand by the word πρεσβύτερος. As for the distinction of
episcopus and presbyter, which came in afterward, you your-
self confessed, as we heard of late, that it is not observed in
the scriptures; but the same men are called episcopi, which
before were called presbyterit. 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. 1, where your note saith, that in the
apostle’s time there were not observed always distinct names
of either function of bishop and priest. Would you have
us to translate the scripture with distinction of names which
the Holy Ghost maketh not, nor your vulgar Latin observeth,
nor you yourself for shame can observe ? And if we should
have translated for “elders” “priests,” that distinction taken
up after the apostle’s times, or the writing of the scripture,
had been never the more confirmed.

Martin. But of all other places, we would desire these gay transla-
tors to translate this one place of St Augustine, speaking of himself a
bishop, and St Jerome a priest: Quanquam enim secundum honorum
vocabula, que 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,

Lib. 1. ο. 2.
in fine.

Chrysostom ; at length he cometh to St Jerome, who was no bishop, and
saith, Mee sanctum Hieronymum, quia presbyter fuit, contemnendum
arbitreris ; that is, “ Neither must thou think that St Jerome, because
he was but a priest, therefore is to be contemned ; whose divine eloquence
hath shined to us from the east even to the west, like a lamp ;” and so

v1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 265

forth to his great commendation. Here is a plain distinction of an infe-
rior degree to a bishop, for the which the heretic Julian did easily con-
temn him. Is not St Cyprian full of the like places? Is not all antiquity
so full, that whiles I prove this, methinketh I prove nothing else but
that snow is white ?

Fulke. Of all other importune and unreasonable judges Furxg,
you are one of the worst, that would enforce us to translate 2”
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 nothing, but
the same function and minister which Augustine doth? That
episcopus, a “bishop,” was of very old time used to signify
a degree ecclesiastical higher than presbyter, an “elder” or
“priest,” we did never deny; we know it right well. We know
what St Jerome writeth upon the epistle to Titus, chap. i.
Idem est ergo presbyter, qui episcopus’. “The same man
is presbyter, or an ‘elder,’ or ‘ priest,’ which is episcopus, a
‘bishop.’ And before that, by the instinct of the devil, factions
were made in religion, and it was said among the people,
‘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 his own, and not Christ’s, it was de-
creed in the whole world, that one de presbyteris, ‘of the
elders,’ being elected, should be set over the rest, to whom
all the care of the church should pertain, and the seeds of
schisms should be taken away.” This, and much more to this
effect, writeth St Hieronyme of this distinction, in that place,
and in divers other places; which nothing proveth that we

[* Idem est ergo presbyter qui episcopus: et antequam diaboli in-
stinctu studia in ‘religione fierent, et diceretur in populis, Ego sum
Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephe, communi presbyterorum consilio
ecclesie gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptiza-
verat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus
de presbyteris electus superponeretur ceteris, ad quem omnis ecclesie
cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur. Comment. Hiero-
nymi in Titum, c. i. Opera, Vol. 1v. p. 413.]

Martin,
Zhe

Annot. in
1 Pet. v.

Beza’s words
in the place
above alleg-
ed.

Prete.
Prebstre.
Priest.

Presbyter,
for a priest.
Baptismus,
for the sacra
ment of bap-
tism.

FuLKe,
21.

266 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

are bound to translate presbyter in the scripture a “ priest,”
and least of all, that we are bound in terms to keep that
distinction, which the scripture maketh not, and the papists
themselves cannot observe in their most partial translation.

Martin. In all which places if they will translate “elder,” and yet
make the same a common name to all ecclesiastical degrees, as Beza
defineth it, let the indifferent reader consider the absurd confusion, or
rather the impossibility thereof: if not, but they will grant in all these
places it signifieth “priest,” and so is meant ; then we must beat them
with Beza’s rod of reprehension against Castaleon, that “we cannot

dissemble the boldness of these men, which would God it rested within

the custom of words only, and were not important matter concerning
their heresy! These men therefore, touching the word ‘priest,’ though
used of sacred writers in the mystery of the New Testament, and for so
many years after, by the secret consent of all churches, consecrated to
this one sacrament, so that it is now grown to be the proper vulgar
speech almost of all nations; yet they dare presume rashly to change
it, and in place thereof to use the word ‘elder.’ Delicate men, forsooth !”
(yea, worse a great deal, because these do it for heresy, and not for deli-
cacy,) “which neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so
many ages, nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speech can be brought
to think that lawful for divines, which all men grant to other masters
and professors of arts; that is, to retain and hold that as their own,
which by long use, and in good faith, they have truly possessed. Nei-
ther may they pretend the authority of any ancient writer,” (as that the
old Latin translator saith senior and seniores ;) “for that which was to
them as it were new, to us is old; and even then, that the selfsame words
which we now use were more familiar to the church, it is evident, be-
cause it is very seldom that they speak otherwise.”

Fulke. 1 see no impossibility, but that im all places
where we read presbyter, we may lawfully translate “ elder,”
as well 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 distinct degree from episcopus; yet the saying of Beza
against Castaleo could not by any wise man be applied to
us. For Castaleo changed the name of the sacrament bap-
tismus, by which both the scriptures and the fathers uni-
formly did use to signify one and the same sacrament :
whereas the name of presbyter in the scripture signifieth
one thing, and in the fathers another. For in the scripture

vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 267

it is taken indifferently for episcopus, and episcopus for
presbyter: but in the fathers these are two distinct degrees.
Therefore he is worthy to be beaten in a grammar-school,
that cannot see manifest difference between the use of the
word baptismus, which, being spoken of the sacrament, 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 Martin,
the word “baptism” into “ priest,” because the case is all one: and so me
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” per dg le:
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 armeth that
and as reasonably, as if a man should translate Pretor Londini, “ Mayor pricst com-

” > * © (44 27 eth of the
of London,” and Major Londini, not “ Mayor of London,” but “ Greater Word presby-

of London ;” or Academia Oxoniensis, “the University of Oxford,” and “7,,and not

Universitas Oxoniensis, not “the University,’ but “the Generality of sacerdos.
Oxford ;” and such like.

Fulke. Beza’s words agree to us, as well as German’s Furxe,
lips, that were nine mile asunder. For if this English word τε
“priest,” by custom of speech, did signify no more than the
Greek word πρεσβύτερος, we would no less use it in our trans-
lations, than “ bishops” and “ deacons :” which offices though
they be shamefully abused by the papists, yet the abuse
of the words maketh no confusion between the ministers of
the law and of the gospel, as this word “priest” doth, by
which the Jewish sacrificers are rather understood, than
preachers of the gospel and ministers of the sacraments.
But whereas the etymology of this English word “ priest”
cometh from presbyter, you charge us with great folly and
malice, that for sacerdos we translate “ priest,” and for pres-
byter “elder.” To this I answer, We are not lords of the
common speech of men; for if we were, we would teach them
to use their terms more properly: but seeing we cannot
change the use of speech, we follow Aristotle’s counsel, which

΄

268 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

is to speak and use words as the common people useth,
but to understand and conceive of things according to the
nature and true property of them. Although, for my part,
I like well of the French translation, which for ἱερεῖς, OF
sacerdotes, always translateth sacrificateurs, “sacrificers;” and
for presbytert, where they signify the ministers of the word
and sacraments, prestres, “priests.” But this diversity being
only of words, and not of matter or meaning, reasonable men
will take an answer; fools and quarrellers will never acknow-
ledge any satisfaction.

Martin. Again, what exceeding folly is it, to think that by false
and profane translation of presbyter into “elder,” they might take
away the external priesthood of the new testament, whereas their own
word sacerdos, which they do and must needs translate “priest,” is as
common and as usual in all antiquity as presbyter ; and so much the
more, for that it is used indifferently to signify both bishops and priests,
which presbyter lightly doth not but in the New Testament. As
when Constantine the Great said to the bishops assembled in the council
of Nice: Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, &c. “God hath ordained you
priests, and hath given you power to judge of us also.” And St Ambrose:
Rpist. 2. ad " When didst thou ever hear, most clement prince, that laymen have
numImp. Judged bishops? Shall we bend by flattery so far, that forgetting the

right of our priesthood, we should yield up to others that which God

Martin,
.

Ruffin. lib. 1.
e. 2.

Juris sacerdo-

talis. 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

prosuafug- Nazianzene, handling the same argument, saith, “that they execute
Χριστῷ _— priesthood together with Christ.” And St Ignatius saith: “‘ Do nothing
“ag Epist. 1 without the bishops; for they are priests, but thou the deacon of the
ee eteronem, priests.” And in the Greek liturgies or masses, 80 often : ὁ ἱερεὺς, “ Then
ἱερεύς. the priest saith this and that,” signifying also the bishop when he saith
διάκονος mass; and *St Denys saith sometime, Archisacerdotem cum sacerdotibus,
Easy ‘‘The high priest or bishop with the priests ;” whereof come the words
σὺν τοῖς ἱερατεύειν, ἱερουργεῖν, ἱεράτευμα, tepareia, ἱερουργία, in the ancient Greek
«Ὡς ΠΙᾺ, fathers, for the sacred function of priesthood, and executing of the same.

* Ee. Hiera.
ce. 8.

Martin. If then the heretics could possibly have extinguished
priesthood in the word presbyter, yet you see it would have remained
still in the words sacerdos and sacerdotium, which themselves translate
“priest” and “ priesthood ;” and therefore we must desire them to trans-
late us a place or two after their own manner. First, St Augustine
Lib. 8, ο. 97. speaking thus: Quis unquam audivit sacerdotem ad altare stantem etiam
De Civ. Del. oy ner reliquias martyrum dicere, Offero tibi, Petre, et Paule, vel Cypriane?*

Martin,
24.

[? The passage of Augustine here referred to is incorrectly quoted.
In the Paris reprint of the Benedictine edition it stands thus: “ Quis

v1. | 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 wni Deo et martyrum et Lib. 22. Civ.
nostro sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrificium sicut homines Dei

suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote invocantur. Deo

quippe, non ipsis sacrificat, quamvis in memoria sacrificet eorum, quia Dei

sacerdos est, non illorum. Ipsum vero sacrificium corpus est Christi*.

We think they will and must translate it thus: “ We offer sacrifice to

the only God both of martyrs and ours, at the which sacrifice, as men

of God they (martyrs) are named in their place and order ; yet are they

not invocated of the priest that sacrificeth. For he ρον μδχῆς to God, So as he said
and not to them, though he sacrifice in the memory of them, because Csthen, Peter,
he is God’s priest, and not theirs. And the sacrifice itself is the body of ὅδ
Christ.”

Fulke. Δαν, “ἐ χῃδῦ exceeding folly is it to think” that Fuxxe,
an external sacrificing office can be established in the New sat ds
Testament (which never calleth the ministers thereof sacer-
dotes, or ἱερεῖς), because men of later time have improperly
transferred those terms unto the “elders” or “ priests” of
the New Testament! Certainly among so many names as
the scripture giveth them, if sacrificing for the quick and the
dead had been the principal part of their function, as by you
papists hath been accounted, is it credible, that the Holy
Ghost would never have called them ἱερεῖς, as well, yea,
and rather than the “sacrificers”’ of the old testament ?
Seeing therefore the Holy Ghost had made such a broad
difference between their names and offices, those ancient
fathers that confounded those names, which the Spirit of God
would have to be distinct, cannot be excused; although they

autem audivit aliquando fidelium stantem sacerdotem ad altare etiam
super sanctum corpus martyris ad Dei honorem cultumque constructum,
dicere in precibus, Offero tibi sacrificium, Petre, vel Paule, vel Cypriane ?
Augustini Opera, Vol. viz. p. 349. Edit. Paris. 1838. ]

[ἢ This quotation also, as here given, differs from the Benedictine
edition, where it stands thus: “Sed uni Deo et martyrum et nostro;
ad quod sacrificium, sicut homines Dei, qui mundum in ejus confes-
sione vicerunt, suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote,
qui sacrificat, invocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrificat, quam-
vis in memoria sacrificet eorum; quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum.
Ipsum vero sacrificium corpus est Christi, quod non offertur ipsis, quia
hoc sunt et ipsi.” p. 1078. At ‘nostro’ there is a various reading with
this remark: “Hic editi addunt, sacrificium immolamus: quod abest a
manuscriptis.” V. Lectiones Variantes, p. 1288, upon the passage. |

270 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH | cH.

never dreamed of the mischief that followed, that the altar of
the cross being overthrown, and the only and sufficient sacri-
fice, which Christ our “high sacrificer” offered once for all,
being judged imperfect, a new “ altar,” a new “ sacrifice,” and
a new “sacrificing priesthood” should be set up in the stead
of it. Wherefore the improper speeches of the ancient writers
are no warrant for us, either to translate the scripture ac-
cording to their improper speaking, or to set up a new
sacrifice and function of sacrificing contrary to their mean-
ing. They named “ sacrifice” and “ offering,” but they meant

not propitiatory sacrifice, but only of prayers, or praises

and giving of thanks. They named ἱερεῖς and sacerdotes,
but they meant, according to the general etymology of those
words, such as were occupied in distributing holy things; not
such as should verily sacrifice the body of Christ again to
his Father, but offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving in the
sacrament of the Lord’s supper, which after a certain manner,

Epist. 28. Bo- as St Augustine saith, is called the body of Christ, when indeed

σε ῦτον it is the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And
est, etglossa it is called the “sacrificing” of the body of Christ, not in

ibidem cceles-
181.

Sacerdos.

truth of the thing, but a signifying mystery, as Gracian
citeth out of Jerome.

Martin. Likewise when St Ambrose saith, “The consecration (of
the body of Christ) with what words is it, and by whose speech? Of
our Lord Jesus. For in the rest that is said, there is praise given to
God, prayer made for the people, for kings, and others; but when it
cometh that the venerable sacrament must be consecrated, now the priest
useth not his own words, but he useth the words of Christ?” And St

Γ᾿ Si enim sacramenta quamdam similitudinem earum rerum, quarumn
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. xcvmt.
c. ix. ordo novus. Opera, Vol. π. p. 400.]

[? Consecratio autem quibus verbis est, et cujus sermonibus? Domini
Jesu. Nam reliqua omnia que dicuntur in superioribus, a sacerdote
dicuntur, laudes Deo deferuntur, oratio petitur pro populo, pro regibus,
pro ceteris; ubi venitur ut conficiatur venerabile sacramentum, jam
non suis sermonibus utitur sacerdos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi.
Ambrosii de Sacramentis, Lib. rv. ο. iv. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 368. ]

v1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. τ 271

Chrysostom in very many places saith: “ The sacred oblation itself, Hom. 2. in
whether Peter, or Paul, or any meaner priest whatsoever offer it, is Sacerdos.
the very same that Christ gave unto his disciples, and which now the een
priests do make or consecrate. Why so, I pray thee? because not men

do sanctify this, but Christ himself, which before consecrated the same®.”

And again: “It isnot man that maketh the body and blood of Christ,

but he that was crucified for us, Christ ; the words are uttered by the Sacerdotis.
priest's mouth, and by God’s power and grace are the things proposed
consecrated. For this, saith he, ‘is my body*.’ With this word are the

things proposed consecrated.”

Fulke. These testimonies are heaped. up without any need, F toa
for the improper usage of these words ἱερεὺς, or sacerdos, Ὁ
in the ancient writers we do acknowledge: but in the holy
scripture you are not able to bring one place where ai
tert of the New Testament are called sacerdotes, or ἱερεῖς.
Wherefore of the improper applying of these names to the
ministers of the New Testament, can follow no consequence
of external “sacrifice,” or “altar,” which you urge, except
“ sacrifice” and “altar” be likewise used improperly, as where
the table is called “an altar,” the bread and wine “a sacri-
fice,” as in Irenzus’, lib. tv. 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.:

[5 Ἢ προσφορὰ ἡ αὐτή ἐστι, κἂν 6 τυχὼν προσενέγκῃ, κἂν Παῦλος,
κἂν Πέτρος, ἡ αὐτή ἐστιν, ἣν ὁ Χριστὸς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἔδωκε, καὶ ἣν
νῦν οἱ ἱερεῖς ποιοῦσιν: οὐδὲν αὕτη ἐλάττων ἐκείνης, ὅτι καὶ ταύτην οὐκ
ἄνθρωποι ἁγιάζουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ὁ καὶ ἐκείνην ἁγίασας. Chrysost. in
2 Epist. ad Timoth. ο. 1. Hom. ii. Opera, Vol. χι. p. 671. Edit. Mont-
faucon, Par. 1734. ]

[* Οὐδὲ yap ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ὁ ποιῶν τὰ προκείμενα γενέσθαι σῶμα
καὶ αἷμα Χριστοῦ" ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν Χριστός. σχῆμα
πληρῶν ἕστηκεν ὁ ἱερεὺς, τὰ ῥήματα φθεγγόμενος ἐκεῖνα᾽ ἡ δὲ δύναμις
καὶ ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι. τοῦτό μου ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμά, φησι. Chrysost.
de Proditione Jude, Hom. i. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 384. ]

[° Quoniam autem non indigens Deus servitute eorum, sed propter
ipsos quasdam observantias in lege preceperit, plenissime prophete
indicant. Et rursus quoniam non indiget Deus oblatione eorum, sed
propter ipsum qui offerat hominem, manifeste Dominus docuit, quem-
admodum ostendimus. Irenei, Lib. 1v. Contra Heres. 6. xvii. Opera,
p- 247.

Igitur ecclesie oblatio, quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo
mundo, purum sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum, et acceptum est

Martin,
26.
Presbyteri.

Sacerdotibus.

Sacerdote.

Sozom. lib. 7.
ce. 16.
Socrat. lib. 5.
e. 19.

272 ᾿ A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ση.

which cannot in anywise be true of the natural body of
Christ.

Martin. And so by these places, where themselves translate sacerdos
a “priest,” they may learn also how to translate presbyteros in St Jerome,
saying the very same thing, “that at their prayers the body and blood
of our Lord is made ;” and in another place, “that with their sacred
mouth they make our Lord’s body.” Likewise when they read St
Ambrose’ against the Novatians, that God hath granted licence to his
priests to release and forgive as well great sins as little, without excep-
tion; and in the Ecclesiastical History”, how the Novatian heretics taught

that such as were fallen into great sins, should not ask for remission of

the priest, but of God only: they may learn how to translate presbyteros
in St Jerome’, and in the Ecclesiastical History, where the one saith thus:
Episcopus et presbyter, cum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus
sit, qui solvendus ; and the other speaketh, de presbytero penitentiario,
of an extraordinary priest, that heard confessions and enjoined penance,
who afterward was taken away, and the people went to divers ghostly
fathers, as before. And especially St Chrysostom’ will make them

ei: non quod indigeat a nobis sacrificium, sed quoniam is qui offert,
glorificatur ipse in eo quod offert, si acceptetur munus ejus. Irenzi,
Lib. rv. Contra Hereses. 6. xviii. p. 250. Edit. Paris, 1710. ]

[* Similiter impossibile videbatur per pcenitentiam peccata dimitti ;
concessit hoc Christus apostolis suis, quod ab apostolis ad sacerdotum
officia transmissum est. Ambrosii de Poenitent. Lib. τι. ὁ. ii. Opera,
Vol. 1m. p. 419.] *

[? Sed aiunt se, exceptis gravioribus criminibus, relaxare veniam
levioribus. Non hoe quidem auctor vestri erroris Novitianus, qui ne-
mini peenitentiam dandam putavit; ea scilicet contemplatione, ut quod
ipse non posset solvere, non ligaret, ne ligando sperari a se faceret
solutionem. In eo igitur patrem vestrum propria damnatis sententia,
qui distinctionem peccatorum facitis, que solvenda a vobis putetis, et
que sine remedio esse arbitremini: sed Deus distinctionem non facit,
qui misericordiam suam promisit omnibus, et relaxandi licentiam sacer-
dotibus suis sine ulla exceptione concessit. Ambrosii de Poenitent. Lib. 1.
c. iii. Opera, Vol. π΄. p. 393. ]

[* Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur: vel spiritualis
illa atque divina, de qua ipse dixit, Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis
meus vere potus; et, Nisi manducaveritis carnem meum, et sanguinem
meum biberitis, non habebitis vitam e@eternam: vel caro et sanguis, que
crucifixa est, et qui militis effusus est lancea. Comment. Hieronymi
in Epist. ad Ephes. ὁ. i. Opera, Vol. rv. p. 328.]

[* Εἶχον ἐξουσίαν of τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἱερεῖς" καὶ οἶσθα πῶς περιμάχητον
ἦν τὸ τῶν ἱερέων τότε; οὗτοι δὲ οὐ λέπραν σώματος, ἀλλ᾽ ἀκαθαρσίαν
ψυχῆς, οὐκ ἀπαλλαγεῖσαν δοκιμάζειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπαλλάττειν παντελῶς ἔλαβον
ἐξουσίαν. ὥστε οἱ τούτων ὑπερορῶντες πολλῷ καὶ τῶν περὶ Δαθὰν εἶεν

νι. 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 8a-
priests of the new law, have power, not only to know, but to purge the ὍΝ

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 Fuuxe,
will make no great curtesy to translate “priests ;’ knowing 7°
that when he saith, at their prayers “the body and blood
of Christ is made,” he meaneth the sacrament of the body and
blood of Christ, as he himself saith in another place: Du-
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 little, without exception. St
Jerome you cite at large, as it seemeth, to insinuate auricular
confession: but the whole saying you liked not, because it
sheweth how they forgive sins. It is written in Matt. Lib. m1.
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 intelligentes*®, &c. “This place

ἐναγέστεροι, καὶ μείζονος ἄξιοι τιμωρίας. Chrysost. de Sacerdotio, Lib. mr.
Opera, Vol. 1. p. 284.] ;

[° Istum locum episcopi et presbyteri non intelligentes, aliquid sibi
de Phariseorum assumunt supercilio: ut vel damnent innocentes, vel
solvere se noxios arbitrentur; quum apud Deum non sententia sacer-
dotum, sed reorum vita queratur. Legimus in Levitico de leprosis,
ἘΠῚ jubentur, ut ostendant se sacerdotibus ; et si lepram habuerint, tunc

[ruLKe.] Ἐ6

Martin,
27

Heb. xii.

274 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ on.

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 Constantinople’; you speak
beside the book, to make the ignorant believe that the people
went to auricular shrift. For in Constantinople, where this
privy confession was taken away, the people were left to their
own consciences. At Rome, the same time, great offenders
did open penance, neither were there any such diverse ghostly
fathers, as you speak of. That Chrysostom saith, Lib. m. de
sacerdotio, we receive it, beimg so understood, as it be not
contrary to that I cited even now out of Jerome. But what
maketh all this against translating presbyter “an elder” ?

Martin. Now then, to conclude this point, seeing we have such a
cloud of witnesses, as the apostle speaketh, even from Christ’s time,
that testify not only for the name, but for the very principal functions

a sacerdote immundi fiant: non quo sacerdotes leprosos faciant et immun-
dos; sed quo habeant notitiam leprosi et non leprosi, et possint dis-
cerhere qui mundus, quive immundus sit. Quomodo ergo ibi leprosum
sacerdos mundum vel immundum facit; sic et hic ‘alligat vel solvit
episcopus et presbyter, non eos qui insontes sunt vel noxii; sed pro
officio suo, quum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit,
quive solvendus. Comment. Hieronymi in Matth. ὁ. xvi. Opera,
Vol. rv. p. 75.]
[* See Socrates, Eccl. Hist. lib. v. cap. xix. Sozomen. vit. xvi. |

—

vi. | 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, malicious, and
impudent corruption is this, for the defacing of the testimonies of the

holy scriptures tending thereunto, to seek to scratch advantage of the
word presbyter, and to make it signify an “elder,” not a “ priest ;”
presbyterium, “eldership,” rather than “priesthood :” as if other new-
fangled companions, that would forge an heresy that there were no apos-

tles, should for that purpose translate it always “legates;” or that there

were no angels, and should translate it always “messengers ;” and that
baptism were but a Judaical ceremony, and should translate it “ wash-

ing ;” which Castaleo did much more tolerably in his translation than

any of these should, if he did it only of curiosity and folly. And if to

take away all distinction of “clergy” and “laity,” the protestants should
always translate clerum “lot” or “lottery,” as they do translate it for Clerus.
the same purpose “parish” and “heritage ;’ might not Beza himself «1,1 pet, y.

control them, saying, “that the ancient fathers transferred the name Sys Ge

clerus to the college of ecclesiastical ministers” ? Net ee
ο. & Bite

Fulke. A cloud of testimonies indeed you have heaped Futxe,
together, not, as the apostle did, to uphold the certainty of 56:
faith, but to obscure the light of truth. For our translation
of πρεσβύτερος “an elder” is true, clear and plain, without
ambiguity : insomuch as the vulgar Latin interpreter, who
(as it seemeth) was a Grecian, and therefore useth gladly many
Greek terms, doth yet translate this word almost twice as
often senior, or major natu, as he doth presbyter, when he
speaketh of the ministers of the gospel. How the ancient
writers applied unto them improperly the name of “sacrificer,”
as unto the sacrament the name of “oblation” or “ sacrifice,” I
have spoken already sufficiently. Our translation therefore is
nothing like your vain supposal of new-fangled companions;
which to deny “apostles,” “angels,” and “baptism,” would turn
the words into “legates,” “messengers,” and “ washing.”
Whereas we have no purpose to deny any office or function of
the church appointed by Christ, but to distinguish in name, as
his Spirit in the scriptures doth always, the sacrificers of the
Old Testament from the ministers of the New Testament.
The word clerus, 1 Pet. v. which we translate “parish” or
“heritage,” yourselves in your notes of that place confess to
comprehend in signification “all Christians,” which you are not
able to prove, that in St Peter’s time it was transferred
unto the “college of ecclesiastical ministers,” as Beza saith it
was afterward : wherefore it is one of your accustomed slan-
ders, to say we translate it so of purpose to take away

18—2

Martin,

Chap. vi.

FuLKE,
28.

276 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

all distinction of clergy and laity; when ‘all men know, that
wheresoever' our churches are established, we retain the
distinction, and so think it necessary always.

Martin. But, alas! the effect of this corruption and heresy concern-
ing priests, hath it not wrought within these few years such contempt
of all priests, that nothing is more odious in our country than that
name; which before was so honourable and venerable, and now is among
all good men? If “ministry” or “eldership” were grown to estimation
instead thereof, somewhat they had to say: but that is yet more contemp-
tible, and especially “elders” and “ eldership;’ for the queen’s majesty

_ and her councillors will permit none in government of any church in

England ; and so they have brought all to nothing else but profane laity.
And no marvel of these horrible inconveniences: for as the sacrifice
and priesthood go together, and therefore were both honourable together ;
so when they had, according to Daniel’s prophecy, abolished the daily
sacrifice out of the church, what remained, but the contempt of priests
and clergy, and their offices? so far forth, that for the holy sacrifice’ sake
priests are called in great despite “ massing priests,’ of them that little
consider, or less care, what notable holy learned fathers of all ages since
Christ’s time this their reproach toucheth and concerneth, as by the testi-
monies before alleged is manifest, and whereof the reader may see a
peculiar chapter in the late Apology of the English Seminaries.

Fulke. A marvellous corruption, for us to call them
“ elders,” whom you in your translation call “ancients,” and
the vulgar Latin before us both called seniores! But what is
come to pass, I pray you, by this wonderful corruption ?
The name of “ popish priests” is so contemptible, that nothing
is more odious in England. And good cause, why; both
for their blasphemy against God, and traitorous practices
against the honourable state of the realm, and our most gra-
cious queen. But “elders” and “eldership” (you ween) is
more contemptible, because “the queen’s majesty and her
councillors will permit none in government of any churches
in England, and so they have brought all to nothing else, but
‘profane laity.’” This traitorous slander of yours is as true
as all the rest: for although the queen’s majesty and the
council do not permit such consistories of elders for only
discipline and government, as be in some other churches;
yet do they not only permit, but also maintain and reve-
rence such elders, being signified by the Greek word
πρεσβύτεροι, as are necessary for the government of the
church in doctrine, sacraments, and discipline, to the salva-

νυν i i μα. ἑώ

vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 277

tion of God’s people. The daily sacrifice mentioned in
Daniel was the morning and evening sacrifice of .the old
law, whereunto your blasphemous sacrifice of the mass
hath no resemblance. You may not therefore look to
recover the credit of massing priests by that sacrifice, |
which, being once instituted by God, was at length taken
away by the only sacrifice of Christ’s death; against which
all the apologies in the world shall never be able to defend
your massing priesthood. As for the chapter of Allen’s
Apology, whereunto you refer us, [it] containeth certain quo-
tations, and a few sentences of the ancient writers, which
have been answered an hundred times, to justify massing
priests; but all in vain: for never shall he prove that any
one, from the eldest which he named unto Beda, which
is the youngest, was such a massing priest in all points,
as those traitors are, which by the queen’s laws and
edict are proscribed and prohibited: I mean not, for their
manners, but for their mass and all opinions incident
thereunto.

Marty, 1.

278 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

CHAPTER VII.

Heretical Translation against Purgatory, Limbus Patrum,
Christ’s descending into Hell.

Martin. Havine now discovered their corrupt translations for de-
facing of the church’s name, and abolishing of priest and priesthood ;
let us come to another point of very great importance also, and which,

_by the wonted consequence or sequel of error, includeth in it many

_ Calvin's In-
stitutions,
110. 2. ο. 16.
sect. 10. and
in his Cate-
chism.

Futxg, 1.

erroneous branches. Their principal malice then being bent against
purgatory, that is, against a place where christian souls be purged by
suffering of temporal pains after this life, for surer maintenance of their
erroneous denial hereof they take away and deny all third places,
saying that there was never from the beginning of the world any other
place for souls after this life, but only two; to wit, heaven for the
blessed, and hell for the damned. And so it followeth by their heretical
doctrine, that the patriarchs, prophets, and other good holy men of the
Old Testament, went not after their deaths to the place called “ Abra-
ham’s bosom,” or limbus patrum, but immediately to heaven: and so
again by their erroneous doctrine it followeth, that the fathers of the
Old Testament were in heaven before our Saviour Christ had suffered
death for their redemption ; and also by their erroneous doctrine it fol-
loweth, that our Saviour Christ was not the first man that ascended and
entered into heaven ; and moreover by their heretical doctrine it follow-
eth, that our Saviour Christ descended not into any such third place,
to deliver the fathers of the Old Testament out of their prison, and to
bring them triumphantly with him into heaven, because by their erro-
neous doctrine they were never there ; and so that article of the apostles’
creed concerning our saviour Christ’s descending into hell, must either
be put out by the Calvinists, as Beza did in his confession of his faith,
printed anno 1564; or it hath some other meaning, to wit, either the
lying of his body in the grave, or (as Calvin and the purer Cal-
vinists, his scholars, will have it) the suffering of hell pains and distresses
upon the cross. Lo the consequence and coherence of these errors and
heresies !

Fulke. We may be bold to say with St Augustine,
We believe, according to the authority of God, that the
kingdom of heaven is the first place appointed for God’s
elect, and that hell is the second place, where all the
reprobate, and such as be not of the faith of Christ, shall
suffer eternal punishment. Tertiwm penitus ignoramus,
imo nec esse in scripturis sanctis invenimus: “The third

—

vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 279

place we are utterly ignorant of, yea, and that it is not
we find in the holy scriptures.” But hereof it followeth
say you, that the godly of the Old Testament went not
after their deaths to Abraham’s bosom, or limbus patrum,
but immediately to heaven. Of limbus patrum, which is
a border of the “ pope’s hell,” I grant it followeth; but
of Abraham’s bosom it followeth none otherwise than if I
should say, “Gregorie Martin went into Cheapside,” ergo,
“he went not to London.” That the fathers of the Old
Testament were in heaven before our Saviour Christ had
suffered death for their redemption, it is no inconvenience ;
for his death was as effectual to redeem them that lived
before he suffered actually, as them that live since; be-
cause in God’s sight he is “the Lamb that was slain from
the beginning of the world.” And the fathers that were
justified by faith in his blood, received the same crown
and reward of righteousness that we do, being justified by
the same means. And yet our Saviour Christ was the
first man, that in his whole manhood ascended and entered
into heaven, into the fulness and perfection of glory, which
is prepared for all God’s elect, to be enjoyed after the
general resurrection. That our Saviour Christ descended
into no prison after his death, we verily believe; and yet
we do also constantly believe the article of our creed,
that “he descended into hell,” by suffering in soul the pains
due to God’s justice for the sins of all whom he redeemed,
and by vanquishing the devil, and all the power of hell,
in working the redemption of all the children of God. Τῇ
Beza in his confession had clean left out that article, (which
is untrue,) he had been no more to be blamed than the
authors of the Nicene creed, and many other creeds, in
which it is not expressed, because it is partly contained
under the article of his sufferings, partly it is in part of
the effect and virtue of his death and redemption.

Martin. These now being the heretical doctrines which they mean Marti, 2.
to avouch and defend, whatsoever come of ἰδ; first, they are at a point
not to care a rush for all the ancient holy doctors, that write with full
consent to the contrary, as themselves confess, calling it their common Beza in 1 Pet.

. Μ . 39, Cal-
error; secondly, they translate the holy scriptures in favour thereof νη institut.

most corruptly and wilfully, as in Beza’s false translation, who is Calvin’s eae *

successor in Geneva, it is notorious; for he, in his New Testament of

Hiero. in Ps.
verso ex He-
breo.

Sinwa
[Psal. xvi.]

ψυχὴν els

aoov.

* See his An-
not. in 2. Act.

Fuuxe, 2.

DiNw

Martin, 3.

280 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

the year 1556, printed by Robertus Stephanus in folio, with annotations,
maketh our Saviour Christ say thus to his Father, Non derelinques
cadaver meum in sepulchro; “'Thou shalt not leave my carcase in the
grave,” Acts ii. for that which the Hebrew, and the Greek, and the
Latin, and St Jerome, according to the Hebrew, say, Non derelinques
animam meam in inferno, as plainly as we say in English, “Thou shalt
not leave my soul in hell.” Thus the prophet David spake it in the
Hebrew, Psal. xv.; thus the Septuagint uttered it in Greek; thus the
apostle St Peter allegeth it; thus the holy evangelist St Luke, in the
Acts of the Apostles, chap. ii., recordeth it; and for this, St Augustine
calleth him an infidel that denieth it: yet all this would not suffice to
make Beza translate it so, because of certain errors, (ἢ as he heretically
termeth them,) which he would full gladly avoid hereby, namely, the
catholic true doctrine of /imbus patrum and “ purgatory.” What need
we say more? He translateth animam, “a carcase ;” so calling our
Saviour Christ’s body, irreverently and wickedly, he translateth infer-
num “grave.”

Fulke. That many of the christian fathers held this
error, that the godly of the Old Testament were not in
heaven before Christ’s death, it is no cause why we should
be afraid to confess the truth revealed to us out of the
holy scriptures, to the glory of God. And if the wrong
or ambiguous translation of one Hebrew word, sheol, de-
ceived them that were for the most part ignorant of the
Hebrew tongue; what reason were it that we should not
in translation reform that error? But as for Beza’s first
translation of the Greek word ψυχὴ “dead body,” and
dons “grave,” I have answered at large, cap. 1. sect. 31.;
where also it is shewed, how vainly you take hold of the
English word “ carcase,” to charge Beza with unreverent
calling of our Saviour Christ’s body, when it was dead,
because he calleth it in Latin cadaver.

Martin. Need we take any great labour to prove this to be a foul
corruption, or that it is done purposely, when he confesseth that he thus
translateth, because else it would serve the papists? Which is as much
to say, as, the word of God, if it be truly and sincerely translated, maketh
indeed for them. For the first part, we will not stand upon it, partly
because it is of itself most absurd, and they are ashamed of it ; partly
because it shall suffice to confute Beza, that two other as famous heretics
as he, Castaleo and Flaccus Llyricus, write against him in this point,

' and confute him ; partly also, because we speak not here universally

of all heretical translations, but of the English corruptions specially ;
and therefore we may only note here, how gladly they also would say

vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 281

somewhat else for “ soul,” even in the text, if they durst for shame:

for in the margin of that English translation they say, “or life,” “ or Bib. an. 1579.
person ;” hereby advertising the reader, that he may read thus if it

please him, “Thou shalt not leave my life in the grave,” or, “Thou .

shalt not leave my person.” As though either man’s soul or life were

in the grave, or anima might be translated “person,” which the self-

same English bible doth not; no, not in those places where it is evident Acts vii. 14.
that it signifieth “‘the whole person.” For though this word “soul,” by

a figure, is sometime taken for “the whole man,” yet even there they do

not, nor must not translate it otherwise than “soul;”’ because our

tongue beareth that figure as well as Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; but

here, where it cannot signify “the whole person,” it is wicked to translate

it so. i

Fulke. Τῇ you take more labour than you are well Furxs, 3.
able to bear, yet shall you prove it no heretical corrup-
tion. As Castaleo and Illyricus, the one an heretic, the
other a schismatic, have inveighed against Beza, so hath
he sufficiently confuted them. *But to our English trans-
lation, where in the margin they say “life,” or “person,”
when in the text they say “soul ;” what doth this offend
you? They render the usual English word for the Greek
word, but they admonish the reader that the word “soul”
in this place signifieth not the soul separated from the
body, but either “the life,” or ‘the whole person ;” because
that, although the body only be laid in the grave, yet
according to vulgar speech and sense the whole man is
said to be buried, and his life seemeth to be inclosed in
the grave, according to which popular and humane con-
ceit the prophet in that psalm speaketh; as appeareth
in the latter part of that verse, which is all one in sense
with the former, “neither wilt thou give thy holy one to
see corruption,” where corruption, which is proper only to
the body, is there spoken generally of the whole man.
If this exposition please you not, yet you have no cause
to find fault with the translation, which in that place is
according to the common and ordinary signification of
the Greek word ψυχὴ, “soul;” which, as it -is some- Aetsii
time taken for the whole person, as you note, Act. vii. 14,
so is it here, as the latter part of the verse doth most
plainly declare’.

[1 Ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν pov εἰς ἅδου, Acts ii. 27. “ Quo-
niam non derelinques animam meam in inferno,” Vulg. ]

Marin, 4.

See Vigors’
Sermons, pp.
110. 115, and
deinceps,

Fu1keE, 4.

282 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

Martin. But as for the word “grave,” that they put boldly in the
text, to signify that, howsoever you interpret “soul,” or whatsoever you
put for it, it is not meant according to St Augustine and the faith of the
whole catholic church, that his soul descended into hell, whiles his body
was in the grave; but that his soul also was in the grave, howsoever
that is to be understood. So making it a certain and resolute conclusion,
that the holy scripture in this place speaketh not of Christ’s being in
hell, but in the grave; and that according to his soul, or life, or person,
or, as Beza will have it, “his carcase or body ;’ and so “his soul in
hell,” as the holy scripture speaketh, shall be “ his body in the grave,”
as Beza plainly speaketh, and the Bezites covertly insinuate ; and white
shall be black, and chalk shall be cheese, and every thing shall be any
thing that they will have it. And all this their evident false translation
must be to our miserably deceived poor souls the holy scripture and
God’s word.

Fulke. The Greek word ἄδης well beareth to be trans-
lated in some places “a grave,” and here the latter part of
the verse speaketh of corruption, which cannot be under-
stood to be but “in the graye;” and so doth St Peter under-
stand it, saying, “that David the patriarch died, and was
buried, and his sepulchre remaineth with us unto this day:”
and St Paul upon the same verse of the psalm saith, “he
saw corruption.” Both the apostles therefore interpreting
this verse of the resurrection of Christ, we think it indeed a
“resolute conclusion,” that the scripture in this place speaketh
not of Christ’s being in hell, which we acknowledge in the
article of our creed, but of his burial and resurrection. Your
trifling of “white and black,” ‘chalk and cheese,” may seem
pleasant rhetoric to gross ears, whom you seek to fill with such
vanities: but the wiser sort, that are acquainted with figura-
tive speeches, will think it nothing strange, if words be not
always taken in their usual and proper signification. That
the Hebrew word nephesh, which the prophet in that verse
of the psalm useth, is taken divers times in the scripture
for “a dead body,” I have before proved more plainly than
ever you shall be able to deny: where you may, if you
be disposed to sport yourself, use your figurative compari-
son of “white and black,” “chalk and cheese ;” but you shall

_ sooner of white make black, of chalk cheese, than you can

possibly avoid the clear light of those texts, which was seen
even of your own vulgar Latin interpreters. _

vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 283

Martin. Where we cannot but marvel, why they are afraid to trans- Mann, 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 Bin. an. 1562.
this place discharged themselves of false translation, saying plainly, mae a:
“Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell’.” But in what sense they say « gee rina.
so, it is very hard to guess; and perhaps themselves cannot tell yet @»* Ρ. 19.
what to make of it, as appeareth by M. Whitaker’s answer to Εἰ, Cam- whitaker,
pion. And he is now called a bishop among them, and proceeded doctor ᾿ anew, ta
in Oxford, that could not obtain his grace to proceed doctor in Cam- oft ssaph
bridge, because he preached Christ’s descending into hell; and the
puritans in their second admonition to the parliament, p. 43, cry out
against the politic Calvinists, for that in the creed of the apostles, (made
in English metre, and sung openly in their churches, in these words’,
“His spirit did after this descend, into the lower parts, to them that
long fin darkness were, the true light of their hearts,”) they favour his
descending into hell very much, and so consequently may thereby build
limbus patrum and “purgatory.” And the puritans in their second reply
against M. Whitgift’s defence, p. 7, reprehend one of their chiefest
Calvinistical martyrs for assuming, as they term it, a gross descending
of our Saviour Christ into hell. Thus the puritans confess plainly their
heretical doctrine, against Christ’s descending into hell.

[? “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.” Acts ii. 27. Edits. 1562,
1568. 1584. “Thou wilt not leave my soul in grave,” 1560, 1579.]

[? William Hughes received his first education in Oxford, but sub-
sequently went to Christ College, Cambridge, where he took his degrees
in arts, and holy orders; and being soon after made chaplain to Thomas
Howard, duke of Norfolk, he attended him to Oxford in 1568, where he
was incorporated bachelor of divinity, as he stood at Cambridge. The
year after, says Wood, the said duke writing letters to Dr Laur. Hum-
phrey in his behalf, he was, by his endeavours made to the Vice-Chan-
cellor and convocation, permitted to proceed in his faculty. He was
promoted to the episcopal see of St Asaph in 15738. Wood’s Athene
Vol. τι. 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.’’]

Furxe, 5.

SiN

284 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ox.

Fulke. By confessing in our creed that Christ “descended
into hell,” you might know, (but that you had rather be igno-
rant, that you might marvel still,) that we purposed not in
translating this place to deny that article, as you falsely
slander us; but because this place might seem unto the
ignorant to confirm the error of Christ’s descending into
limbus patrum, as it doth not, if it be rightly under-
stood, it was thought good of some translators, that (seeing
this verse must have the same sense in the Greek sermon
of Peter, that it hath in the Hebrew psalm of David, and

the Greek word ἄδης, used by the evangelist instead of

the Hebrew word sheol, may bear to signify a “grave,” as the
Hebrew word doth most usually,) by translating it the “grave,”
to shew that this verse in Greek maketh no more for that
error of descending into limbus, than the same doth in
Hebrew. As for your distinction of gross Calvinists and
puritans, it may be packed up among the rest of your quar-
rels and slanders. What Master Whitaker hath written in his
answer to friar Campion, he is able to explain unto you himself,
if you do not understand him. That the bishop of Saint
Asaph did once 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 English metre upon the creed, except it be drawn to an
allegory, in my judgment cannot be defended; which judg-
ment I declared openly at Paul’s cross, fourteen or fifteen
years ago. Master Latimer’s error of Christ suffering tor-
ments in hell, after his death, is justly reprehended, by whom-
soever it be. By all which I know not what may be rightly
gathered, but that we flatter not one another in errors; but

[ In Latimer’s sermon on the Passion of Christ, we find him thus
speaking, and affixing a different sense to the words, “He descended
into hell,”from that which they have been generally considered to bear :
“He descended into hell. I see no inconvenience to say, that Christ
suffered in soul in hell. I singularly commend the exceeding great
charity of Christ, who for our sakes would suffer in hell in his soul.
It sets out the unspeakable hatred that God hath to sin. I perceive
not that it derogates from the dignity of Christ’s death ; as in the garden
when he suffered, it derogates nothing from that which he suffered
on the cross.” |

vil. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 285

if any among us be deceived, of what account or credit soever
he be, we spare not to reprove his error, preferring God’s
truth before all worldly and private respects of friendship,
countenance, credit, and whatsoever.

Martin. The truth is, howsoever the politic Calvinists speak or Maxrm, 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 Fuxxg, 6.
odious names of schism, and diverse interpretations, we all
agree in the faith of that article, and im 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

ἰὼ

Martin, 7.
Gen. xxxvii.

νὰ
dons.
Infernus.

Fuxe, 7.

286 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

have said hell, if he had meant hell. But angels use not to
go down into hell. Secondly, it is a place of comfort; for
Lazarus was there comforted. Thirdly, there is a great chaos,
which signifieth an infinite distance, between Abraham and the
rich glutton; which utterly overthroweth that dream of lim-
bus, which, signifying a border or edge, supposeth that place
to be hard adjoining to the place of torments. Last of all, if
the article of our faith had been of limbus patrum, or of
“Abraham’s bosom,” we should have been taught to say, he
descended into limbo patrum, or he descended into Abraham’s
bosom, which all christian ears abhor to hear. The word
sheol, used in the Old Testament for a common receptacle
of all the dead, signifieth properly a place to receive their
bodies, and not their souls; and therefore most commonly
in our translations is called “the grave.”

Martin. As when Jacob saith, Descendam ad filium meum lugens in
infernum ; “I will go down to my son into hell, mourning:” they
translate, “I will go down into the grave unto my son, mourning? :” as
though Jacob thought that his son Joseph had been buried in a grave;
whereas Jacob thought, and said immediately before, as appeareth in
the holy scripture, that a wild beast had devoured him, and so could
not be presumed to be in any grave: or as though, if Joseph had been
in a grave, Jacob would have gone down to him into the same grave.
For so the words must needs import, if they take “grave” properly ;
but if they take “grave” unproperly, for the state of dead men after
this life, why do they call it “grave,” and not “hell,” as the word is
in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin? No doubt they do it to make the igno-
rant reader believe, that the patriarch Jacob spake of his body only, to
descend into the grave to Joseph’s body ; for as concerning Jacob’s soul,
that was, by their opinion, to ascend immediately after his death to
heaven, and not to descend into the grave. But if Jacob were to ascend
forthwith in soul, how could he say, as they translate, “I will go down
into the grave unto my son”? As if according to their opinion he
should say, “ My son’s body is devoured of a beast, and his soul is gone
up into heaven; well, I will go down to him into the grave.”

Fulke. A proper quiddity you have found out of Jacob,
supposing his son to be devoured of wild beasts: yet saith, “I
will go down unto him mourning;” which you think cannot be

[? “I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning,” Cran-
mer’s Bible, edition, 1562. Bishop’s Bible, 1584. Geneva, 1560. Ὅτι
καταβήσομαι πρὸς τὸν υἱόν μου πενθῶν εἰς Gdov. Gen. xxxvii. 36.]

5
vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. τ 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 bemg devoured, (whereof yet
his father was not certain,) you shall hear how Isidorus Clarius
translateth the same place in his bible, censured by the depu-
ties of Trent council, Descendam ad filiwum meum lugens in
sepulchrum: “1 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
his notes, that he meaneth thereby sepulerum, “the grave.”
And indeed this word infernus signifieth generally any place
beneath; as the Greek word ἄδης, 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 sop x.
death.”

Martin. Gentle reader, that thou mayest the better conceive these Marrin, 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 [cH.

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.

Fux, 8.

Heb. iv. 16.

Heb. x. 19.

Heb. xi. 40.

Fulke. Where you reason that there was no ascending
into heaven, “because the way of the holies was not yet made
open, when the first tabernacle was standing,” you abuse the
reader and the scripture. For the apostle’s meaning is, in
that verse, to shew that to the great benefit of Christians that
first tabernacle is fallen, because that now we have more
familiar access unto God by Jesus Christ. For whereas
the high priest only but once in the year, and then not with-
out blood, entered into the second most holy tabernacle, be-
cause the way of the holies, that is, unto the holiest, or sancta
sanctorum, was not then opened; now our Saviour Christ
having once entered into the holiest place by his own blood,
and found eternal redemption, we have by him, without any
ceremonies, sacrifices, or mediation of any mortal priest, free
access unto the throne of grace, even into the holy place, by
the new and living way, which he hath prepared for us. But
all this is to be understood of the clear revelation of the
mercy of God in Christ, which was obscurely set forth unto
the fathers of the Old Testament; and not of the effect and
fruit of his passion, which was the same for their salvation,
that it is for ours. Neither have the souls of the faithful,
since the coming of Christ, any other place of rest, than the
fathers had before his incarnation; God providing most wisely,
that they without all the rest of their brethren, that shall be
unto the world’s end, shall not be made perfect. And whereas

_ you say, that all the souls of good and bad then went down-

ward, you are controlled by the wise man, Eccles. 11., where
he speaketh in the person of the carnal man, doubting of

vil. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 289

that which is not comprehended by reason, but believed by
faith: “Who knoweth whether the spirit of man ascend up-
ward ?”—and more plainly in the last chapter of that book,
where he exhorteth to repentance, shewing in the end, “that
though dust return to the earth from whence it was, yet the
spirit returneth to God that gave it.” It returneth to God:
therefore it goeth not down. For who would abide to hear
this speech, The souls of the faithful went downward to God:
yea, went into hell to God? nay, returned downward into
hell to God that gave them? That common receptacle there-
fore of the dead was the receptacle of their bodies, which all,
first or last, returned to the earth from whence they were
taken, And where you say, that place was called in all
tongues by such a word as signifieth a lower place beneath, it
is true of the common receptacle of their bodies, but not of
their souls. For the soul of Lazarus was not carried by the
angels into hell, but into Abraham’s bosom; which was not
only a place of rest, but also of joy and comfort, contrary to
torments; between which and hell was an infinite distance.
Who would call that a common receptacle, when there was an
infinite distance unpassable from one to the other ?

Martin. So we say in our creed, that our Saviour Christ himself Marriy, 9.
descended into “hell,” according to his soul: so St Hierome, speaking gpitaph. Ne-
of the state of the old testament, saith: Si Abraham, Isaac, Jacob °° δ 5
in inferno, quis in celorum regno? that is, “If Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob were in hell, who was in the kingdom of heaven?” And again:

Ante Christum Abraham apud inferos: post Christum latro in Paradiso:

that is, “ Before the coming of Christ, Abraham was in hell; after his

coming, the thief was in paradise.” And lest a man might object, that Luke xvi.

Lazarus, being in Abraham’s bosom, saw the rich glutton afar off in

hell, and therefore both Abraham and Lazarus seem to have been in

heaven: the said holy doctor resolveth it, that Abraham and Lazarus dl αὐ
Xxxv. 13.1

[* 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 precedentium animas; et
tamen Abraham in requie ibi erat. Et quidem gives cum torqueretur
apud inferos, cum videret Abraham, levavit oculos. Non eum posset
levatis oculis videre, nisi ille esset superius, ille inferius. Et quid
ei respondit Abraham, cum diceret, Pater Abraham, mitte Lazarum, &c. ?
(Luke xvi. 22—26.) Ergo inter ista duo. fortasse inferna, quorum in

19

[ruLKE]

FuLkg, 9.

290 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

also were in hell, but in a place of great rest and refreshing, and
therefore very far off from the miserable wretched glutton that lay in
torments.

Fulke. We say in our creed, that Christ “descended into
hell ;” which being an article of our faith, must have relation to
such benefit as we receive by his descending, namely, that
thereby we are delivered from the pains of hell. But that
he should descend into limbus patrum, to fetch out the
fathers, (which before you said were in prison, now you say
in rest,) we neither say it in our creed, neither doth it

pertain unto us. But Jerome is cited as a favourer of

your opinion, who, I confess, in some part held as you do,
but not altogether. For thus he writeth in Epitaph. Nepot’.
After he hath given thanks to Christ for our redemption by
his death: Quid autem miserius homine, qui eterne mortis
terrore prostratus vivendi sensum ad hoc tantum acceperat
ut periret, &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 anime justorum, in altero torquentur anime impiorum,
attendens quidam orans hic, jam in corpore Christi positus, et orans
in voce Christi, eruisse Deum animam suam ab inferno inferiore dixit,
quia liberavit se a talibus peccatis per que posset deduci ad tormenta
inferni inferioris. Augustin. Enarrat. in Psalmum Ixxxy. c. 18. Opera,
Vol. 1v. pp. 1803, 1304. ]

[* Quis autem miserior homine ; qui eterne mortis terrore prostratus,
vivendi sensum ad hoc tantum acceperat, ut periret? Regnavit enim
mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen, etiam super eos qui non peccaverunt
in similitudinem prevaricationis Ade. Si Abraham, Isaac et Jacob in
inferno, quis in celorum 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 corrupti et abominabiles facti sunt in voluntatibus suis? qui de-
clinaverunt, simul inutiles facti sunt; non est qui faciat bonum, non est
usque ad unum? Quod si Lazarus videtur in sinu Abrahe, locoque
refrigerii; quid simile infernus et regna coelorum? Ante Christum
Abraham apud inferos: post Christum latro in paradiso. Et ideirco
in resurrectione ejus multa dormientium corpora surrexerunt, et visa
sunt in ccelesti Jerusalem. Hieron. Epit. Nepot. Opera, Vol. 1v. p. 267. ]

vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 291

ishment of Adam*, and they which sinned not were held
guilty by other men’s sins; what is to be thought of them
which said in their heart, ‘there is no God,’ &c.? And if
Lazarus be seen in the bosom of Abraham and in a place of
rest, what like hath hell and the kingdom of heaven? Before
Christ, Abraham in hell; after Christ, the thief in paradise.”
In these words Jerome after his rhetorical manner, amplify-
ing the benefit of our redemption by Christ, doth rather touch
this error, than plainly express it. For first, he maketh
all men miserable before Christ, and cast down with terror
of eternal death; which is true, if ye consider them with-
out Christ, in which state are all-men since Christ: but of
all men that lived before the time of Christ’s death, and
yet embraced their redemption by him, it is not true. As
also, that there are some which have not sinned. But that all
this is to be understood, specially of the death of their bodies,
and allegorically of their souls, he addeth immediately, «Εἴ
idcirco in resurrectione ejus multa dormientium corpora, &e.

“And therefore at his resurrection many bodies of them that

slept arose, and were seen in the heavenly Jerusalem.” See
you not, how he turneth all into an allegory, to set forth the
virtue of Christ’s redemption? who brought all his elect by
his death from hell, and the power of darkness, into the king-
dom of heaven. Furthermore, you bid us see Augustine in
Ps. Ixxxv. 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-
Jerius, from which God hath delivered us, sending thither his
Son, who to this infernum or “lower” place came by his birth,
to that by his death ; he addeth another opinion, Fortassis
enum 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 delivered,
For whether Abraham had been now in certain places in
hell, we cannot sufficiently define.” And afterward when he
hath spoken of the diverse places of Lazarus and the rich
glutton, he concludeth as uncertainly as he began: Ergo inter
ista fortasse duo inferna, quorum in uno, &c. ‘Therefore per-
adventure between these two hells, in one of which the souls of
[? Old edition, under the punishment. If Adam and—]
| 19—2

Nascendo.

Mo

riendo.

Martin,
10.

Epist. 99. ad
Exod. et de
Gen. ad lit.
lib. 12. ο. 33.

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. 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 regna ce@lorum? “ 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
joys of heaven.” And St Augustine’, disputing this matter sometime,
and doubting whether Abraham’s bosom be called “hell” in the scrip-
ture, and whether the name of hell be taken at any time in the good
part, (for of Christ’s descending into hell, and of a third place where
the patriarchs remained until Christ’s coming, not heaven, but called

Γ᾿ Quanquam et illud me nondum invenisse confiteor, inferos appella-
tos, ubi justorum anime requiescunt.’ Et Christi quidem animam venisse
usque ad ea loca in quibus peccatores cruciantur, ut eos solveret a tor-
mentis, quos esse solvendos occulta nobis sua justitia judicabat, non
immerito creditur. Quomodo enim aliter accipiendum sit quod dictum
est, Quem Deus suscitavit ev 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 illa inferni tormenta
legimus magnum chaos firmatum ; sed nec apud inferos esse dicti sunt.
Contigit enim, inquit, mori inopem illum, et anferri ab angelis in sinum
Abrahe : mortuus est autem et dives, et sepultus est ; et cum apud inferos
in tormentis esset, et cetera. Videmus itaque inferorum mentionem
non esse factam in requie pauperis, sed in suppliciis divitis. Proinde,
ut dixi, nondum inveni, et adhuc quero, nec mihi occurrit inferos alicubi
in bono posuisse scripturam duntaxat canonicam: non autem in bono
accipiendum sinum Abrahe, et illam requiem quo ab angelis pius
pauper ablatus est, nescio utrum quisquam possit audire; et ideo quo-
modo eam apud inferos credamus esse, non video. Augustini de Genesi
ad litteram, Lib.-xrr. c. 63, 64. Opera, Vol. vt. pp. 509, 510. Vol. mz.
p- 702. Edit. Froben.. 1556. ]

vile] 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 *

hell is it wherein the damned are tormented, the higher hell is that

wherein the souls of the just rested; calling both places by the name

of “hell.”

Fulke. I have set down his very words indeed, which Furxx,
being well weighed, make nothing so clearly for your fancied 19:
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 faith’; except you will say that St Augustine was not re-
solved in the articles of our faith, who touching the third
place, whatsoever at divers times he speaketh doubtingly in
his Hypognosticon, he affirmeth resolutely, that he findeth
in the scriptures, that there is none.

Martin. And surely, of his marvellous humility and wisdom, he Marri,
would have been much more resolute herein, if he had heard the opinion 11.
of St Jerome, whom he often consulted in such questions, and of other
fathers, who in this point speak most plainly, that Abraham’s bosom,
or the place where the patriarchs rested, was some part of hell. Ter-
tullian, Lib. 1v. advers. Marcion. saith, “I know that the bosom of Loco citato.
Abraham was no heavenly place, but only the higher hell, or the
higher part of hell.” Of which speech of the fathers rose afterward
that other name, limbus patrum, that is the very brim or uppermost
and outmost part of hell, where the fathers of the old testament rested.
Thus we see that the patriarchs themselves were as then in hell, though
they were there in a place of rest ; insomuch that St Jerome saith again‘,

[? Quid his ergo prestiterit qui dolores solvit inferni, in quibus
illi non fuerunt, nondum intelligo; presertim quia ne ipsos quidem
inferos uspiam scripturarum in bono appellatos potui reperire. Quod
si nusquam in divinis auctoritatibus legitur, non utique sinus ille
Abrahe, id est secrete cujusdam quietis habitatio, aliqua pars inferorum
esse credenda. Augustini Epistola clxiv. ὁ. 7. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 860.}

[? This subject is fully discussed by Bishop Pearson on the 5th
Article of the Apostles’ Creed. ] ;

[* Adde quod ante resurrectionem Christi notus tantum in Judea

Hom. quod
Christus sit
Deus, tom. 5.

΄“
ἅδης.
Infernus.

Funke,
11.

294 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

Ante resurrectionem Christi notus in Judea Deus, et ipsi qui noverant
eum, tamen ad inferos trahebantur ; that is, “‘ Before the resurrection
of Christ God was known in Jury, and they themselves that knew
him, yet were drawn unto hell.” St Chrysostom in that place of Esay,
“1 will break the brasen gates, and bruise the iron bars in pieces,
and will open the treasures darkened, &c. ‘So he calleth hell,” saith
he; “for although it were hell, yet it held the holy souls, and pre-
cious vessels, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Mark that he saith, “though
it were hell,” yet there were the just men at that time, till our Saviour
Christ came to deliver them from thence.

Fulke. As wise and humble as he was, he was not

ready to yield to every opinion of Jerome, as his epistles

written to Jerome do declare. Neither was Jerome so re-

solute in this matter, whereof he speaketh under a cloud

and in an allegory; as it is plain, where he saith the bodies
that were raised at the resurrection of Christ were seen
in the heavenly Jerusalem, whereas it is certam they were
seen only in the earthly Jerusalem actually. But he meaneth,
the effect of Christ’s redemption was acknowledged either
in the catholic church, which is Jerusalem above in one
sense; or else that they shall be seen in the new Jerusalem

erat Deus; in Israel magnum nomen ejus. Et ipsi qui noverant eum,
tamen ad inferos trahebantur. Hieronymi Epitaphium Nepot. Opera,
Vol. 1v. p. 267.

Utrum autem sinus ille Abrahe, 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, mori inopem illum, et auferri ab angelis in sinum Abrahe.
Deinde ardenti diviti dicit Abraham, Inter nos et vos chaos magnum fir-
matum est; tanquam inter inferos sedesque beatorum. Non enim facile
alicubi scripturarum inferorum nomen positum invenitur in bono.
Augustini Epist. clxxxvii. c. 8. Opera, Vol. u. pp. 1019, 1020.]

[? Νῦν δὲ ἑτέρως ὁ Ἡσαίας, πύλας χαλκᾶς συνθλάσω, καὶ μοχλοὺς
σιδηροῦς συντρίψω, καὶ ἀνοίξω σοι θησαυροὺς σκοτεινοὺς, ἀποκρύφους,
ἀοράτους ἀναδείξω σοι, τὸν ἅδην οὕτω καλῶν: Ei γὰρ καὶ ἅδης ἦν, adda
ψυχὰς ἐκράτει ἁγίας καὶ σκεύη τίμια, τὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ, τὸν ᾿Ισαὰκ, τὸν ᾿Ιακὼβ,
διὸ καὶ θησαυροὺς ἐκάλεσε᾽ σκοτεινοὺς δὲ, ἐπείπερ οὐδέπω ὁ τῆς δικαιο-
σύνης ἥλιος ἦν καταλάμψας αὐτόθι, οὐδὲ τοὺς περὶ ἀναστάσεως κηρύξας
λόγους. Chrysost. contra Judeos et Gentiles quod Christus sit Deus.
Opera, Vol. 1. p. 564; Vol. νι. p. 626, edit. Savill.]

vu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 295

and blessed felicity of the godly at the world’s end; whereof
a testimony was given in that sight of their appearing and
particular resurrection known at Jerusalem on earth.

But you cite another place out of Tertullian, Lib. 1v. ad-
versus Marcionem, and in the margin you say, loco citato; but
I wot not where. And these be Tertullian’s words, if you
be an honest man: “I know that the bosom of Abraham
was no heavenly place, but only the higher hell, or the
higher part of hell.” I see you will be as bold with the
ancient doctors’ works, as you are with my poor writings,
whom you make to say even what you list. In the last
section before you said, St Augustine, Epistol. 99, et de Gen.
ad lit. Lib. xu. cap. 33. doubted whether Abraham’s bosom
were called “hell.” Quod si nusquam, ὅθ. “If it be never
read in the holy scriptures (scilicet that hell is taken in
the good part) verily that bosom of Abraham, that is the
habitation of a certain secret rest, is not to be believed to
be any part of hell.” And again, by reason of the in-
finite chaos, Satis ut opinor appareat, “ It may appear, as
I think, sufficiently, that the bosom of that so great feli-
city is not a certain part, and as it were a member of
hell.” In the other place he speaketh to the same effect,
and upon the same ground, that he never findeth in the
scriptures “hell” taken in good part; and cap. 34, where he
proveth that paradise is heaven, he saith: Quanto magis ergo,
“How much more then may that bosom of Abraham after
this life be called paradise ?” This saith Augustine, and much
more to this purpose; wherein I thought to have forborne
you, but that you come upon us still with new forgeries,

Tertullian in the book by you quoted, p. 274 of Frob.
printed 1550, thus writeth: Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit,
ἅς." “ But Marcion driveth it another way, so forsooth, that

[ἢ 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, que ab inferis discernit Abrahe sinum pauperis. Aliud
enim inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque sinus. Nam et magnum ait inter-
cedere regiones istas profundum, et transitum utrinque prohibere. Sed
nec allevasset dives oculos, et quidem de longinquo, nisi in superiora,
et de altitudinis longinquo, per immensam illam distantiam sublimitatis

206 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH * fon:

he determineth both the rewards of the Creator, either of
torment or of refreshmg, 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 Tertullian touching Abraham’s bosom, which is clean
contrary to that you affirm him to speak. For by this say-
ing it is manifest, that your opinion is Marcion’s heresy.
Secondly, that Abraham’s bosom is not hell, but higher by
an infinite distance, although not in full perfection of heavenly
glory. Thirdly, that it is not limbus patrum, but the re-
ceptacle of all the just souls to the end of the world. Ter-

et profunditatis. Unde apparet sapienti cuique, qui aliquando elysios
audierit, esse aliquam localem determinationem, que sinus dicta sit
Abrahe, ad recipiendas animas filiorum ejus, etiam ex nationibus; patris
scilicet multarum nationum in Abrahe censum deputandarum et ex eadem
fide, qua et Abraham Deo credidit, nullo sub jugo legis, nec in signo
circumcisionis. Eam itaque regionem, sinum dico Abrahe, etsi non
ceelestem, sublimiorem tamen inferis, interim refrigerium prebituram
- animabus justorum, donec consummatio rerum resurrectionem omnium
plenitudine mercedis expungat. Tertull. Adv. Marcion, Lib. 1v. Edit.
Rigult. p. 559.] aa

vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 297

tullian’s authority therefore doth you small pleasure, and less
honesty, unless you did cite him more truly. But I am
unwise to look for plain dealing and sincerity at your hands.
Well, your limbus patrum, the very brim, or uppermost,
or outmost part of hell, wherein all the patriarchs should rest,
we have now found from whence it came, even from your
old acquaintance, the mouse of Pontus, Marcion the abomi-
nable heretic. The other saying of Jerome, but that the
opinion of the fathers in hell had by that time taken some
strength, might be understood of the mortality whereunto
they were subject, and never should have been raised, but by
the resurrection of Christ; as it seemeth by that which he
opposeth of all nations, since the passion and resurrection of
Christ, acknowledged to speak like philosophers of the im-
mortality of the soul, and rejoicing in the resurrection of the
dead, as the fathers mourned at their death. Chrysostom’s
place is more apparent for your error, although he also
may be understood to speak allegorically of the effect of
Christ’s death and resurrection, by which all the patriarchs
were delivered from death, and hell was spoiled; not that
they were in prison there, but that the Justice of God had
condemned them thither, if Christ’s death had not redeemed
them: but I will not stand to clear Chrysostom of this error,
which it is sufficient for me to have found that Marcion the
old heretic was the first author thereof, by Tertullian’s con-
fession; howsoever it came to pass, that many good men after-
ward, deceived by the words ἄδης and infernus, did hold it.

Martin. Therefore did Jacob say, “I will go down to my son unto Marri,
hell.” And again he saith: “If any misfortune happen to (Benjamin) οἴῃ, χινιῃ.
by the way, you shall bring my grey head with sorrow unto hell,”
which is repeated again twice in the chap. xliv. ; by which phrase the holy
scripture will signify, not only death, but also the descending at that
time of all sorts of souls into hell, both good and bad. And there- 1 Kings ii}.

Γ᾿ Καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀθωώσῃς αὐτὸν, ὅτι ἀνὴρ σοφὸς εἶ σὺ, καὶ γνώσῃ
ἃ ποιήσεις αὐτῷ, καὶ κατάξεις τὴν πολιὰν αὐτοῦ ἐν αἵματι εἰς ἄδου.
1 Kings ii. 9. “Τὰ noli pati eum esse innoxium. Vir autem sapiens es,
ut scias que facies ei, deducesque canos ejus cum sanguine ab inferos,”
Vulg. ‘Deal with him therefore according to thy wisdom, and bring not
his hoar head down to the grave in peace,” Edit. 1562. “ But thou shalt
not count him as unguilty: for thou art a man of wisdom, and knowest
what thou oughtest to do unto him, his hoar head thou shalt bring

298 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH -{on.

fore it is spoken of all sorts in the holy scripture, both of good and
of bad. For all went then into hell; but some into a place there of
rest, others into other places there of torments. And therefore St Jerome

In cap. 13. saith, speaking of hell, according to the old testament: “ Hell ‘is a place
Psal. ixxxy. Wherein souls are included ; either in rest, or in pains, according to the

quality of their deserts.”

Fuixe, Fulke. Jacob said he would be joined to his son by
death, as in the other text you bring it is more manifest than
the sun at noon days. For Jacob, speaking of his grey head,
must needs mean of his body, and therefore of the grave,
and not of hell. So in the 3 Reg. 2, which you quote,
David chargeth Salomon, that he suffereth not the grey head
of Joab to go down to the grave in peace, and that he shall
cause the hoar head of Shemei to go down to the grave with
blood; which by no means can be understood of his soul going
to hell, which goeth not with blood; although it is plain
enough by the word “hoar head,” that he meaneth his body
in age, or his old body. And this text Pagnine, in his dic-

to the grave with blood,” Edit. 1584. “Therefore thou shalt cause
his hoar head to go down to the grave with blood,” Geneva, 1560.
“ But his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood,” Autho-
rised version.

Kat κατέβησαν αὐτοὶ, καὶ ὅσα ἐστὶ αὐτῶν ζῶντα εἰς ddov. Numb.
xvi. 33. “ Descenderuntque vivi in infernum,” Vulg. “ They, and
all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit,” Authorised
version. |

[* Et descenderunt ipsi, et omnia quecumque sunt eis, viventes ad
inferos. Notandum secundum locum terrenum dictos esse inferos, hoc ᾿
est in inferioribus terre partibus. Varie quippe in scripturis et sub
intellectu multiplici, sicut rerum de quibus agitur sensus exigit, nomen
ponitur inferorum, et maxime in mortuis 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
terre inferorum vocabulo nuncupatas, in comparatione hujus superioris
terre in cujus facie vivitur; sicut in comparatione cceli superioris, ubi
sanctorum demoratio est angelorum, peccantes angelos in hujus aéris
detrusos caliginem scriptura dicit tanquam carceribus inferi puniendos
reservari. Augustini Questiones in Numeros, 6. xxix. Opera, Vol. 11.
pp. 838, 839. Edit. Bened. Paris. 1836. ]

[? Inter mortem autem et inferos hoc interest: mors est, qua anima
‘separatur a corpore; infernus, locus in quo anime recluduntur, sive
in refrigerio, sive in pcenis, pro qualitate meritorum. Comment. Hiero-
nymi in Osee. c. xiii. Opera, Vol. mm. p. 1329.]

vit. | 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 lie, and for nothing else, as I have
shewed before.

Martin. And in this sense it is also often said in the holy scrip- Marri,
tures, that such and such were gathered, or laid to their fathers, though 13.
they were buried in divers places, and died notin the same state of haute ΑὙΤῸ
salvation, or damnation. In that sense, Samuel being raised up to speak another hell,
to Saul, said, “To-morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me :” that ee
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. Ixxxviii. 18, that is, as St Augustine expoundeth it, “Thou hast Tt
preserved me from mortal sins, that would have brought me into the
lower hell, which is for the damned.” Which place of holy scripture,
and the like, when they translate “ grave,” see how miserably it soundeth :
“Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave.” Which they Bib. 1579.
would never say for very shame, but that they are afraid to say in
any place, be the holy scriptures never so plain, that any soul was
delivered or returned from hell, lest thereof it might follow by and by,
that the patriarchs, and our Saviour Christ, were in such a hell.

Fulke. That which is spoken indifferently of the elect Furxe,
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

Martin,
14.

Prov. xv. 24.

Bib. 1579.
De manu
inferi.

300 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

not of all his sons, that he should be with him in hell, (for
it was the spirit of Satan, and not of Samuel, although coun-
terfeiting Samuel,) he might speak of the death of Saul and
his sons. As for that verse of the eighty-fifth psalm', where-
upon you do falsely so often allege St Augustine’s resolution,
what absurdity hath it, to translate it, “from the lowest grave,”
or “from the bottom of the grave” ? whereby David meaneth
extreme danger of death that he was in by the malice of his
persecuting enemies, Saul and his accomplices. But we “are
afraid to say in any place, that any ‘soul was delivered and
returned from hell.’” We say that the souls of all the faith-
ful are delivered from hell; but of any which after death is
condemned to hell, we acknowledge no return. And these
words are spoken by David while he lived, and praised God
for his deliverance; which might be not only from the “grave,”
but also from “hell,” saving that he here ig «ρὸν of his pre-
servation from death.

Martin. And that this is their fear, it is evident, because that in
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,
“ The way of life is on high to the prudent, to avoid from hell beneath?.”
Lo, here that is translated “hell beneath,” which before was translated
“the lowest grave.” And again, “ Hell and destruction are before the
Lord: how much more the hearts of the sons of men?” But when in
the holy scriptures there is mention of delivery of a soul from hell,
then thus they translate: “God shall deliver my soul from the power
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,

ld

[2 ὅτι τὸ ἔλεός σου μέγα ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ, καὶ ἐῤῥύσω τὴν ψυχήν pov ἐξ
ἅδου κατωτάτου. 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 mercy toward me; for thou hast delivered my soul from
the lowest grave,” Geneva version, 1560, 1579. ] .

[3 ‘Odot ζωῆς διανοήματα συνετοῦ, iva ἐκκλίνας ἐκ τοῦ ἅδου σώθῃ.
Prov. xv. 24. “Semita vite super eruditum, ut declinet de inferno no-
vissimo,” Vulg. ‘The way of life is above to the wise, that he may

‘depart from hell beneath,” Version 1611. ‘ The way of life is on high

to the prudent, to avoid from hell beneath,” Geneva, 1560. “The
‘way of life leadeth unto heaven, that a man should beware of hell

vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 301

whom he receiveth to his mercy? or hath the grave any power over
the soul? Again, when they say, ‘What man liveth and shall not in IXxxix
see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?”

Fulke. I have shewed before divers times, that although Furr,
the Hebrew word sheol do properly signify a receptacle of 1+
the bodies after death, yet when mention is of the wicked, by
consequence it may signify “hell;” as the day signifieth light,
the night darkness, fire heat, peace signifieth prosperity, and
an hundred such like speeches. But where you say that
Proverbs xv. 24, that is translated “hell beneath,” which before
was translated the “lowest grave,” Psalm Ixxxv. 13, you say
untruly ; for although in both places there is the word sheol,
yet in that psalm there is tachtijah, in the Proverbs mattah, MATA
for which if it were translated “the grave,” that declineth, or is ‘TD
downward, it were no inconvenience. In the other texts
you trifle upon the word “soul;” whereas the Hebrew word sig-
nifieth not the reasonable soul, which is separable from the
body, but the life, or the whole person of man, which may
rightly be said to be delivered from the hand or power of
the graye, as the verse 48 doth plainly declare, when in the
latter part is repeated the sense of the former, as it is in
many places of the Psalms.

Martin. If they take “ grave” properly, where man’s body is buried, Martin,
it is not true either that every soul, yea, or every body is buried in

beneath,” Cranmer, 1562. ‘“‘ The way of life is on high to the wise,
that a man should beware of hell beneath,” Bishops’ bible, 1584.

"Ek χειρὸς ἅδου ῥύσομαι, καὶ ἐκ θανάτου λυτρώσομαι αὐτούς" ποῦ
ἡ νίκη σου, θάνατε; ποῦ τὸ κέντρον σου, ἅδη; “De manu mortis liberabo
eos, de morte redimam eos; ero mors tua, 0 mors, morsus tuus ero,
inferne,” Vulg. “1 will ransom them from the power of the grave;
I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O
grave, I will be thy destruction,” Version 1611. Hosea xiii. 14.

Ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον ; ποῦ σου, ἅδη, τὸ νῖκος; Ubi est,
mors, victoria tua? ubi est, mors, stimulus tuus?” Vulg. “Oh death,
where is thy sting? oh grave, where is thy victory?’ Authorised ver-
sion, 1611. 1 Cor. xv. 55.] .

[3 ῥύσεται τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκ χειρὸς ἅδου ; Psal. lxxxvii.48. “Eruet
animam suam de manu inferi?” Vulg. Ixxxix. 48. ‘And shall he
deliver his soul from the hand of hell?” Bishops’ bible, 1584 ; Cranmer,
1562. “Shall he deliver hissoul from the hand of the grave?” Geneva,
1560; Authorised version. ]

FuLKE,
15.

Martin,

302 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ση.

ἃ grave. But if in all such places they will say they mean nothing
else but to signify death, and that to go down into the grave, and to
die, is all one; we ask them, why they follow not the words of the
holy scripture to signify the same thing, which call it going down to
“hell,” not going down to the “grave”? Here they must needs open
the mystery of antichrist working in their translations, and say, that
so they should make hell a common place to all that departed in the
old testament; which they will not, no, not in the most important places
of our belief concerning our Saviour Christ’s descending into hell, and
triumphing over the same. Yea, therefore of purpose they will not,
only for to defeat that part of our christian creed.

Fulke. We cannot always take the word “grave” pro-
perly, when the scripture useth it figuratively. But if we
say, to go down to the graye and to die is all one, you ask
us why we follow not the words of the holy scripture. I
answer, We do, for the scripture calleth it “grave,” and not
“hell.” Where then is your vain clattering of the mystery of
antichrist, that we must open? Because we will not acknow-
ledge that heretical common-place, invented by Marcion the
heretic, we purpose to defeat the article of Christ’s descend-
ing into hell. A monstrous slander! when we do openly
confess it, and his triumphing over hell in more triumphant
manner than you determine it. For if he descended into
that hell only, in which were the souls of the faithful, which
was a place of rest, of comfort, of joy, and felicity; what
triumph was it to overcome such an hell? which, if you
take away the hateful name of “hell,” by your own deserip-
tion will prove rather an heaven than an hell. But we
believe that he triumphed over the hell of the damned,
and over all the power of darkness, which he subdued by
the virtue of his obedience and sacrifice, so that it should
never be able to claim or hold any of his elect, whom he
had redeemed.

Martin. As when the prophet first, Osea xiii., and afterward the
apostle, 1 Cor. xv. in the Greek, say thus’: Ero mors tua, 0 mors, morsus

[? Κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νῖκος. ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον ; ποῦ
σου, ἄδη, τὸ νῖκος ; τὸ δὲ κέντρον τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ἁμαρτίαᾳ. 1 Cor. xv.
δά, 55, 56. “ Absorpta est mors in victoria: ubi est, mors, victoria tua ?
ubi est, mors, stimulus tuus? Stimulus autem mortis peccatum est,”
Vulg. “Death is consumed into victory. Death, where is thy sting?

vu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 303

tuus ero, inferne. Ubi est, mors, stimulus tuus? ubi est, inferne, victoria Meo

tua? “QO death, I will be thy death: I will be thy sting, O hell.

Where is, O death, thy sting? where is, O hell, thy victory ?” They

translate in both places, “O grave,” instead of “O hell.” What else Bib. 1579.

can be their meaning hereby, but to draw the reader from the com-

mon sense of our Saviour Christ’s descending into hell, and conquering

the same, and bringing out the fathers and just men triumphantly from

thence into heaven? which sense hath always been the common sense

of the catholic church and holy doctors, specially upon this place of jade gh
mment. 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 Furxe,
prove that all the catholic doctors understood this text of 16:
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 tlle in resurrectionem
interpretatus est Domini, nos aliter interpretari nec pos-
sumus nec audemus. “Therefore that which the apostle hath
interpreted of our Lord’s resurrection, we neither can nor
dare interpret otherwise.” You see therefore by Jerome’s
judgment, that in this text, which is proper of Christ’s re-
surrection, it is more proper to use the word of “grave,” than
of “hell.” How vainly the same Jerome interpreteth the last
words of this chapter, of spoiling the treasure of every vessel
that is desirable, of Christ’s delivering out of hell the most
precious vessels of the saints, &c. I am not ignorant; but we
speak of translation of the 14th verse, which bemg un-
derstood of Christ’s resurrection, it argueth, that the grave
is spoken of, rather than hell. As for the repetition of

Hell, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin,” Tyndale,
1534. “Death is swallowed up in victory; death, where is thy sting?
Hell, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin,” Cranmer, 1539.
Bishops’ bible, 1584, with an interjection. ‘Death is swallowed up into
victory. Death, where is thy sting? grave, where is thy victory? the
sting of death is sin,” Geneva, 1577. Authorised Version, 1611, with an
interjection after. ‘ Death is swallowed up in victory. Death, where is
thy victory! Death, where is thy sting, and the sting of death is sin,”
Rheims, 1582. ]
[? Comment. Hieronymi in Osee, c. xiii. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 1830.]

Maertin,
17.

FuLKE,
17.

Martin,
18.

Hierom. in
Osee. ο. 13,1

304 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

one thing twice for vehemency and certainty’s sake, [it] is no
inconvenient thing, but commonly used in the scriptures.

Martin. Why, my masters, you that are so wonderful precise trans-
lators, admit that our Saviour Christ descended not into hell beneath,
as you say, yet I think you will grant that he triumphed over hell,
and was conqueror of the same. Why then did it not please you to
suffer the prophet to say so at the least, rather than that he had con-
quest only of “death” and the “ grave’? You abuse your ignorant reader
very impudently, and your own selves very damnably, not only in this,
but in that you make “ grave,” and “death,” all one; and so, where
the holy scripture often joineth together “ death” and “hell,” as things
different and distinct, you make them speak but one thing twice, idly
and superfluously.

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 “graye”

and “death” all one, it is false. We know they differ; but
that one may be signified by the other, without any idle or
superfluous repetition, in one verse, I refer me to a whole
hundred of examples, that may be brought out of the Psalms,
the Prophets, and the Proverbs, where words of the same,
like, or near signification are twice together repeated, to
note the same matter; which none but a blasphemous dog
will say to be done idly or superfluously.

Martin. But will you know that you should not confound them,
but that mors and infernus, which are the words of the holy scripture,
in all tongues are distinct ; hear what St Jerome saith: or if you will
not hear, because you are of them which “have stopped their ears,”
let the indifferent christian reader hearken to this holy doctor and great
interpreter of the holy scriptures, according to his singular knowledge
in all the learned tongues. Upon the aforesaid place of the prophet,
after he had spoken of our Saviour Christ’s descending into hell, and
overcoming of death, he addeth: “ Between death and hell this is the

[᾿ Inter mertem autem et inferos hoc interest: mors est, qua anima

. separatur a corpore; infernus, locus in quo anime recluduntur, sive in

refrigerio sive in poenis, pro qualitate meritorum. Hoc diximus, ut os-
tenderemus id mortem facere, quod meretricem mulierem. Mors enim

γι. TRANSLATIONS. OF THE BIBLES 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 Furxs,
to receive the bodies of the dead, and figuratively death,.!*
doth no more confound the words of “death” and the “grave,”
than he that by a cup understandeth a vessel to receive
drink properly, and figuratively that drink which is con-.
tained in such a vessel. Therefore that you cite out of
Jerome maketh nothing against us; for he himself, although
deceived by the Septuagintes, or rather by the ambiguity of.
the word dons, which they use, in the signification of the
Hebrew word 5ixnw, 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 Matty,
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,” Bib. 1579.
ef 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

fratré. ' 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

in infernum. viventes. Hieronymi Comment, in Osee. ὁ. xiii. Operes

ul. p. 1329. ] ¥

[ruLKE.] : 20

Futxe,

ee

ἄδην.
DINw

Infernus.

τάφος.
Ap

Sepulchrum.

306: A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH’ fou.

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."
“Tn 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 sep in that place of David must
needs signify the “grave,” in which no man doth confess,
praise, or give thanks unto God, of whom in death there is no
remembrance. Therefore he desireth life and restoring of
health, that he may praise God in his church or congre-
gation. Likewise in the 54th psalm*, where he prophesieth
unto the wicked a sudden death, such as befel to Chore,
Dathan, and Abiram, which went down quick into the “grave ;”
not into “hell,” whither come no bodies of men living, bub
the souls of men that are dead.

Martin. But, alas! it is the very nature of the Hebrew, Greek, or
Latin, that forceth them so much to English it “grave,” rather than
“hell.” We appeal to all Hebricians, Grecians, and Latinists in the
world : first, if a man would ask, What is Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin:
for “hell”? whether they would not answer these three words, as the
very proper words to signify it, even as panis signifieth “bread.” 8.6.
condly, if a man would ask, What is Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin, for
a “grave”? whether they would answer.these words, and not three;
deg which they know are as proper words for “ grave,” as lac is
for “milk.” oy

[ Ἔν δὲ τῷ adn τίς ἐξομολογήσεταί σοι; Pal. vi. 5. In inferno’
autem quis confitebitur tibi,” Vulg. ]
Γ᾿ Ἑλθέτω θάνατος én’ αὐτοὺς, καὶ καταβήτωσαν εἷς ἅδου ζῶντες."
Psal. liv. 15. - ““ψεηΐαξ mors super illos: et descendant in saben 90
aaa Vulg. Psal. ly. 15.]

vir. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 307 :
Fulke. The very nature of the Hebrew word dixy ha

is most properly to signify a “grave”, or receptacle of dead 3
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 ἄδης 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, 1 in which are the sun, moon, and
stars; and by a figure is transferred to signify the place of
God’s glory, in which he reigneth with the blessed spirits
of angels and men, above this sensible world. Paradise” and
“ Abraham’s bosom,” who is so childish not to acknowledge
them to be borrowed words, and not proper? So for the
receptacle of the reprobate souls, in the Hebrew tongue
topheth or gehinnom, which properly are the names of an
abominable place of idolatry, are used; and sheol sometimes
figuratively may signify the same. In Greek and Latin,
gehenna is used for the same, which is borrowed of the
Hebrew. Sometimes also the word gdys, 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, xu, dons and infernus, to be as proper
for our English word “hell,” as panis isfor “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.

᾿ς Martin... Yea, note and consider diligently what we will say. Let Marri,
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

Gen. xlix.

Fuuxe,
21.

308 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH: [cu.

me in any one such place, that the holy scripture useth any of those

. former three words for “grave.” As when Abraham bought a place

of burial, whether he bought “infernum” ; or when it is said the kings
of Israel were buried in the monuments or sepulchres of their fathers,
whether it say, in infernis patrum suorum. So that not only divines by
this observation, but grammarians also and children may easily see, that
the proper and natural ‘signification of the said words is in English
“hell,” and not “ grave.’

Fulke. We note well your foolish subtilty, that will
have us to shew you one place, where it is certain and
agreed among all, that sheol must needs signify “grave.” 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 him that will agree to truth,
that sheol in all such places is taken for the “grave.” But
to omit those places, because I have spoken of them already,
what say you to that place, Numb. xvi., where the earth
opened her mouth, and swallowed up the rebels. with their
tents, and all their substance of cattle, and whatsoever they
had? where the text saith, “They went 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,

or their substance of tents, cattle, and stuff, went into “hell,”.
as it is sure their souls went into torment. And if authority
do weigh more with you than good reason, hear what St
Augustine writeth upon the same text, and how he taketh
your inferos or infernum, which in the Hebrew is sheol,
quest. super Num. Lib. iv. ὁ. 29: Et descenderunt ipst
et omnia queecunque 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 1 as the sense of things which ; are in hand

γπ.]} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 309

requireth, the name of znferi is putin 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 live. Like as in com-
parison of the higher heaven, where the dwelling of the
holy angels is, the scripture saith, that the sinful angels being
thrust down into the darkness of this air, are reserved as it
were in prisons of a lower part, or hell, to be punished.”
St Augustine here doth not only understand this place of the
grave, or receptacle of bodies; but also sheweth that the
Latin word inferi or infernus doth not always signify “ hell,”
as you made it of late as proper for “hell,” as: panis for
“bread,” But because you shall not complain of the singu-
larity of this example, although you require but one, I will
add out of the Psalm exli., where the prophet saith, “Our.
bones are scattered at the very brink or mouth of sheol,
‘the grave’.”! How can you understand him to Bpeak of hell?
For the grave, and not hell, is a place for dead men’s bones:
as he speaketh of the faithful, by the wicked counted as good
as dead and rotten, consumed to the bones. By these and
many other examples it is manifest, that the proper significa-
tion of sheol in English is a “grave,” and not “hell.”

Martin. And therefore Beza doth strangely abuse his reader more pian,
than in ‘one place, saying that the Hebrew word doth properly signify 22 ees
“orave,” being deduced of a verb that signifieth to crave or ask, be-’ Actsii. 25, 27
cause it craveth always new corses. As though the grave craved more at ip sin

than hell doth, or swallowed more, or were more hardly satisfied and- Pi». 1579...
oe xxx. 15, 163,

[2 ‘Qoet πάχος γῆς διεῤῥάγη ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, διεσκορπίσθη τὰ ὀστᾶ
ἡμῶν παρὰ τὸν ἄδην, Psal. cxl. 7. ‘ Sicut crassitudo terre erupta est
super terram, dissipata sunt ossa nostra secus infernum,” Psal. exli. 7,
Vulg.]

Γ" Καταπίωμεν δὲ αὐτὸν ὥσπερ Gdns ζῶντα, Prov. i. 12. “ Deglutia~
mus eum sicut infernus viventem,” Vulg. “ We will swallow them up
alive like a grave even whole,” Geneva bible, 1560. “We shall swal-
low them up like the hell,” Cranmer, 1562. “ Let us swallow them
up like the grave,” Bishops’ bible, 1584, Authorised version, 1611.] Ὁ

[? Ἅδης καὶ pws γυναικὸς, Prov. xxx. 16, “ Infernus et os vulve,”
Vulg. “ The grave and the barren womb,” Bishops’ bible, 1560, Auhorised’
yersion, “The grave, a woman’s womb,”- Cranmer, 1562.] . a

Prov. xxvii.
20.

Prov. xv. 11.

Beza, before
alleged.

Fuike,
22. .

Marty,

Annot. in
Acts ii. 24.

310 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH: [cus
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
full’.”. Whereas themselves a little before translate the very same words
hell and destruction? ;” and therefore it might have pleased them to
have said also, “hell and destruction can never be full,” as their pew-
fellows do in their translation: and again, “ We shall swallow them up
like hell.” ‘ The devil,” we read, “ goeth about continually like a roar-
ing lion, seeking whom he may devour:” who is called in the Apo-
calypse “ Abaddon,” that is, “destruction.” And so very aptly “hell”
and “destruction” are joined together, and are truly said never to be
filled. What madness and impudency is it then for Beza to write thus :
“Who is ignorant that by the Hebrew word rather is signified a “grave,”
for that it seemeth after a sort to crave always new carcases 2”

Fulke. Beza doth not abuse his reader, to tell him hpi
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 vo etymology of sheol, to prove that it ον -aines
“the grave.”

Martin. And again, concerning our Saviour Christ’s descending
into hell, and delivering the fathers from thence, “it is marvel,” saith
Beza, “that the most part of the ancient fathers were in this error;
whereas with the Hebrews the word sheol significth nothing else but
‘grave’.” Before, he pleaded upon the etymology or nature of the
word ; now also he pleadeth upon the authority of the Hebrews them:
selves. If he were not known to be very impudent and obstinate, we

Γ' “ASns καὶ ἀπώλεια οὐκ ἐμπίμπλανται, Prov. xxvii. 20. “ Infernus
et perditio nunquam implentur,”’ Vulg. ‘The grave and destruction
can never be full,’ Geneva, 1560. ‘Hell and destruction are never
full,” Cranmer, 1662. Bishops’ bible, 1584. Authorised version. }

[? “Adns καὶ ἀπώλεια, Prov. xv. 11.- “Infernus et perditio,” Vulg.
“Hell and destruction are before the Lord,” Bishops’ bible, 1584.
Geneva, 1560.. Authorised version. ‘ Hell and perdition are known
unto the Lord,” Cranmer, 1562. ]

[Γ᾿ Fateor tamen etiam de profundissimis illis subterraneis locis idem
vocabulum. interdum dici, quos alibi scriptura vocat abyssum, unde
etiam porte inferorum nominantur, Matt. xvi. 18. et dives ille apud
inferos collocatur in summo cruciatu, Lue. xviii. 23. et rogant demones
ne mittantur in abyssum, Luc. viii. 31. Sed quid quisque locus ferat,
diligenter animadvertendum. ****** Dico igitur Siew (scheol) hoc
in loco (Act. ii. 27.) propria significatione accipiendum pro sepulchro,
et “animam meam” vel loco pronominis me accipi, sicut vulgo dici-
mus ma personne, etc. Noy. Test. Edit. Beza, 1582, pp. 415, 416.)

vue] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 911

‘would easily mistrust his skill in the Hebrew, saying that among the
‘Hebrews the word signifieth “nothing else but grave.” Nihil aliud.

Fulke. Beza saith that the word sheol properly signi- Furxe,
fieth nothing but “the grave:” nevertheless he saith it is 23.
‘taken figuratively for “ tribulation,’ which is near to ex-
treme destruction, yea, and sometime for the “ bottomless

pit of hell.”

Martin. 1 would gladly know what are those Hebrews. Doth not Manrrry, -
the Hebrew text of the holy scripture best tell us the use of this Ae
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, fps
‘and see what they will answer.

Fulke. The best of the Hebrews, that either interpreted Furxe,
scriptures, or made dictionaries, Jews or Christians, do ac- 24.
‘knowledge that sheol doth properly signify “the grave.”
That the Septuaginta do always translate it ddys, it proveth
not that it always signifieth “hell;” for ἄδης signifieth not
‘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 English: 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.
plainly, that the true and proper interpretation of sheol is 6
keber, which you say is as proper for “ grave,” as lac is for
“6 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- ‘val ἀῶ
pret all the holy scriptures against our Saviour Christ in other points tants in inter-
of our belief, as against his incarnation, death, and resurrection; so do paisa
they also falsely interpret the holy scriptures against his descending ‘eagieng

into hell, which those Jewish rabbins deny, because they look for [fiber than

another Messias that shall not die at all, and consequently shall not fthers and
after his death go down into hell, and deliver the fathers expecting his church.
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

312 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ‘Tor.

heaven before our Saviour’s incarnation. And these rabbins are they

- which also pervert the Hebrew word-to the signification οὗ “grave,”

in such places of the holy scriptures as speak either of our Saviour
Christ’s descending into hell, or of the fathers going down into hell ;
even in like manner as they pervert other Hebrew words of the holy

Scripture, as namely, alma to signify a young woman, not a virgin,
against our Saviour’s birth of the blessed Virgin Mary.

Fulke. Beza speaketh of the holy men of God which
did write. the scriptures, and so use that word: sheol, as it
cannot be taken to signify any thing properly, but “ 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

Martin,
26.

1 Sam. xxiii. ἢ

Keel. xlvi. 23.

that have been in this last age among the Christians, not only

protestants, but papists also, namely Pagninus, and Masius,
in their dictionaries.

Martin.. And if these later rabbins be the Hebrews’ that Beza

‘meaneth, and which these gay English ‘translators follow, we lament
‘that they join themselves with such companions, being the sworn ene-

mies of our Saviour Christ. Surely the christian Hebrews in Rome
and elsewhere, which of great rabbins are become zealous doctors of
Christianity, and therefore honour every mystery and article of our
christian faith concerning our Saviour Christ, they dispute as vehe-
mently against those other rabbins as we do against the heretics; and
among other things, they tell them that Saul said, ‘Raise me up
Samuel ;” and that the woman said, “I-see gods ascending out of the
earth,” and, “An old man is ascended or come up;” and that Samuel
said, “* Why hast: thou disquieted me, that I should be raised up?” and,
“To-morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me.” And the book of
Kcclesiasticus saith, that Samuel died, and afterward.“ lifted up his voice
out of the earth,” ὅζο. 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

smay be used by a figure of speech, as _eymba, Charontis is Latin for

*death.”

avi. ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 313

ες » Fulke. If we followed the Jews in exposition of the Furxe,
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 lift up his voice after his death out of the
‘earth, contrary to the judgment of catholic doctors of the
church. For that the scripture speaketh of Samuel raised.
by the witch, is meant of a wicked. spirit counterfeiting the
shape and similitude of Samuel. For the souls of the faithful,
and holy prophets, be not at the commandments of witches,
but at rest with God, where they cannot be disquieted. As
for the authority of those unknown authors, that teach boys
to say sheol is as proper for “hell,” as panis for “ bread,”
‘we may esteem it to be of as good credit as Charon’s boat,
‘Pluto’s palace, and Cerberus’s three heads, &c. ᾿

Martin. But what speak I of these? Do not the greatest and most Martin,
ancient rabbins, (so to call them,) the Septuaginta, always translate the 27:
-Hebrew word. by the Greek ἅδης, which is properly “hell?” do not Geneb. lib. 8,
the Talmudists, and Chaldee paraphrases, and rabbi Salomon Jarhi, ἦν
handling these places of the psalms, “He will deliver my soul from
‘the hand of sheol,” interpret it by gehinum, that is, gehenna, “ hell?”

‘and yet the Calvinists bring this place for an example that it signifieth
“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 2°? **"
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

$0 doth rabbi Abraham expound the same word in chap. il. Jone.

FutxE,

~Fulke.. Although the Septuaginta do always teanslate 27,

314 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu

sheol by the word déys, yet do they not thereby always
understand “hell;” as it is manifest in all those places,
where the scripture speaketh of a receptacle of dead bodies,
But now you will bear us down with rabbins, Talmudists,
and Chaldee paraphrases. And first you say that all these,
handling that verse of the 49th psalm, “ He will deliver my
soul from the hand of sheol,” interpret it by gehinnom, that
is, “hell.” I grant that rabbi Joseph, using the liberty of a
paraphrast, rather than a translator, interpreteth the word
by gehinnom, that signifieth * hell-fire :’ and so the sense is
true; for God delivered David from eternal damnation :
but rabbi David Chimchi, expounding the same place accord-
ing to the proper signification of sheol, saith, N°237 ἼΩΝ
ΓΝ Σ, &e. “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: “1 Ny Map pwd mowed: mow dar.
Mourning to sheol: according to the plain and literal sense,
the interpretation thereof is ‘the grave,’ in my mourning
I will be buried, and I will not be comforted all my days:
but after the midrash, or exposition, not according to the
letter, it is ‘hell.’ This sign was delivered by hands, or by
tradition, from the mouth of his power, (that is, from a divine
oracle;) if not one of my sons ‘shall die in my life-time, I had
confidence that I should not see hell.” By this saying it is
manifest, that this rabbin acknowledged the true and proper
translation of this word sheol was “to the grave;” although
after figurative, and sometimes fond, expositions, it was inter-_
preted for “hell.” Likewise you say, but untruly, of this
verse, Psal. ix. 18, ‘ Let all sinners be turned to sheol;” for
there the Chaldee paraphrast retaineth the word sheol, and
‘doth not give any other word for it. David Chimchi inter-
preteth it according to the literal sense, ἽΣ ὩΣ 12.
“Let the wicked be turned into the grave;” which 15:80 strange
with you to be answerable to sheol, although, as R. Salomon
saith, it may be understood of their burial in hell. That
sheol in the Proverbs and Job is jomed with abaddon, it

vu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 3815

hindereth it not to signify the grave, where is the destruction Prov. xv.

and consumption of the body. And Proverbs xy. 11, the
Chaldee paraphrast retaineth sheol, which Kabuenaki ex-
poundeth thus: “ΩΝ, &c. It is said of sheol and abaddon,
that sheol is “the grave,’ 72p7, 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
in the xiv. 13, beith kebureta, “the house of the grave;”
and xvi. 12 and 15, “the grave.” In both which places
rabbi Abraham Peritsol γάμοι sheol and keber together, "ἢ
both signifying “the grave’; and in the latter verse
he maketh Job to say to his friends, “D°2}37 °72, 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 xw “M9 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.

NADWIP

m2
NADAP

Martin. This being the opinion and the interpretation of the He- ent

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, arid 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 ἅδης.

Fullke. The opinion of the Hebrews being as I have Furxy,
rehearsed out of their own words, “see the skill or honesty ” 28.

Martin,
29.

‘Annot. in

Acts ii, 27.

Fuk,
29.

816 ‘A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH fou.

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 50. signify,

howsoever the Septuaginta do interpret it by ἄδης, 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 which the Latins called inferos, that

is “hell.” ‘Which ambiguity,” saith he, “of the word made many

a affirming Christ’s descending into hell. So was limbus Biter
“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 Ἅδης» or

‘Atons, as in Homer Il. xv,

Ζεὺς καὶ ἐγὼ, τρίτατος δ᾽ ᾿Αἴδης ἐνέροισιν ἀνάσσων. ᾿

“ΖΡ ον 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

οἶκος “the house of Pluto” is to be understood. I might

here cite divers places out. of Nonnus, the christian Greek
‘poet, who seemeth to use ais and atdys 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 dons, mean a place generally to receive the dead,
» which sometinies is the genre? of the bodies, sometimes “hell”

of the souls. ; δ απ υῖε

yi] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLEs 317

Martin. J see Beza’s wiliness very well in this point: for here tre aes,

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 Furxe,
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. 1 looked for some great matter, when you be- Furxe,
gan to consider so diligently from point to pomt: but I see as

we shall have nothing but this cold collection, “that both the
profane and ecclesiastical use of this word ἄδης is for ‘hell,’

and not for the ‘grave’. ” That it is used for “hell,” no man
* denieth: but that it is used only for “hell,” 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. ἢ. 1, where
the ungodly that profess the mortality of the soul say, that
none was known to return from ἅδης, 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 goys, shall not give honour to God; where it is cer-

318 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH’ [ou:

2 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 moréover, he maketh it plain that he speaketh
of the dead-bodies, when he saith, “their spirit is taken out
of their bowels.”

tg Martin. And for the Latin word, it is the like case for all the world;

Infefnus, and if a man will ask but his child that cometh from the grammar,
inferi. 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 his father.

Fuike, Fulke. Lhope they that be wise will believe St Augustine

52. 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 little to do, which
translate not out of Latin, but out of Hebrew or Greek.

Martin, Martin. Now then, to draw to a conclusion of this their corruption
99 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

he they 'ob- all custom of speaking and writing signify “hell ;”* it had been the
age Sonn part of sincere and true-meaning translators, to have translated it also
translate it in English always by the word “ hell ;” and afterward to have disputed
eg do: it of the meaning thereof, whether and when it is to be taken for “hell,”

It i :
τα δι ας or “grave,” or “lake,” or “death,” or any such thing. As in one -

but so far less place they have done it very exactly and indifferently, namely when
Ewanes” Jonas saith, chap. ii. 2, out of the whale’s belly, “ Out of the belly of

medley isin hell cried 1, and thou heardest my voice’.” So all translate it, and well,
wilfulmur- whatsoever it signify in this place. They think that “hell” here sig-

aa 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
Seetheirmar- in English, “ It is a hell to live thus ;” and therefore* no doubt they did

i
fone i.e. here translate it so, to insinuate that in other places it might as well

ane signify “grave,” as here the “ whale’s belly.”
FULKE, Fulke. Your conclusion is as good as your premises:
a 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,

[2 Genevan translation, 1560.]

vi] 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? You 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,” “ out
of the belly of hell,” &c.; but you like 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 Marriy,
other places, as they did in this, and afterward have interpreted it 3.
“ 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. xii.
to his being in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. And
therefore’ St Jerome saith: “This belly of hell, according to the story, Comment. in

[? Ventrem autem inferi alvum ceti intelligamus, que tante fuit
magnitudinis, ut instar obtineret inferni. Sed melius ad personam
Christi referri potest, qui sub nomine David cantat in psalmo: Non

Psal. xxv.
In inferno.
sal. Ixxxvii.

FuLKE,
34.

320: A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH» [cue

is the whale’s belly; but it may much ‘better be ‘referred: to the person.
of Christ, which, under the name of David, singeth in the psalm, ‘ Thou
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. They have in other places translated it according,
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.
out.
. 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, nec 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 terre. Quomodo autem cor animalis in medio est ; ita infernus
in medio terre esse perhibetur. Comment. Hieronymi in Jone c. ii,
Opera, Vol. 1v. pp. 1481, 1482.}. ; δὰ ΝΜ

«. . a”

vul.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 321

Martin. Thus then presupposing, as we must, that Jonas speaketh aes
in the person of our Saviour Christ, the principal sense is not of the Ὡ
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. Mic. tis TS

Fulke. That which Jonas spake was first true of his own Furxe,
person, and then of Christ, as Jonas was in this a re-
semblance of him. But by this similitude 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 Mart,
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, nothing else but, “he bt esl κα
prepared'.” Why are they falser here than their masters, Calvin, Beza,
Illyricus, who read dedicavit? Is there nothing in the Greek word, but χειροτονία.
bare “preparation” ? Where be these etymologists now, that can strain μετάνοια,
and wring other words to the uttermost advantage of their heresy, and
here are content for the like advantage to dissemble the force of this
word, which by all use and property signifieth “to make new,” “to begin
a thing,” “to be the first author,” “to dedicate?” as St Augustine might Fag ire
have taught them, and their lexicons, and the scriptures in many places.
This translation, no doubt, is not done sincerely and indifferently of
them, but for their own deceitful purpose, as is all the rest. When
St Paul speaketh of “preparation” only, they know right well that he
useth the usual word to “prepare”; as, ‘He hath prepared them a city :” Heb. xi. 16.
and wheresoever is signified “ preparation” only, let them bring us one bite:
example where it is expressed by the other Greek word which now
we speak of.

Ρ “Hy ἐνεκαίνισεν ἡμῖν ὁδὸν πρόσφατον καὶ ζῶσαν, Heb. x. 20.
“Quam initiavit nobis viam novam et viventem,” Vulg. “By the
new and living way which he hath prepared for us,” Tyndale, Cran-
mer, Geneva. “Which he hath dedicated to us a new and living way,”
Rhemish. “By a new and living way which he hath consecrated for
us,” Authorised version. “Ea via quam dedicavit nobis recentem et
vivam,” Beza, 1556. 1582. ]
. 21

[ FULKE.|

Funke,
ee

Martin,
37.

322 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

Fulke. 1 grant, the translations had been more proper
and agreeable to the Greek word, to have said, “ which he
hath dedicated,” or “by dedication prepared.” But here is
no fraud against any truth or error of yours. For the apostle
speaketh not of the way by which we ascend immediately
to heaven, but of the way by which we have free access
to God through faith, without the vails and ceremonies of
the law, as it is manifest by his exhortation. And whereas
you said before, that Christ ascending into heaven, * * to
those whom he had brought out of hell, you must tell us

_ then where they remained all those forty days that were

between his resurrection and ascension; except you will make
two ascensions of Christ into heaven, one in soul alone, the
other in body and soul: which hath not been heard of in
the church before. For that his soul was first received
into heaven or paradise immediately after his death, it
proveth not an ascension; seeing the same was common
to him with other saints. Again, seeing the mystery of
our redemption is divided into the death and resurrection
of Christ, and that by his death we are delivered from sins,
by his resurrection we are justified; if you will not allow
his death to have purchased equal redemption to the fathers
of the Old Testament and us, but measure the virtue thereof
by the instance of time in which it was actually performed,
you must stay your prisoners from entering into the kingdom
of heaven at least until his resurrection: for none can enter
into the kingdom of heaven but justified persons. Seeing
therefore that justification dependeth upon his resurrection,
you must either grant that it was communicated to the
fathers in their time before his incarnation, or else you must
stay them from entering into heaven before they were jus-
tified by his resurrection. The place of Michah i. that you
quote is nothing to the purpose of Christ’s ascending. For
there the prophet threateneth the Israelites with the violence
of their enemies the Chaldees, whom God himself would pros-
per against them, to have the victory, and to drive them
into captivity.

Martin. But it is of more importance which followeth, and ap-
pertaining altogether to this controversy, Heb. v. 7, your translation is

Of the year thus, in the very English bible that now is read in your churches

vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 323

“Which in days of his flesh offered up prayers with strong crying Against
unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in deacinntaa
that which he feared?.” Is the Greek here, “In that which he feared?” ἀπὸ τῆς εὐ-
You know that no grammar nor lexicon doth allow you this transla~ λαβείας.
tion. But either thus, “for reverence,” or as one of your own English

bibles hath it, “because of his reverence’.”

Fulke. Your first quarrel against the truest translation Futxe,
of that word ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας, Heb. v., is that it saith “in ὅτ᾿
that which he feared,” whereas the Greek is ‘from fear’ or “out
of fear: which afterward you confess, though distant in word,
yet to be agreeable in sense. The second, that in the margin,
our translation is against Christ’s descending into hell. How |
so, | pray you? do you, according to your translation, expound
that word of Christ’s descending into hell? No, verily. But
we do expound it of his descending into hell, therefore our
translation is to prove Christ’s descending into hell; and
if our exposition were not true, yet even your opinion of
Christ’s descent were nothing hindered thereby. You will
say, that by our exposition we exclude his descent after
his death: we do indeed in such sort as your error teacheth
altogether without the scripture. For if there had been an
history of Christ’s going into hell, and delivering the patri-
archs and others the faithful from thence, all the evangelists
would not have omitted so notable a matter, and that also an
article of our belief.

Martin. How is it then, that in your later English bibles you Marr,
changed your former translation from better to worse? or who taught 88,
you so to translate it? Forsooth the heretic Beza, whose translation you a Be
follow for the most part in your later bibles, though here in sense
rather than in word. And who taught Beza? he saith, Calvin was the Calv. Catech.
first that ever found out this interpretation. And why? surely for de- fib. He 16.

fence of no less blasphemy than this, that our Saviour Jesus Christ

[? Καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας, Heb. v. 7. “ Exauditus est
pro sua reverentia,” Vulg. ‘“ Exauditus esset ex metu,” Beza. “ Was
heard for his reverence,” Wiclif, Rheims. ‘Was also heard because
of his godliness,” Tyndale. ‘“ Was heard because of his reverence,”
Cranmer. “Was heard in that he feared,’ Geneva, Authorised.
“Which in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers
and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able
to save him from death, and was heard in that which he feared,”
Edit. 1568. ]

21—2

FuLKE,
38.

324 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ ox.

upon the cross was horribly afraid of damnation, that he was in the

very sorrows and torments of the damned, and that this was his descend-
ing into hell, and that otherwise he descended not. Let the reader
note these new teachers upon this place, and judge to what wicked
end this translation tendeth.

Fulke. If we have in the latter reformed an error es-
eaped in the former, what skilleth it by whom we were
admonished so to correct it? But Beza, you say, “affirmeth
that Calvin was the first that ever found out this inter-
pretation.” It appeareth you were never well beaten for

_ lying, it is such a common fault with you. Beza, speak-

Martin,
39.

John xi. 42,

ing of the interpreters of this age, saith that Calvin (as
he thinketh) was the first that shewed the true and natural
interpretation of this place. He saith not, the first that ever
found it: yea, clean contrariwise he saith, Denique ut non
dubium sit, ete.’ “Finally, that it should not be doubtful but
that some of the ancient fathers also have interpreted this
place even so, Nazianzenus*, Cone. de fil. ii., doth plainly num-
ber τὸ εὐλαβὲς, ‘this fear,’ among the infirmities of Christ’s
manhood.” As for that which you call a blasphemy, [it] is
a holy and comfortable true doctrine, that Christ for the
redemption of our souls suffered the wrath of God in his
soul, as those tears and that strong ery declareth, in which
he complained, according to the sense of his humanity, that
he was forsaken of God.

Martin. A wonderful thing! when all antiquity, with a general and
full consent, hath in that place of the holy scripture read thus, “ that
Christ was heard (of his Father) for his reverence,” (according as our
Saviour himself also saith in the raising of Lazarus, and signifieth in
his long prayer, John xvii.); how a blasphemous and presumptuous
heretic should be so malapert thus to alter it, that “he was heard in
that which he feared,” that is, that he was delivered from damnation

[? Denique ut non dubium sit quin hunc locum ita etiam inter-
pretati sint nonnulli veteres, Nazianzenus diserte, concione de filio
secunda, inter Christi hominis imbecillitates τὸ εὐλαβὲς numerat. See
the long note on Heb. v. 7. Nov. Test. Beze, 1582, pp. 349, 350. ]

[? Τῆς δὲ αὐτῆς ἔχεται θεωρίας καὶ τὸ μαθεῖν αὐτὸν τὴν ὑπακοὴν
ἐξ ὧν ἔπαθεν ἥ τε κραυγὴ, καὶ τὰ δάκρυα, καὶ τὸ ἱκετεῦσαι, καὶ τὸ
εἰσακουσθῆναι, καὶ τὸ εὐλαβὲς, ἃ δραματουργεῖται καὶ πλέκεται θαυμα-
σίως ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. Greg. Nazianz. Oratio. χχχνι. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 580.
Edit. 1609.]

vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 325

and the eternal pains of hell, which he was sore afraid of. To the
maintenance of which blasphemy Beza will seem to force the Greek

thus. First, saith he, εὐλάβεια doth not here signify reverence or piety, it ὁ τῆς εὐ-.
but fear ; and such a fear which he calleth pavorem et consternationem apne
animi, that is, dreadfulness and astonishment of mind; and other like

words, to insinuate an exceeding horror and fear in our Saviour Christ.

For confutation whereof, we might easily bring the common use of

this Greek word in the holy scriptures to signify not every fear, but

that religious fear which is in the best men joined with godliness, holi-

ness, and devotion; as when in the Acts they that buried St Stephen my viii.

PA tape : ἄνδρες εὖ-
are called viri timorati, “devout men,” such as feared God. Nafets.

Fulke. Wow know you that all antiquity hath so read ? Futxg,

If we had the commentaries of many of the ancient fathers ὅδ᾽
upon this text, we might perhaps prove unto you that they
read otherwise. Nazianzenus, as I shewed before, among
Christ’s infirmities reckoneth this fear. Primasius*, although
he expoundeth it of reverence, yet allegeth out of Cassio-
dorus that the word is taken sometime for love, sometimes
for fear. Theodoretus also interpreteth this place of Christ’s
fear, according to his human nature; shewing that he feared —
death, which St Paul feared not, both to shew himself a
man, and to have experience of all our infirmities without
sin. But where you say that Calvin maketh him “to
fear damnation and the eternal pains of hell,” it is false.
Calvin saith plainly, his fear came not of distrust, but of
the sense of his human nature, forbearing the judgment of
God, which without vehement endeavour could not be over-
come. Therefore was the astonishment, the tears, the strong

[3 Pro sua reverentia. Hoc est, propter voluntariam obedientiam
et perfectissimam caritatem. Nonne cum lacrymis preces fundebat,
dicens, Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem; et, Pater, transfer cali-
cem istum ame? Et quia voluntarie fuit obediens Deo Patri usque ad
mortem, exaudivit illum, die tertia resuscitando ; juxta quod Psalmista
dicit: Non dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem. Dicitur autem
fudisse preces supplicationesque, non timore mortis, quam sponte susci-
piebat, sed potius causa nostre salutis voluntatem paterne dispensa-
tionis preposuit voluntati carnis sue; ut veram ostenderet in seipso
naturam humanitatis nostre. Notandum autem, quia reverentia secun-
dum sententiam Cassiodori accipitur aliquando pro amore, aliquando
pro timore: hic vero, pro summa ponitur caritate, qua Filius Dei nos
dilexit, et pro summa obedientia, qua fuit obediens Patri usque ad
mortem. Primasius Comm. in Epist. ad Hebreos, pp. 207, 208. Edit.
Paris. 1543, 12mo. |

Martin,
40.

Annot. in

Luc. ii. 25.

Fux,

Martin,
41,

926 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

ery, the drops of blood, the angel needful to comfort him,
the last extreme conflict, in which he cried, “ My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me?” As for the signification of
the Greek word εὐλάβεια, although it be so often taken for
piety and religion, yet it is also taken for fear: as Acts xxiii.’
where St Luke saith the tribune was greatly afraid least
Paul should have been rent in pieces between the Phari-
sees and Sadducees, he useth this word εὐλαβηθεὶς for being
afraid; which was of no piety or religious fear in him, that
was a pagan, but a natural and civil fear, least a prisoner,
being a Roman, of whom he had charge, should be violently
murdered amongst them.

Martin. But we need not go far; for Beza will help us himself,
who telleth us in another place the very same. His words be these:
εὐλάβεια significat non quemvis timorem, sed cum reverentia potius quam
cum animi trepidatione conjunctum; Latini? religionem vocant. That is,
“εὐλάβεια doth not signify every fear, but that which is joined with
reverence rather than with astonishment of mind; the Latins do call it
religion, or religious fear.” If this be the true signification of εὐλάβεια,
as Beza himself confesseth, why doth he not so translate it in the afore-
said place to the Hebrews? Why forsaketh he the old approved Latin
translation, and general consent of all ancient interpreters, and trans-
lateth it “that fear or astonishment of mind,’ which he saith the word
doth not signify 2

Fulke. You have great leisure thus to trifle, or rather
intolerable malice thus to cavil. Beza in the place by you
cited speaketh of the word εὐλάβεια, when it is taken for
religion; for then it is rather joined with reverence, than with
astonishment. _

Martin. And mark, that in his aforesaid annotation upon St Luke,
he telleth not a peculiar signification of the Greek word in that place,
as though in some other places it might have another signification; but
he telleth generally what the very nature of the Greek word is, that
is, that it signifieth not every fear, but a fear joined with reverence.

[2 Πολλῆς δὲ γενομένης στάσεως, εὐλαβηθεὶς ὁ χιλίαρχος μὴ διασπασθῇ
ὁ Παῦλος ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν, Act. xxiii. 10. “Et cum magna dissensio facta
esset, timens tribunus ne discerperetur Paulus ab ipsis,” Vulg. ]

[3 Martin has omitted, after “ Latini,” “ni fallor” in this quotation ;
and at the commencement of it these words also: “Religiosus, εὐλαβής.
Vulgata barbare timoratus, significat enim εὐλάβεια non quemvis,” &c.]

vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 327

And he said truly ; and they shall hardly give an instance where it
signifieth that fear of astonishment, which both he and they translate
in the aforesaid place of St Paul. Such a force hath heresy to lead a
man, even contrary to his own knowledge, to falsify God’s holy word!

Fulke. Any reasonable man reading the note upon the Furxe,
word evAaf3ys, “religious,” used by St Luke of Simeon, will ani
understand Beza to speak of the signification of that word
as it is taken in that place; for he speaketh against the bar-
barous word timoratus, used by the vulgar interpreter, which
signifieth, if it have any signification, one made afraid, rather
than fearing God with love and reverence. But where you
say, we “shall hardly give an instance where the word sig-
nifieth that fear of astonishment, which they translate,” if you
would have taken pains to read Beza’s annotations yourself
upon this text in question, you should have found, that he
bringeth many instances out of Aristotle, Sophocles, Plutarch*,
Nazianzen, and St. Luke, Acts xxui. If you had remembered
what St Mark writeth of our Saviour Christ, Mark xiv. 334,
it should not have been so strange a matter unto you, to
hear that our Saviour Christ, with great astonishment and
terror of mind, was afraid of death, where he useth the
words ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι, and ἀδημονεῖν: which was not for
bodily pain, or bodily death, (which not only thousands of
holy martyrs have joyfully embraced, but imfinite wicked
persons have contemned,) but for the feeling of God’s wrath,
which was infinitely more heavy upon his soul than any tor-
ments were upon his body.

Martin. Yea, Beza saith further to this purpose, much more against Marry,
his skill in the Greek tongue, if he had’ any at all, that ἀπὸ the pre- 4
position cannot bear this sense, “for which,” or “in respect whereof ;”
and therefore he translateth the Greek into Latin thus, exauditus est
ex metu, “he was heard from fear,” not “for fear,” or, “for his reve-
rence.” And because “from fear” is a hard speech and dark, that

[? Pericles, inquit Plutarchus, περὶ τὸν λόγον ἦν εὐλαβὴς, timide
ad dicendum accedebat, quod de se quoque Cicero testatur. εὐλαβοῦμαι
πεσεῖν, inquit ille apud Sophoclem, timeo ne cadam, Sed et Aristoteles
alicubi in Rhetoricis τοὺς δειλοὺς καὶ τοὺς εὐλαβεῖς conjungit. Act.
xxiii. 10; Luc. xxii. 43. Beze, Nov. Test. Edit. 1556. ]

Γ' Καὶ ἤρξατο ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν. “Ἐπ cepit pavere et
tedere,” Vulg. ‘“ And he began to fear and to be heavy,” Mark xiv. 33.
Rheims. |

998 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

seemeth to be the cause why our English translators say, “in that which
he feared,” far from Beza in word, but agreeably in sense.

Furxe, Fulke. When Beza hath shewed his skill in‘ the Greek

-- tongue, not only in his translation and annotations, but also
in divers Greek epigrams, which he hath set forth; who
but one stark mad with malice, and blind with conceit of
his own slender skill, would doubt whether Beza “had any
skill at all in the Greek tongue?” As for that he saith of
the signification of the preposition ἀπὸ, he speaketh in re-
spect of the property of the Greek tongue; for yet you
bring no examples, but Hebraisms out of the Ped for
that signification of the preposition.

aaa Martin. But for this matter we send them to Flaccus Illyricus,

Pisa: lyre. 2 captain Lutheran, who disputeth this very point against the Cal-

vinists, and teacheth them that nothing is more common than that
ἀπὸ τῆς signification of 47d. For proof whereof we also refer them to these
Be eke places of the ‘holy scripture: Matt. xiii., Luc. xxii. and xxiv., Acts xii.,
λύπης. ΒΑ]. Ixxxvii., and [2] Machab. v. 21, where ἀπὸ with a genitive, and διὰ

age with an accusative, signify all one, which Beza denieth. Gentle reader,
ἀπὸ τῆς bear with these tedious grammatications, fitter to be handled in Latin,

se but necessary in this case also; good for them that understand, and for
διὰ τὸν pe- the rest, an occasion to ask of them that have skill in the Greek tongue,

— “P- holy scriptures.
a Fulke. And we, by the same authority, send you to

Beza’s answer, in his last edition of his annotations’. And
yet the reader must know, that Beza did not simply deny
that the preposition might have such sense: but. he said,
Non facile mthi persuaserim, 1 cannot easily persuade my-
self, that any example can be brought wherein azo is so
used. And in all these examples that you have brought,
it signifieth rather pra, which is ὑπὸ, than propter, διὰ, as
your vulgar translator observeth the difference, 2 Mae. νυ. 21,

[* Ex metu, ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας. Ergo quod ad totum ipsum dicendi
genus attinet, si pro veverentia, 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 ἀπὸ ita usurpetur. Beze, Nov.
Test. 1556, p. 219. Vide chap. i. numb. 29.] |

vu. ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 329

translating pre superbia, and propter elationem mentis. But
Beza requireth an example of ἀπὸ taken for dia, ὑπὲρ or
κατὰ, that may answer to the vulgar Latin, pro reverentia.
For who would translate in St Matthew, xiii. ἀπὸ χαρᾶς,
pro gaudio, propter gaudium, or secundum gaudium, or ἀπὸ.
τῆς λύπης, 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 English, 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- Marin,
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 Furxe,
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

Martin,
45

FuLKE,

330 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

we keep not the Greek points, Apoc. xiii! 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 life 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 ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου

from “the Lamb slain,” whom it doth immediately follow.

Martin. But if in points of controversy between us, they will say,
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. We say that wrong pointing may greatly alter
the sense; but good composition and placing of words ina
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

[? Kat προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,
2 ~~ Lod ~ - -“
ὧν οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγ-
» ΄- eee
μένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, Apoc. xiii. 8.7

vil. | 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,
containing forty-five sections, there is not one place noted
against purgatory. Amphora cepit institui: currente rota
cur urceus exit ? |

Marty, 1.

992 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cn.

CHAPTER VIII.

Heretical Translation concerning Justification.

Martin. Asovr 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

s A ,
τα OLKALW-
ματα.

Testament most common and usual, namely in the books of Moses, in the
psalm cxviii.’, that beginneth thus, Beati immaculati, in the psalm exlvii.
195, 1 Mach. i. 51°, and ii. 214, Luke i. 6°, Rom. ii. 26% In all which
places, and the like, where the Greek signifieth “justices” and “jus-
tifications” most exactly, according as our vulgar Latin translateth

Γ΄ Μακάριοι ἄμωμοι ἐν ὁδῷ. “ 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, ἡ
1560. Οφελον κατευθυνθείησαν ai ὅδοί pov, τοῦ φυλάξασθαι τὰ δικαι-
ὦματά σου, Psal. cxix. 5. “Utinam dirigantur vie mee ad custodiendas
justificationes tuas,” Vulg. “‘ Keep thy statutes,” Cranmer’s bible, 1562,
Geneva, 1560, Bishops’ bible, 1584. Authorised version. ]

Γ᾽ ᾿Απαγγέλλων τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ τῷ ᾿Ιακὼβ, δικαιώματα καὶ κρίματα
αὐτοῦ τῷ Ἰσραήλ. Peal. 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.]

Γ᾿ Kai ἀλλάξαι πάντα τὰ δικαιώματα, 1 Mace. i. 49. Edit. Grabbe.
“Change all the [holy, Cranmer’s bible, 1562] ordinances of God,”
Bishops’ bible, 1584. ‘‘ Change all the ordinances,” Geneva, 1560, v. 51.
Authorised version, 1611, v. 49. ]

[* Καταλιπεῖν νόμον καὶ δικαιώματα, 1 Mace. ii. 21. “ Forsake the
law and ordinances,” Bishops’ bible, 1584, Cranmer’s Bible, 1562,
Geneva, 1560, Authorised, 1611. ]

Γ᾽ Πορευόμενοι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασι τοῦ Κυρίου
ἄμεμπτοι, Luc. i. 6. “ Incedentes in omnibus mandatis οὐ justificatio-
nibus Domini sine querela,” Vulg. ‘Going in all the maundementis
and justifyings of the Lord without plaint,” Wiclif, 1380, “Laws and
ordinances,” Tyndale, Cranmer. ‘Commandments and ordinances,”
Geneva, Bishops’ bible. Authorised version. ‘‘Commandments and
justifications,” Rhemish. |

[ἡ ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώμτα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ, Rom.
ii. 26. “Si igitur preputium justitias legis custodiat,” Vulg. “If the

vu. | 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 δικαιώμα-

_ counted for circumcision?” And Luke i. 6,“ They were both righteous ΤΩ το

before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the καὶ δικαιώ-
Lord blameless.” Why translate you it “ordinances,” and avoid the κασι.
term “justifications?” is it because you would follow the Greek? I

beseech you, is not δίκαιος “just,” δικαιοῦσθαι “to be justified,” δικαιώματα
“justifications,” or “justices?” In the Old Testament you might perhaps

pretend that you follow the Hebrew word, and therefore there you D’pn
translate “statutes,” or “ordinances.” But even there also are not the ἀνὰ
seventy Greek interpreters sufficient to teach you the signification of the

Hebrew word; who always interpret it δικαιώματα, in English “ justifica-

tions ?”

Fulke. These matters were driven so thin in the first Fuxxe, 1.
chapter, that you shall sooner press out blood than any more
probable matter. For the Old Testament, which we translate
out of the Hebrew, you yourself do set forth our answer, that
we give the English of chukim, when we say, “ ordinances” D'PM
or “statutes,” and not of the Greek word δικαιώματα, which 5
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 δικαιώματα. If they had always interpreted
it so, it is not sufficient to teach us; for then there needed
none other translation: but according to theirs then must
you depart from your vulgar translation, which in many
things departeth from them. But where you say they
always interpret the Hebrew word chukim by δικαιώματα,
it is false. For Exod. xviii. 207, they translate it προστάγ- ὈΡΠ
ματα, precepta, which your vulgar translation calleth cere-
monias, “ceremonies ;” as it doeth also Gen. xxvi. 5, where
the Septuaginta translate δικαιώματα; by which you see

uncircumcised keep the right things contained in the law,” Tyndale,
1534, Cranmer, 1539, Geneva, 1557. “If the uncircumcision keep the
ordinances of the law,” Bishops’ bible, 1584. “‘ Therefore if the uncir-
cumcision keep the righteousness of the law,” Authorised version, 1611.
“ If then the prepuce keep the justice of the law,” Rhemish version, 1582. ]

[? Kat διαμαρτύρῃ αὐτοῖς τὰ προστάγματα τοῦ Θεοῦ, Exod. xviii. 20.
“Ostendasque populo ceremonias,” Vulg. ‘Kat ἐφύλαξε τὰ προστάγ-
para pov, Gen. xxvi. 5. “Et custodierit precepta et mandata mea,” Vulg.]

Mpn

334 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

that “justification” is not always the English for the Greek
word which the Septuaginta do use. Also Numb. ix. 3, for
chukoth they translate νόμον, “ the law,” which the vulgar
Latin calleth ceremonias, “‘ ceremonies ;”’ and for the Hebrew

Daw word misphatim they give σύγκρισιν, “comparation,” the

npn

DPT

pn

opr
Daw

Manrrtrn, 2.

vulgar Latin ‘“justification;” by which you may see how your
translator useth even the Latin word, that you make so much
ado about. Likewise in the fourteenth verse of the same
chapter, the Septuagint translate chukath, twice together,
νόμον; and that which the vulgar Latin calleth “ justification
of the passover,” the Greek calleth συντάξιν, “the order of
the paschal.” Deut. iv., your vulgar Latin turneth chukim
thrice ceremonias, “ ceremonies;” and Deut. ν. twice, and
Deut. vi. twice, Deut. vii. once; and so commonly almost in
every chapter. But in the chap. xi. 32, the Greek for
chukim hath προστάγματα; where as in the beginning of
the chapter he had δικαιώματα; the Latin in both ceremonias,
“ ceremonies.” By which it is evident, what the Greeks
and Latins meant by those words, chap. xx. for this Hebrew
word; and in another the Greek hath nothing but ἐντολὰς,
“ commandments.” So hath he, 1 Reg. ii. 3, for DYN, evro-
Aas, “commandments.” Also 1 Reg. viii. 58, for chukim
he hath προστάγματα, and for misphatim he hath δικαιώ-
ματα, as he hath it twice in the next verse, where Salomon
prayeth that God will defend his cause, and the cause of
his people Israel, as the cause shall require. More examples
might I bring, but for tediousness, to convince the bold
rashness of this quarreller; but these may suffice all indif-
ferent readers, and answer sufficiently for us. Within the New
Testament, we translate δικαιώματα “ ordinances,” or “ sta-
tutes,” seeing it is proved both by the Septuaginta, which
calleth the same Hebrew word not only “ justifications,” but
often ‘ commandments,” “ statutes,’ “ precepts,” “judg-
ments;” and the vulgar Latin interpreter, which commonly
ealleth it “ceremonies” or “precepts.”

Martin. But be it that you may control them in the Hebrew,
which none but fools will grant unto you: in the New Testament what
pretence have you? do you there also translate the Hebrew word, or
rather the Greek? The Greek undoubtedly you should translate. What
reason then can you have why you do not? None other surely, than that
which Beza giveth for himself, saying, that he rejected the word “justi-

vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. — 938

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, ) _— 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 Εὐτικε, 2.
of the usage of that word, δικαιώματα, will judge that it
signifieth only “justifications ;” and all wise men may see
that we have good warrant to translate it otherwise in the
Greek testament, where it must needs have another signi-
fication. The concurrence of works with faith to justification
before God, which the apostle doth exclude, Rom. ii., we
may not admit. But justification by works, as St James
teacheth, we do acknowledge. I hope you will not say that
your Latin translator, against justification by works, trans-
lated the word so often “ ceremonies,” or that ceremonies
of the law do concur to justification by faith. The command-
ments indeed are called “justifications,” because the works
of the law, if aman 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 Marrmn,3.
avoid the word in his translation, (as Apoc. xix. 8', bissinum enim τὼ δικαιώ-
justificationes sunt sanctorum, “The silk is the justifications of saints,”) 4¢7*
there he helpeth the matter with this commentary, “That justifications Beze Annot.

in Apoe. xix,

[> To yap βύσσινον τὰ δικαιώματά ἐστι τῶν ἁγίων, Αροο. xix. 8.
“Justifying of saints,” Wiclif. ‘Righteousness of saints,” Tyndale’s,
Cranmer’s, Genevan, Bishops’, Authorised version. “ Justifications of
saints,” Rhemish, 1582. |

336 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ on.

are those good works which be the testimonies of a lively faith.” But
our English translators have another way to avoid the word even in their
translation. For they say here, “the righteousness of saints ;” because
they could not say, “ordinances of saints ;’ and they would not say,
“justifications of saints ;” knowing very well by Beza’s own commen-
tary, that this word includeth the good works of saints ; which works if
they should in translating call their “justifications,” it would go sore
against justification by only faith. Therefore do they translate instead
thereof “ordinances,” and “ statutes,” where they can, which are terms
furthest off from justification; and where they cannot, there they say,
“ righteousness,” making it also the plural number, whereas the more .
proper Greek word for righteousness is εὐθύτης, Dan. vi. 22, which
there some of them translate “ unguiltiness,” because they will not
translate exactly, if you would hire them.

Fuiwe,3. Fulke. When δικαιώματα, Apoc. xix., are translated
justificationes, they signify “ just works,’ as I have already
proved the signification of the word to bear; beside that it
is so used by Aristotle in his Ethics’, 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.

Martn,4. Martin. And therefore as for “justice,” and “ justifications,” they
ava on ® say “righteousness,” so for “just” they translate “righteous ;” and by
most apProv- this means, “ Joseph was a righteous man?,” rather than a just man ;
Matt. i. ‘9. and Zacharias and Elisabeth “were both righteous before God*,” rather
than just ; because when a man is called just, it soundeth that he is so
in deed, and not by imputation only ; as a wise man is understood to be
wise in deed, and not only soimputed. 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’

[2 Καλεῖται δὲ τὸ κοινὸν μᾶλλον δικαιοπράγημα᾽ δικαίωμα δὲ, τὸ ἐπαν-
ὄρθωμα ἀδικήματος. Arist. Ethic. ν.7

[? Ἰωσὴφ.---δίκαιος ὧν, Matt. i. 19. “ Joseph cum esset justus,”
Vulg. “Joseph being a perfect man,” Tyndale, 1534. “Joseph was a
righteous man,” Cranmer, 1539, Bishops’, 1584. “Joseph was a just
man,” Genevan, Rhemish, Authorised versions. ]

[5 ἦσαν δὲ δίκαιοι ἀμφότεροι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, Luc. i. 6. “ 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. |

vitt. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 337

inexcusably,) there they understand “ just” by imputation, and not in deed ;
as is to be seen in Beza’s annotations upon the Epistle to the Romans.
Note also, that they put the word “just,” when faith is joined withal, as
Rom. i.,* “The just shall live by faith,” to signify that justification is by
faith. But if works be joined withal, and keeping the commandments,
as in the place alleged, Luke i., there they say “righteous,” to sup-
press justification by works.

Fulke. This is a marvellous difference, never heard of Furxr, 4.

(I think) in the English tongue before, between “ just” and
“righteous,” “justice” and “righteousness.” I am sure
there is none of our translators, no, nor any professor of
justification by faith only, that esteemeth it the worth of
one hair, whether you say in any place of scripture “just”
or “righteous,” “justice” or “ righteousness ;” and there-
fore freely they have used sometimes the one word, sometimes
the other. Therefore it is a monstrous falsehood, that you
feign them to observe this distinction, that they join “just” with
“faith,” and “righteous” with “works.” Do they not translate,
Rom. ii. 18, “the hearers of the law are not righteous before
God, but the doers of the law shall be justified®’”? Have you
not again, “the righteousness of God is made manifest without
the law, &c., by the faith of Jesus Christ”? And where
you read, “ the just shall live by faith,” have you not imme-
diately, “ the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to
faith, as it is written, The just shall live by faith”? Who
then but the devil, which hath his name of slandering, would
here inyent a distinction of “just” and “righteous”?

Martin. And certain it is, if there were no sinister meaning, they Martin, 5.
would in no place avoid to say “just,” “justice,” “justification,” where τῆς δικαιο-
both the Greek and Latin are so, word for word ; as for example, 2 Tim, δ δ νος
iv, 8°. in all their bibles, “ Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown κριτὴς

of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at ai Εὸς

[* Ὃ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, Rom. i. 17. “Justus autem
ex fide vivit,” Vulg. ‘The just shall live by faith,” Tyndale’s, Cran-
mer’s, Geneva, Bishops’, Authorised versions. “The just liveth,” &c.,
Rhemish. |

[> ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ποιηταὶ τοῦ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται; Rom. ii. 13. “But the
doers of the law shall be justified,” Rhemish, and all the versions. ]

[ὅ λοιπὸν, ἀπόκειταί μοι ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος, ὃν ἀποδώσει
μοι ὁ Κύριος ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ὁ δίκαιος κριτής. 2 Tim. iv. 8. “Co-
rona justitie,” Vulg. “Crown of justice,” Rheims. “Crown of righte-
ousness,” all the other versions. |

[FULKE. | 22

τῆς δικαίας
κρίσεως.
δέκαιόν
ἐστι.

J

οὐ yap ἄδι-
κος.

Non enim in-
justus est

338 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

that day.” And again, 2 Thess. i., “ Rejoice in tribulation, which is a
token of the righteous judgment of God’, that you may be [counted
worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye suffer. For it is a righteous
thing with God, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
and to you that are troubled, rest with us, in the revelation of the Lord
Jesus from heaven.” And again Hebrews vi. 10, “God is not unrighteous

, to forget your good work and labour,” &c.2 These are very pregnant

Fusxe, 5.

places to discover their false purpose in concealing the word “justice” in
all their bibles. For if they will say, that “justice” is not an usual English
word in this sense, and therefore they say “ righteousness ;” yet, I trow,
“just,” and “unjust,” are usual and well known. Why then would they
not say at the least, in the places alleged, “God the just judge,” “a
token of the just judgment of God,” “it is a just thing with God,”
“ God is not unjust to forget,” &c.? Why is it not at the least in one of
their English bibles, being so both in Greek and Latin ?

Fulke. Certain it is, that no Englishman knoweth the
difference between “just” and “righteous,” “ unjust” and
“unrighteous,” saving that “righteousness” and “ righteous”
are the more familiar English words. And that we mean no
fraud between “justice” and “ righteousness,” to apply the
one to faith, the other to works, read Rom. x. 4, 5, and 6%,
of the Geneva translation, where you shall see “ the right-
eousness of the law,” and the “righteousness of faith.”
Read also against this impudent lie, in the same translation,

ke "Evderypa τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, 2 Thess.i. 5. “ Exem-
plum justi judicii Dei,’ Vulg. “A token of the righteous judgment
of God,” all the versions, except the Rhemish, which has, “ An example
of the just judgment of God.”]

[? οὐ yap ἄδικος ὁ Θεὸς ἐπιλαθέσθαι τοῦ ἔργου ὑμῶν, &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.”

[* “For Christ is the end of the law, to justify (εἰς δικαιοσύνην)
all that believe. For Moses describeth the righteousness (τὴν δικαιοσύνην)
which cometh of the law, in these words, that the man which doth
these things, shall live thereby. But the righteousness (δικαιοσύνη)
which cometh of faith speaketh on this wise,’ &c., Rom. x. 4, 5, 6.
Genevan testament, 1557. “For Christ is the end of the law for righte-
ousness unto every one that believeth. For Moses thus describeth the
righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth these
things, shall live thereby,’ Geneva bible,’,1560. Upon which pas-
sage is the following marginal note: ‘‘ The end of the law is to justify
them which observe it: therefore Christ having fulfilled it for us, is
made our justice, sanctification,” &c. |

vill. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 339

Luke i., “ Zachary and Elizabeth were both just*:’ cap. ii.,
“Simeon was just:” Matt. i, “Joseph a just man”; and
elsewhere oftentimes, and without any difference in the
world from the word “righteous.” Who ever heard a
difference made between a “just judge” and a “righteous
judge” ? This trifling is too shameful abusing of men’s patience,
that shall vouchsafe to read these blotted papers.

Martin. Understand, gentle reader, and mark well, that if St Paul’s Mart, 6.
words were truly translated thus, “A crown of justice is laid up for me, wrest
which our Lord the just Judge will render unto me at that day,” and Scere
so in the other places; it would infer that men are justly crowned in μευ τῇ ;
heaven for their good works upon earth, and that it is God’s “justice” ith.
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 Ps. lvii. Si

si ε τς utique est

places do interpret and expound. Insomuch that Gicumenius? saith a Juste,
thus upon the foresaid place to the Thessalonians, ὅρα ὅτι, &c.: “See Deus judi-
cans eos in

here, that to suffer for Christ procureth the kingdom of heaven accord- terra.

ing to just judgment, and not according to grace.” Which lest the κατὰ δικαι-
adversary might take in the worse part, as though it were only God’s καὶ οὐ card
justice or just judgment, and not his favour or grace also, St Augustine χάριν".
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.
i ς ὃ ᾿ ᾿ 5 et lib. arb.
render or repay as a just judge, unless he had given it asa merciful c. 6.
father?” Where St Augustine urgeth the words of “repaying” as due,

and of being “a just judge” therefore. Both which the said translators

corrupt ; not only saying “righteous judge,” for “just judge ;” but that

he will “ give a crown,” which is of a thing not due, for that which is

in the Greek, “ He will render or repay,” which is of a thing due and ἀποδώσει.
deserved, and hath relation to works going before, for the which the

crown is repaid. ‘‘ He said not,” saith Theophylact upon this place, ‘he

[* “ Both were just (δίκαιοι) before God,” Geneva version, 1560.
* Both were perfect before God,” Geneva version, 1557, Luke i. 6.
“ This man was just and feared God: (δίκαιος καὶ εὐλαβὴς), Luke ii. 25,
Geneva version, 1557, 1560, Tyndale, 1534, “Just and godly,” Cran-
mer, 1539, Bishops’ bible, 1584. “Just and devout,” Authorised ver-
sion. |
[ ὅρα δὲ ὅτι τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν κατὰ δικαιοκρισίαν παρέχει
τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ οὐ κατὰ χάριν. . GEcumen. Comment.
in 2 Epist. ad Thessal, Vol. 1. p. 189.] |
22— 2

Futke, 6.

In Ps. Ix x”,
and in Ps. ei.

340 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cn.

will give,’ but, ‘he will render or repay,’ 88. ἃ certain debt. For he
being just, will define and limit the reward according to the labours.

The crown therefore is due debt, because of the judge’s justice.” So
saith he. :

Fulke. Whatsoever you may 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 meaning. That you cite out of Gicumenius,
a late writer in comparison’, is blasphemous against the
grace of God; neither is St Augustine, that lived five
hundred years before him, a sufficient interpreter of his
saying to excuse him. With Augustine we say, “ God crown-

[᾿ Gcumenius, bishop of Tricca in Thessaly, in the tenth century,
wrote a Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St
Paul, and the Catholic Epistles. But the remarks are chiefly taken
from Chrysostom, Cyril, and other preceding writers. |

[? Hane ergo gratiam commendat nobis Deus et in isto psalmo:
intueamur illum, et videamus an ita sit, an forte ego aliter suspicer.
Etenim arbitror hunc eum habere affectum, et hoc omnibus prope suis
syllabis resonare: id est, hoc nobis commendare, gratiam Dei gratuitam,
que nos liberat indignos, non propter nos, sed propter se; ut etiamsi
non hoc dicerem, neque hoc prelocutus essem, quilibet mediocris cordis
homo, attente audiens verba ejusdem psalmi, saperet hoc ; et forte ipsis
verbis, si aliud habebat in corde, mutaretur, et fieret quod hic sonat.
Quid est hoc? Ut tota spes nostra in Deo sit, nihilque de nobis tam-
quam de nostris viribus presumamus; ne, nostrum facientes quod ab
illo est, et quod accepimus amittamus. Augustini Enarrat. in Psal. Ixx.
Opera, Vol. 1v. p. 1027. ]

[* Ergo coronat te, quia dona sua coronat, non merita tua. Plus

vill. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 341

eth his gifts, not our merits.” And as he acknowledgeth
God’s mercy, and also his justice, in rewarding our works,
so do we. Where ἀποδώσει is translated “he will give,”
I confess it had been more proper and agreeable to the
Greek to have said, “he will render,” or “repay ;” which
yet is wholly of mercy in respect of us or our deserving,
but of justice in respect of his promises, and of Christ’s
merits, unto which is rendered and repayed that which he
deserved for us. The crown therefore is due debt, because
it is promised to us for Christ’s sake, not because any works
of ours are able to purchase it.

Martin. Which speeches being most true, as being the express words 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
us in all his holy scriptures, that to do them is the way to heaven ;
therefore not presuming upon our own works as our own, or as of our-
selves, but upon the good works wrought through God’s grace by us,
his seely* instruments, we have great confidence, as the apostle speak- Heb. x.
eth, and are assured that these works, proceeding of his grace, be so
acceptable to him, that they are esteemed, and be, worthy and merito-
rious of the kingdom of heaven. Against which truth let us see further
their heretical corruptions.

Fulke. Uf you would abide by your first protestation, Futxs, 7.
we should not need to contend much about this question.
But after you have in the beginning magnified the grace
and mercy of God, and abased your own merits, you come
back again with a subtle compass, to establish your own
free will, the worthiness of your works, and your merit of

omnibus illis laboravi, ait apostolus: sed vide quid adjungit, Non ego
autem, sed gratia Dei mecum. Et post labores omnes exspectat ipsam
coronam, et dicit, Bonum agonem certavi, cursum consummavi, fidem
servavi: de cetero superest mihi corona justitie, quam reddet Dominus
in illa die justus judex. Quare? Quia agonem certavi. Quare? Quia
cursum consummavi. Quare? Quia fidem servavi. Unde certasti?
unde fidem servasti? Non ego autem, sed gratia Dei mecum. Ergo
et quod coronaris, illius misericordia coronaris. Augustini Enarrat. in
Psalm. cii. Opera, Vol. 1v. pp. 1592, 1593. Edit. Bened. Paris. 1835. ]
[* Simple. ]

Luke xviii.

342 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

the kingdom of heaven. First, you say, God telleth us in
all his holy scriptures, that “to do good works is the way to
heaven.” Indeed to fulfil the law, is to deserve heaven. But
whosoever is guilty of sin, must seek another way than by
good works to come to heaven, namely to Jesus Christ, who
is the only way to heaven, the truth, and the life; by whose
blood when he is purged from his sin, and reconciled unto
God, and the kingdom of heaven purchased for him, then
he hath the way of good works appointed him to walk in
toward the same. Secondly, you say, you “presume not
upon your own works, as your own, or as of yourselves, but
upon the good works wrought by God’s grace, by you his

-seely instruments, you have great confidence,” Thus while

you would seem to fly from Pelagianism, you fall into flat
Pharisaism. For you trust that you are righteous in your-
selves, though not as of yourselves. Such was the Pharisee
of whom Christ telleth the parable; which, ascribing all his
works to the grace of God, had confidence in them, that he
was just before God by them, “ God, I thank thee,” saith
the Pharisee. He acknowledgeth the grace of God, as
author of all his works: yet against such as he was, Christ
telleth that parable. And whereas you call the apostle,
Heb. x., to witness of your error, you do him great wrong;
for he speaketh not of any confidence to be had upon good
works, wrought by the grace of God by us; but in the new
covenant of remission of sins, by the sacrifice of Christ’s
death, by whom we have access to God, that we may be
acceptable to him, not for any meritorious works wrought
by us, but by the only oblation of his body once for all,
by which “he hath made perfect for ever those that are
sanctified.”

Ix. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 343

CHAPTER IX.

Heretical Translation against Merits, or Meritorious Works,
and the Reward for the same.

Martin. Wuen they translate Rom. viii. 18, thus, “1am certainly Marmn, 1.
persuaded, that the afflictions of this time are not worthy of the Bib. 1577.
glory which shall be shewed upon us’ ;” do they not mean to signify to
the reader, and must it not needs so sound in his ears, that the tribula-
tions of this life, be they never so great, though suffered for Christ, yet
do not merit nor deserve the heavenly glory? But in the Greek it is far
otherwise. I will not stand upon their first words, “I am certainly ),yiz0-
persuaded,” which is a far greater asseveration than the apostle useth ; μαι. «1
and I marvel how they could so translate that Greek word, but that ΡΣ
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: οὐκ ἄξια
where the Greek saith not, as they translate with full consent in all pipes z

their English bibles, “The afflictions are not worthy of the glory,” &c., δόξαν.
but thus, “ The afflictions of this time are not equal, correspondent, or otal ee
comparable to the glory to come ;” because the afflictions are short, the +e futuram
glory is eternal ; the afflictions small and few in comparison, the glory s. oe

great and abundant above measure. hs

Fulke. Although an invincible argument against merits Fuuxe, 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. ]

[2 Λογίζομαι yap ὅτι οὐκ ἄξια τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ πρὸς τὴν μέλ-
λουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς, Rom. viii. 18. “And I deem that
the passions of this time,” &c., Wiclif. “For I suppose that the afflic-
tions of this life,’ Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539. “ For I confirm that
the afflictions of this life,” Geneva testament, 1557. “For I count
that the afflictions of this present time,’ Geneva bible, 1560. “ For I
think that the passions of this time are not condign to the glory to come,”
Rheims, 1582. “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are
not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in
us,” Authorised version, 1611. |

944 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

word “1 suppose” doth signify, when a-‘man may be deceived
in his supposal; but he avoucheth it constantly, as a thing,
which being well considered, with the reasons thereof, he
concludeth of it with certainty. And so doth 'λογίζομαι
signify in this place, and in divers other, by the judgment
of better Grecians than Gregory Martin will be these seven
years ; as Rom. ii. 28, where the apostle, having discussed the
controversy of justification by faith or works, concludeth, as
of a certain, λογιζόμεθα οὖν, “we determine therefore, that
a man is justified by faith without the works of the law.”
Likewise, Rom. vi. 11, after he hath proved, that sanctification
is necessary to all them that shall or have put on the justice
of Christ, he saith with great asseveration unto the Romans,
λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς, “Make you full account therefore, that
you are dead to sin;” and not uncertainly think or suppose
it so to be. Therefore for the translation of λογίζομαι,
in this place, we will accept no pardon of you; it is better
translated than your wit or learning serveth you to under-
stand. Now let us come to the other words, ἄξια πρὸς
τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν, “are not worthy of the glory.” Where

. you say, it should be “not equal,” “correspondent,” or “ com-

Martin, 2,

parable,” to the glory. Verily, those words we use have none
other sense in this place, than the words which you supply us
withal; but our words do express the most usual significa-
tion of the Greek word ἄξια, even as your vulgar Latin
doth, calling it in the same sense condigne, which you in
your own translation dare not render “equal,” “correspondent,”
or “comparable,” but “condign” ; lest following the sense, you
might be accused to forsake the word: even so we think
it best, where the usual signification of the word will bear
the sense in our English, to retain the same, and not to
change it.

Martin. This is the Greek phrase and the apostle’s meaning, which
we need not greatly to proye, 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: Statwo minime esse paria que presenti
tempore perpetimur, future glori@ nobis revelande: that is, “I am of this

Ix, | 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 ἄξια.
of such things as, being poised or weighed, are found of one weight.”
Thus far Beza’.

Fulke. We contend not, as it seemeth, at this time Funxe, 2.
about the meaning of the place, but about the true translation
of the words. If you can prove therefore, that the Greek
word ἄξιος doth not signify “worthy,” or that this English
word “worthy” cannot express the meaning of the apostle in
this text, your accusation is just; but if you can prove neither
of both, you multiply words, as your manner is, without
matter, to no purpose but to weary the reader. And wisely
you translate Beza’s Latin word statuo, “1 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, Prov. iii. [15,
yet not the English. And if it might, yet obscurely, and ambiguously : : Baek αὐ-
and if it might, yet here they do falsely translate so, because here the 1715:
Greek phrase is otherwise, and therefore should otherwise be Englished.
For it is not ἄξια τῆς δόξης, which is as they translate, “worthy of the
glory ;” but ἄξια πρὸς τὴν δόξαν, which cannot be so translated. For
if it might, then these Greek phrases were all one, and might be used
indifferently. And then I must desire them to turn me this into Greek,
“He is not worthy of thanks:” and if they turn it by the apostle’s
phrase in this place, οὐκ ἄξιός ἐστι πρὸς τὴν χάριτα, to all Grecians they

[* Nov. Test. Bez, p. 189, in Rom. viii. 18.]

Fux, 3.

346 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

shall be ridiculous. And yet this is as well turned out of English into
Greek, as they have turned the other out of Greek into English.

Fulke. Verily I cannot see, nor any wise man else,
I think, what this English word “worthiness” doth signify,
but a comparison of equality in price, valour’, goodness, excel-
lency, or such like. And even in those English phrases that
you bring for example, “ good works are not worthy of hea-
ven,” the meaning is, there is not an equality of excellency in
good works and heaven ; or, good works compared to heaven
are not equal in value. And even so, “ this man is not wor-

_ thy of my favour ;” “the goodness of this man is not so great,

as the goodness of my favour ;” and so of the rest. And
where you say, “every Englishman understandeth it thus, that
they deserve not heaven, and that such a man deserveth not
this,” &c. I grant they may of worthiness gather desert, in
such as may deserve; and so may they of the comparison of
equality conclude desert in the like case. For to deserve is,
by domg 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 hfe, it followeth of necessity,
that the afflictions of this life deserve not, that is, make not
an equality of excellency with heavenly glory. But the
Greek phrase, you say, is otherwise; for ἄξια is not joined
with a genitive case, but with an accusative and a preposition.
Indeed this latter construction of ἄξιος is not so usual, and
doth more fully set forth the comparison; but the same also
is set forth by the genitive case, as you yourself cannot deny.
Now our English phrase would not bear that we should say,
“worthy to the glory;” and therefore we said, “worthy of the
glory.” But if that were good, you say, the “ Greek phrases
were all one, and might be used indifferently.” I see no great
difference between the Greek phrases; and yet it followeth
not that they may be used indifferently. For unusual phrases
are not to be used as indifferently as common phrases. And
therefore your example, of turning English into Greek, is not
all one with turning Greek into English. If I translate out

[? Valour: value.]

1x. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 347

of Greek into English, I must observe the English phrase as
near as I can; and so, if I translate into Greek, must I have
respect to the usual Greek phrase. And to speak of your
ridiculous translation out of English into Greek ; I think he
that should say ἄξιος χάριτος, for “worthy of thanks,” should
deserve no great commendation: but he that should say,
ἄξιος πρὸς τὴν χάριν τοῦ βασιλέως, for “worthy of the
king’s favour,” though it be no usual phrase, I see not why he
should be ridiculous. And if you should translate these
words into English, Νέρων οὐκ ἄξιος ἣν πρὸς τὴν βασιλείαν,
would you not, or might you not, translate it thus, ‘“ Nero
was not worthy of the kingdom”? Therefore we have not
done amiss to translate “ worthy of the glory.”

Martin. Marry, if they would express a comparison of equality or Martin, 4.
inequality between thing and thing, then this is the proper Greek phrase
thereof, and much more proper for this purpose, than by ἄξιος and a
genitive case. Which notwithstanding is often so used in scriptures by The Greek
way of comparison, as Prov. iii., concerning the praise of wisdom: where ee § ep ate
St Augustine, to express the comparison, readeth thus: Omne pretiosum ΜΕΝ py μιον
non est ili dignum; and St Hierome, according to the Hebrew, thus: οὐκ ἄξιον
Omnia que desiderantur non valent huic comparari, or adequari; and αὑτῇ" es ‘
Eccles. xxvi. we have the very like speech proceeding of the said Greek 3
word ἄξιος, Omnis ponderatio non est digna continentis anime. Which OSD
the English bibles thus, “ There is no weight to be compared unto a so

mind that can rule itself, or, with a continent. mind.” mae

Fulke. You cannot use the word ἄξιος but it will in- Furse, 4.

clude a comparison, whether it be with a genitive case, as
in the examples you bring, or with an accusative, as in this
text of St Paul. And even so the English word, “ worthy,”
doth comprehend an equality in good or evil. Wherefore
the sense is all one, whether you say in this text “ equal,”
or “worthy,” but that the usual signification of ἄξιος is
“worthy,” as no man will deny that is not past all shame.

Martin. And if ἄξιος with a genitive case signify a comparison, Martin, 5.
and themselves so translate it in all their bibles, should not ἄξιος in the ἄξια πρὸς
apostle’s phrase much more be so translated? I appeal to their own 7” δόξαν.
consciences. Again, if here in Ecclesiasticus they say not according to
the Greek words, “There is no weight worthy of a continent mind,” ἀξίιος éy-
because they would by an English phrase express the comparison ; is set
it not more than evident, that when they translate the apostle by the
very same words, “worthy of the glory,” &c. they know it cannot, and
they mean it should not, signify a comparison? I cannot sufficiently

Futkx, 5.

Marty, 6.

How good
works merit
life everlast-
ing, though
one ape
parably ex-
ceed the
other.

348 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

express, but only to the learned and skilful reader, their partial and
heretical. dealing. Briefly I say, they translate οὐκ ἄξιος ἐγκρατοῦς
ψυχῆς, “Not to be compared with a continent mind,” being in Greek,
word for word, “not worthy of a continent mind ;” and ¢ontrariwise
they translate in St Paul, οὐκ ἄξια πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν, “Not
worthy of the glory to come,” being in the Greek, “ Not to be com-
pared to the glory to come ;” according to the very like Latin phrase by
dignus, Eccl. vi., Amico fideli nulla est comparatio, et non est digna pon-
deratio auri et argenti contra bonitatem fidei ; that is, according to their
own translation, “A faithful friend hath no peer: weight of gold and
silver is not to be compared to the goodness of his faith.”

Fulke. If the English word “ worthy” did not signify
a comparison, as well as the Greek word ἄξιος, it were some-
what that you say; but seeing one signifieth as much as the
other, there is no more savour in your disputation than in an
egg without salt. When we say there is no weight of gold
to be compared “to a continent mind,” it is all one as if we
said, “ worthy of a continent mind ;” for we meant, to be com-
pared in goodness, price, excellency, &c. And therefore you
speak out of measure falsely and impudently, when you say,
we mean not that the word “worthy” in this text of St Paul
should signify a comparison, for it is not possible that it
should signify otherwise. Doth not the Geneva note in the
margin say, “or of like value”? If you be so blind that you
cannot see a comparison in the word “ worthy,” at the least
shore up your eyes, and behold it in those words, “ of like
or equal value.” For all comparison is either in quantity or
quality. And where you say that you cannot express your
conceit, “ but only to the learned,” there is none so meanly
learned, but they may well laugh at your foolish and un-
learned trifling.

Martin. Now if they will say, though their translation of St Paul’s
words be not so exact and commodious, yet the sense and meaning is
all one; (for if these present afflictions be not equal or comparable to
the glory to come, then neither are they worthy of it, nor can de-
serve or merit it ;) let the christian reader mark the difference. First,
their Beza and Calvin telleth them, that the apostle speaketh of the
one, and not of the other. Secondly, the passions and afflictions that
Christ our Saviour suffered all his life, were not comparable to the
eternal glory which he obtained thereby: yet did he thereby deserve
and merit eternal glory, not only for himself, but for all the world ;
yea, by the least affliction he suffered did he deserve all this :—unless

1x. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 349

you will deny also that he merited and deserved his glory, which your

opinion a man might very well gather by some of your false translations, Heb. 8.0.
but that you would think us too suspicious, which, perhaps, we will Testament
examine hereafter. Thirdly, the present pleasure of advoutry during 3560. ad Bib-
a man’s life is not comparable to the eternal torments of hell fire; ae

and yet it doth merit and deserve the same. Fourthly, the apostle by

making an incomparable difference of the glory to come with the afflic-

tions of this time, doth, as St Chrysostom saith, exhort them the more προτρέπει
vehemently and move them to sustain all things the more willingly : μειζόνως.
but if he said, as they translate, “The afflictions are not worthy of

heaven, you are never the nearer heaven for them, only believe ;” this

had not been to exhort them, but to discourage them. Fifthly, the

apostle, when he will elsewhere encourage them to suffer, saith plainly,

“Our tribulation which presently is for a moment and light, worketh 2Cor.iv. 17.
above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in us'.” Pde Snip

: ζεται.
Fulke. We say our translation, both in word and sense, ΕὟτΚΕ, 6.
is the same in English that St Paul did write in Greek. As
for the argument against “ merit” or “desert,” which doth
follow thereof, we affirm that it is as necessarily gathered of
the words “ equal,” or “ comparable,” or “correspondent,” as
of the word “worthy.” But to overthrow this argument, you
have five reasons. The first is of the authority of Beza and
Calvin, which, you say, “telleth us, that the apostle speaketh
of the one, and not of the other.” To this I answer, that they
both affirm the consequence against merits out of this text,
although it be not the apostle’s direct purpose to abase the
merit of works by comparison of the excellency of the glory.
To your second argument I answer, that though “the afflictions
that Christ our Saviour suffered were not comparable” in
respect of the length of time “ with the eternal glory that he
obtained thereby ;” yet in respect of the excellency of his
person, and the perfection of his obedience, they were com-
parable, and of equal value to deserve eternal glory, according
to the justice of God, by which one man’s disobedience was
sufficient to eternal condemnation, Romans vy. What the
least of his afflictions, separated from all the rest, was in
value, I have not learned out of the scripture: only I think,

Γ᾽ Τὸ yap παραυτίκα ἐλαφρὸν τῆς θλίψεως ἡμῶν καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν
εἰς ὑπερβολὴν αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης κατεργάζεται ἡμῖν, 2 Cor. iy. 17.
Κατεργάζεται. “Operatur,” Vulg. ‘“ Worketh,” Wiclif’s, Rhemish,
Authorised version. ‘ Prepareth,” Tyndale’s, Cranmer’s, Bishops’ bible.
“Causeth,” Geneva Test. 1557. ]

Martin, 7.

350 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cx.

he suffered nothing superfluously, nor less than was needful to
answer the justice of God. Your other fond surmises I omit,
until you express them. To your third argument I say, that
one act of adultery is worthy of damnation, and deserveth
eternal torment, not by comparison of the short pleasure with
infinite pain, but because it is a sin committed against the
majesty of the eternal God, and therefore is worthy of eternal
punishment. For the sin is to be measured after the excel-
lency of the person against whom it is committed. Therefore
that word, which being spoken against a poor man is a light
fault, as to say he is a knave, the same being spoken against
a lord is an heinous offence and deserveth the pillory ; but
being spoken against a king, is high treason, and is worthy
of death. Seeing therefore the eternal majesty of God is
contemned in every sin, that sin doth justly deserve eternal
torments. Fourthly, it is true that the apostle doth exhort
us cheerfully to abide the small and momentary afflictions of
this life, in respect that they shall be rewarded with incom-
parable glory. But hereof it followeth not, that the glory is
deserved by short and small sufferings, but is given of the
bountiful liberality of God to them that for his sake patiently
suffer such small afflictions. Therefore, if it be an encourage-
ment for a man to labour, to hear that he shall be paid his
hire, as much as his work deserveth, it is a much greater
encouragement for him to hear, that he shall receive a
thousand times more than his labour deserveth. The words
you add (‘“ you are never the nearer heaven, only believe ”)
are yours, and none of ours; for we say with the apostle,
“we must suffer with Christ, if we will reign with him;” and
the patient suffering of the faithful is nothing repugnant to the
justification before God by faith only. To the last argument
of the apostle’s authority, I answer: our patient suffering
worketh infinite weight of glory, not by the worthiness,
merit, or desert of our suffering, but by the bountiful libe-
rality of God, who hath promised so incomparable reward
to small tribulation suffered for his sake. Wherefore, all
your fine reasons notwithstanding, our translation is sound
and true.

Martin. See you not a comparison between short and eternal, light
tribulation and exceeding weighty glory’; and yet that one also “worketh”

Ix. ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 351

the other, that is, causeth, purchaseth, and deserveth the other? For,
like as the little seed, being not comparable to the great tree, yet causeth
it and bringeth it forth; so our tribulations and good works, other- See this |)

wise incomparable to eternal glory, by the virtue of God’s grace work- 2 Cor. vit. οις
ing in us “worketh,” “purchaseth,” and “causeth” the said glory. For so themselves
Tansle >

they know very well the Greek word importeth ; though here also they “causeth”,
translate it most falsely. Bib. an. 1577. vie

Fulke. We see the comparison well, but we see not Fuuxs,7.
that “worketh” or “ causeth” is all one with “ purchaseth”
and “deserveth.” Your comparison of “seed,” and “tribu-
lation,” is not like. For in the seed is the formal cause of
the great tree: so is not the formal cause of eternal glory in
our tribulation. But as if an emperor for one day’s valiant
service in war do give unto his son one of his kingdoms, we
may truly say, that day’s service wrought him this great
reward, or caused him to be advanced to this kingdom; but
we cannot say truly, it purchased or deserved a kingdom;
for then every one that served as well as he deserved the
like reward: so is the reward of eternal life, which is the
gift of God, incomparably greater than our tribulation, not by ©
the desert of the sufferer, but by liberality of the giver. That
translation that useth the word of “ preparing,” is not so
proper, according to the word; but it differeth not much in
sense, shewing how those afflictions do work, or cause, namely,
by preparing and making us conformable to the sufferings of
Christ.

Martin. Lastly, for most manifest evidence, that these present tri- Marrrn, 8.
bulations and other good works are meritorious and worthy of the joys
to come, though not comparable to the same; you shall hear the holy
doctors say both in one passage or sentence. St Cyprian thus: “O Ep. 56. num,
what manner of day shall come, my brethren, when our Lord shall aun aie
recount the merits of every one, and pay us the reward or stipend of
faith and devotion?”! Ep. lvi. Here are “merits” and “reward” for the

[ΠΟ dies ille qualis et quantus adveniet, fratres dilectissimi, cum
ceeperit populum suum Dominus recensere, et divine cognitionis ex-
amine singulorum merita recognoscere, mittere in gehennam nocentes,
et persecutores nostros flamme pcenalis perpetuo ardore damnare, nobis
vero mercedem fidei et devotionis exsolvere! Que erit gloria, et quanta
letitia, admitti, ut Deum videas; honorari, ut cum Christo Domino Deo
tuo salutis ac lucis eterne gaudium capias! Abraham, et Isaac, et
Jacob, et Patriarchas omnes, et Prophetas, et Apostolos, et Martyres

ΕσΤΚΕ, 8.

352 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ou: »

same. It followeth in the said doctor: “ Whai glory shall it be, and how
great joy, to be admitted to see God, so to be honoured that thou
receive the joy of eternal life with Christ thy Lord God, to receive
there that which neither eye hath seen, nor ear hath heard, nor hath
ascended into the heart of man! for that we shall receive greater things
than here either we do or suffer, the apostle pronounceth, saying,
‘The passions of this time are not condign or comparable to the glory
to come.’” Here we see, that the “stipend” or “reward” of the merits
aforesaid are incomparably greater than the said merits.

Fulke. For lack of scriptures you fly to the doctors to
find “merits ;” in whom nevertheless, being catholic and sound
doctors, you shall sooner find the word meritum than your ~
meaning of it. The place of Cyprian I marvel why you
geld, except it be to join the reward that he speaketh of with
the word “merits;” which he useth, either generally for
works, as it is often used in the ancient writers; or if he
mean thereby “deserts,” he speaketh but of examination only
of all men’s deserts, that he may give to the wicked that
they have deserved, and to the godly that which he hath
promised : therefore he calleth it the reward of their faith and
devotion. His words are these: ‘“ O dies ille qualis et
quantus adventet, fratres dilectissimi, cum caeperit populum
suum Dominus recensere, et divine cognitionis examine sin-
gulorum meritum recognoscere, mittere in gehennam nocentes,
et persecutores nostros flamme penalis perpetuo ardore
damnare, nobis vero mercedem fidet et devotionis exsolvere.”
“0 that day, what manner a one, and how great shall it come,
my dearest beloved brethren, when the Lord shall begin to
recount his people, and by examination of his divine know-
ledge consider the merits of every one, to send into hell fire
the guilty, and to condemn our persecutors with perpetual
burning of penal flame; but unto us to pay the reward of
faith and devotion!” The reward of faith is not that which
belief deserveth, but which it looketh for according to God’s

salutare ; cum justis et Dei amicis in regno ccelorum date immortalitatis
voluptate gaudere ; sumere illic quod nec oculus vidit, nec auris audivit,
nec in cor hominis ascendit! majora enim nos accipere, quam quod
hic aut operamur aut patimur, Apostolus predicat, dicens: Non sunt
condigne passiones hujus temporis ad superventuram claritatem, que
revelabitur in nobis. Cypriani Epist. lvi. p. 96. Opera, ed. Rigalt.
1656.]

1x.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE: 353

promise, whereunto it leaneth. For in respect of desert of

God’s favour, he saith, and bringeth divers texts for proof:

idem tantum prodesse, et tantwm nos posse quantum credi- Ad Quirin,
mus'; “That faith only doth profit, and that so much we can
do, how much we believe.” Wherefore we see not in Cyprian

. the incomparable glory to be a reward of deserts.

Martin. Likewise St Augustine: “The exceeding goodness of God Marrry, 9.
hath provided this, that the labours shall soon be ended, but the rewards ser. 37. de
of the merits should endure without end; the apostle testifying, ‘the ΣΝ taastl
passions of this time are not ofuphenbhes! &e. For we shall receive ‘°°
greater bliss, than are the afflictions of all passions whatsoever.” Thus
we see plainly, that short tribulations are true merits of endless glory,
though not comparable to the same: which truth you impugn by your
false and heretical translation. But let us see further your dealing in the
selfsame controversy, to make it plainer, that you bend your translations
against it, more than the text of the scripture doth permit you.

Fulke. A man may see you are driven to extreme Funke, 9.
shifts, when you will seek pramia meritorum in St Augus-
tine, and can find it nowhere, but among the sermones de
sanctis, which bear no credit of Augustine’s works, but of
some later gatherer. The true Augustine in Ps. lxx. Con. 1,*
thus writeth: Nihil es per te, Deum invoca; tua peccata
sunt, merita Dei sunt; supplicium tibi debetur, et cum
premium venerit, sua dona coronabit, non merita tua.
“Thou art nothing by thyself, call upon God; thine are the
sins, the merits are God’s; to thee punishment is due, and
when the reward shall come, he will crown his gifts, not
thy merits.” Finally, Augustine in nothing is more earnest
than in denying the reward which is of grace, to be due
in respect of merit or worthiness of works.

Martin. In the book of Wisdom, where there is honourable mention Marti, .
of the merits of saints and their rewards in heaven, you. translate the *¥
holy scripture thus: “God hath proved them, and findeth them meet

[? Fidem tantum prodesse: for which reading Rigaltius, p. 273, has,
fidem in totum prodesse, and says upon it, “ pro eo quod corruptissime et
suspectissime Erasmici omnes, fidem tantum prodesse.” It does not how-
ever appear, that the reading of Rigaltius rests upon any thing more
authoritative than the reading of Manutius, Fidem in totum. Edit.
Oxoniz, 1682, p. 77. ]

Γ᾿ Augustini Enarrat. in Psalm. Ixx.-Opera, Vol. rv.-p. 1058.]

[FuLKE. | nie

ἀξίους éav-
τοῦ.

Dignos se.
ἐπείρασεν.
εὗρεν.

Fuke,
10.

Martin,
a1.

ἀξίους éav-
τοῦ.

Condigne δὰ
gloriam.

Dignos se.

Merit of goes
works plainly
proved by the
scriptures,

954 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH . [σης

for himself.” To omit here that you use the present tense, whereas in
the Greek they are preter tenses, (God knoweth why; only this we know,
that it is no true nor sincere translation,) but to wink at smaller faults,
why say you here in all your bibles, that God findeth his saints and holy
servants ‘meet for himself,” and not “worthy of himself?” See your
partiality, and be ashamed.

Fulke. The book of Wisdom, written by Philo the Jew,
as St Jerome thinketh', is no holy canonical scripture, to
confirm the credit of any article of belief. Therefore, whether
he thought that men’s merits were worthy of the favour and
grace of God, and the reward of eternal life, or no, it is not
material. But somewhat it is that you say, that our transla-
tors for ἄξιος have not translated “worthy,” but “meet.” For
my part, I wish they had retained the usual signification of
that word, and said “worthy of himself,” only to take away.
your cavil. For otherwise in the sense there is no difference :
if that he saith be true, none is meet for God, but they that
are worthy of him, which are not meet or worthy of them-
selves, but made such by grace, not for merit of their works,
but by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them by faith.
This if the wise man meaneth not, but that their virtues
were such as deserved God’s favour and eternal life, we may
boldly’ reject him as going against the wisdom of God re-
vealed in the canonical scriptures.

Martin. In the apostle’s places before examined you said negatively,
that the afflictions of this time were “ not worthy of” the glory to come,
the Greek not bearing that translation; but here, when you should say
affirmatively, and that word for word after the Greek, that God found
them “ worthy of himself,” there you say, “meet for himself,” avoiding
the term “worthy,” because merit is included therein. So that when
you will in your translation deny merits, then condigne ad signifieth
“worthy of :” when you should in your translation affirm “merits,” then
dignus with an ablative case doth not signify “worthy of.” No marvel
if such willfalness will not see the word “merit,” or that which is
equivalent thereto, in all the scripture. For when you do see it, and
should translate it, you suppress it by another word. But this is a case
worthy of examination, whether the scriptures have the word “ merit,”
or the equivalent thereof. For we will force them, even by their own
translations, to confess that it is found there, and that they should trans-

[* Unde et in Sapientia, que Salomonis inscribitur, (si cui tamen.
placet librum recipere,) scriptum reperimus. Hieronymi Comment. in
Zach, xii. Opera, Vol. m1. pp. 1788, 1784. ]

ἀκ ‘TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. B55

-late it accordingly often when they do not ; yea, that if we did not see it
‘in the vulgar Latin translation, yet they must needs see it and find it in
the Greek.

Fulke. In the canonical scripture, it seemeth, the trans- Futxe,
lators had a religious care, to keep both the property of i
‘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 sueceed 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 Martin,
afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glory to come,” they mean μη
: ἄξια.
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 ἄξιος τοῦ
worthy of his hire or wages,” what is meant, but that he deserveth his yeh

ignus mer-
wages? And more plainly, Tob. ix., they translate thus: “Brother cede sua.

Azarias, if I should give myself to be thy servant, I shall not deserve aignus 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 ἀξὶός

“ deserveth to receive?” For so I trust they will allow us to say of our 77”
Saviour, that he indeed deserved. Again, of the damned, thus: “Thou Rev. xvi.
hast given them blood to drink, for they are worthy,” or, “they have Bret yap
deserved:” is it not all one? Lastly, of the elect, thus: “They shall walk nag

can

ὅτι ἀξιοί
εἰσιν.
Digni‘sunt.
ἀξίους éav-
TOU,

Dignos se.

Fuk,
12.

δ. “A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

with me in white, because they are worthy,” Apoc. iii., that is, because

“they deserve it.” And so in the place before by them corrupted, “God

found them worthy of him ;” that is, such as “deserved” to be with him
in eternal glory.. Thus by their own translation of ἄξιος, and dignus,
are plainly deduced, “ worthiness,” “desert,” and “merit” of saints, out
of the scriptures.

Fulke. Your first foundation is false; therefore all your
building falleth 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 thing 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 English, 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 we 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

ΧΙ 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 Martin,
the scriptures, thus. Themselves translate thus, Heb. x. 29. “ Of
how much sorer punishment shall he be worthy, which treadeth under ἀξιωθῆναι,
foot the Son of God ?” though one of their bibles, of the year 1562, very ἀξιωθῆ.
falsely and corruptly leaveth out the words “worthy of,” saying thus, ναι, signify
“ How much sorer shall he be punished,” &c.1 Fearing no doubt, by seat χεί-
translating the Greek word sincerely, this consequence that now I shall poves ἀξιω-
infer, to wit, If the Greek word here, by their own translation, signify iakplee
“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.,? “ Watch therefore, ἵνα κατ-
all times praying, that you may be worthy to stand before the Son of αξιωθῆτε

σταθῆναι-

man,” and chap. χχ. ἢ “ They that are worthy to attain to that world, and οἱ καταξι-
θέντες.
εἰς τὸ κατα
[2 Πόσῳ δοκεῖτε xsipovos ἀξιωθήσεται τιμωρίας ὁ τὸν υἱὸν. τοῦ Θεοῦ αξιωθῆναι
ὑμᾶς τῆς

καταπατήσας, καὶ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης κοινὸν ὑλμείμς ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη, βασιλείας
.

καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος ἐνυβρίσας ; Heb. x. 29. “How ἐν 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. |

[ἢ ἵνα καταξιωθῆτε ἐκφυγεῖν ταῦτα πάντα τὰ μέλλοντα γίνεσθαι, Luke
xxi. 36. “'That ye may obtain grace,” Tyndale, Geneva. “ Accounted
worthy,” Rheims, Bishops’ bible, Authorised version. |

ἮΝ Οἱ δὲ καταξιωθέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως
τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε ἐκγαμίσκονται, Luke xx. 35. “Counted
worthy,” Cranmer, Geneva, Rheims. “ Made worthy,” Tyndale, “ Ac-
counted worthy, | Authorised version. |

Fuixe,
13.

358 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ἡ [cu.

to the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are married,” and
2 Thess. i.,! “ That you may be worthy of the kingdom of God, for which
also ye suffer.”

Fulke. You think to have great advantage at our trans-
lation of the word ἀξιωθήσεται, 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

Qui digni
habebuntur.
Ut digni ha-
beamini.

Martin,
14,

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., καταξιωθέντες, “they that shall be counted
worthy to attain to that world;” and Luke xxi. wa κατα
ξιωθῆτε, “that you may be counted worthy,” and 2 Thess, i.
καταξιωθῆναι, “that you may be counted worthy.” And so
the word doth signify in other places, without controversy ;
as Luke vii. the centurion said, οὐδὲ ἐμαυτὸν ἠξίωσα, “1
accounted not myself worthy,” and 1 Tim. v. “The elders
that govern well,” ἀξιούσθωσαν, “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. 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 indeed. 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.

1 . ie cal “ ~ -“

[᾿ ἔνδειγμα. τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς
Ὰ 4 a ΡΨ ἔτὺν
τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὑπὲρ ἧς καὶ πάσχετε, 2 Thess. i: 5.]

‘os aa

Ix.] 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 Fouxe, '
that word in any place, wheresoever it is read; even as “Ap
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 Marri,
in deed worthy ; are they not? But by your own translation of the same
word in the active voice, God doth make them worthy. Therefore in the dar ti.
passive voice it must also signify “to be made,” or “to be in deed worthy.” deimBjvat
For example, 2 Thess. i. 11, you translate thus, “ We also pray for tobe made,’
you, that our God may make you worthy of this calling.” According worthy.
to which translation, why did you not also in the selfsame chapter, a a tn ie
little before, translate thus, “That you may be made worthy (and so κλήσεως.
be worthy) of the kingdom of God, for which also you suffer?” You τε ἐν ἢ rs
know the case is like in both places, and in the Greek doctors you spe- ὑμᾶς πῆς '
. βασιλείας.

[? εἰς ὃ καὶ προσευχόμεθα πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ἀξιώσῃ τῆς
κλήσεως ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, 2 Thess. i. 11. “ Make you worthy of this call-
ing,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops’ bible, Geneva, ὦ a you worthy,”
Authorised version. |

360 A. DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ἴσα.

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
ἀξιῶσαι. word, both actively and passively, “to make worthy,” and “to be made,”
ἀξιωθῆναι. or to be worthy.” See the Greek Liturgies.

7 ἴλας, Fulke. They must needs be worthy, whom God maketh

a 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 calling’; although the clearer
translation had been, “that God may account you worthy,”
as the vulgar Latin hath, wt dignetur. For dignor is not
“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
16. thus in other words, “That he make us worthy of the kingdom of
ἵνα ἡμᾶε heaven.” Ser. i. de orando Deo’. And upon the epistle to Titus iii. in
ἀξίους :
ἀπεργάση- the same sense passively, “God grant we may all be made worthy (or be
ταιτῆς worthy) of the good things promised to them that love him®.” And in
Seng another place of the said doctor it must needs signify, to be worthy, as
when he saith, in Col. i., “ No man liveth such a trade of life, that he is
ὥστε βασι- worthy of the kingdom, but all is his gift*”” For to say thus, “No man

nen ἀξιω- <9 liveth that he can be counted.worthy of the kingdom of heaven,” is

[2 Ταῦτα δεῖ πάντα φοβουμένους ἡμᾶς, προσευχαῖς καὶ ὕμνοις del
τειχίζειν ἑαυτοὺς, ἵνα πάντας 6 Θεὸς ἐλεήσας ἀξίους ἀπεργάσηται τῆς
τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείας διὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ υἱοῦ. Chrysost. de
Oratione, Sermo i. Opera, edit. Saville, Vol. νι. p. 758.]

[? Ἀλλὰ μὴ γένοιτο ταῦτα περὶ ἡμῶν εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ γένοιτο πάντας ἡμᾶς
ἀξιωθῆναι τῶν ἐπηγγελμένων ἀγαθῶν τοῖς ἠγαπηκόσιν αὐτὸν ἐν Χριστᾷ
Ἰησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν. Chrysost. Homil. in Titum iii. Opera, Vol. 1v.
Ῥ. 405. |

[® Διὰ τί κλῆρον καλεῖ ; δεικνὺς ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἀπὸ κατορθωμάτων οἰκείων
βασιλείας τυγχάνει" ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ὁ κλῆρος ἐπιτυχίας μᾶλλόν ἐστιν, οὕτω
δη καὶ ἐνταῦθα. οὐδεὶς γὰρ τοιαύτην ἐπιδείκνυται πολιτείαν dare βασιλείας
ἀξιωθῆναι, ἀλλὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ δωρεᾶς ἐστι τὸ πᾶν. Chrysost. Hom. in Epist.
Coloss, i, 12. Opera, Vol. rv. p. 98.]

1χ. 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 ἀπὸ κατορ-
‘obtaineth the kingdom of heaven,” that is, as his own, and of himself, rire
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 Furxs,
whit out of doubt for your side. For he doth not expound 16
this text of 2 Thess. 1., 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 ἀξιωθῆναι
in his prayer upon the 8rd 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. 1.,
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,
ἀξιωθῆναι without any inconvenience may signify in this
place, “to be accounted worthy.” 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
ἀξιωθῆναι signifieth “to be made worthy by merit,” and not
by mere mercy.

Martin,
17.

? ’
οὐκ εἰμὶ
ἱκανός.

τῷ ἱκανώ-
σαντι
ὑμᾶς εἰς

σὴν μερίδα.

Col, i. 12.

ς

Annot. in 3.
Matt. no.
‘Vest. 1556.

Idonevm di-
cere malui.

FuLKE,
17.

362 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cx.

_ Martin. The Greek word ἱκανὸς, I pray you, what doth it signify?
You must answer that it signifieth not only “ meet,” but also “ worthy.”
For so Beza teacheth you, and so you translate, Matt. iii. 11, and viii.
and 1 Cor. xv. 9.1 “1 am not worthy,” in all three places. And why, I
pray you, did you not likewise follow the old Latin interpreter one step
further, saying, ‘ Giving thanks to God the Father, that hath made us
worthy,” but translating rather thus, “ Which hath made us meet to be
partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light?” Here was the place
where you should have shewed your sincerity, and have said that God
maketh us worthy of heavenly bliss ; because you know, if ἱκανὸς be —
“worthy,” then ἱκανῶσαι is “to make worthy.” But you are like to
Beza your master, who (as though all interpretation of words were at
his commandment) saith, “Here and here, and so forth, I have followed
the old Latin interpreter, translating it ‘ worthy ;’ but in such and such
a place, (meaning this for one,) I choose rather to say, ‘meet.’” But
that both he and you should 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 erow upon your own
dunghill, otherwise in your translations shewing small skill, or great
malice.

Fulke. If yoube not able to draw merit out of the word
ἄξιος, which properly signifieth “worthy ;” you shall have
somewhat ado to wring it out of the word ἱκανὸς, which
properly signifieth “apt,” or ‘“ meet,” and sometime ‘‘suf-
ficient ;” accordig to which later signification Beza in three
places translateth dignus, because suficiens is no Latin
word in that sense to be used. But now you ask, why
we went not a step further, to translate τῷ ἱκανώσαντι,
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-

[2 οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι, Matt. iii, 11. Κύριε, οὐκ
εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς, Matt. viii. 8. ὃς οὐκ,
εἰμὶ ixavds καλεῖσθαι ἀπόστολος, 1 Cor. xv. 9. “That am not meet.
to be called an apostle,” Geneva Testament, 1557, 1560, Authorised
version. | ἘΠῚ ,

[* Old editions, best. ]

4

1χ.7 TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 363

tion, when the sense of the place requireth it. Thirdly,
when a verb is derived of a noun that hath divers sig-
nifications, it signifieth most commonly after the most usual
signification: as ἄξιος sometime signifieth “cheap,” we must
not thereof conclude, that ἀξιόω signifieth “to make cheap.”
So ἱκανὸς signifieth sometime “great,” or “much: you
may as well say, that ixavow signifieth “to ihagnity “to
make great,” or “to multiply ;” which none but a madman
would say: and yet you think you have made a great argu-
ment, when you say, if ἱκανὸς be “worthy,” then ἱκανῶσαι
is “to make worthy.” It remaineth therefore, that seemg
the most usual signification of ἱκανὸς is “apt,” or “ meet,”
the true and best signification of ixavow is “to make apt,”
or “ meet ;” which we have followed in our translation. But
if you will still contend that ἱκανὸς is all one with ἄξιος, then
you must tell us, as you require us often, whether ἱκανὸς πρὸς
τὸν θάνατον be as good Greek as ἄξιος τοῦ θανάτου, if
you would say, “worthy of death.” Beza therefore followeth
not his pleasure, where he chooseth to say for ἱκανὸν, ido-
neum; but the nature of the word, and the usual signification
thereof, compared with the sense of the place. And if we
should follow your vulgar Latin translation, and say, that “God

hath made us worthy to be partakers of the inheritance οὗ

the saints in light,” you are never the near for your “merits.”
For God maketh us worthy by his grace, and by the righte-
ousness and holiness of Christ, which is imputed to us being
incorporated to him, and made lively members of his mystical

body. How vainly you charge the translators with bragging,

unskilfulness, and malice, they that are learned can judge, and,

God will one day revenge it.

Martin. The Greek fathers, I say, interpret the apostle’s word here
thus, κατηξίωσεν ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἐχαρίσατο ἡμᾶς ἱκανοὺς γενέσθαι, that is, “hath
made us worthy, and given us the grace to be worthy*®.” And. St Basil
in Orat. Liturg. making both Greek words all one, saith, “Thou hast
made us worthy to.be ministers of thy holy altar*” And anon after,

3 9 5 , eA: 8 \ - ς , , 6 , Oe) ? ξ
[5 ὅτι, φησὶ, κατηξίωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ τῶν ὁμοίων παθημάτων τοῦ κλήροῦ
cel , a \ , toa
καὶ τῆς μερίδος τῶν ἁγίων, καὶ ἐχαρίσατο ἱκανοὺς ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι εἴς τε τὸ

πάσχειν, εἴς τε τῶν ἁγίων κλῆρον. (Ecum. Comment. in Epist. ad Col.

hag ἘΝ p. 119. ]

ah Ἐὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, Δέσποτα φιλάνθρωπε, εὐεργέτα τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν,

ὁ καὶ ὡς ἐν τῇ παρούσῃ σήμερον ἡμέρᾳ καταξιώσας ἡμᾶς τῶν ἐπουρανίων

Martin,

18.

“eum. in

Caten.

; ,
κατηξίω-
‘OAs Kas.

ἱκάνωσον
ἡμᾶς.

Ho. de Cruce
et latrone.

Ut etiam il-
lius dignita-
tis gloriam
mererentur,
ἀξιῶσαι.

ἠξιῶσθαι.

ΕσΠΚΕ,
18,

964 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH: fon.

“Make us worthy for this ministry.” And St Chrysostom upon the
apostle’s place : “ God doth not only give us society with the saints, but
maketh us also worthy to receive so great dignity.” And here is a
goodly consideration of the goodness of God toward us, that ‘doth indeed
by his grace make us worthy of so great things, who otherwise are most
unworthy, vile, and abject. Which making of us worthy is expressed
by the said Greek words, more than by the Latin mereri, because it
declareth whence our merit and worthiness proceedeth, to wit, of God.
Both which St Chrysostom expresseth excellently, thus”: “ When he
brought in publicans to the kingdom of heaven, he defamed not the
kingdom of heaven, but magnified it also with great honours, shewing
that there is such a Lord of the kingdom of heaven, which hath made
even unworthy persons to be so much better, that they should deserve
even the glory of that dignity.” And Q£cumenius saith, “that it is
God’s glory to make ‘his servants worthy of such good things; and

that it is their glory to have been made worthy of such things,” in

2 Thess. i.

Fulke. Tf the Greek fathers did so interpret the apos-
tle’s words, yet your “merit” is to seek, as I have said. For

I will not contend whether God make us worthy, but whether

he make us worthy by desert of our good works, or by his
mercy and grace in the redemption of his Son. ‘But let us see
what the fathers say to the matter. First, Gicumenius’ words

are flat against you, if they be truly translated: catnfiwoev,

“he hath counted us worthy, and hath freely granted us to
be meet.” See you not, that all our worthiness and meet-
ness dependeth of his grace and free acceptation? The
liturgy intituled of Basil, although it have a much younger
author, maketh never a whit more for you. The minister

σου καὶ ἀθανάτων μυστηρίων, ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδε, ἕως εἰς τέλος. Liturgia
Basilii Magni. Opera, Vol. u. p. 974, edit. Paris, 1839. ]

[2 οὐκ εἶπε, δόντι, ἁπλῶς, GAN’ ἱκανώσαντι εἰς τὴν μερίδα τοῦ κλήρου

΄- a ,ῺὩὉὩ “ ’ δὲ fr \ “- ς
τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ φωτί" τουτέστι, τῷ κατατάξαντι ὑμᾶς μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων

ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἁπλῶς εἶπε, κατατάξαντι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀπολαῦσαι παρεσ..

χηκότι. Chrysost. Hom. in Epist. Coloss. c.i. ν. 12. Opera, Vol. rv.
p. 98. ]

2 x BS) ὃ t 4 a ” ὃ , ε ἀν λ ‘
[? Τιμὴ yap παραδείσου, τὸ τοιοῦτον ἔχειν δεσπότην, ὡς καὶ λῃστὴν
ἄξιον ποιῆσαι τῆς τρυφῆς τῆς ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ. καὶ γὰρ ὅτε τελώνας

‘ , ide: > ‘ , a > a δ 4 , a
Kal TWopvas elaonyayev εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὐκ ἀτιμάζων τουτο.

ἐποίει, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐτίμα, δεικνὺς ὅτι τοιοῦτός ἐστιν ὁ Κύριος τῆς βασι-
λείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, ὡς καὶ πόρνας καὶ τελώνας οὕτως ἐργάσασθαι δο-
κίμους, ὡς ἀξίους φανῆναι τῆς ἐκεῖσε τιμῆς καὶ δωρεᾶς. Chrysost. Homil.
in Crucem et Latronem. Opera, Vol. v. p. 570.] sb

4

1x. ] 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, Hom.

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 publican, justified only by remis- Lukexviti
sion of his sins, and of the harlot saved by faith, which Luke vii
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. 1.
“we must say we are unprofitable servants, when we have
done all that is commanded us.” But this is no place to
handle controversies of religion, but translations of the scrip-
ture. The word ἀξιῶσαι, except you bring us better evi-
dence than yet we see any, in all places where we read
it, we may translate it dignart, which is, ‘to vouchsafe,”
or “account worthy.”

Martin. 'Thus we see, how the holy scripture useth equivalent words m4 ARTIN,
to signify ‘‘merit,” which you suppress as much as you can. So 9"

Γ᾽ Τοιαῦτά ἐστι τὰ δεδομένα, φησὶν, ὡς μὴ δοῦναι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἰσχυ-
ροὺς ποιῆσαι πρὸς τὸ λαβεῖν. Chrysost. Homil. in 1. cap. Epist. ad Col.
v.12. Opera, Vol. tv. p. 98.

Τοῦτο οὖν καὶ ἐνταῦθά φησιν, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἡμῖν ἔδωκε τὴν τιμὴν,
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἰσχυροὺς πρὸς τὸ λαβεῖν ἐποίησε. Id. p. 98.

Πόθεν, φησὶν, ἅγιος γέγονας, εἰπέ μοι; πόθεν πιστὸς καλῇ; οὐχ
ὅτι διὰ τοῦ θανάτου ἡγιάσθης τοῦ SOT TORS ; οὐχ Ore εἰς Χριστὸν πιστεύεις ;
πόθεν βοελφὲ γέγονας ; οὐ γὰρ ἐν ἔργῳ, οὐδὲ ἐν λόγῳ, οὐδὲ ἐν κατορ-
θώματι πιστὸς ἐφάνης. Id, Ὁ» 90.] :

κατὰ τὰ

» ~
ἔργα αὐτοῦ
εὑρησει.

- xf

λαβεῖν αὖθ
- »
ὧν τις ἔδω-
κεν ἢ ἐποί-
noe,

e -~ J ,
εὑρεῖν ἀτέ-
λειαν.

Ecclés. xvi.
Psal. Ixi.
Rev. xxii.

κατὰ τὰ
ἔργα av-
του.

ἐξ ἔργων.

Fue,
19.

366 ‘A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu

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 εὑρέσθαι, “ 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
πρὸς Λεπτίνην will tell you the same. Now, “to receive for that which
a man hath laboured or wrought,” what doth it else presuppose, but
“merit” and “desert”? It isa common phrase of the scripture, that
“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. 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 Ecclesiasticus xvi.
“Every man shall find according to his works.” Where
you put us in mind, what our Master Budee writeth of
the proper signification of εὑρέσθαι, that is, “to deserve,”
bringing example therefore out of Demosthenes’ oration
πρὸς Λεπτίνην. But I pray you, doth our said Master
affirm this to be the only signification of that verb? Where
he bringeth you the example out of Gregory, of Saul,
which, seeking his father’s asses, βασιλείαν εὕρατο, “found
a kingdom,” doth he mean that by seeking his father’s asses
he deserved a kingdom? Again, the example he bringeth
out of St Luke, εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, “ἰδοὺ
hast found favour,” or “grace with God;” doth he under-
stand that the virgin Mary deserved the grace of God?
But you object, that “it is a common phrase of the scrip-
ture, that God will judge or reward, or repay to every
man according to his works.” It is true, but not to every
one according to his merits; for then all should be damned,
for all have deserved death; and no man should be saved,
for no man meriteth salvation. But God rendereth to the
faithful according to their works, when he freely giveth for
Christ’s sake eternal life to them, that by the perseve,

Ix. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 367

vance of good works (as the apostle saith) seek glory, ho-
nour, and incorruption. Their works therefore are the fruits
of his grace, not the “merits” or “deserts” of his grace by
which we are saved: Eph. i. 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 Marry,
“works” indifferently ; as also you may say, that you put no difference q
between “just” and “righteous,” “meet” and “worthy,” but use both
indifferently. To the ignorant this is a fair answer, and shall soon per-
suade them ; but they that see further must needs suspect you, till you
give a good reason of your doing. For the controversy being of “faith”
and “ works,” of “justice” and “justification” by works, of the “ worthi-.
ness” or value of works; why do you not precisely keep these terms
pertaining to the controversy, the Greek words being always pregnant
in that signification? Why should you once translate the Greek ἔργα,

* deeds,” rather than “ works’? You know it is properly “ works,”

as πράξεις, “deeds.” It were very good in matters of controversy to

be precise. Beza maketh it a great fault in the old vulgar Latin trans- Prefat. in no.
lator, that he expresseth one Greek word in Latin divers ways: you ek gt
chop and change significations here and there, as you list, and you think

you satisfy the reader marvellous well, if sometime you say “idol,” and

not always “images ;” sometime “just,” and not always “ righteous :”

and if in other places you say “ works,” or if one bible hath “ works,”

where another hath “deeds,” you think this is very well, and will

answer all the matter sufficiently. God and your conscience be judge

herein, and let the wise reader consider it deeply. The least thing that

we demand the reason of, rather than charge you withal, is, why your

church bible saith in the places before alleged, “The righteous judg- δικαιοκρι-
ment of God, which will reward every man according to his deeds,” σία:

and, “man is justified by deeds, and not by faith only.” Whereas you ἐξ ΝΑ
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. Τῇ you could tell us, what advantage our doc- Furxe,
trine might have by translating “deeds” rather than “works,” 7
9 y 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
the translators meant no subtilty ; especially when in places

Martin,
21.

2, Epist. v. 8.

ἃ elpyd-
σασθε.
ἐργάσασ-
θαι τὸν
βίον.
ἐργάζεσθε
τὴν βρῶ-

* ἐργάτης.
Luke x.

FurxE,
‘21.

368 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu

of like appearance for our assertion they use the word
“deeds” also: as Gal. ii. 16. ‘A man is not justified by
the deeds of the law, but by faith of Jesus Christ;” where
the Greek word is ἔργων, as well as in St James. But
where you say that πράξεις is proper for “ deeds,” you were
best call the second book of St Luke, The “ Deeds” of the
Apostles. The fault that Beza findeth with the vulgar Latin
translation is, that in diverse places he translateth one word
diverse ways, and them differmg. For otherwise to translate
for ξίφος sometimes gladius, and sometimes ensis, it were no
fault; no more than it is in us to use the words “ justice”,
and ‘ righteousness,” ‘“ works” and “deeds,” “faith” and
“belief,” “trust” and ‘ confidence,” &c. And you your-
selves in such words do often use the same liberty.

Martin. But will you not yet see “merit” and “meritorious works”
in the scripture? I marvel your skill in the Greek teacheth you
nothing in this point. St John saith, “Look to yourselves, that you
lose not the things which you have wrought, but that you may receive
a full reward.” Methinketh in these words the equivalent of “merit™
is easily seen of any man that is not wilfully blind: but you should see
further than the common sort; for you know that the Greek here
signifieth not only that which we work, but that which we work for:
as in the Greek phrase of working for a man’s living, and as you
translate John vi. 27, “ Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for
that meat which endureth unto life everlasting.” Such * labourers God.
hired to work in his vineyard, and “*the workman is worthy of his

_hire.” So that the apostle in the former words exhorteth to perseve-

rance, that we lose not the reward or pay for which we work, and which
by working we merit and deserve.

Fulke. You fare with us, as a merry fellow did with
his friends, of whom Erasmus telleth; who affirming that.
he saw in the sky a fiery dragon, with often asking them.
if they did not see it, he induced them at length every one’
to confess they saw it, lest they should have been thought to
be purblind, But in good earnest, and in my conscience, I see
no more “merit” in the scriptures, than I did before. Yea,
I have this argument more to persuade me that it is not found
in the scriptures, because the chiefest patrons thereof, having
taken such pains to find it, are now as far from it as ever
they were. But to the matter: I say there is no “merit”
included in the saying of St John, although you rehearse it in

1x. TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 369

the second person, after the vulgar Latin translation, and not
after the Greek, which is in the first person, and may be
referred to the reward of the apostles, which shall be full,

if they whom they have converted to the faith do per-
severe unto the end. But make it as strong for your part

as you can; the full reward is given, according to the most
bountiful promise of God, to our good works, of his mere
mercy and grace, and not by desert of our works. And

the parable of the labourers, whom God hired into his Matt. xx.
vineyard, declareth most evidently, that the reward is of
grace, not of merit. For if it were of merit, they that
came first early in the morning should have received more,

as their labour was greater, than they which came at the

last hour. Where our Saviour Christ saith, “The workman Luke x.
is worthy of his hire,” he teacheth his disciples, that they

may lawfully take meat and drink of them to whom they
preach, according to that common saying or proverb. But
thereof it followeth not, that every one which worketh in
God’s vineyard is worthy for his work’s sake, and by desert

of his labour, of eternal glory; for he promiseth greater
reward to his workmen, a thousand fold and more, than
their labotr doth deserve. So that yet we see not that

we merit and deserve by working, although we receive
reward for our work, or according to our works. Unde cig eg
mihi tantum meriti, saith a godly father, cut indulgentia >
est pro corona? ‘ Whence should I have so great merit,
when pardon or mercy is my crown?”

Martin. Again, Beza telleth us, that ἀντιμισθία signifieth mercedem Manrm,
que meritis respondet, that is, ‘a reward answerable to the merits.” And 22
we find many words in the scripture like unto this, μισθὸς, ἀπόδοσις, Annot, 7.
μισθαποδοσία, μισθαποδότης, which are on God's part, who is the re- that
warder and recompenser. And on our part we have, as the apostle παῤῥησίαν.

saith, Heb. x. and iv., “great confidence, confidence (saith Photius, a τὴν ἀπὸ

ὧν ἔργων,
notable Greek father) of our works, eonhdehes of our faith, of our &e. Phot.
“δ apud CEcum.
temptations, of our patience,” &c. Yea, we have ἀνταπόδοσις and ἀντά- in Heb, x.
+, Ps. xviii.

pecs in the scripture, which must needs signify as much as Beza’s ana exviii.

By the one is said, “In keeping thy commandments is ἀνταπόδος-

> ,
ἀντιμισθία. σις πολλή.

great reward.” Again, “You shall receive the retribution of inherit-
ance,” Col. iii. 24, and 2 Thess. i.6; God's repaying just, and retri- ἐνταπο-
bution of hell or heaven for good “atid evil deserts, is expressed by δοῦναι.
the same word. And by the other is said, “I have inclined my heart

to keep thy justifications (or commandments) always for reward.” δι᾿ ἀντά-

μειψειν.
[rurke. | “8

FuLKE,
22.

Luke xviii.

and xvii.

Col. iii.

370 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

Fulke. Tf you can find ἀντιμισθία in the scripture, you
convince us of “merit” by Beza’s judgment. Therefore tell us,
I pray you, in what book and chapter we shall find it.
First you tell us, that you find many words like unto it.
Yea, but neither the same, nor any that is equivalent.
For rendering of “reward,” which all your words do signify,
may be according to promise, by grace; and not by de-
sert. ‘The confidence of our works,” that Photius speaketh
of, must be understood as they are testimonies of God’s
sanctifying Spirit, or else it is contrary to the scripture.
The parable told against them that trusted in themselves
that they are righteous; whereas we must confess, that we
are unprofitable servants in all our obedience and best works

. that we do. Yea, but you have ἀνταπόδοσις and ἀντά-

μειψις in the scripture, which must needs signify as much
as Beza’s ἀντιμισθία. Who will yield to this necessity ?
If a man promise a labourer twenty shillings for every
day’s work, the rendering of this wages may be called
ἀνταπόδοσις, OF ἀντάμειψις, and yet no man will say, that
a day’s labour deserveth twenty shillings. That there is
great reward promised for them that keep God’s command-
ments, we confess: but this reward is either of merit, if
they perfectly keep all God’s commandments, which no man
doth; or of mercy, if being justified by faith through re-
mission of their sins, they endeavour according to the measure
of God’s grace given unto them to keep God’s command-
ments in some part, as God giveth strength. In the tes-
timony of St Paul, the word of “inheritance” following imme-
diately after the word of “reward” or “retribution,” excludeth
merits: for the inheritance dependeth of God’s free adop-
tion, by which he maketh us his sons, that he may give
us that inheritance which we can never deserve. In the
other place the apostle promiseth reward of glory to them
that suffer for Christ’s name: which God having promised
of his mere mercy to give us, and the same being pur-
chased for us by the merits of our Saviour Christ, it is
as just before God to render unto us, as to repay the
wicked with eternal condemnation according to their me-
rits. So that the merits of Christ, and his satisfaction,
plead for us in all rewards; and not the merits of our
good works, which yet are not ours, but God’s gifts in

Ix. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 371

us. That you allege out of the psalm, followeth afterward
to be considered.

Martin, But all this will not suffice you; for wheresoever you Marti,
can possibly, you will have an evasion. And therefore in this "ὦ
latter place you run to the ambiguity of the Hebrew word, and trans-
late thus: “I have applied my heart to fulfil thy statutes always, apy
even unto the end.” Alas, my masters! are not the seventy Greek re
interpreters sufficient to determine the ambiguity of this word? is not
St Jerome, in his translation according to the Hebrew? Are not all
the ancient fathers, both Greek and Latin? “It is ambiguous,” say you,

“and therefore you take your liberty.” You do so indeed, and that like
princes. For in another place, where the Greek hath determined, you
follow it with all your heart, saying, “Fall down before his footstool, ὅτε ἅγιός
because he is holy :” whereas the ambiguity of the Hebrew would °°**.
have borne you to say, as in the vulgar Latin, “because it is holy,” wp
and so it maketh for holiness of places, which you cannot abide. ΝΠ

Fulke. You need not be half so earnest for the word Fouuxe,
of “reward” in that verse of the psalm, which we translate 23.
“unto the end;” for if it were granted unto you, that for
which you make so much of it, the merit of good works
will never be established by it. For “reward,” as I have
often said, and plainly proved, doth not of necessity import
the merit or desert of him that is rewarded; but oftentimes
the liberality and bountifulness of the rewarder, which for
small labour giveth wonderful great reward. Now concerning
the translation of this word yekebh, the Seventy interpreters py
nor yet St Jerome are sufficient to determine the ambiguity
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 jom 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. - 9

Martin,
24.

Propter zter-
nam retribu-
tionem scl.
vite zterne,
ut eam me-
rear perci-

sas
n comment.

Ps. exix. 112,

ay

FuLkKeE,
24.

[2 ¢
372 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

Martin. But you use, you say, the ambiguity of the Hebrew.
Take heed that your liberty in taking all advantages against the
common and approved interpretation of the whole church, be not very
suspicious. For if it do signify also “reward,” as you know it doth very
commonly, and yourself so translate it, Psalm xviii. 11, when you
cannot choose ; and if the Septuaginta do here so translate it in Greek,
and St Jerome, in his Latin translation according to the Hebrew, and
the ancient fathers in their commentaries; what upstart new ‘masters
are you, that set all these to school again, and teach the world a new
translation? If you will say you follow our own great Hebrician,
Sanctes Pagninus, why did you follow him in his translation, rather
than in his lexicon called Thesaurus, where he interpreteth it as the
whole church did before him? Why did you follow him, or Benedictus
Arias either, in this place, and do not follow them in the selfsame case
a little before, translating that very Hebrew word which is in this place,
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. 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: ‘“Inelinavi cor meum. Accommodavi animum
meum, ut opere prestem precepta tua, &c. “I have in-
clined my heart. 1 have applied my mind, that im 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

ιχ.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 373

retribution, seeing for this one thing, that we are created
by him, we can never satisfy this debt, shall we refuse
to serve him? Therefore we are bound to serve him with
our whole mind, although he had decreed to thrust us
into hell fire, both for that which we owe him, and
for that we live only that time which we bestow in well
doing; for they which give over themselves to all wicked
works, by no means can be said to live. Yet there may
be an interpretation of the Hebrew words without such
offence; so that it may be said, ‘for ever is the reward,’ as
elsewhere we read, ‘In keeping of them is great reward.’
For by this means it is signified, that the fruit indeed of
keepmg God’s law is very great, but yet that retribution
is not the end and scope, but the love of God.” Let all in-
different readers judge by this, what just cause you have thus
to rail, not only upon our translators, but also upon all
learned papists that have translated even so. And let the
ignorant judge what knowledge you have in the Hebrew
tongue, which urge the false translation of the Seventy against
the opinion and translation of all the learned Hebricians of
this age, both papists and protestants; although it were no
hard thing to prove that the Greek text of the Psalms, which
now we have, is none of the Seventy translation, as even
Lindanus might teach you, de Opt. gen. Lib. m1. ¢. vi.

Martin. And to this purpose perhaps it is, (for other cause I cannot Marri,
guess,) that you make such a marvellous transposition of words in your 2°
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 Furxe,
espy but a comma wanting, although it be no impious sense 2ὅ"
to follow Christ in the regeneration ; for the world by Christ
was after a sort renewed, when the cause of the restoration
thereof was performed: as for. the “reward,” of which you

Martin,

No. Test.
1580.

Ut mort pos-
set.

See Calvin
in epist. ad
hilip.

FuULKE,
26.

374 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cx.

have such a servile care, [it] is expressed in sitting upon
twelve seats to judge the tribes of Israel. Wherefore there
was no need that you should fear the loss of your “reward”
by this transposition.

Martin. The like transposition of words is in some of your bibles,
Heb. ii. 9, thus: “We see Jesus crowned with glory and honour,
which was a little inferior to the angels, through the suffering of death’.”
Whereas both in Greek and Latin the order of the words is thus:
“ Him that was made a little inferior to angels, we see Jesus, through
the passion of death, crowned with honour and glory.” In this latter
the apostle saith, that Christ was crowned for his suffering death, and
so by his death merited his glory. But by your translation he saith,
that Christ was made inferior to angels by his suffering death, that is, saith
Beza, “for to suffer death ;” and taking it so, that he was made inferior
to angels that he might die: then the other sense is clean excluded,
that for suffering death he was crowned with glory; and this is one
place among other, whereby it may very well be gathered that some
of you think, that Christ himself did not merit his own glory and ex-
altation. So obstinately are you set against merits and meritorious
works. To the which purpose also you take away man’s free will, as
having no ability to work toward his own salvation.

Fulke. Whether we say, “ Christ was crowned for his
suffering,” or “Christ was made inferior to the angels through
his suffering,” the sense of either of both is good and godly,
and may stand with the place; neither doth the one of them
exclude the other, although but one only can be the sense
of the place. And if this be the “place by which you may
gather, that some of us think that Christ merited not his
own glory,” it is not worth a straw. We hold that Christ
for himself needed not to merit, because he was the Lord
of glory: but that he merited for us, to be exalted in our
nature, for our salvation, it 15.850 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 haying 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.

Γ᾿ 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. Acatst free will your corruptions be these: John i. 12", Marrin, 1
where it is said, “ As many as received him, he gave them power to be ἐξουσίαν.
made the sons of God.” Some of your translations say, he gave them ἦο, Tt:
“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 proye out of this place, repre- ut jiceret
hending Erasmus for following them in his translation. But whereas fl Pe
the Greek word is indifferent to signify “dignity” or “liberty,” he that
will translate either of these, restraineth the sense of the Holy Ghost,
and determineth it to his own fancy. If you may translate “ dignity,”
may not we as well translate it “liberty”? Yes, surely. For you
know it signifieth the one as well as the other, both in profane
and divine writers. And you can well call to mind αὐτεξούσιος and
τὸ αὐτεξούσιον, whence they are derived, and that the apostle calleth
a man’s liberty of his own will ἐξουσίαν περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος. 1 Cor. vii. 17.
Now then, if “potestas” in Latin, and “power” in English, be words
also indifferent to signify both “ dignity” and “liberty,” translate so, in the
name of God, and leave the text of the scripture indifferent as we do:
and for the sense, whether of the two it doth here rather signify, or
whether it doth not signify both, as no doubt it doth, and the fathers
so expound it, let that be examined otherwise. It is a common fault
with you, and intolerable, by your translation to abridge the sense of
the Holy Ghost to: one particular understanding, and to defeat the
exposition of so many fathers, that expound it in another sense and
signification: as is plain in this example also following.

Fulke. Seeing you confess that the Greek word sig- Furxe, 1.
nifieth not only “power,” but also “dignity,” and that in this
place it signifieth both, it can be no corruption, but the best
and truest interpretation, to translate ἐξουσίαν “dignity;” for
that includeth “power,” whereas power may be severed from

te Ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτὸν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι,
John i. 12. “ Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem
filios Dei fieri,’ Vulg. ‘“Quotquot autem eum acceperunt, dedit eis
hane dignitatem ut filii Dei fierent,” Beza, “Τὸ them gave he power,”
Cranmer, 1539, Authorised version, 1611. ἐξουσία is rendered “ power”
in the Genevan, Rhemish, Tyndale’s, and Wiclif’s versions. |

Martin, 2.
ἡ χάρις
τοὺ Θεοῦ ἡ
σὺν ἐμοί.

ΕὝΠΚΕ, 2.

376 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

dignity. Where you would have us use a word that is am-
biguous, when the sense is clear by your own confession, you
bewray your own corrupt affection, which desire to have the
scriptures so ambiguously or doubtfully translated, that the
ignorant might receive no benefit of certain understanding by
them. When a word hath diverse significations, a wise trans-
lator must weigh which of them agreeth with the text in hand,
and that to use: but not to seek ambiguous words, that may
bring the matter in doubt, when the meaning to him is certain.
As here you say, “there is no doubt but it signifieth both,”
and yet you quarrel at our translation which comprehendeth
both; and urge the word of “ power,” from which dignity
may be severed, whereas from “ dignity” power, or ability,
or license, cannot be divided.

Martin. The apostle, 1 Cor. xv. 10, saith thus, “I laboured more
abundantly than all they, yet not I, but the grace of God with me?.”
Which may have this sense, “not I, but the grace of God which is
with me,” as 8S. Jerome sometime expoundeth it; or this, “not I,
but the grace of God which laboured with me.” And by this latter is
most evidently signified, that the grace of God and the apostle both
laboured together, and not only grace, as though the apostle had done
nothing, like unto a block, forced only: but that the grace of God
did so concur as the principal agent with all his labours, that his
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 which
their commentary they do plainly declare their intent and purpose in
their translation, to be directly against free will.

Fulke. St Jerome favouring this translation of ours,
as he doth in divers places, lib. π. advers. Jovi. Gratia
Dei que in me est; and lib, 1. adver, Pelag. et ad Principem
Gratia Dei que mecum est, “The grace of God which is
in me,” or “ which is with me;” I marvel why you count

[2 ἀλλὰ περισσότερον αὐτῶν πάντων ékomiaca’ οὐκ ἐγὼ δὲ, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ
A - ΄
χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ σὺν ἐμοί, 1 Cor. xv. 10.]

x. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 377

it among heretical corruptions, except you take St Jerome
for an heretic. By the latter you say it “is signified, that
the grace of God and the apostle both laboured together :”
although it be no proper speech to say, the grace of God
laboureth, yet that you would have is expressed before,
where St Paul saith, “I have laboured more than they all ;”
which none but a block would understand, that he was forced
like a block. The grace of God useth no violence, but
frameth the will of man to obedience and service of God.
But that St Paul had of himself no free will to perform this
labour, but that it was altogether of the grace of God which
gave him this will, he confesseth more plainly than that it
can be denied, where he saith, “Not I.” Whereby he
meaneth, not that he was only helped by the grace of God,
and did it not alone; but that he did nothmg 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 hearmg 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 Jonn xv. δ.
text always choked the Pelagians, and so doth it their half-
faced brethren, the papists.

Martin. But concerning the Greek article omitted in translation, Marrin, 3.
if they were but grammarians in both tongues, they might know ἡ χάρις τ
that the Greek article many times cannot be expressed in Latin, σ᾿" “Μοὶ
and that this is one felicity and prerogative of the Greek phrase

(witness. )
(sins. )
Bib. 1562.

Nov. Test.
1580.

ἐν πεποι-
θήσει διὰ
τῆς πί-
στεως.

ποῦ πνεύ-
ματος
(τοῦ)

« ¢
ἢ πίστις

(i).

Fuk, 3.

378 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

above the Latin, to speak more briefly, commodiously, and signifi-
cantly by. the article. What need we go to Terence and Homer,
as they art wont? Is not the scripture full of such speeches; Jacobus —
Zebedai, Jacobus Alphei, Judas Jacobi, Maria Cleophe, and the like ὃ.
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 y. 36,
and 1 John ii. 2. Yea, sometime of an heretical purpose: as Eph.
iii: “By whom we have boldness and entrance with the confidence
which is by the faith of him,” or “in him,” as it is in other your

bibles. You say, “confidence which is by faith,” as though there

were no confidence by works: you know the Greek beareth not that
translation, unless there were an article after “confidence,” which is
not; but you add it to the text heretically: as also Beza doth the like,
Rom. viii. 2, and your Geneva English testaments after him, for the
heresy of imputative justice ; as in his annotations he plainly deduceth,
saying confidently, “1 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 faney that
this or that is the sense, he putteth it so in the text, and translateth
accordingly. No marvel now, if they reprehend the vulgar Latin
interpreter for not translating the Greek article in the place which
we began to treat of, when they find articles lacking in the Greek
text itself, and boldly add them for their purpose in their trans-
lation: whereas the vulgar Latin interpretation is in all these places
so sincere, that it neither addeth nor diminisheth, nor goeth one
iota from the Greek.

Fulke. Concerning the omission of the Greek article,
which Calvin and Beza reprove in the old translator, you
make many words to no purpose: for they reprove him not
for omitting it, where either it cannot or it need not be
expressed, but in this place, where both it may, and meet
it is that it should be expressed. But we, you say, to ex-
press the article, do add more than is in the text: yet in
truth we add nothing but that which is necessarily to be
understood ; as when we say, “ James the son of Zebedee,”
where you had rather say, James of Zebedee, as though you
were so precise, that for necessary understanding you would

[ Ἔν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν παῤῥησίαν καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐν πεποιθήσει
διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ, Ephes. iii. 12. “In whom we have boldness and
access with confidence by the faith of him,” Authorised version. ]

χ.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 379

not add a word to the text; and yet you do very often, yea,
sometimes where no need is: as Acts viii? where the Latin
is curaverunt Stephanum, you translate it, “ they took order
for Stephen’s funeral.” Doth curare signify to take order
for a funeral? So likewise Luke x., peniterent, “they had
done penance.” But to answer for our own doings. John
v. 36°, where Christ saith, “I have a greater witness than
John’s witness,” why may not the article τοῦ be referred rather
to μαρτυρίου, that is of necessity to be understood, than to
*Iwavvov? In the other place, 1 John ii. 2%, the word “sins,”
must needs be understood in the pronoun adjective “ ours.”
In the third text, where you accuse the translators of here-
tical purpose, the sense is all one whether you add the article
or no. For when the apostle saith, “by Christ we have
boldness and entrance with confidence by faith,” how can you
understand “confidence by works?” and whether there be con-
fidence by works or no, there can none be proved by this
place. Where Beza understandeth an article, Rom. vii.,
whom our English translation doth follow, it is only to make
that plain, which otherwise is necessarily to be understood.
For there is no difference between these sayings: ‘The law of
the spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” and this, “‘ The law of the
spirit of life, which is in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from
the law of sin and death.” The article or relative therefore
declareth no more but, ‘the law of the spirit of life is in Christ
Jesus, which delivereth us.” For both the text saith, “in
Christ Jesus,” and it cannot be in any other to deliver us.
For he saith not, the law of the spirit of life in us, but in
Christ Jesus; and the next verse following doth manifestly
confirm the same, as every man may see that will consider it.
Likewise James the second: “ Wilt thou know, O thou vain

[5 Συνεκόμισαν δὲ τὸν Στέφανον ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς, καὶ ἐποιήσαντο κοπε-
τὸν μέγαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Acts viii. 2. “Curaverunt autem Stephanum viri
timorati, et fecerunt planctum magnum super eum,” Vulg. “ And devout
men took order for Steven’s funeral, and made great mourning upon
him,” Rhemish Test. 1582. ]

[3 Ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου" τὰ yap ἔργα ἃ
ἔδωκέ μοι ὁ πατὴρ ἵνα τελειώσω αὐτὰ, τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ, μαρτυρεῖ
περὶ ἐμοῦ, ὅτι ὁ πατήρ pe ἀπέσταλκε, John vy. 36.]

[* Kat αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστι περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν᾽ ov περὶ τῶν
ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου, 1 John ii. 3.

Martin, 4.

Non ego, sed
gratia Dei
mecum.

ἐκ τῆς TOU

Ovpiov.

4 χάρις ἡ
σὺν ἐμοί.

380 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

man, that faith without works is dead?” If you say, ‘‘the
faith which is without good works is dead,” is not that the
meaning of the apostle? where he addeth immediately, that
“Abraham was justified by” such a faith as was fruitful of
good “works.” And when he bringeth example of devils’ faith,
is it not manifest he speaketh of such a faith as is utterly void
of all good works? Where you say that Beza putteth the
article into the text, and translateth it accordingly, you do
most shamefully belie him. For to the original text he
addeth none of his own collection, but in his translation only,

where he judgeth that according to the sense of the place it

must of necessity be understood: which if it be a fault in
articles, it must be so in other words also, for like cause
added. Then answer to your own translations, where be-
side those that I have noted before, which seem to proceed of
some popish purpose, you have added to your Latin authen-
tical text. As in these examples, Matt. vin. Quid nobis et
tibi? ‘What is between us?” Chap. ix. confide, “have a
good heart.” Chap. xxii. male perdet, “he will bring to
nought.” Mark ii. post dies, “after some days.” Accum-
beret, “he sat at meat.” Luke xvii. ab το, “more than
he.”. John xii. discumbentibus, “them that sat at the table.”
Non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum, “not because he
eared for thepoor.”’ Acts ix. Ecce ego, Domine, “Lo, here
I am, Lord.” Chap. x. gustare, “to take somewhat.” Chap.
xvii. colentibus, ‘that serveth God.” Nobiliores eorum qui
sunt Thessalonice, “more noble than they that are at Thes-
salonica.” Rom. i. vocatts sanctis, “called to be saints,” &e.

Martin. But you will say, in the place to the Corinthians there
is a Greek article, and therefore there you do well to express it.
I answer, first, the article may then be expressed in translation,
when there can be but one sense of the same: secondly, that not
only it may, but it must be expressed, when we cannot otherwise
give the sense of the place; as Matt.i.6. Ew ea que fuit Urie:
where you see the vulgar interpreter omitteth it not, but knoweth
the force and signification thereof very well. Marry! in the place of
St Paul which we now speak of, where the sense is doubtful, and
the Latin expresseth the Greek sufficiently otherwise, he leaveth
it also doubtful and indifferent, not abridging it as you do, saying,
“the grace of God which is with me;” nor as Calvin, gratia que
mihi aderat ; nor as Illyricus, gratia que mihi adest. Which two latter
are more absurd than yours, because they omit and neglect alto-

x.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 381

gether the force of the preposition cum, which you express, saying, σὺν ἐμοί.
“with me.” But because you say, “which is with me,” you mean
heretically, as they do, to take away the apostle’s co-operation and
labouring together with the grace of God by his free will: which

is by the article and the preposition most evidently signified.

Fulke. You take upon you to prescribe rules of trans- Fuuxe, 4.
lation, as though you: were prince of the Critict or Areopa-
gite. But all reasonable men will confess, that the article 15
so often to be expressed as it may, and maketh any thing to
the sense and understanding of the place. But as for your
rule, that it is not to be expressed in translation when there
may be more senses than one of the same, [it] 15 so good a rule,
that by the same reason and by equity thereof, whensoever
any word cometh in the text that may have more senses
than one, we must skip it over, and not translate it at all;
and so we shall leave out five hundred words in the New
Testament. A better rule I take it to be, in all such cases,
to examine what is most agreeable to the common phrase of
the tongue,-and the scope of the text in hand: according to
which I say, the verb substantive is both more usual, and
also more probable to be understood in this text, 1 Cor. xv.,
than the participle συγκοπιάσασα.

Martin. And here I appeal to all that have skill in Greek Marri, 5.
speeches and phrases, whether the apostle’s words in Greek sound not
thus: “I laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but ἐκοπίασα :
the grace of God (that laboured) with me.” Understanding not the an 4 xe
participle of sum, but of the verb going before, as in the like pis τοῦ —
case when our Saviour saith, “It is not you that speak, but the Ceov scm

Holy Ghost that speaketh in you.” If he had spoken short thus, “but eV

the Holy Ghost in you,” you perhaps would translate as you do here, beaten ing?
“the Holy Ghost, which is in you.” But you see the verb going before ἂς.) Ὁ
is rather repeated, “ Not you speak, but the Holy Ghost that speaketh τὸ πνεῦμα
in you.” Even so, “Not I laboured, but the grace of God labouring τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν,
with me,” or, “which laboured with me.” So prayeth the wise man,

Sap. ix. 10, “Send wisdom out of thy holy heavens, that she may be

with me, and labour with me,” as yourselves translate. Bib. 1577. omega
ret.

Fulke. And I likewise appeal, not only “to all that have Futxe, 5.
skill m Greek speeches and phrases,” but to all them whose
ears are accustomed to reasonable speeches, whether it be
like that the apostle would understand that participle, whereof
(perhaps) there is no verb; for where shall we read συγ-

989 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGEISH ἴση.

κοπιάω ἢ Secondly, whether he would understand the par-
ticiple of another verb adjective than went before; for before
he said ἐκοπίασα. Thirdly, whether he were so desirous to
set forth his own co-operation with the grace of God, that he
would express it with two prepositions, one in apposition, the
other in composition. Fourthly, whether he meant to attribute
any thing to himself, when, as it were-correcting that which
he said of “labouring,” he saith, “ yet not I, but the grace of
God.” Fifthly, whether he purposed to challenge any merit
of the labour to himself, or make his labour any thing
separate or separable from the grace of God, when he said
before, “by the grace of God I am that I am.” Last of all,
whether, his words being resolved, if this participle be added,
they contain not a ridiculous tautology or vain repetition,
“1 have laboured more than they all, yet not 1, but the grace
of God which laboured together with me hath laboured.” To
conclude in your example which you feign, because you can
find none to answer your fancy: if the words were as you
suppose, οὐχ ὑμεῖς ἐστε οἱ λαλοῦντες, ἀλλὰ TO πνεῦμα τοῦ
πατρὸς ὑμῶν τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν, 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 prosopopeia, or fiction of person.

Manriy,6. Martin. And so the apostle calleth himself and his fellow preachers
Θεοῦσυνερ- “ God's coadjutors,” “co-labourers,” or such as labour and work with
γοί. God; which also you falsely translate “God's labourers,” to take away

S. Augustine, ν᾽ x i A ἣ
Εν τυμε ot all co-operation ; and in some of your bibles most foolishly and peevishly,
Or. Vl. 1.

συνεργοῦν- a8 though you had sworn not to translate the Greek, “We together
τες δέ. are God's labourers:” as well might you translate Rom. viii. 17, that
Nigel “we together be Christ's heirs,” for that which the apostle saith “co-
Χριστοῦ. heirs,” or “joint-heirs with him;” the phrase and speech, as you know,
Eph. ii 5. in Greek being all one. So doth Beza most falsely translate, Una vivi-

ες ficavit nos per Christum, for that which is plain in the Greek, “He hath
The English quickened us together with Christ." Where the English Bezites leave

τροζομχῳ δ also the Greek, and follow our vulgar Latin translation rather than

χ.]} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 383

Beza, who goeth so wide from the Greek, that for shame they dare not of thar
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 i in the foresaid place of
St Paul mpvoiedixigtytt

Fulke. St Paul saith, 1 Cor. iii. 9*, that he and Apollos Futxe, 6,
are Θεοῦ συνεργοὶ, “ joined together in the work and business
of God:” he saith not that they are “helpers of God,” for God
needeth no help. A helper is of him that lacketh strength,
which is blasphemous to say of God. Therefore even Faber
Stapulensis, as Beza telleth you, reproveth that term adju-
tores, which your vulgar translator useth, and you yourself
in favour of your heresy of free will do not translate, but
fly to the Greek word συνεργοὶ, and say ‘ coadjutors,” which
if you would express in English, signifieth “‘fellow-helpers of
God.” The word cooperarit, which St Augustine useth, as
Beza also telleth you, may be referred to the joint labour
of the ministers in several offices of planting and watering.

And although it be referred to God, that he, as the Lord

[> Θεοῦ yap ἐσμεν συνεργοὶ, 1 Cor. iii. 9. “Dei enim sumus adju-
tores,” Vulg. “Etenim Dei sumus administri,’ Beza. “For we are
God’s labourers,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva. ‘ For we are God’s coad-
jutors,” Rhemish. “ For we are labourers together with God,” Autho-
rised version.

Administri, συνεργοὶ, Augustinus et Erasmus, cooperarii. Ambro-
sius, operis participes, Vulg. adjutores; vocabulo, fateor, Latino, sed
quod recte, ut opinor, reprehendit Stapulensis. Dicimur enim eum
adjuvare cui vires non sufficiunt: quis autem hoc de Deo dicat? Ei
autem subservire nihil prohibet, cui opera nostra uti placeat in eo quod
ipse solus, si velit, possit efficere. Sed in hoc opere, de quo hic disseritur,
amplius etiam aliquid considerandum est. Primum scilicet, istos qui
Dei sunt administri, viribus uti non a natura insitis, sed a gratia collatis,
ut apta et idonea fierent instrumenta; sicut significat apostolus infra
xv. 10. et 2 Cor. iii. 6. ut nihil habeant συνεργοὶ de quo in sese glo-
rientur. Beza in locum, p. 205. |

884 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

and Master, and they, as the servants, altogether by his
grace and strength do work together, the sense is not evil,
yet not proper for this place. Because the apostle doth not
here set out the dignity of the ministers, but abaseth their
labour, and submitteth all to God. For he had to do with
them, that did attribute too much unto the ministers’ work ;
with whom it was unseasonable to extol their labours, and
make them “‘coadjutors” or “fellow-helpers of God.” But con-
trariwise, he ascribeth the fruit of all their labours to God ;
and to take away the schisms that were among them, by
depending of one minister more than another, declareth that
they altogether are “God's labourers,” “‘ God’s husbandmen,”
&c. Inthe other place 2 Cor. vi. 1, συνεργοῦντες, it is more
proper to say, that the apostles jomed 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?
O how glad you are, when you have never so small an
occasion, to set abroad the sails of your railing and reviling
oration! But let us see whether Beza deserve so much
blame as you charge him withal. Beza having translated,
as he thought, most near to the apostle’s meaning, Eph. 11. δ᾽,
in his annotation upon the place thus writeth: “Convivijicavit,
&c. The Vulgar and Erasmus translate, ‘he hath quick-

[2 συνεζωοποίησε τῷ Χριστῷ, Ephes. ii. 5. “Convivificavit nos
Christo,” Vulg. “Una vivificavit nos per Christum,” Beza. “Quick-
ened us together in Christ,” ‘all the versions, except the Authorised,
which has “‘ with Christ.” “‘ Convivificavit nos una cum Christo,” Eras-
mus. Quam ‘sententiam minime reprehendo. Sed nihil tamen rei ipsi
detrahetur; et magis fortassis apposite dici possit prepositionem σὺν ad-
hibitam esse, ut gentium ac Judeorum in uno Christo coagmentationem
declaret, quo modo etiam accipitur τὸ συνοικοδομεῖσθαι, infra vers. 21.
Noy. Test. Edit. Beze, p. 249.]

Ἐπ ΎΎΥ ΣΡ

x. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 385

ened us together with Christ,’ which sense I do in no wise
reprehend. But yet nothing shall be detracted from the
self-same matter, and perhaps it may be said more aptly,

that the preposition σὺν, in this place, is used rather to de-

clare the uniting together of the gentiles and Jews in one
Christ; after which manner the word συνοικοδομεῖσθαι,
which signifieth ‘to be builded together,’ is afterward used,

verse 22.” This is Beza’s judgment, not contrary to the’
common translation and ours, but agreeing in the sense thereof,

and comprehending a further matter, whereof the apostle in

that chapter speaketh. But our translators thought best to
follow the plain and common understanding, not for shame

of Beza, or his translation, but for desire of sincerity and
plainness. Contrariwise, where your vulgar translator is
sometimes so barbarous, that his phrase hath no sense ac-
cording to the text, it may well be thought you were ashamed

to follow him, lest you should have been ridiculous to all

men. As you translate timoratus “religious” oftentimes.

Non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum, which in English is, Jom xii.
“not because of the poor it pertained to him;” but you have
translated, “‘ not because he cared for the poor.” Una Sab- τομὴ xxi.
bati, “the first of the sabbath.” Sabbatt habens iter, actsi. -
“having the journey of a sabbath,” you translate, “ distant acts xiv.
a sabbath’s journey.” Yea, you are bold to correct your text,

and for Italia to say Attalia. Ad abluenda crimina, which acts xxv.
is, “to wash away the crimes,” you say, “ to clear himself of

the crime.” Cum multa ambitione, which is, “ with much tia.
ambition,” you say, “with great pomp.” Ewhortentur, 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. Ido 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

[ruLKE. | 26

986 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 little help
and direction,” we join with you; but if you think you can
do anything that good is, without the grace of God, like
to Pelagius, Celestius, and other like heretics of the devil’s
black guard, we leave you.

Martin,7- — Martin. You say moreover in some of your bibles, thus: “So lieth
οὐ θέλου it not then in ἃ man’s will or running, but inthe mercy of God’.” What-
Tos,Tpéxov- soever you mean, you know this translation is very dissolute, and wide
Heh μεν from the apostle’s words, and not true in sense ; for salvation is in willing

“gp Wipes and running, according to that famous saying of St Augustine, “ He that
Apostoli. made thee without thee will not justify thee without thee;” that is, against

2Tim.ii thy will, or, unless thou be willing. And the apostle saith, “ No man is

1Cor.ix. crowned, unless he fight lawfully.” And again, “So run that you may

Rom. ii. obtain.” And again, “ The doers of the law shall be justified.” And our

Matt.xix. Saviour, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ We
see then, that it is in willing, and running, and doing: but to will, or
run, or do, are not of man, but of God’s mercy. And so the apostle
speaketh: “It is not of the willer, nor runner, but of God that hath
mercy.” And it is much to be marvelled, why you said not, “It lieth
not in the willer, nor in the runner,” which is near to the apostle’s words ;
but so far off, “in a man’s will and running.”

Fuuxe, 7. Fulke. The translation you reprehend, I grant, is not
proper for the words, and therefore is reformed in the later
translations: yet im sense it is all one; for salvation lieth
not in the will, or running of man, but in the mercy of
God; even as St John saith: “The children of God are not
made of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but
they are born of God.” But thus you reason against it.
We are not saved, except we will, and run; ergo, salvation
lieth in willing and running. I deny your argument, which
is as good as this: we are not saved from sin, except we
have committed sin; ergo, salvation from sin lieth in commit-
ting sin. The “famous place of Augustine” is a famous cor-
ruption of papists, to establish the strength of free will,
clean contrary to St Augustine’s mind, where a point in-
terrogative is changed into a period; for in ancient written
copies, it is read with interrogation: Qui ergo fecit te sine
te, non te justificat sine te? ‘He therefore that made thee

[? dpa οὖν οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος, οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεοῦντος
Θεοῦ, Rom. ix. 16. “S8o then [election] is not of the willer, 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: St hominem
te fecit Deus, et justum tu te facis; melius aliquid facis,
quam fecit Deus. Sed sine te fecit te Deus. Non enim
adhibuisti aliquem consensum, ut te faceret Deus. Quo
modo consentiebas qui non eras? Qut ergo fecit te sine
te, non te justificat sine te? Ergo fecit nescientem, jus-
tificat volentem. Tamen ipse justificat, ne sit justitia
tua”, “If God have made thee a man, and thou makest
thyself a just man, thou makest some better thing than
God hath made: but God made thee without thee, for thou
gavest no consent that God should make thee: how didst
thou consent, which wast not? He therefore that made thee
without thee, doth he not justify thee without thee? There-
fore he hath made thee not knowing; but he justifieth thee,
being willing: yet it is he that doth justify thee, that it
should not be thy justice.”

The meaning of St Augustine is, that we have no more
free will to be justified, before we be prevented by the grace
of God, than we had will to be created. For it is God’s
grace that maketh us willing to be justified and saved, not
the strength of man’s free will; as he proveth at large
throughout the whole homily.’ Now to the texts of scrip-
ture which you cite, I answer, there is not one that proveth
any strength or sway of man’s free will toward the true .
goodness, before, of an ungodly man and enemy of God, ©
he be reconciled by the grace and mercy of God, and made
an obedient child in some. part, willing to do the will of
his Father. First, those texts of “fighting and running” prove
that fighting and running is necessary for them that are
exhorted thereto; but not that fighting or running are in
the free will of man, or that salvation lieth in them. Eating
and drinking are necessary for the life of man; yet the life
of man lieth not in eating and drinking. Where the apostle
saith, ‘the doers of the law shall be justified,” he meaneth
them that fulfil the law; and doth our Saviour Christ, an-

the runner; but of God that taketh mercy,” Bishops’ bible, 1584. “So
then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God
that sheweth mercy,” Authorised version, 1611. ]

[ἢ Augustin. Sermo. cixrx. Opera, Vol. v. p. 1178.]

388 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

swering to the question of him that asked, “what he should
do to obtain life?” declare, “that there is no way to enter
into life by doing, but only by doing of God’s: command-
ments: for the man that doth them shall live by them.”

Joh. xiv. 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.

Marin, 8. Martin. Again, touching continency and the chaste single life, you
οὐ πάντες translate : “ All men cannot receive this saying,” Matt. xix.11, Now
aevellous YOu wot well, that our Saviour saith not, “All men cannot,” but, “all

strange trans- men do not receive it:” and that therefore, as St Augustine saith, “be-

oo * 4, cause all will not.” But when our Saviour afterward saith, “ He that
ὁ δυνάμενος can receive it, let him receive it;” he addeth: another Greek word to
Stare > express that sense’: whereas by your fond translation he might have said,
" 6 χωρῶν χωρείτω. And again, by your translation, you should translate
these his latter words thus: “He that can or is able to receive it,
let him be able to receive it.” For so you translate χωρεῖν before, as
though it were all one with δύνασθαι χωρεῖν. Do you not see your
folly, and falsehood, and boldness, to make the reader believe that our
Saviour should say, “Every man cannot live chaste, it is impossible
for them, and therefore no man should vow chastity, because he knoweth
not whether he can live so or no 2”

Furxe, 8. Fulke. The Greek word χωρεῖν doth signify “to be
able to hold, or contain;” and so it is used, Mark ii., wore
μηκέτι χωρεῖν μηδὲ πρὸς τὴν θύραν: which you trans-
late, “so that there was no place, no, not at the door.”
Do you not mean, that the place about the door was not
able to hold that multitude? Your vulgar Latin is, [ta
ut non caperet neque ad januam, in barbarous words, but
in sense as I have said before. So John 11., the six pots,

Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, ov πάντες χωροῦσι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, ἀλλ᾽ οἷς
δέδοται, Matt. χῖχ. 11. ὋὉ δυνάμενος χωρεῖν χωρείτω, γ, 12, “He said
unto them, All men cannot away with that saying, save they to whom
it is given,” Tyndale. “He said unto them, All men cannot comprehend
this saying, save they to whom it is given,” Cranmer, Bishops’ bible.
“Cannot receive,” Authorised version. “And he said unto them, All
men receive not this speech, save they to whom it is given,” Geneva
Bible, 1557.] |

x, TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 389

when they were empty, are said χωροῦσαι, “able to receive
every one of them two or three measures.” Likewise, John
xxi, where the word is χωρῆσαι, you yourselves translate
“not able to contain.” Seeing the word therefore signifieth
not only “to receive,’ but also “to be able to receive,” it
is rightly translated, Matth. xix.; and according to the mean-
ing of our Saviour Christ, “ all men cannot receive this saying,
but they to whom it is given ;” which he doth after evidently
confirm, when he addeth the participle ὁ δυνάμενος, “he that
is able to receive it, let him receive it?’ which were 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
receiye this saying, but they that will, let them receive it.’
Where you call Augustine to witness of your foolish gloss,
you do him shameful injury: for he saith not, “all men do
not, because all will 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 implent quod volunt; quibus autem datum
est, sic volunt ut impleant quod volunt®. ‘ All men receive
not this word, but they to whom it is given: for they to
whom it is not given, either they will not, or else they
fulfil not that which they will; but they to whom it is given,
do so will, that they fulfil that which they will.” Augustine
is plain to the contrary, that it is not in every man that
will to be continent, but it is the special gift of God that
any both will, and be able to perform it; for which he citeth
also the saying of the wise man, Sap. 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 him*.” These things considered,
our translation is justified, both according to the word, which
signifieth sometime “to be able to receive : and according to
the sense, which here must needs require that it should be
so translated. Wherefore it is impossible for any man to

[? Augustin. de Gratia et Lib. Arb. ὁ. 4. Opera, Vol. 1. 1236.]

[ Eruit enim et eximit in se sperantes, non suis viribus quod acce-
perint tribuentes. Et hoc ipsum enim est sapientia, scire cujus est donum.
Augustin. Sermo οὐχ. Opera. v. 1118.]

Martin, 9.
Bib. 1579.

Lib. 15. ¢. 7.
de civit. Dei.
Quest. Heb.
in Genes.

FuLke, 9.

390 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

live chaste, except he have the gift of God; whereof unless
a man be certain, he doeth foolishly and presumptuously, to
vow that which he knoweth not whether he shall be able
to perform.

Martin. Again, in some of your bibles, Gen. iv. 7, where God saith
plainly, “that Cain should receive according as he did, well or evil, be-
cause sin was subject unto him, and he had the rule and dominion
thereof,” evidently declaring his free will; you translate it thus: “If
thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou dost not well, sin
lieth at the door: and also unto thee his desire shall be subject, and
thou shalt rule over him.” By which relatives, falsely put in the mas-
culine gender, you exclude the true antecedent, sin, and refer them to
‘Abel, Cain's brother; as though God had said, not that sin should be
in his dominion, or subject unto him, but his brother Abel. But that
this is most false and absurd, we prove many ways. First, St Augustine
saith directly the contrary: Tu dominaberis illius: nunquid fratris ?
absit ; cujus igitur nisi peccati? “Thou shalt rule,” saith he, “over
what? over thy brother? Not so; over what then, but sin?’ St Jerome
also explicateth this place thus: “ Because thou hast free will, I warn
thee that sin have not dominion over thee, but thou over sin®.”. More-
over, the text itself, if nothing else, is sufficient to convince this ab-
surdity. For where this word, “sin,” goeth immediately before in the
same sentence, and not one word of Abel his brother in that speech
of God to Cain; how is it possible, or what coherence can there be in
saying, as you translate, “Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt have
dominion over him,” that is, “thy brother?” But if we say thus,
“Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt have dominion thereof ;” it
hath this direct and plain sense: “If thou dost ill, sin lieth at the
door ready to condemn thee, because it is in thee to overrule it.”

Fulke. The relatives be the masculine gender in the
Hebrew tongue, and therefore referred to Abel, and not to sin,
which is of the feminine gender. Again, sin hath no appetite
to Cain, but rather Cain to it: therefore, even as it was said
to Eve, Thy appetite shall be to thy husband; so it is said
of Abel, His appetite shall be to thee. St Augustine follow-
eth the corrupt translation of the Septuaginta, which for

[: Augustin. Opera, Vol. vir. p. 615. ]

[? Ait enim Dominus ad Cain: Quare irasceris? et quare concidit
vultus tuus? Nonne si bene egeris, dimittetur tibi;.et si non bene
egeris, ante fores peccatum tuum sedebit? et ad te societas ejus: sed
tu magis dominare ejus. Hieronymi, Liber Quest. Hebraic. in Gene-
sim. Opera. Vol. 1. 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 masculine gender. Jerome also
in that place interpreteth not “appetite,” but “society,” and
fantasieth that chataoth is the masculine gender, and_ not
the feminine; whereas it is never read but in the feminine
gender, out of this place of controversy. But “the text itself,”
you say, “is sufficient to convince this absurdity, because in
this speech of God to Cain there is no word of Abel.” It
is somewhat that you say, if this that Moses reporteth were
all that God said to Cain; but seeing it is certain that
God at large discoursed with him of the cause of his envy
against his brother, we may easily understand in this speech
two arguments to reprove Cain’s envy, the one of the person
of God, the other of the person of Abel. For God doth re-
prove his envy by his own justice, and by Abel’s innocency :
which latter argument your false translation doth utterly
suppress. But that a relative is referred to an antecedent,
which in the same verse is not expressed, it is no strange
thing to them that read the scripture. Examples I will
give you, Job xxvi., vy. 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
of the holy doctors and of the whole church of God, you pretend the
Hebrew grammar forsooth, as not bearing such construction: not to
trouble the common reader that cannot judge of these things, and yet
fully to satisfy every man, even of common understanding, we request
here the adversaries themselves to tell us truly according to their
knowledge and skill, whether. the Hebrew construction or point of
grammar be not all one in these words, “Sin lieth at the door;” and
in these, “the desire thereof shall be subject to thee, and thou shalt
rule over it.” If they say, as they must needs, that the Hebrew con-
struction or syntax is all one, then will it follow, that the Hebrew
beareth the one as well as the other: and therefore, when the selfsame
translation of theirs maketh no scruple of grammar in the former, but
translate as we do, “ Sin lieth at the door ;” a blind man may see, that

ΓΝῸΠ

Martin,
10.

pxon
yn
ΤῸΝ
inpwn

aan

FuLke,
10.

Cap. 1. Sect.
28.

yn

Martin,
it.

Q. Hebr. in
Genes.

Quinquai be-
reus.

FuLKE,
11.

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 oe. so plain and evident scrip-
ture for man’s free will.

Fulke. I have shewed before the cause of the change
of the gender in the word robets to be, for that by sin is
meant the punishment of sin. Sanctes Pagninus taketh the
word “sin” for “an oblation for sin :” and for the punishment
of sin it is taken, Zach. xiv. 19. The Septuaginta also do
plainly refer these relatives unto Abel; and therefore they
are in the masculine gender, αὐτοῦ, “the conversion of

him pertaineth to thee, and thou shalt rule over him.”

Martin. And as for the Hebrew grammar in this point, were it
not for troubling the reader, we could tell them that the word “sin” in
Hebrew is not here of the feminine gender, as they suppose, but
of the masculine: so saith St Jerome expressly upon this place’, who
had as much knowledge in the Hebrew tongue, as all these new doctors.
Aben Ezra also, the great rabbin, in his Hebrew commentaries upon
this text saith, “It is a mere forgery and fiction to refer the mascu-
line relative otherwise than to the word ‘sin: which, though else-
where it be the feminine gender, yet here it is a masculine, according to
that rule of the grammarians, that the doubtful gender must be dis-
cerned by the verb, adjective, pronoun, or participle, joined with the
same:” as the said Hebrew doctor doth in the word “ paradise,” Gen.
ii., which there by the pronouns he pronounceth to be a feminine,
though elsewhere a masculine. Lastly, if the word “sin” were here,
and always, only a feminine, and never a masculine; yet they have
little skill in the Hebrew tongue, that think it strange to match mas-
culines and feminines together in very good and grammatical construc-
tion: whereof they may see a whole chapter in Sanctes Pagninus with
this title, Faeminea masculeis juncta, that is, “Feminines joined with
masculines.”

Fulke. Not only the Hebrew grammar, but the same
phrase used before, maketh plainly for our translation. That
St Jerome saith, the Hebrew is of the masculine gender; as
great an Hebrician as he was, he may not carry the matter
away with his authority, except he bring an instance, where

[? Quod autem in septuaginta interpretibus fecit errorem, illud est:
quia peccatum, id est, arraru, in Hebreo generis masculini est, in Greco
feminini. Et qui interpretati sunt, masculino illud (ut erat in Hebreo)
genere transtulerunt. Hieronymi, Liber Quest. Hebraic. in Genesim.
Opera. Vol. τι. p. 511.]

“ἢ 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
be joined with a participle of the masculine gender. Who
also might have taught you the difference of nouns ending in
he, precedente camets, to be this, that feminines have the
accent in the last syllable, masculines in the last save one;
and therefore chataoth in this place, having the accent in
the last syllable, notwithstanding the participle, which is
masculine, must needs be of the feminine gender.

Martin. Now for the last refuge, if they will say all this needed
not, because in other their bibles it is as we would have it: we tell
them, they must justify and make good all their translations, because
the people readeth all, and is abused by all, and all come forth with
privilege, printed by the Queen’s printer, &c. If they will not, let
them, confess the faults, and call them in, and tell us which transla-
tion or translations they will stand unto. In the meantime they must
be content to hear of all indifferently, as there shall be cause and
occasion to touch them.

nyo

Milra et

ilel.

nyon

Martin,

---
[Ὁ

Fulke. We tell you that we may not justify any fault Furxs,
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 maintaming 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 [cH.
: ᾿

fend or excuse, except it be by the fault of the printer, where-
of yet you have not admonished the reader. I will give you
a taste of some, and let all men judge whether they be
not intolerable faults; for they are no less than detract-
ing and taking away from the word of God. As 1 Cor.
xiv. 38, where both the Greek and the Latin is, “If they
will learn :” your translation is, “If they learn any thing.”
Likewise Acts v. 4, where both the Greek and Latin is,
«Festus answered that Paul is kept at Casarea:” you
translate, “Festus answered that Paul is in Cesarea;”
leaving out the word “kept,” as before you left out the word
“will” or “desire,” which altereth the sense very much. But
in a place of greater moment, and in a matter of some con-
troversy, of God’s particular preordination and fore-appoint-
ment, you leave out a whole clause, Acts x. 41. For where
it is both in the Greek and in the Latin, “that God made
the resurrection of his Son manifest, not to all the people,
but to the witnesses chosen before of God, to us which did
eat and drink with him,” &c. your English translation hath
no more but thus: ‘ Not to all the people, but to us, who did
eat and drink with him,” &c.—leaving clean out that which
is in your Latin text, Testibus preordinatis a Deo. Also
in the epistle to the Hebrews, cap. vu. 28, where both the
Greek and your vulgar Latin hath, ‘The law appointeth
priests, men that have infirmity,” leaving out homines, a
word very material in this place, to observe the opposition
between the priesthood of men and the priesthood of the
Son of God. These faults in the New Testament being
some of them which I by no’ diligent reading have observed,
now you be admonished of them, we shall see whether you
will call in your translation, or- command your disciples to
burn their books. If you will not, I pray you be good. mas-
ter to us, and let our bibles go abroad still, for any faults
we have ourselves amended, and admonished all diligent
readers thereof by our later translations.

And because you crack so much of “the exposition of the
doctors and of the whole church of God” against us, I must
let the reader understand, that the whole Greek church, which —
for the most part knew none other text but the Septuagint,
must needs expound the place of Abel as we do, because the
Greek text is manifestly in the masculine gender. And so doth

x. ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 595

Chrysostom, in Gen. Hom. xviii'. expound the place in these
words: ‘* Ne putes, inquit, licet tuum aversatus sim sacrificium
ob pravam mentem, fratrisque oblationem acceptam habuerim
ob sanam intentionem, quod ideo primatu te .destituam, et
primogeniture dignitatem a te auferam. Nam licet honore
ego illum prosecutus’ fuerim, acceptaque fuerint illius
dona, ete. “Think not, saith he, that although I have
refused thy sacrifice for thy naughty mind, and have re-
ceived thy brother’s oblation for his good and sound
meaning, that therefore I will deprive thee of the primacy,
and take away from thee the dignity of the birthright.
For although I have vouchsafed him of honour, and that
his gifts have been received; yet unto thee belongeth his
conversion, and thou shalt rule over him. And this I per-
mit after thy sin, that thou mayest enjoy the privileges
of thy birthright, and I command him to be under thy
power and dominion.” You were best now to rail upon
Chrysostom, and charge him with heresy and schismatical
exposition, “ contrary to the holy doctors and the whole church
of God,” against free will of man. Which because itis your
quarrel, you have St Ambrose also your enemy, De Caine
et Abel, Lib. u. cap. 7°: who although, ‘as he read it in
Latin, did think it must be referred to him, and not to
his brother; yet he expoundeth it not of the strength of
free will, but chargeth Cain to be author of his own error;
Culpe ipsius ad te conversio est. “The conversion of the

[ Μὴ νομίσης, φησὶν, εἰ καὶ ἀπεστράφην σου τὴν θυσίαν διὰ τὴν
οὐκ ὀρθὴν γνώμην, καὶ εἰ τὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ δῶρον προσεδεξάμην διὰ τὴν
ὑγιῆ προαίρεσιν, ὅτι τῶν πρωτείων σε ἀποστερῶ, καὶ τῆς ἀξίας τῶν
πρωτοτόκων σε ἐκβάλλω: ἥμαρτες" ἡσύχασον. Ei γὰρ καὶ τῆς περὶ ἐμοῦ
τιμῆς ἠξίωται, καὶ εὐπρόσδεκτα αὐτοῦ γέγονε τὰ δῶρα, ἀλλὰ πρὸς σὲ
ἡ ἀποστροφὴ αὐτοῦ, καὶ σὺ ἄρξεις αὐτοῦ. ὥστε καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν
ταύτην ἔχειν σε συγχωρῶ τὰ προτερήματα τῆς πρωτοτοκίας, κἀκεῖνον ὑπὸ
τὴν σὴν ἐξουσίαν εἶναι κελεύω. Chrysost. Homil. in Genes.’ xviii.
Opera, edit. Savill. Vol. 1. pp. 126, 127.]

ΓΞ" Culpe ipsius ad te conversio est. Non enim frater ei addicitur,
sed error adscribitur, cujus ipse 5101 auctor est, In te, inquit, revertitur
crimen, quod a te ccepit. Non habes in quo necessitatem magis quam
mentem tuam arguas. In te retorquetur improbitas tua; tu princeps
es illius. Bene ait, Tu princeps es illius : etenim impietas mater quedam.
est delictorum. Ambrosii de Cain. et Abel. Lib. τι. ¢. 7. Opera, Vol. 1.
p- 217. edit. Bened. 1686. ] ;

396 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

fault itself is unto thee. For his brother is not added to
him, but error is ascribed, whereof he himself is author to
himself. The crime, saith he, will return upon thee, which
began of thee. Thou hast not whereby to accuse necessity
more than thine own mind. ‘The wickedness is retorted
back upon thee, thou art prince of it. He saith well,
thou art prince of it; for impiety is the mother of sins,
&c.”” You see therefore, that if you could obtain that these
relatives were referred to him, yet your free will were
not by and by to be builded upon the place, and that all
be not hereticks which draw that text to another exposi-
tion than standeth with your good liking.

Martin. Again, they translate in some of their bibles against free
will, thus: “Christ, when we were yet of no strength, died for the un-
a aia godly’.” Rom. v. 6, The apostle’s word doth not signify that we had
Αραβα no strength, but that we were weak, feeble, infirm. Man was wounded
ἡμῶν ἀσθε- in free will by the sin of Adam, (as he that in the gospel went down
ee from Jerusalem to Jericho, which is a parable of this thing ;) he was

not slain altogether. But I stand not here, or in any place, to dispute
the controversy: that is done elsewhere. This only I say, because they
falsely hold, that free will was altogether lost by Adam’s sin: there-
“ae s, fore they translate accordingly, ‘‘When we had no strength.” But the
Greek word is well known, both in profane authors and ecclesiastical,
and specially in the New Testament itself throughout, to signify no-
Multi inter thing else but weak, feeble, sick, infirm. Look me through the New
vosinfirmi Testament ; wheresoever infirmity, feebleness, languishing, and the like

sunt, &e.

1 Cor _ xi 30. are spoken of, there is found this Greek word to express it. What
mor, tum po- Grecian knoweth not, be he but simply acquainted with phrases and
tens sum.

2 Cor. xii. 10. nature of words, what ἀσθενεῖν, and ἀσθενῶς ἔχειν, do signify? When

‘am the apostle saith, Quis infirmatur, et ego non uror? “ Who is weak
2 Cor. xi. 29. and infirm, and I am not much grieved ?’—shall we translate, “ who
is of no strength,” &c.? Or let them give us an instance, where it is
σθένος and certain that this word must needs signify; “of no strength,” Will they
Pert pretend the etymology of the word? A ridiculous and absurd evasion !
ἄῤῥωστος. We ask them of ῥώμη, a word of the very same signification, which
ape ῥωστεῖν. being compounded in like manner as the other, what doth it signify ?
ῥῥωστία.
ange any thing else but infirmity and feebleness? Yea, it is so far from
περὶ τοῦ Signifying “ no strength,” that the greatest Grecians say, it is not spoken

properly of him that for weakness keepeth his bed, which is νοσεῖν,

Martin,
13.

[1 Ἔτι yap Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν, κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν
ἀπέθανε, Rom. ν. 6. ἀσθενῶν, “yet weak,” Tyndale’s, Cranmer’s, Bishops’
bible. “Yet of no strength,” Geneva. Yet without strength,” Autho-
rised version. |

χ.} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 397

but of him that is ill disposed and distempered in body. Yet the καχεκτοῦν-
etymology is all one with that word, which these men will have to tae vit
signify “him that hath no strength.” And if they will needs urge the
etymology, we tell them, that σθένος and ῥώμη signify robur, that is,

“ great strength,” such as is in the strongest and stoutest champions ;

and so the etymology may take place to signify ‘a man of no great
strength,” not, “of no strength.” But M. Whitaker putteth us in good p. 3209.
hope they will not stand upon etymologies.

Fulke. This cavil is fully answered, cap. 1. sect. 26: Εὐτικε,
therefore I will not spend many words here about it. The “ἢ
word ἀσθενὴς, we know, signifieth “weak,” that is, of small
strength, and sometimes, so weak that there is no strength;
as Gal. iv. where St Paul calleth the ceremonies of Moses’
law, now expired, “the weak and beggarly elements,” that
is, void of all strength and riches. Likewise the apostle
to the Hebrews, cap. vii. saith, the commandment of the
Aaronical priesthood is abolished, διὰ τὸ ἀσθενὲς, because
it was weak and unprofitable without Christ: as unprofitable
is void of profit, so is weak void of strength. St Paul,
1 Cor. xv., saith: “Our dead body is sowed in weakness :”
is there any strength of a dead body? Moreover, Rom.
viii, “that which was unpossible by the law,” ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει,
“by means it was weak ;” is not that void of strength to
save us, which hath no possibility to do any thing? These
instances may serve to prove, that ἀσθενὴς may signify
“that which is so weak that it hath no strength.” Upon
the etymology alone we stand not. But where you say,
that man was wounded in free will by the sin of Adam,
not slain altogether, (grounding your assertion upon a fond
and false allegory of him that fell among thieves, which is
no parable of a man in this case, but of man in necessity
to be helped by right of neighbourhood,) I pray you, how
came man to be dead altogether im sins? Eph. ii, Col.
i., and in many other places of the scripture. Beside, is
there any freedom of will to godliness remaining in them
that are altogether dead in sin? But we are not now to
handle controversies, but translations, as you do well ad-
monish us.

Martin. When they have bereaved and spoiled a man of his free Martin,
will, and left him without all strength, they go so far in this point, ss

»
“ €oTl,

Beza in ne
not. Rom. ii

Mandata ejus
gravia non
sunt.

αἱ ἐντολαὶ
βαρεῖαι οὐκ
εἰσί.

οὐχ ὑπέρ-
ογκός

Ry)
nN)
qi

βαρύς. ἶ

Fuke,
14.

βαρεῖαι.

998 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

that they say, the regenerate themselves have not free will and ability,

“no not by and with the grace of God, to keep: the commandments.

To this purpose they translate, 1 John v. 3, thus, “ His commandments
are not grievous,’ rather than thus, “His commandments are not heavy ;”
for in saying “they are not heavy,” it would follow, they might be
kept and observed: but in saying “they are not grievous,” that may
be true, were they never so heavy or impossible, through patience. As
when a man cannot do 85. 8 would, yet it grieveth him not, being
patient and wise, because he is content to do as he can and is able.
Therefore do they choose to translate, that the commandments are not
grievous, where the apostle saith rather, they are not heavy, much
more agreeably to our Saviour’s words, “ My burthen is light,” and

. to the words of God by Moses, Deut. xxx. - “ This commandment which

I command thee this day is not above thee,” that is, beyond thy reach,
“but the word is very near thee, in, thy mouth, and in thy heart,
that thou mayest do it ;” and to the common signification of the Greek
word, which is “heavy.” Beza would say somewhat in his commen-
tary, how the commandments are heavy or light; but his conclusion
is against free will, and that there can be no perfection in this life,
inveighing against them that would prove it out of this place: which
is as much to say, (but he is ashamed to speak plainly,) that we can-
not keep the commandments: which the holy doctors have long since
condemned and abhorred, as most absurd, that God should command
that, under pain of damnation, which is impossible to be done’.

Fulke. » Seeing our English word “grievous” cometh of
the Latin word “grave,” which is not only “weighty,” but also
*troublesome;” it better answereth both the Greek and the
Latin, than “heavy,” which is properly, “that which is of great
weight;” -and the same word being both in Greek and Latin,
2 Cor. x., you yourselves translate “sore,” “his epistles are
sore and vehement :” but in effect there is no great differ-
ence.» We acknowledge that his commandments are not

[? Nam multo vehementius est quod dicit Apostolus, Judeos scilicet
non modo non justificari circumcisione externa, eo quod transgressores
essent legis; sed etiam per eam ipsam circumcisionem transgredi legem,
ut qui-hoe ipso profanarent sacrosanctum Domini symbolum: velut
si hodie dicamus contra sophistas, non modo non conferri gratiam ex
opere operato baptismi, iis qui sordes conscientie non abluerunt, sed
quotidie magis ac magis se polluunt, ut etiam per hoc ipsum quod
baptizati sunt, magis sint ire .Dei obnoxii, ipsorum tamen vitio, non
baptismi. Beze, Nov. Test. in Rom. ii. 27, p. 177.

Αἱ ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσίν, 1 John v. 8. “ Mandata ejus.
gravia non sunt,” Vulg. Beza. “His commandments are not heavy,”
Wiclif, Rheims. © His commandments are not grievous,” Tyndale,
Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised version. ]

x. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 399

heavy to him that is born of God, which overcometh the world
by faith: otherwise the yoke of the law, as the apostle
confesseth, “is such a burthen, as neither we nor our fathers
were able to bear,” but believe to be saved by the grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ, who having taken away the curse
of the law, and satisfied for our transgressions of the law,
hath also given us grace to love the law and command-
ments of God, and in some weak measure to observe them:
so that, the curse bemg taken away, our transgressions
answered in Christ, and our hearts framed by his grace
to love his commandments, and some strength given us to
keep them, they are not heavy, they are not burdenous,
or grievous. That which God speaketh, Deut. xxx., is of
the knowledge of the law, which was plainly revealed, and
not of the strength that men have to keep it; and there-
fore is by the apostle referred unto faith, for the observation
thereof, Rom. x.: for by faith in Christ, which hath ful-
filled the law for us, we are accounted to have fulfilled-it
in him. Beza? speaketh plainly enough, if you had grace
to understand him; and therefore is nothing ashamed to
say, that we cannot keep the commandments of God, not
only without the grace of God, but neither having the

[ἢ Lex per se considerata nec gravis nec levis dici potest, sed compa-
rate duntaxat, pro varia eorum conditione quorum respectus habetur.
Gravis est igitur eorum respectu qui in carne sunt. Sunt autem in carne
omnes homines qui non sunt renati ex Spiritu; adeo quidem ut eos non
modo nihil allevet, sed etiam opprimat legis pondus, non suo tamen,
sed illorum vitio, ut declaratum est copiose septimo epistole ad Romanos
eapite. Εἰ contrario vero levis est illis qui novas vires ccelitus accepe-
runt, qui Spiritu Dei aguntur, quia filii Dei sunt; qui denique peccato
mortui sunt: adeo quidem ut nulla re eque ac lege Dei delectentur ;
nedum ut illis sit gravis et onerosa. Superest tamen, fateor, difficillimum
et asperrimum certamen Spiritus cum carne: sed ne hac quidem ratione
ullum legis pondus sentiunt, tum quia Spiritus tandem victor evadit ;
tum vero quia quicunque credit, liberatus est ab illo longe grayvissimo
legis pondere, id est, ab ejus execratione......... Itaque stupidam esse
oportet eorum conscientiam, et valde ineptum judicium, qui hunc locum
citant ut liberum (quod vocant) arbitrium statuant, ut et eorum qui_
perfectionem aliquam putant fidelibus in hac vita contingere. Eos vero
meminisse oportuerat, quod scriptum sit Rom. vii. 22. et deinceps,
Philipp. iii. 9. et supra i. 8., denique saltem conscientiam suam dili-
genter scrutari, nisi jampridem illius sensum amisissent. Beze, Nov.
Test. in 1 John v. 3. p. 317.]

Martin,
1d,

Funke,
15.

400 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

grace of God in such measure, as God giveth it to no
man but that he sinneth. Otherwise, what grace God is
able to give, we doubt not; but what he doth,:-and will
give to any man in this life, we speak. That God should
command, under pain of damnation, that which is impossi-
ble to be done, is no absurdity; seeing for them whom
God will have to be saved, he provided another way of
their salvation, than by -keeping the law, namely, the re-
demption of Christ. As for the reprobate, void of God’s
grace, say you (if you dare) that they are able to keep

‘the law without grace, or without grace have so much as

any will to desire to have grace.

Martin. Thus having taken away free will to do good, and pos-
sibility to keep the commandments, and all merit or value and efficacy
of good works, their next conclusion is, that we have no true justice
or righteousness in us, but an imputative justice, that is, Christ’s justice
imputed to us, be we never so foul and filthy in our souls, so that
we believe only, and by faith apprehend Christ’s justice. For this
purpose they corrupt the scriptures in their English bibles, thus.

Fulke. The justice whereby we are accounted just m
the sight of God, is not inherent in us, but in Christ, which
is “the Lord our Righteousness,” Jerem. xxii. Notwithstand-
ing, it is the only true justice, and we are truly just by it.
And yet we are not void of the Spirit of sanctification, which
is a fruit and consequent of justification, by which we have
grace to withstand sin, and to work righteousness, not whereby
we should be made righteous before God, but whereby we
are declared to be righteous in part, until, the body of sin
being abolished, we shall be rey. renewed according to the
image of God.

x1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 401

CHAPTER XI.

Heretical Translation for Imputative Justice against True
Inherent Justice.

Martin. Owns place might suffice instead of many, where Beza Marry, 1.
doth protest, that his adding or alteration of the text is specially against,
“the execrable error of inherent justice’,” which, he saith, is to be Annot. in
avoided as nothing more. . His false translation thus our English Bezites salen
and Calvinists follow in their bibles : ‘‘ Likewise then, as by the offence of Rom. v.
one” the fault came “on all men to condemnation; so by the justi-
fying of one” the benefit abounded “toward all men to the justifi-

[} Ἄρα οὖν ὡς δ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος eis πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς
κατάκριμα" οὕτω καὶ Ov ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς
δικαίωσιν ζωῆς, Rom. v.18. “Igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes °
homines in condemnationem ; sic et per unius justitiam in omnes homines
in justificationem vite,” Vulg. “Nempe igitur sicut per unam offensam
‘reatus venit in omnes homines ad condemnationem; ita etiam per
unam. justificationem beneficium redundavit in omnes homines in justi-
ficationem vite.” Beze versio.

Beneficium redundavit in omnes homines, εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους.
Quia precisa est oratio, supplevimus quod deerat, ex vers. 15. et 16.
Nam quod Erasmus adjecit, propagatum est bonum, multis de causis
mihi displicuit. Primum quia, quamvis de plenitudine Christi accipere
nos oporteat, tamen inter nature propagationem et gratuitam impu-
tationem discrimen aliquod constitui par est. Deinde quia nusquam
(quod sciam) ita loquitur apostolus. Preterea vetustus ille sophistarum
error, qui pro imputata justitia inherentem qualitatem substituunt,
tantus est tamque execrandus bonis omnibus, ut nihil eque fugiendum
putem. Beze Nov. Test. p. 179. “ Likewise then as by the sinn.
of one condemnation came on all men: even so by the justifying of
one cometh the righteousness that bringeth life upon all men,” Tyndale,
1534, “Likewise then as by the sin of one there sprang up evil on all
men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one springeth
good upon all men to the righteousness of life,” Cranmer, 1589. “ Like-
wise then as by the offence of one giltship came on all men to con-
demnation: even so by the justifying of one the benefit abounded upon
all men to the justification of life,” Geneva, 1557. “Therefore as by
the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice
of one unto all men to justification of life,’ Rheims, 1582. “Therefore
as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation :
even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto
justification of life,” Authorised version.}° Ὁ ἱ

[ruLKE. | 26

Fvuixe, 1.

402 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH- [ou.

cation of life.” Where there are added to the text of the apostle six
words, and the same so wilfully and voluntarily, that by the three
first they make the apostle say, sin came on all men by Adam, and
they were made sinners indeed ; by the three latter they make him say,
not that justice or righteousness came likewise on all men by Christ,
to make them just indeed, but that the benefit of Christ’s justice
abounded towards them, as being imputed forsooth unto them. Whereas,
if they would needs add to the text, (which yet is intolerable,) so much
and in so doubtful a case, they should at the least have made the case
equal, as the apostle himself teacheth them to do in the very next
sentence, saying thus: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were
made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many also be made
righteous.” So they translate, rather than, “be made just.” For they
are the lothest men in the world to say that we are made just, for
fear of justice inherent in us, though the scripture be never so plain:
as here we see the apostle maketh the case like that we are made
just by Christ, as we were made sinners by Adam.

Fulke. This one place is delivered from your vain
cayillation, cap. 1. sect. 23. When the sentence is ecliptical
or defective, they that will translate to have it understood,

must needs supply the words that are wanting. And where

shall they find what words are lacking, but in the same
place, and in the treaty of the same matter? It appeareth
you had rather the text had no sense, than that it might
seem to make against your blasphemy of “justice inherent.”
As for that fond quarrel of yours, that they be not just in
deed, to whom the justice of Christ (which you like an hell-
hound do scorn at) is imputed, [it] deserveth no answer. For
who is such a block to say or think, that those whom God
doth justify, are not made just in deed? Was not Abraham
just in deed, when God imputed his faith unto justice? 15
not he made rich in deed, which is made rich by another
man’s gift? Christ is given unto us of God to be justice,
wisdom, sanctification, and in" him we are just, wise, and
holy ; not in our own righteousness, wisdom, or holiness.
As for adding to the text, God knoweth how we abhor it:
but adding of words which do explicate the sense of the
Holy Ghost, is no addition forbidden; for then all preaching
were accursed, which is, or ought to be, nothing else but
an explaining and setting forth of the word of God in more
words, the matter whereof, though in fewer words, is con-

tained in the scripture. And if we speak of adding of words

---

Χι.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 403

in translation, have I not shewed before that you have
added many ? some indeed upon necessary cause, and some
without necessity. What needed you to say for poniterent,
“they had done penance,’ Luc. x.; for in omnibus bonis,
“in all his goods,” Gen. vi.; for separamini, “separate your-
selves,” 2 Cor. vi, &c. To say we are “justified,” and to
say we are inade “just,” is all one; and therefore I marvel,
why you think us loth to say the one rather than the other.
Is any man so senseless to think we can say a man is made
righteous, and dare not say he is made just? I tell you
plainly, we defy the heresy of “ righteousness inherent,” as
much as of “justice inherent.” We are just, we are righteous
in the sight of God, not by the justice or righteousness of
our works, but by the justice or righteousness of Christ
imputed to us through faith. And we are made just by
Christ, as we were made sinners by Adam, in some respect,
but not in every respect; for the apostle maketh a broad dif-
ference between the transgression and. the benefit, Rom. νυ. 15 ;

and other differences there be which none but a Pelagian
will deny. Nay, Pelagius will not say, that we are just
by Christ according to propagation, but according to faith,

Martin. And it is a world to see, how Beza shifteth from one yypri, 2,
signification of the word “justified,” or “ made just,” to another. Some- δικαιωθῆ-
time to be justified, is to be pronounced quit from all sin, or de- ναὶ.
clared just before God’s judgment-seat ; and so he translateth it in the δικαιοῦται,
text, Acts xiii. 389; and as though his guilty conscience were afraid of reac τϑ
a blow, he saith he fleeth not the term of “justifying” or “justification,”
because he useth it in other places. He doth so indeed, but then his
commentary supplieth the turn, as Rom.ii.18. ‘Not the hearers of

Γ᾿ Καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων dy οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωσέως δικαιωθῆναι,
ἐν τούτῳ πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων δικαιοῦται, Acts xiii. 89. “Et ab omnibus qui-
bus non potuistis in lege Moysi justificari, in hoc omnis qui credit justifi-
eatur,” Vulg. v. 38, 39, ‘ Et quod ab omnibus a quibus non potuistis per
legem Mosis absolvi, per hunc omnis qui credit absolvitur,” Beze Nov,
Test.

Οὐ yap οἱ ἀκροαταὶ τοῦ νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, GAN οἱ ποιηταὶ
τοῦ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται. Rom. ii. 185. ““ΕῸΣ before God they are not
righteous which hear the law: but the doers of the law shall be justified,”
Tyndale, Geneva. ‘‘ For in the sight of God they are not righteous,” &c.
Cranmer. ‘For not the hearers of the law are just with God: but
the doers of the law shall be justified,” Rhemish Version, 1582, Autho-
rised, 1611.]

26—2

404 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

the law are righteous before God ;” (so they delight to translate, rather
than, “just before God”;) ‘but the doers of the law shall be justified,”
Justi pronun- that is, saith Beza, “shall be pronounced just.” The apostle must needs
tiabuntur. :
say by the coherence and consequence of his words, Not the hearers
are just, but the doers shall be just or justified. Beza will in no case
have it so, but either in text or commentary make the apostle say as
Annot.m himself imagineth. Yet in another place he protesteth very solemnly,
Rom. iii. 20. Waa τὴν ᾿
that to be “justified” is not to be pronounced or accounted just, but
rather to be just in deed; and that he proveth out of St Paul, Rom.
2 aig y. 19, who maketh it all one “to be justified,” and “to be made just :”
ae ie κα- 2nd again by this reason, that it should be manifestly repugnant to
θίστασθαι. God’s justice to account him for just that is not just, and therefore
that man in deed is made just. Thus Beza. Would you not think he
were come to be of our opinion? But he revolteth again, and interpreteth
Non quasi all these goodly words in his old sense, saying, “ Not that any quality
joalitas“" is inwardly given unto us, of which we are named just; but because
the justice of Christ is imputed to us by faith freely.” By faith then
at the least we are truly justified. Not so neither; but “ faith,” saith
Annot.in he, “is an instrument wherewith we apprehend Christ our justice.”
Rom. iv. 2. . δ᾿ ἀγα
So that we have no more justice in us than we have glory ; for glory
also we apprehend by faith.

Fuke, 2. Fulke. All learned men, I hope, do see, that: you have
no regard how vainly you cavil, so you may seem to the
ignorant to say something against them that be godly and
learned. Acts xiii. v. 39, Beza translateth δικαιωθῆναι “ ab-
solvi,” that is, saith he, ‘to be declared just,” or ‘‘absolved ;”
and giveth this reason why he useth not the word justijficart
in that place, which he useth elsewhere: Ne quis illud
“ab omnibus” perinde acciperet, ac st casus esset modt aut
instrumenti, per quod justificemur, id est, justi fiamus ac

pronunciemur, aut pro justis habeamur; hoe quidem loco

malui absolvendi. verbum usurpare, ut magis perspicua
esset oratio’: “Lest any man should take this word of the
text ‘ab omnibus,’ as though it were the case of the mean
or instrument by which we are ‘justified,’ that is, ‘made
and pronounced just,’ or ‘accounted for just;’ in this
place I choose rather to use the word of ‘ absolving,’ that
the sentence might be more clear.” The Latin ab omnibus
may signify “by all things,” or “from all things.” There-
fore, lest any man should mistake the apostle, as though
he said we are “justified by all those things,’ where he

Γ᾿ Novum Testamentum, edit. Beze, p. 1541

xi. | TRANSLATIONS OF‘ THE BIBLE4, 408.

meaneth “ we are justified from all things,” Beza in this place
useth the word of “absolving,” or “ acquitting,” in the same
sense that he doth “justifying” in other places, where he ἡ
speaketh of the same matter ; and saith as plainly as a man.
can speak, that to be “justified” and to be made “just,”
or pronounced or accounted “just before God,” is all one.
Yet our Momus findeth fault with him, for expounding “ to
be justified,” Rom. ἢ. 13, “to be pronounced just;” as |
though God will pronounce any man just which is not
just in deed. But Beza, he saith, elsewhere protesteth
that “to be justified,” is not “to be pronounced or accounted
just,’ but rather “to be just in deed.” If Martin had not
belied Beza, we should have had Beza’s words set down,
both in Latin and English. But in truth Beza hath no
such words: yet in sense he hath thus much, that to be
justified before God is “to be just in deed,” and not “ to be
only pronounced or accounted just,” when he is not so in
deed; but that we are “made truly just.in)deed by the -
juskiog of Christ,” which is imputed unto us freely by faith.
And as for that new life or “justice,” which is called “ in-
herent in us,” it is not the cause but the witness of that
justice” by imputation of which we are saved, following
him that is “ justified,” and not going before “ justification :”
and faith indeed is the instrument by which we apprehend,
Christ our “justice.” Neither doth Beza say, that we are
not truly “justified by faith:’ but: that faith is not the
principal efficient cause, which is the mercy of God, but
the instrumental cause, by which we take hold of the mercy
of God in Christ. In all this Beza hath said nothing con-
trary to himself, nor to the truth. And it is no absurdity
to say, that the “justice of Christ,” by which we are.
“justified,” is no more inherent in us than his glory; and.
yet both assured unto us by faith. As for that “justice,”
which is an effect of God’s sanctifying Spirit, and a fruit.
of our “justification before God,’ by which also we are
“justified,” or “declared just,” before men, as St James.
teacheth, [it] is inherent in us; as also the first-fruits of glo-
rification, by that peace of conscience and joy that we have
in God being reconciled to us by Christ.

Martin. For this purpose both he and the English bibles trans- Marry, 3.

Pro justitia.
εἰς δικαιο-
σύνην.
Vice et loco.

Reputabitur
tibi in pecca-
tum.

2 ΠῚ
ROM

ἔσται ἐν
σοι ὧμαρ-
via.
a
MW)
bp,

Furxe, 3, |

406 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH . [ or.

late thus: ‘ Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him for
justice,”! Rom. iv. 3. and 9, Where he interpreteth, “for justice,” to be
nothing else but “in the stead and place of justice ;” so also taking
away true inherent justice even from Abraham himself. But’ to admit
their translation, which notwithstanding in their sense is most false,
must it needs signify, not true inherent justice, because the scripture
saith it was ‘‘reputed for justice?” Do such speeches import that it is
not so in deed, but is only reputed so? Then if we say, this shall be
reputed to thee for sin, for a great benefit, and so forth; it should
signify, it is no sin in deed, nor great benefit. But let them call to
mind, that the scripture useth to speak of sin and of justice alike. “It
shall be sin in thee,” or, “unto thee,” as they translate, bible 1577:
or as St Jerome translateth, “It shall be reputed to thee for sin,” Deut.
xxiii. and xxiv., and, as themselves translate, “it shall be righteousness
unto thee before the Lord thy God.” And again, Deut. vi.: “ This
shall be our righteousness before the Lord our God, if we keep all the
commandments, as he hath commanded us.” If then justice only be
reputed, sin also is only reputed: if sin be in us in deed, justice is in
us in deed. |

Fulke. Our translation taketh not from Abraham true
justice, nor yet justice inherent; but declareth that he was
not justified before God by works, that is, by justice inherent,
but by faith, which apprehendeth the justice of Christ, which
is altogether without us. And therefore you cavil in your old
rotten quarrel, when you go about to make ‘ reputed” to be
contrary to “truth,” or “in deed.” Faith was reputed by God

[} ᾿Επίστευσε δὲ ᾿Αβραὰμ τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.
Rom. iv. 3. “ Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam,”’
Vulg. “Credidit autem Abraham Deo, et imputatum est ei pro justitia,”
Beze Vers.

λέγομεν yap ὅτι ἐλογίσθη τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Rom.
iv.9. “Dicimus enim quia reputata est Abrahe fides ad justitiam,” Vulg.
*Dicimus enim quod imputata fuerit Abrahe fides pro justitia,” Beze
Vers.

Pro justitia, εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Vulg. et Erasmus ad verbum, ad justi-
tiam, quod est obscurius dictum. Est enim hic quoque (ut supra ii. 26)
Hebraismus in prepositione εἰς 14 5 est que significat vice et loco, ut
Psal. xxx. 3, et alibi sepe. Beze, Nov. Test. p, 180.

*‘ Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for right-
eousness, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised versions, v. 3. “Abra-

_ ham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice,” Rhemish

version. v. 3. “We say verily that faith was reckoned to Abraham for
righteousness,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised, v. 9. “ For
we say that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice,” Rhemish. |

x1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 407

to Abraham for justice in deed, but not as justice inherent.
And Abraham was truly justified by faith as by an instru-
mental cause: not that faith was the justice by which he was
just in the sight of God, excluding all other causes; but there
was nothing in Abraham but faith, which God accounted for
justice. But Abraham’s faith embraced the mercy of God
in the promised seed, in which as well he, as all the tribes of
the earth, should be blessed. The places of scripture that
you cite, speaking of sin and justice alike, be not contrary to
the imputation of justice unto them in which it is not inherent.
For in neither of both places the Holy Ghost useth the word
of imputation, howsoever St Jerome translateth it, but the
verb substantive ; and the meaning is plain. “It shall be sin
in thee:” for sin is indeed inherent, as perfect justice also
should be, if we could observe all the commandments of God,
as Moses saith, Deut. vi., and we should be justified thereby.
But by one just act, whereof Moses speaketh, Deut. xxiv.,
though it proceed of justice that is in us, the scripture never
saith that we shall be “justified.” To conclude, we confess.
that both sin and justice are in the children of God; but not
that justice, whereby they are reputed “just” or “justified,”
or made “just” before God, but an effect or fruit thereof.

Martin. Again, the Greek fathers make it plain, “that to be re- Marri, 4,
puted unto justice” is to be true justice indeed, interpreting St Paul’s @cum, in’
word in Greek thus: “Abraham obtained justice, Abraham was justi- tini.
fied.” For that is, say they, “It was reputed him to justice.” Doth not sn δῷ
St James say the like, cap. ii. 23, testifying, that in that Abraham was τοῦτο γάρ
justified by faith and works, the scripture was fulfilled, that saith, “it was iXoyt be
reputed him to justice?” Gen. xv. 6. In which words of Genesis, where city eis
these words were first written by Moses, in the Hebrew there is not, mete
‘for justice,” or, “instead of justice,” which Beza pleadeth upon by τεστιν, ὅτε
the Hebrew phrase ; but thus: “ He, God, reputed it unto him justice ;” ἐδικαιώθη.
though here also the English bibles add “for:” which precisely trans- naw
lating the Hebrew they should not do, especially when they mean it was ἘΠ 5

so counted or reputed for justice, that it was not justice in deed.

Fulke. 1 know not against whom you fight, but against Fuuxe, 4.
your own shadow. For we say, that to be justified, and be
reputed just, and to obtain justice, is all one in this case.
But where St James saith that Abraham was “justified by
works,” he meaneth, that he was declared just before men;
even as he saith, “Shew me thy faith by thy works; for

408 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH- : [cu..

Abraham was not justified by a dead faith, but by a work-
ing faith ;” and yet he was not justified before God by works :
but the scripture was fulfilled which said, ‘Abraham believed
God, and it was reputed to him for justice ;” which is, as St
Paul expoundeth it, “ Abraham was justified before God by
faith, and not by works.” But in Gen. xv. 6 there is not.
the preposition “for” or “instead,” but simply “justice :”
therefore it should be translated, “he reputed it to him
justice.” And will you then control both the apostles, Paul
and James, for adding the preposition εἰς, which signifieth
“unto,” or “for?” Or will not common sense enforce the
same understanding that both the apostles do give it? He
reputed it to him as “justice,” or “for justice.’ | Must
not such particles in translation be always expressed to make
the sense plain, which in English without the particle hath
no sense or understanding? ΤῸ translate precisely out of
the Hebrew is not to observe the number of words, but the
perfect sense and meaning of them, in fewer or more words,
as the phrase of our tongue will serve to be understood: or
else 2 Cor. viil., gut multum, why do you translate “ he that.
had much?” and, gui modicum non minoravit, “he that
had little wanted not ?” You should have said “which much,”
and “ which little not lessed,” if you would have given word
for word, and not added any word for explication. Again,
2 Cor. 1., supra virtutem, “ above our power,” why add you
“our,” which is not in the text, and indeed not necessary
to be added in the translation? Again, 1 Cor. xiii., Evacuavi
que erant parvuli, “I did away the things that belonged
to a little one.” Here for four Latin words you have given
ten or eleven English words; which no reasonable man can
greatly mislike, if you were not such a quarreller at other
men’s doing, without all cause or wise colour, but only to blear
the eyes of the ignorant. i

Martin. But as for either the Hebrew or Greek word that is here
used, to “repute” or “account,” they are then used when it must needs
signify that the thing is so in deed, and not only so reputed, as Psal..
cxviil. octonario samec: “I have reputed or accounted all the sinners
of the earth prevaricators,” or “ transgressors ;” prevaricantes reputavi.

WIT So did the Septuaginta take the Hebrew word, and read it. And St
ἡμᾶς λογι- Paul, “So let a man repute” or “account us as the ministers of Christ.”

Let them go now and say, that neither they were sinners in deed, nor

xu] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 409

these Christ's ministers in deed, because. they were reputed for such:

let them say, the children of the promise were not the seed of Abra-

ham, because the apostle saith, Rom. ix. 8, “they are reputed for λογίζεται
the seed.” But howsoever it be, the protestants will have it so to be “*°”°?#®
taken, at the least in the matter of justification.

Fulke. Silence were the best answer to these tedious Furxy, 5.
repetitions. It were sufficient once to say among reasonable
men, When faith is reputed by God, or accounted for
justice, faith is truly and in deed the instrumental cause of
justification, or apprehending the justice of Christ, by which
we are accounted and made just in the sight of God. It
is therefore a most ridiculous cavil of the difference between
“reputing just,” and being “just in deed.” For God, when
he justifieth the ungodly, doth both repute him and make
him just in deed by the justice of Christ, of his own mere
merey, and not of the man’s merits, or by justice mherent.
For what justice can be in an ungodly man? and such is
every one of us whom God doth justify, and then give us
his holy Spirit, to sanctify us in newness of life, to set forth -
his glory in our holy and blameless conversation.

Martin. Again, where St Paul saith, 2 Cor. v.! “That we might be Martin, 6.
made the justice of God in him ;” they in their first translations intolerably
corrupt it thus: “'That we by his means should be that righteousness, Bib. 1562.
which before God is allowed.” Who taught them to translate so dis- pease.
solutely, justitia Dei, “the righteousness which before God is allowed 2?” αὐτῷ.
Did not their error and heresy, which is, that God reputeth and ac-
counteth us for just, though we be indeed most foul sinners ; and that
our justice being none at all in us, yet is allowed and accepted before
him for justice and righteousness ?

Fulke. There is no text in all the bible more clear Furxs, 6:
against justification by justice inherent, than this 2 Cor. y.,
wherein not altogether causeless you reprove our first in-
terpreters to translate dissolutely. There it is certain they

ᾧ ἵνα ἡμεῖς γινώμεθα δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ, 2 Cor. ν. 21. “Ut
nos efficeremur justitia Dei in ipso,’ Vulg. “That we by his means
should be that righteousness which before God is allowed,’ Tyndale,
Cranmer, 1539, 1562. ‘ That we should (might, version 1611) be made
the righteousness of God in him,” Bishops’ bible, 1584, Geneva, 1557.
** That we. might be made the justice of God in him,” Rheims. | :

Phil. iii.

Martin, 7. |

Eph. i. 6.

ἐχαρίτωσε.

χαρίσα-
σθαι.
χαριτῶσαι.

410 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH” [cu.

had no such purpose as you ascribe unto them: for their
translation doth rather obscure than set out our justifi-
cation by the justice which is not in us, but in Christ.
The text is therefore plain: ‘Him that knew no sin,
he made sin for us, that we might become the justice
of God in him,” that is, in Christ, and not in ourselves.
For though we be indeed most foul sinners, and all our
Justice be, as the prophet saith, as a menstruous cloth ;
yet. in Christ he washeth and cleanseth us from our sins,
and reputing his justice as ours, he maketh us truly just

before him; “not having our own justice which is of the

law, but the justice which is by faith of Jesus Christ,
the justice which: is of God through faith.” Where you
charge us to affirm, “that our justice being none at all in
us, yet is allowed and accepted before him for justice and
righteousness,” it is no assertion of ours, but a dogged slander
of your own.

Martin. Again to this purpose: they make St Paul! say that God
“hath made us accepted,” or, “freely accepted’ in his beloved Son, as
they make the angel in St Luke say to our lady, “ Hail, freely be-
loved ;" to take away all grace inherent and resident in the blessed
virgin, or in us; whereas the apostle’s word signifieth, that we are truly
made gracious or grateful and acceptable ; that is to say, that our soul
is inwardly endued and beautified with grace and the virtues proceed-
ing thereof, and consequently is holy indeed before the sight of God,
and not only so accepted and reputed, as they imagine. If they know
not the true signification of the Greek word, and if their heresy will
suffer them to learn it, let them hear St Chrysostom, not only a fa-
mous Greek doctor, but an excellent interpreter of all St Paul’s epistles ;
who in this place putteth such force and significancy in the Greek,
that he saith thus by an allusion and distinction of words: “He said
not, which he freely gave us, but, wherein he made us grateful; that
is, not only delivered us from sin, but also made us beloved and ami-

able, made our soul beautiful, grateful, such as the angels and archangels

are desirous to see, and such as himself is in love withal, according
to that in the psalm, ‘The king shall desire, or, ‘be in love with
thy beauty”.’"’ So St Chrysostom, and after him Theophylact, who with
many more words and similitudes explicate this Greek word, and ‘this

-- δ e a ἐδ
[ Eis ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὑτοῦ, ἐν ἣ ἐχαρίτωσεν. ἡμᾶς ἐν

᾿ τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ. Ephes. i. 6.7

= a >
.. [2 Οὐκ εἶπεν, ἧς ἐχαρίσατο, ἀλλ᾽, ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς" τουτέστιν, οὐ

μόνον ἁμαρτημάτων ἀπήλλαξεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπεράστους ἐποίησε. ᾿Ἐπιθυ-᾿

XI. ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 411

making of the soul gracious and beautiful inwardly, truly, and inhe-.
rently.

Fulke. We make St Paul say no otherwise than he Funxe, 7.
saith indeed, ἐχαρίτωσε, “he hath made us accepted,” or
“he hath freely accepted us in his beloved Son.” And so
we truly say, “the blessed virgin Mary was freely accepted,”
or, “freely beloved.” But this taketh not away the gracious
gifts of God, [with] which the blessed virgin in most plentiful
manner was, and we in some measure are, endued by his grace
and favour; which also God loveth in us, because they be his -
gifts, and because he loveth us freely in his beloved Son,
whom always you forget, when you speak of justice, or
acceptation before God. For that, being sanctified by his
Spirit, we are holy in deed, though not perfectly, as sanctifi-
cation is begun, and not consummate in this life, (for if it
were, we should be void of sin and death,) we do thankfully
acknowledge: yet those virtues wherewith our soul is inwardly
endued and beautified, are not the cause that justifieth us,
or maketh us acceptable in God’s sight; but only his mercy
in Jesus Christ, for whose sake also he accepteth this unperfect
holiness and righteousness, which is in us by his grace and
gift, rewarding the same for his sake also with everlasting
glory. And nothing else doth Chrysostom say or mean
in the place by you cited, about whom you make so many
words, that you might be thought, by giving him his due
praise, to have him (as it were) bound to you to maintain your
unrighteous cause. But Chrysostom careth not for your
commendation, and that which he saith maketh nothing for
“justice inherent,” by which we should be justified; for he saith
not so much as that our soul is made amiable and beautiful,
by virtues and good qualities infused by his grace, much less,
that for such qualities inherent in us God-should justify us;_
but he hath made us acceptable in Christ, amiable, and beau-
tiful, and lovely to the angels; some effect of which grace
also appeareth in our life and conversation, to the praise of
God, and good example of men.

ae . , ‘ ‘ , . hes ,

fiovor yap ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην Ψυχὴν, ἀρχάγγελοι,

πᾶσαι αἱ ἄλλαι δυνάμεις. Οὕτως ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπιχάριτας ἐποίησε, καὶ
σ΄ ’ > , , n

ἑαυτῷ ποθεινούς. ᾿Ἐπιθυμήσει yap, pynow, ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ κάλλους. σου.

Chrysost. Homil. in Ephes. Opera, Vol. u1, p, 767. Edit. Savill.]

412 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH’ fou.

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

ἀξιῶσαι. worthy, or meet, or grateful, just, and holy, be not so in ‘very deed,

spe but by acceptation only: if not in deed, then God maketh him no better
than he was before, but only accepteth him for better; if he be so in
deed, then the apostle’s word signifieth not to make accepted, but to
make such an one as, being by God's grace sanctified and justified, is
worthy to be accepted for such purity, virtue, and justice as is in
him.

Furxe,8. Fulke. I have told you before, that αξιῶσαι signifieth
not to “make worthy,” but to “account worthy ;” for many
aman may desire (using this verb) to be accounted worthy
of him, which cannot make him worthy, but in his own judg-
ment and account. But where you demand further, “whether
he whom God maketh meet, worthy, grateful, just, holy,
be not so in deed, but by acceptation only ;” I answer, those
whom he accepteth for worthy, meet, just, holy, grateful,
are so in deed; but then it is further to be known, whether
they be such in themselves, or in Christ. We say they are
not such in themselves, but in Christ. Then are they made
nothing better, say you, in themselves. Yes, verily, as soon
as they are accepted to be God’s children, and the justice
of Christ is imputed to them through faith, they receive the
Spirit of adoption, which reneweth them in the inward man,
and beginneth in them holiness, and justice, purity, virtue:
but because all these qualities are imperfect, they are not
worthy in God’s justice to be accepted for them; but the
cause of their acceptation is still the mercy of God in Christ,
in whom both they and their imperfect good qualities are
accepted to reward.

Martin,9. Martin. Again, for this purpose, Dan. vi. 22, they will not trans-
aorta late according to Chaldee, Greek, and Latin, “Justice was found in
diel. 7° me;” but they alter thus: “My justice was found out;” and other of
“wit 12t them: ‘My unguiltiness was found out,” to draw it from inherent.

nnn τ justice, which was in Daniel.

””

» Fulke. 1 can but wonder at your.impudence and malice,

Fvtxe, 9.

‘ which say so confidently, that for this purpose they translated,
thus. Would any man by the justice or innocency that
was in Daniel, or in any just man, fear lest any thing should)

x1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 413

be detracted from the justice of Christ, whereby Daniel, and
all just men, are justified in God’s sight? Well, let that
purpose rest in God’s judgment, as Daniel’s justice did, when
he was shamefully slandered. But what is the fault of the
translation? According to the Chaldee, Greek, and Latin, it
should be, “justice is found in me.” For Greek and Latin we
will not contend, because we translate not Daniel out of Greek
and Latin, but out of the Chaldee. But in good sadness,
are you so deeply seen in Chaldee, that you will avouch the
proper signification of % to be “in me?” A hundred boys in
Cambridge know that it signifieth as well in Chaldee, as in
Hebrew, “to me,” rather than “in me.” But most pro-
perly have our translators expressed the phrase in English,
saying, “my justice’ or “ unguiltiness was found out ;” for
of a virtue inherent Daniel speaketh otherwise, Dan. ii. 30,
to the king, 92 ΤῸΝ TWIN] x5, “not by wisdom, which
isin me.” So that here your quarrel bewrayeth more spite
than wit, more malice than learning.

x
ΠΌΣΑ
ΓΝ
"ἜΣ 5

Martin. Again, it must needs be a spot of the same infection, that Martin,
they translate thus: “As David describeth the blessedness of the man, ae.
unto whom God imputeth righteousness,” Rom. iv. 6 ; as though imputed λέγει ren

μακαρι-

righteousness were the “description” of blessedness. They know the σμὸν τοῦ
Greek doth not signify “to describe.” I would once see them pre- %”4P#7ov.

cise in following the Greek and the Hebrew: if not, we must look
to their fingers.

Fulke. Tt must needs come of an high wit, to have Furxz,

such deep insight into other men’s intents and purposes.
But why, I pray you, is not “righteousness imputed by God,”
&e., and so forth, as Paul saith, “a description of man’s
blessedness?” If they had said “defineth,” where they
say, “describeth,” you would have made much ado. But
can you not allow this that the prophet saith, to be a “ de-
scription” of man’s blessedness? Howsoever it is, λέγω sig-
nifieth not “to describe,” but “to speak,” “to say,” “to
pronounce ;” and in effect there is nothing else meant by
the word “ describeth” here used, but that David pro-
nounceth or setteth forth the blessedness of man in such
words. You in your translation say “termeth,” as “David
termeth ; which, if you mean it not scornfully, cometh as
near a definition as ‘“ describeth,” the word which we use;

414 4 DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH: | cet.

and our “ describeth” is as near the Greek λέγει, as your
“‘termeth” is to the Latin dicit. But “look to our fingers,”
and spare not to tell us where you see us go wide from the
Greek or Hebrew: but if you do nothing but trifle and
quarrel, as you have done hitherto, be sure we will be bold
to beshrew your fingers, and hit you on the thumbs now se
then also to your discredit,

xu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 415

CHAPTER ΧΙ.

Heretical Translation for Special Faith, Vain Security, ©
and Only Faith.

_ Martin. Aw other means of salvation being thus taken away; Manny, 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,” Fuxxe, 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 life, because he that hath promised is faithful also
to perform. -But where you say, that our “ only faith is not
the christian faith of the articles of the creed,” you lie with-
out measure impudently ; for that faith, and none other, do
we believe, teach, and profess. And that faith is a special
faith and confidence in the mercy of God, whereof every
man that believeth doth make a singular confession for him-
self, saying, “I believe in God,” &c. And of all things
contained in that profession of faith, (that is, of forgiveness of
sins, resurrection of our bodies, and life everlasting, by
belief and trust in God the Father Almighty, maker of
heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our
Lord, conceived, born, suffered, crucified, dead, buried, de-
scended into hell, risen again, and ascended into heaven, and
in God the Holy Ghost, by whose gracious and mighty work-
ing we are incorporate into the body of Christ, and made
members of his holy catholic church, which is the communion
of saints,) every christian man ought to be as certainly
persuaded, as the things are most true, being inwardly
taught by the Spirit of truth, that he is the child of God,
and consequently elect, and predestinate unto eternal salva-
tion. But that a man shall never be saved, except he have
such certainty of aa faith, as the truth of God’s promises

Martin, 2. —

ἐν πληρο-
opia
“πίστεως.
Annot. in
Luke i. 1.

πληροφο-
ρίαν τῆς
ἐλπίδος.
πληροφο-
ρίας τῆς
συνέσεως.
πληροφο-
ρηθεὶς,
plenissime
sciens.

“πληροφό-
pnoov.

Ministerium
tuum imple.
An. 1577.
An. 1562.

Ignat. Ep.
Smy ΤΏ.
cA acta
Θεοῦ πα-
τρὸς πε-
“πληροφο-
ρημένη ἐν

416 ‘A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cn

doth deserve, none of us doth teach, none of us doth think.
For we know our own infirmity, we know the temptation of
Satan : nevertheless we acknowledge in ourselves, and so seek
to persuade all men, that these things standing upon the
immoveable pillars of God’s promises, who can neither deceive
nor be deceived, ought to be most certain unto us; and for
daily confirmation and increase of this faith, all those means
are of us diligently to be used, that God for this purpose in
his holy scripture hath appointed.

Martin For this heresy, they force the Greek to express the
very word of assurance and certainty, thus: “ Let us draw nigh with
a true heart, in assurance of faith,” Heb. x. 22; and Beza, certa
persuasione fidei, that is, “with a certain and assured persuasion of
faith ;” interpreting himself more at large in another place, that he
meaneth thereby such a persuasion and so effectual, as by which
we know assuredly without all doubt, that nothing can separate us
from God. Which their heretical meaning maketh their translation
the less tolerable, because they neither express the Greek precisely,
nor intend the true sense of the apostle. They express not the Greek,
which signifieth properly the fulness and complement of any thing,
and therefore the apostle joineth it sometime with faith; elsewhere,
Heb. vi. 11, with hope; with knowledge, or (Col. ii. 2) understanding ;
to signify the fulness of all three, as the vulgar Latin interpreter
most sincerely (Rom. iv. 21.) always translateth it: and to Timothy,
2. Tim. iv.', he -useth it to signify the full accomplishment and
execution of his ministry in every point. Where a man may wonder
that Beza, to maintain his conceived signification of this word, trans-
lateth here also accordingly, thus, ministerii tui plenam jidem facito:
but their more current church English bibles are content to say with
the vulgar Latin interpreter, “fulfil thy ministry,” or, “fulfil thine
office to the utmost.” And the Greek fathers do find no other in-
terpretation. Thus when the Greek signifieth “fulness of faith,” rather
than “assurance” or “ certain persuasion,” they translate not the Greek
precisely. Again, in the sense they err much more, applying the
aforesaid words to the certain and assured faith that every man
ought to have, as they say, of his own salvation. Whereas the
Greek fathers expound it of the full and assured faith that every
faithful man must have of all such things in heaven as he seeth

Γ᾿ τὴν διακονίαν σου πληροφόρησον, 2 Tim. iv. 5. “ Ministerium
tuum imple,” Vulg. “ Fulfil thine office unto the utmost,’ Tyndale,
Cranmer, 1539, 1562, Geneva, 1557. “ Make thy ministry be fully
known,” Geneva, 1560. “ Fulfil thy ministry,” Bishops’ bible, 1584,
Rheims, 1582. “ , Make a apy of thy aap ny Authorised ver-
gion, 1611.] ~ ,) Wei ;

δ an —T

xt. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 417

not, namely that Christ is ascended thither, &c., adding further and πίστει καὶ

proving out of the apostle’s words next following, that the protest- ane
ants’ only faith is not sufficient, be it never so special or assured. popopic
Tv lo TEMS.
Chrys. Theo-
oe Theo-
1. upon

Fulke. Waving nothing to impugn this clear interpre- Rin
tation of the Greek word wAypodopia, but the imperfect Funxn, 2.
translation of your vulgar Latin interpreter, who was both
an imperfect Grecian, and a very barbarous Latinist; you
are not ashamed to say, we force the Greek to make it
signify assurance; which all men that are but meanly
learned in the Greek tongue may know, that it signifieth
“assurance,” or “full and certain persuasion :” although
for the question in controversy, the “fulness of faith” will
prove the certainty, as much in a manner as “the assurance.”
But that the Greek signifieth “a full and certain persuasion,”
I report me not only to the best Greek dictionaries of this
time, but also to Budeus ; who citeth Isocrates out of Trape-
zuntius for proof that it is so used, and also interpreteth
that of St Paul, Rom. xiv. ἕκαστος ἰδίῳ vot πληροφορείσθω,
“Let every man be certain of his own mind.” But you
have a doughty argument, that it is not only joined with
faith, but also with hope, knowledge, and understanding; as
though there could not be a certain persuasion and assurance
of hope, knowledge, and understanding: yea, the assurance
of hope dependeth upon the assurance of faith, and the
assurance of faith upon the certain persuasion of knowledge
and understanding. Yea, your vulgar interpreter translating
πληροφορηθεὶς, Rom. iv. 21, plenissime sciens, “ knowing
most fully,” may teach you, that it signifieth more than “ ful-
ness ;” for else he should have said, “being fulfilled.” And
better doth Beza express the word πληροφόρησον, 2 'Tim. iv.,
than some of our English interpreters which say, “ fulfil thy
ministry ;” whereas the apostle’s meaning is, that he should ap-
prove the credit and dignity of his ministry unto other men.

But the Greek fathers, you say, find none other in-
terpretation of it, and for proof you cite Ignatius ep. ad
Smyrn., which although it be not authentical, yet I see
no cause why we may not interpret πεπληροφορημένῃ,
“being certamly persuaded in faith and love,” and ἐν πλη-
ροφορίᾳ πίστεως, “in the assurance of faith.” And so is it
translated in Bibliotheca sacra Margarini de la Bigne,

7 27

[ruLke.]

418 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

Plene instructe in fide et caritate, et cognovi vos absolute
perfectos in fide stabili, “fully instructed in faith and
charity,” and “I have known you absolutely perfect in a
stedfast faith.” Chrysostom and Theodoret, because you
vouch at large, I know not what you would shew out of
them. In Theophylact', I find that he speaketh against all
hesitation and doubtfulness of faith; but against the certain
persuasion thereof never a word; Ne aliquam inducas in
anmum tuum hesitationem, neque pendeas animi, dubii
quiddam cogitans, “ Bring not into thy mind any stagger-
ing, neither be uncertain of thy mind, thinking any doubtful
thing.” But for the signification of the word πληροφορία,
St Basil? may be a sufficient witness, who commonly useth
it for assured and certain persuasion. As Ἢθικ. 26,
“Every word and deed must be proved by the testimony
of the holy scripture,” eis πληροφορίαν μὲν τῶν ἀγαθῶν,
“to the full and certain persuasion of the good, and to the
shame of the wicked.” Again, dejin.80°, “what is the property
of a faithful man?” τὸ ev τοιαύτῃ πληροφορίᾳ, ἅς. “ By
such assured persuasion to be disposed,” &c. Even so ἐν
‘Op. κατ᾽ ἐρ. “Epwr. στ΄. εἰς πληροφορίαν τῆς θεοσεβείας,
“to the certain persuasion of godliness,” &c.; and so in other
places. And you yourself confess as much, where you say,
“the Greek fathers expound it of the full assured faith,” &c.,
which is enough to justify our translation. Now, if the
fathers understood this “full assured faith” only of an his-
torical faith, as you say, and not of trust and confidence
in God, it is another controversy. Our translation is not
false, although we had a false meaning, if it be answerable
to the words. Neither doth Chrysostom‘ speak of an_his-

[? Μὴ εἴπῃς yap, φησιν, ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου τάδε καὶ τάδε, τουτέστι,
μὴ ἐννοήσῃς ὅλως ἀμφιβολίας τι vdénua. Theophylact. Comment. in
Epist. ad Roman. c. x. Opera. Vol. τι. p. 76, ed. Venet. 1755. |

[5 Ὅτι δεῖ πᾶν ῥῆμα ἢ πρᾶγμα πιστοῦσθαι τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ τῆς θεο-
πνεύστου γραφῆς εἰς πληροφορίαν μὲν τῶν ἀγαθῶν, ἐντροπὴν δὲ τῶν
πονηρῶν. Basilii Moralia, Regula xxvi. Opera, Vol. u. p. 358, edit.
Paris, 1839. |

[3 Basilii Moralia, c. xxii. Opera, Vol. mr. p. 444. “Op. Ixxx. cap.
xxii. The reference that follows to the siath of the Ὅροι κατ᾽ ἐρώτησιν
καὶ ἀπόκρισιν does not appear to be accurate. |

[* ἐνταῦθα δείκνυσιν ὅτι οὐ πίστις μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ βίος ἐνάρετος
ζητεῖται, καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ἑαυτοῖς συνειδέναι πονηρόν. οὐ γὰρ δέχεται τὰ

x1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 419

torical faith only, by certainty whereof we have access
unto God; but also of confidence, which remission of our
sins doth cause, and that we are made coheirs with Christ,
and that we enjoy so great love: neither doth he prove that
“the protestants’ only faith is not sufficient to justify.” “But.
the apostle sheweth,” saith he, “that not faith alone, but
also a virtuous life is required, and that a man be not guilty
to himself of maliciousness. For these holy places do not
receive those men, with certain assurance, which are not
made such.” This judgment of Chrysostom the protestants
do allow of better than the papists; for we know that a
godly life is necessary in them that believe to justification,
without which they can have no assurance of faith, no, nor
faith in deed, but that which is by equivocation called “faith ;”
such faith as the devil and the reprobate may have.

Martin. Yet do these terms please them exceedingly, insomuch Martin, 3.
that for “the chosen gift of faith,’ Wisd. iii. 14, they translate, “the τῆς πί-
special gift of faith’;’ and Rom. viii. 38, “I am sure that nothing ode
can separate us from the love of God*;" as though the apostle were τή. Fidei
certain and assured not only of his own salvation, but of other ae es
men’s. For to this sense they do so translate here; whereas in other Pgh κοῖς
places, out of controversy, they translate the same word as they
should do, “I am persuaded, they are persuaded, &c.” For who Luke xx. 6.
knoweth not that πείθομαι importeth only a probable persuasion ¢ 1 Heb vid.
They will say that “I am sure,” and “I am persuaded,” is all one-

Being well meant, they may indeed signify alike, as the vulgar
Latin interpreter doth commonly translate it: but in this place of con-
troversy, whether the apostle were sure of his salvation or no, which
you say he was, yea, without revelation, we say he was not; here
why would you translate, “I am sure,” and not, as in other places,
“1 am persuaded,” but in favour of your error, by insinuating the
terms of “sure,” and “assurance,” and such like? as elsewhere you
neglect the terms of “just” and “justification.” In which your “secret 2 Cor. iv.

things of dishonesty and craftiness” (as the apostle calleth it) we

ἅγια τοὺς μὴ οὕτω διακειμένους μετὰ πληροφορίας" ἅγια yap ἐστι, καὶ
ἅγια ἁγίων. οὐκοῦν ἐνταῦθα ἄνθρωπος οὐδεὶς βέβηλος εἴσεισιν. Chrysost.
Hom. in Hebr. 18. Opera, Vol. rv. p. 580. ]

[9 Δοθήσεται γὰρ αὐτῷ τῆς πίστεως χάρις ἐκλεκτὴ, Wisdom of Solo-
mon iii. 14. “For unto him shall be given the special gift of faith,”
Bishops’ bible, 1584, Geneva bible, 1560. ]

[5 πέπεισμαι γὰρ ὅτι οὔτε θάνατος οὔτε ζωὴ, &e., Rom. viii. 38,
“Certus sum enim,’ Vulg. “For I am sure,” Tyndale, Cranmer,
Bishops’ bible, Rheims. “ For I am persuaded, Geneva, Authorised. |

27—2

Futkeg, 3.

Marin, 4,

περὶ ἐξι-
λασμοὺ μὴ
”

ἄφοβος γί-
νοῦ, προσ-
θεῖναι

© ,
ἀμαρτίαν
> Zi ἢ

ep auap-
Tiats,

420 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

cannot always use demonstrations to convince you: but yet even in
these things we talk with your conscience, and leave the consideration
thereof to the wise reader.

Fulke. Seeing they account the Book of Wisdom to
be of no authority to establish the certainty of doctrine, it
is not like they could have any such respect, as you mali-
ciously surmise. And yet the translation [is] good and true.
For what is the choice gift of faith, but a special gift? Or
dare you say, that faith is not a special gift of God? They
say not a “special faith,” but a “special gift of faith.” The
other quarrel of the translation of πέπεισμαι, “1 am sure,”
is so brutish, that when you confess the vulgar Latin inter-
preter commonly to translate it, certus sum, and that in
the end you can use no demonstration to convince us, yet
still nevertheless you charge ‘our conscience with the secret
things of dishonesty.” That the apostle was sure of his
own salvation by the testimony of God’s Spirit, which is
given to all his children, we doubt not; and that he was sure
of the salvation of all God’s elect, of which it is impossible
that any should perish. And seeing the same Spirit of
adoption is given to all the children of God, which is the
earnest of the heavenly inheritance, we cannot affirm without
blasphemy against God’s truth, that any man ought to dis-
eredit the promises of God, or the testimony of his Spirit.

Martin. You hold also in this kind of controversy, that a man
must assure himself that his sins be forgiven: but in the book of
Eccl. v. 5, we read thus, “Of thy sin forgiven be not without fear ;”’
or (as it is in the Greek), “Of forgiveness and propitiation be not
without fear, to heap sin upon sins.’ Which you translate falsely,
thus : “ Because thy sin is forgiven thee, be not therefore without
fear’. Is that περὶ ἐξιλασμοῦ, “because thy sin is forgiven thee”?
You know it is not: but that we should be afraid of the very for-
giveness thereof, whether our sin be forgiven or no, or rather
whether our sin shall be forgiven, or no, if we heap one sin upon
another: which seemeth to be the truest sense of the place, by the
words following; as though he should say, Be not bold upon forgive-
ness to heap sin upon sin, as though God will easily forgive, &c.

Γ᾿ “ Because thy sin is forgiven thee, be not therefore without fear,”
Cranmer, 1562, Bishops’ bible, 1584. ‘“ Because thy sin is forgiven, be
not without fear, to heap sin upon sin,” Geneva bible, 1560. ‘‘ Concern-
ing propitiation, be not without fear to add sin unto sin,’ Authorised
version. |

xu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 421

Fulke. We hold that a man, when he is truly penitent, Furxe, 4.
ought to assure himself that his sins be forgiven him, be-
cause God hath so promised in an hundred places, without
injury of whose credit we cannot doubt of the performance
of his promise. But that which the son of Sirach speaketh
of propitiation, is meant of the shadowy propitiation by the
sacrifices of the law; which cannot assure any man of the
forgiveness of his sins by themselves, muclr less them that
“heap sin upon sin,” which are never truly repentant. For
unto true repentance is required an hatred of sin, and a
desire and purpose of amendment. Our translation is, as
your vulgar Latin, not precise to the words of the Greek,
but just unto the meaning; for the words are, “ concerning
propitiation, be not without fear;” and your Latin is, de
_propitiato peccato, “of sin forgiven.” And if you will
‘reprove your Latin as well as our English, and say we
must be afraid of the very forgiveness; I have told you,
that the forgiveness of God, testified by the sacrifices, per-
tained unto them that be truly penitent, and not to hypocrites.
And where you make it a doubt, whether sin shall be for-
given or no in them that heap one sin upon another, we
are out of doubt, that sin shall never be forgiven to such
as so continue without true conversion unto God.

Martin. I touched before upon another occasion, how you add to Marri, δ.
the text, making the apostle say thus, Ephes. 111.2 “ By whom we have Bib. 1569.
boldness and entrance with the confidence which is by the faith of him,”
or (as in another bible, which is alone) “in the confidence by faith of Bib. 1577.
him.” The learned and skilful among you in the Greek tongue know θήσει, διὰ
τῆς πίστε-

[3 Ἔν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν παῤῥησίαν καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐν πεποιθήσει “" αὐτοῦ.
διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ, Ephes. iii. 12.

“In quo habemus fiduciam, et accessum in confidentia per fidem

ejus,” Vulg. “In whom we have trust and nigh coming, in trusting by
the faith of him,” Wiclif. ‘ By whom we are bold to draw nigh in that
trust which we have by faith on him,’ Tyndale. “By whom we
have boldness and entrance, with the confidence which is by the faith
of him.” Cranmer. “ By whom we have boldness and entrance with
confidence, by the faith which we have in him,” Geneva. “By whom
we have boldness and entrance in the confidence by faith of him,”
Bishops’ bible, 1584. “In whom we have affiance and access in
confidence, by the faith of him,” Rheims. “In whom we have bold-
ness and access with confidence by the faith of him,” Authorised
version, 1611.]

1 John iii.

Heb. x.
2 Cor. iii.

Futke, 5.

422 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cn.

that this translation is false, for two causes: the one is, because the Greek
in that case should be thus, ἐν τῇ πεποιθήσει τῇ διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ;
another cause is, the point after πεποιθήσει, so that the very simple and
sincere translation is this, “We have affiance and access with confidence
by the faith of him :” even as elsewhere it is said, ‘““We have confidence, if
our heart reprehend us not ;” we have confidence by keeping the com-
mandments, by tribulations and afflictions, and all good works: hope
also giveth us great confidence. Against all which your translation is
prejudicial, limiting and defining our confidence toward God to be faith,
as though we had no confidence by works, or otherwise.

Fulke. For understanding of the article, I have answered
already, and mean not here to repeat it. The point you

miss, in the bible 1577, is observed in that book which I

Martin, 6.

πᾶσαν Ti-
στιν.

1 Cor. xiii.
Annot. in
Nov. Test.
1556.

have of Richard Jug’s printing, ‘“‘by whom we have boldness
and entrance in the confidence, by faith of him.” But it can-
not be “the confidence,” you think, but “confidence,” because
the article τῇ is not put before the word that signifieth confi-
dence. But all Englishmen know that our English “the”
may be put, and sometime must be put, before nouns with-
out any article either in Greek or Latin. And in this place
I would not give a rush to choose whether it be in or out,
for any sense that it changeth. What confidence we have
by a good conscience, by suffering tribulation, and by all good
works, it skilleth not for this question, so it be determined
that we have no confidence in the merits of a good conscience,
of suffering, of all good works that we can do, to have bold-
ness and entrance unto God. But of merits we have spoken
before in their proper place.

Martin. For this confidence by faith only, Beza translateth so wil-
fully and perversely, that either you were ashamed to follow him, or
you lacked a commodious English word correspondent to his Latin. “If
I have all faith,” saith the apostle, “and have not charity, I am nothing'.”
Totam fidem, saith Beza, I had rather translate, than omnem jidem,
“because the apostle meaneth not all kind of faith, to wit, the faith that
justifieth ;” but he meaneth, that if a man have the faith of Christ's
omnipotency, or of any other article of the creed, or of all, wholly and
entirely and perfectly, that is nothing without charity’. This is Beza’s

[1 Kat ἐὰν ἔχω πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν. 1 Cor. xiii. 2. Et si habuero
omnem fidem, Vulg. Et si habeam totam fidem, Beza. |

[? Fidem hic accipi pro dono edendorum signorum, ut supra xii. 9,
apparet ex ipsius effectis, quorum unum commemorat. Sed et pro fide
historica, quam vocant, accipi potest, quum de Christi omnipotentia

xu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 423

tota fides, “ whole faith,” thinking by this translation to exempt from the
apostle’s words their special justifying faith, and wrestling to that pur-
pose in his annotations against Pighius and other Catholic doctors.
Whereas every man of small skill may see, that the apostle nameth all
faith, as he doth all knowledge and all mysteries ; comprehending all
sorts of the one and of the other; all kind of knowledge, all kind of
mysteries, all faith whatsoever, christian, catholic, historical or special ;
which two latter are heretical terms newly devised.

Fulke. When your spiteful and dogged malice cannot Fuuxe: 6,
reprove our English translation, then we must answer for
Beza’s Latin, who hath sufficiently answered for himself to
them that understand and list to read him. In the place
mentioned by you, he chooseth to say totam jidem, rather
than omnem, because it appeareth by the effects, that he
speaketh of faith as it was a special gift of working of mira-
cles; of which effects he nameth one, removing of mountains.
And that πᾶσα 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. ἡ
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, against 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 Marri, 7.
reason, why he translated totam jidem, 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°, “Thou seest that faith

persuasos esse oporteat qui in ipsius nomine credunt se posse quidvis
efficere. Quum autem et illa 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.]

[® Βλέπεις ὅτι ἡ πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ, James ii. 22.
“Vides quoniam fides cooperabatur operibus illius,’ Vulg. “ Vides
quod fides administra fuerit operum ipsius,”’ Beze Vers. Upon the four
last words he says, “id est, efficax et feecunda fuerit bonorum operum:
unde enim illa tanta obedientia nisi ex fide?’ Heb. xi.17. Nov. Test.
p- 302.]

συνήργει.

ἐτελειώθη.

ΕὐχκῈ, 7.

4.2.4, A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH. [ cn.

was (administra) a helper of his works ;” and expoundeth it thus:
“ Faith was an efficient cause and fruitful of good works.” Whereas the
apostle’s words be plain, that “faith wrought together with his works,”
yea, and that his “faith was by works made perfect.” This is impudent
handling of scripture, to make works the fruit only and effect of faith ;
which is your heresy.

Fulke. If you dare, draw forth your pen against Beza,
and demand an answer of himself; although he hath already
given you a sufficient reason to induce, that the apostle speak-
eth not of faith as generally as. of knowledge, because by

-an example of removing mountains he restraineth it to one

Martin, 8.

ἔτι καθ᾽
ὑπερβολὴν
ὁδὸν ὑμῖν
δείκνυμι.

kind of faith. As for the other question, why he translateth
συνήργει, James ii, 22, “was an helper,” methink you should
make best answer yourself; who not long since, by force of
that word, would needs prove that men were helpers of God,
chap. x. sect. 6. Have you so soon forgotten your own
voice ? and is this “impudent handling of the scripture,” to
translate as you yourself in another case, though imperti-
nently, did contend the word to signify? But works you
will not have to be “the fruit only and effect of faith,” be-
cause the apostle saith that “faith wrought together with his
works, and by works his faith was made perfect :” as though
apples are not the fruit of the tree because the tree doth bear
them, and by them, if they be good, the tree is made a good
tree.

Martin. Which heresy also must needs be the cause, that, to suppress
the excellency of charity (which the apostle giveth it above faith, or any
other gift whatsoever, in these words, “And yet I shew you a more
excellent way,” 1 Cor. xii. 31°), he in one edition of the New Testa-
ment (in the year 1556) translateth thus, “ Behold, moreover also I shew
you a way most diligently.” What cold stuff is this, and how imperti-
nent! In another edition (anno 1565) he mended it thus: “ And
besides I shew you a way to excellency.” In neither of both expressing

[* “Et insuper etiam quam diligentissime viam vobis indico,”’ Nov.
Test. Beze, edit. 1556. “ Et porro iter ad excellentiam vobis indicabo,”
edit. 1582. “Et adhuc excellentiorem viam vobis demonstro,” Vulg. “And
yet shew I unto you a more excellent way,’ Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer,
1539, Bishops’ bible, 1584, Authorised Version, 1611. “ Even now then
will I shew you a more excellent way,” Geneva testament, 1557. “ And
I will yet shew you a more excellent way, Geneva bible, 1560. “And
yet I shew you a more excellent way, Rheims, 1582. ]

ΤΉ ΦΉΥΡΙ ἌΣ

xu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 425

the comparison of preeminence and excellency, that charity hath in the
apostle’s words, and in all the chapter following. Wherein you did well,
for your credit, not to follow him, no, not your Bezites themselves ; but
to translate after our vulgar Latin interpreter, as it hath always been
read and understood in the church.

Fulke. The rareness of the phrase, καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν, &c., Fuuxe, 8.
as all indifferent men will judge, rather than any mind to
suppress the excellency of charity, caused Beza to give divers
interpretations of that place; of which yet the latter more
commendeth the excellency of charity than the vulgar Latin,
or our English translation, which expoundeth it as the Latin
doth; for if charity be the way to excellency, it is a greater
commendation thereof, than to say, it is a more excellent
way than other gifts, whereof he spake last, as of healing,
of tongues, of interpretations, &c.

Martin. Luther was so impudent in this case, that, because the Marrin, 9.

apostle spake not plainly enough for “only faith,” he thrust “only” into bathe are
the text of his translation, as himself witnesseth. You durst not hitherto Wittenb. an.

presume so far in this question of only faith, though in other controver- Aets ix. 22.

sies you have done the like, as is shewed in their places. But I will ask Pat tas.

you a smaller matter, which in words and shew you may perhaps easily 2 Ch";
answer, but in your conscience there will remain a gnawing worm. In ? Cor ¥- 9}.
so many places of the gospel, where our Saviour requireth the people’s Τὴ the Bib.
faith, when he healed them of all corporal diseases only, why do you so

gladly translate thus, “Thy faith hath saved thee’,” rather than thus, Mark x. 52.

“thy faith hath healed thee,” or “made thee whole?” Isitnot, by join- ¥Yx"ig

‘ing these words together, to make it sound in English ears, that faith

saveth or justifieth a man? insomuch that Beza noteth in the margin
thus, fides salvat, that is, “faith saveth;” and your Geneva bibles, in
that place where it cannot be taken for faith that justifieth, because it is
not the party's faith, but her father’s that Christ required, there also
translate thus, “ Believe only, and she shall be saved*."’ Which transla- Luke viii. 50.

[? ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέ σε, Mark x. 52. “ Fides tua te salvum
fecit,” Vulgate. “Thy faith hath saved thee,” Tyndale, Cranmer,
Geneva, Bishops’ bible. ‘ Thy faith hath made thee safe,’ Rheims.
“Thy faith hath made thee whole,” Authorised version. ]

[3 Μὴ φοβοῦ μόνον πίστευε, καὶ σωθήσεται, Luke viii. 50. “ Noli
timere ; crede tantum, et salva erit,” Vulg. ‘‘ Fear πού ; believe only,

’ and she shall be made whole,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, 1557, 1560,

Bishops’ bible, Authorised version.

At the 14th verse, chap. ii. of St James, these words occur: μὴ
δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν ; which is rendered in the Rhemish
version, 1582, “Shall faith be able to save him?’ |

426 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

tion, though very false and impertinent for justifying faith, as you seem

See Gough's, to acknowledge by translating it otherwise in your other bibles, yet

Tomson’s an- indeed you must needs maintain and hold it for good, while you allege

et Othe this place for only faith, as is evident in your writings.

of Westmins.

Fuxg, 9. Fulke. That which Luther might well do as an inter-
preter or expounder, it was much boldness for him to do as
a translator: but seeing he himself hath redressed his own
offence, we have less to say for him, and you against him.
For our additions, except such as the necessity of our
English phrase doth require for understanding, you slander
us to say that we have in any controversies done the like.
The question you ask is not worthy any answer, why
we translate “thy faith hath saved thee,’ &c., seeing we
use all these words indifferently, “healing,” “making safe,”
and “making whole;” as in St James we say, “Can faith
save him?” And it is all one to say, “thy faith hath
saved thee,” and ‘thy faith hath made thee whole.” But
you say, we “allege this place for only faith” justifying,
citing the answers of Master Gough and M. Tomson
against Feckenham. I think you lie, as in other places very
commonly. And yet an argument, though not a plain tes-
timony, may be taken out of these places for only faith
justifying : seeing Christ was not a physician for the body,
but to teach men that he was a physician for the soul, and
as he healed the diseased in body only by faith, so he cureth
the sickness of the soul by the same instrument of faith
only, which by other places may be more directly proved,
and here also is in some sort insinuated.

Martin, Martin. This then you see is a fallacy, when faith only is required
to the health of the body, as in many such places, though not in all,
there by translation to make it sound a justifying faith, as though faith
only were required to the health of the soul. Whereas that faith was of
Pee} Christ's omnipotency only and power; which Beza confesseth may be in
the devils themselves, and) is far from the faith that justifieth. If
you say, the Greek signifieth as you translate, it doth so indeed; but it
signifieth also very commonly to be healed corporally, as, by your
Bib. 1577. own translation, in these places, Mark v. 28, Mark vi. 86, Luke ©
viii. 36, 51, where you translate, “I shall be whole,’ “They were
healed,’ “He was healed,’ “ She shall be made whole.” And why do
you here translate so? because you know “to be saved” importeth rather
another thing, to wit, “salvation of the soul;’ and therefore when faith

χα] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 427

is joined withal, you translate rather “saved,” than “healed,” though
the place be meant of bodily health only, to insinuate by all means your
justification by only faith.

Fulke. Τὸ is-no fallacy, from the health of the body Furxz,

to ascend higher to the health of the soul; but that direct 10,
and plain way, by which Christ himself would be known
to be Saviour of the world, not of the body only, but of
the body and soul together. And commonly his bodily cures
were joined with forgiveness of sins, which are causes of all
maladies, and with health of their souls whose bodies were
made safe. As for justification by faith only, we mean none
otherwise to insinuate it in this place, than Christ himself
doth, by dog miracles, in giving health of the body, to
testify that he is the only author of the salvation of men’s
souls,

Martin, 1.

μετάνοια.
μετανο-
εἴτε.

Actsxxvi.20.
in Nov. Test.
an. 1556, and
in his later
translation,
Matt. iii. 83,
Luke iii. 84.

μετανοεῖν.
Agere pceni-
tentiam.

428 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

CHAPTER XIII.
Heretical Translation against Penance and Satisfaction.

Martin. Upon the heresy of only faith justifying and saving a
man, followeth the denial of all penance and satisfaction for sins ; which
Beza so abhorred, Annot. in Mat. iii. 21, that he maketh protestation
that he avoideth these terms, penitentia, and penitentiam agere, of
purpose ; and that he will always use for them in translating the Greek
words, resipiscentia and resipiscere. Which he doth observe perhaps, but

that sometimes he is worse than his promise, translating most falsely

and heretically, for resipiscentia, resipiscentes :* so that your English Be-
zites themselves are ashamed to translate after him, who otherwise
follow his rule for the most part, translating resipiscentia ‘ amendment
of life,” and resipiscite “amend your lives;’ and the other English
bibles, when they translate best, say “ repentance,” and “ repent ;” but
none of them all once have the words “penance,” and “do penance,”
which in most places is the very true translation, according to the very
circumstance of the text, and use of the Greek word in the Greek
church, and the ancient Latin translation thereof, and all the fathers’
reading thereof, and their expositions of the same. Which four points
I think not amiss briefly to prove, that the reader may see the use and
signification of these words, which they of purpose will not express, to
avoid the terms of “ penance,” and “doing penance.”

Γ΄’ Μετανοεῖτε, Matt. iii. 2. “ Poenitentiam agite,” Vulg. “ Resipiscite, ’
Beza. “Do ye penance,’ Wiclif. “ Repent,’ Tyndale, Cranmer, Ge-
neva, Authorised version. “Do penance,” Rheims. ]

[2 Ἀπήγγελλον μετανοεῖν, καὶ ἐπιστρέφειν ἐπὶ τὸν Θεὸν, ἄξια τῆς
μετανοίας ἔργα πράσσοντας, Acts xxvi. 20. “ Annuntiabam ut peeni-
tentiam agerent, et converterentur ad Deum, digna pcenitentie opera
facientes,’ Vulg. ‘“ Annuntiavi ut resipiscerent, et converterent se ad
Deum, opera facientes digna iis qui resipuissent,” Beza.

“That they shulden do penance, and be converted to God, and do
worthy works of penance,’ Wiclif’s version. |

[5 ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας, Matt. iii. 8. “ Facite
ergo fructum dignum peenitentie,” Vulg. “ Ferte igitur fructum dig-
num resipiscentia,” Beza. “Therefore do ye worthy fruits of penance,”
Wiclif. ]

rf ποιήσατε οὖν καρποὺς ἀξίους τῆς μετανοίας, Luke iii. 8. Facite
ergo fructus dignos peenitentie,”’ Vulg. “ Ferte igitur fructus dignos
resipiscentia,” Beza. ‘ Therefore do ye worthy fruit of penance,”

-Wiclif. “Bring forth due fruits of repentance,” Tyndale, Cranmer,

Geneva. “ Yield therefore fruits worthy of penance,” Rheims. “ Bring
forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance,’ Authorised version. |

xu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 429

Fulke. If by penance you mean satisfaction for sins Frrxe, 1.
by any suffering of ours, we abhor your penance as an
horrible blasphemy against the blood of Christ. And for
that cause Beza, as hath been shewed before, useth the
word resipiscentia, rather than penitentia: because the
Greek word signifieth not only a sorrow for sin, but also
a purpose of amendment of life. We in English use the
word “repentance,” or “amendment of life ;” which word
of “repentance” you use also sometimes, when it pleaseth
you, or when you cannot for shame use your popish term
of “doing penance.”

The cause why we never use that word “ penance,” is,
for that you mean not thereby that which the scripture
calleth μετάνοιαν, but a certain punishment taken upon men
for satisfaction of their sins unto God; which is abominable
for all christian ears to hear, which acknowledge that “ the
blood of Christ”? only “purgeth us from all sin.” But in
four points you will prove, if you can, that we should
translate μετανοεῖν, “to do penance.”

‘Martin. First, that the circumstance of the text doth give it so Marrry, 2.
to signify, we read in St Matthew, chap. xi. 21: “If in Tyre and Sidon phat μετα-
had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they ge »
had done penance in haircloth, or sackcloth, and ashes long ago.” And μετενόη-
in St Luke, chap. x. 13, “they had done penance, sitting in sackcloth Martie is
and ashes.” I beseech you, these circumstances of sackcloth and ashes ésissent.
-adjoined, do they signify penance and affliction of the body, or only
amendment of life, as you would have the word to signify? St Basil
saith, in Psal. xxix. “Sackcloth maketh for penance. For the fathers cis μετά-
in old time, sitting in sackcloth and ashes, did penance.” Unless you ”°'*”-,

z 4 μετενόη-
will translate St Basil also after your fashion, whom you cannot any σαν.
way translate, but the sense must needs be “penance,” and “doing
penance.” Again, St Paul saith, “ You were made sorry to penance,” 2 Cor. vii. 9.
or, “to repentance,” say which you will: and, “The sorrow which is
according to God worketh penance,” or, “repentance unto salvation.”

Is not sorrow, and bitter mourning, and affliction, parts of penance ?

Did the incestuous man whom St Paul excommunicated, and afterward 1 Cor. v.
absolved him because of his exceeding sorrow and tears, for fear lest 2 Cor. ii.
he might be overwhelmed with sorrow, did he, I say, change his mind

only, or amend his life, as you translate the Greek word, and interpret
repentance? Did he not penance also for his fault, enjoined of the
apostle? When St John the Baptist saith, and St Paul exhorteth the Matt. iii.
like, “ Do fruits worthy of penance,” or, as you translate, “ meet for re- yee
pentance,” do they not plainly signify penitential works, or the works

Fructus dig-
nos iis qui
resipuerint.
καρποὺς
ἀξίους τῆς

μετανοίας.

Fukg, 2.

430 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

of penance? Which is the very cause why Beza rather translated in
those places, “ Do the fruits meet for them that amend their lives.” Or
give us some other good cause, O ye Bezites, why your master doth so
foully falsify his translation.

Fulke. Such is your malicious frowardness, that you
will not understand resipiscentia, “repentance,” or “ amend-
ment of life,” a sorrow or grief of mind for the life past :
which is testified sometimes by outward signs .of sackcloth
and ashes, fasting and humbling of men’s bodies, as in the
texts of Matt. xi.and Luke x., and divers other, is expressed.
But shew us that the wearing of sackcloth and ashes is a

satisfaction for the life past, or any part of amends to God’s

justice ; or else you do but trifle and waste the time. But
St Basil saith, that sackcloth maketh for “penance,” &c.
I marvel whether you read that saying in Basil, and durst
for sin and shame allege it for your popish penance; where
he plainly sheweth the use and end of sackcloth: Zuvepryos
εἰς μετανοίαν ὁ σάκκος, ταπεινώσεως ὑπάρχων σύμβολον"
πάλαι γὰρ ἂν ἐν σάκκῳ οἱ πατέρες καὶ σποδῷ καθήμενοι
μετενόησαν". ““Sackcloth is an helper unto repentance, being
a sign of humiliation; for of old time the fathers repented
sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” This sign of humbling, or
of submission, you have clean omitted. Thus you use to
geld the doctors’ sayings, when you rehearse them. Sack-
cloth therefore serveth to repentance, as a testimony of
sorrow, and humbling of ourselves before God, not as any
satisfaction or amends for our sins. The rest of the places
that you cite to prove that sorrow is a part of “ repentance,”
are altogether needless; for we also do acknowledge the
same. Our question is not of sorrow, but of satisfaction,
to be a part of “repentance.” Likewise the works “worthy”
or “meet for repentance,’ do argue the repentance to be
unfeigned and undissembled; but they prove not that by
them a satisfaction is made for the sins committed before
“repentance.” For a new life, new manners, new fruits,
must follow a mind that is truly turned unto God, and
changed from delight in sin to hate and abhor sin, and
to study unto “amendment of life.”

[1 of πατέρες is omitted in the edition of Garnier, and φησὶ inserted
in its place. The text of this passage is unsettled, from the variety
of readings. See edit. Paris, Vol. 1. p. 186.]

wes a

XIII. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 43 1

Martin. Secondly, for the signification of this Greek word; in all Marty, 3.
the Greek church, and Greek fathers, even from St Denis the Areopa-
gite, St Paul's scholar, who must needs deduce it from the scriptures,
and learn it of the apostles, it is most evident that they use this word
for that penance which was done in the primitive church, according
to the penitential canons, whereof all antiquity of councils and fathers.
is full ; insomuch that St Denis, reckoning up the three sorts of persons Ee. Hier. ς. 3.
that were excluded from seeing and participating of the divine mysteries Pornitentes,
of Christ's body and blood, to wit, catechumens, penitents, and the laity rsa
possessed of ill spirits, for penitents he saith in the Greek, of ἐν pera- οἱ ἐν μετα-
νοίᾳ ὄντες, that is, such as were in their course of penance, or had not ¥°!¢ ὄντες.
yet done their full penance. Which penance St Augustine declareth.
thus, Ho. xxvii., inter 50 ho. and ep. 108: Est penitentia gravior, &c?
“ There is a more grievous and more mournful penance, whereby pro-
perly they are called in the church that are penitents; removed also
from partaking the sacrament of the altar." And the Greek ecclesi- ete lib. 7.
astical history thus: “In the church of Rome there is a manifest and τῶν ᾿μετα-
known place for the penitents; and in it they stand sorrowful, and as Seo 8. Hie,
it were mourning, and when the sacrifice is ended, being not made par- rome in epi-

tap. Fabiole.

takers thereof, with weeping and lamentation they cast themselves flat
on the ground: then the bishop, weeping also with compassion, lifteth
them up, and after a certain time enjoined absolveth them from their
penance. This the priests, or. bishops of Rome, keep from the very
beginning even until our time.”

Fulke. Although Denis, whose books are now extant, Fuxxe, 3.
were no more St Paul’s disciple, than he was St Paul
himself; yet I will grant, that the public testification of
“repentance,” in such as had openly fallen, was in the
primitive church not only called μετανοία by a metonymy.
but also that the word of “ satisfaction” was used : not that
they had any meaning to satisfy the justice of God by
such external works, but that by those outward trials of
their “repentance” the church was satisfied, which by their
fall was offended, and the governors of the church by such
signs of true sorrow and “amendment” were persuaded to
receive them again into the congregation, from whence, until
sufficient trial had of their “repentance,” they were sepa-
rated and excluded. But this proveth not, that the inward
“repentance” which God giveth, when he turneth us unto
him, hath in it any “satisfaction” for our sins; which no
sacrifice was able to make, but only “the Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sins of the world.” The places you cite,
as well out of Denis, as of St Augustine and Sozomen,

Γ᾿ Sermo ecclii. Opera, Vol. v. p. 2081. ]

432 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

Martin, 4.

Lib. V. ¢. 19.

κατὰ τὴν

> ,
ἀναλογίαν
τοῦ πταίσ-
ματος.
καιροῦ
μετανοίας
a La
δοθέντος.
τῶν ἐν με-
Tavoia.

την “τροαί-
peo καὶ

1 ot
τὸ εἶδος
τῆς μετα-
νοίας.

ΕὐὔτΚῈ, 4.

do prove this that I say, to be understood of public signs
of “repentance,” without that any “satisfaction” unto God’s
justice in those times by such “ penance” was intended.

Martin. In these words and other in the same chapter, and in
Socrates’ Greek history likewise, when they speak of “ penitents” that
confessed and lamented their sins, that were enjoined penance for the
same, and did it, I would demand of our English Grecians, in what
Greek words they express all this. Do they it not in the words which
we now speak of, and which therefore are proved most evidently to
signify “penance,” and “doing penance?” Again, when the most ancient
council of Laodicea, can. ii., saith, “That the time of penance should ©
be given to offenders according to the proportion of the fault ;” and
again, can. ix., “ That such shall not communicate till a certain time,
but after they have done penance, and confessed their fault, then to
be received ;” and again, can. xix., “After the catechumens are gone
out, that prayer be made of the penitentes, or them that are in doing
penance :” and when the first council of Nice saith, can. xii., about
shortening or prolonging the days of penance, “that they must well ex-
amine their purpose and manner of doing penance ;” that is, with what
alacrity of mind, tears, patience, humility, good works, they accomplish
the same; and accordingly to deal more mercifully with them, as is
there expressed in the council: when St Basil, can. i. ad Amphiloch.
speaketh after the same sort: when St Chrysostom calleth the sackcloth
and fasting of the Ninevites for certain days, tot dieruwm penitentiam,
“so many days’ penance:” in all these places, I would gladly know of
our English Grecians, whether these speeches of “ penance,” and “ doing
penance,” are not expressed by the said Greek words, which they will
in no case so to signify.

Fulke. A matter of great weight, I promise you, to
inquire of our English Grecians, in what Greek words they
express all this! Verily, in the same Greek words which
signify ‘“ repentance,” or “repenting,’ and so may be ex-
pressed in English; neither is there any thing in any of
the councils or doctors, by you cited or quoted, that hath
any other intention than I have before expressed. The
words of ‘“ penance” and “ doing penance,” if you meant the
same by them that we and you do by “repenting” and
“repentance,” we would not strive with you for terms:
but that you have another meaning in them, appeareth by
this, that you translate the same word penitentia commonly
“penance,” as when it is agere ponitentiam; but when it
is said that God doth dare penitentiam, then you translate
it “repentance.” | Whereby it appeareth, you mean the

_ “penance” which you would have men to do, is not that

xt. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 433

“repentance” which is the gift of God. Else why say you
not, Acts v., that “ God hath exalted Christ to be Prince and
Saviour, to give penance to Israel and remission of sins,”
if “penance” and “repentance” were all one? But you
say “repentance.” Also, Acts xi., “God then to the gentiles
hath given repentance to life;’ where the word is penitentia
in both places. As also, 2 Tim. ii., where you say, “least
sometime God give them repentance to know the truth.”
Of this “repentance” which God giveth unto life, and re-
mission of sins withal, satisfaction is no part: of public
repentance, so called, when indeed it was a public testifi-
cation that God had given inward repentance, we acknow-
ledge satisfaction to the church, and to the judgment of the
governors thereof, to be a part.

Martin. Or, I would also ask them, whether in these places they Martin, 5.
will translate “repentance,” and “amendment of life,” where there is
mentioned a prescript time of satisfaction for their fault by such and
such penal means? whether there be any prescript times of repent-
ance or amendment of life, to continue so long, and no longer? If not,
then must it needs be translated “penance, and “doing penance,” which
is longer or shorter according to the fault and the manner of doing
the same. I may repent in a moment, and amend my life at one
instant, and this repentance and amendment ought to continue for ever:
but the holy councils and fathers speak of a thing to be done for certain
years or days, and to be released at the bishop's discretion ; this there-
fore is penance, and not repentance only or amendment. of life, and
is expressed by the aforesaid Greek words, as also by another equiva- ὑποπί-
lent thereunto. een

Fulke. I have answered before, we may in all these Furxz, 5.
places use the word of “repentance,” as well as this word
“repent,” the noun as well as the verb. And if we would
use the same figure which they do, that call such external
testimonies “of repentance” μετάνοια, we might use the
word of “amendment of life” also. The prescript time
of satisfaction I have said was to the church, which was
offended and slandered by their open offences, and to the
judgment of the bishops and elders, which had the appoint-
ing or releasing of such time of repentance. The other
Greek word, which you say is equivalent to μετανοεῖν,
namely, ὑποπίπτω, signifieth to fall down under, or to
kneel before one, as Tertullian expresseth the phrase presby- De peniten-
28

[ruLKe. |

Concil. An-
eyr. can. 8.
&e.

De Jejunio.

Martin, 6.

Litur. Chry.
in rubricis.
pp. 69. 104.
Metanea.
Annot. in
Matt. iii. 2.

Funke, 6,

494 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cn.

teris advolvi, aris Det adgeniculari, for one “to be cast down
in humble manner before the elders, to kneel before the
altars of God.” Hereof ὑπόπτωσις᾽' is used for that sub-
mission which public penitents did shew to testify their in-
ward humility; and by a metonymy of the sign, is taken
for that which it doth signify, namely, humble and hearty
repentance, which is approved before men by such outward
gestures and tokens of inward grief and humility of mind.
So is public fasting in token of repentance by Tertullian
called ταπεινοφρόνησις, because it is a sign and token of
humiliation and submission of mind, which must of necessity
accompany true repentance. Wherefore it is untruly said,
that ὑποπίπτω is equivalent with μετανοέω, which signifieth
to change the mind from evil to good; whereas the other
expresseth but an outward gesture, to signify inward re-
pentance, and that in open repentance only.

Martin. I omit that this very phrase, “to do penance,” is word
for word expressed thus in Greek, ποιεῖν μετάνοιαν. And Ausonius the
christian poet, (whom I may as well allege once, and use it not, as °
they do Virgil, Terence, and the like, very often,) useth this Greek word
so evidently in this sense, that Beza® saith, he did it for his verse sake,
because another word would not stand so well in the verse. But the
reader, I trust, seeth the use and signification of these Greek words
by the testimony of the Greek fathers themselves, most ancient and
approved.

Fulke. You may well omit that which beareth no
credit of antiquity. The liturgy is not so ancient as he
whose name it beareth; the rubric much less. That Beza

[2 of δὲ δεύτερον καὶ τρίτον θύσαντες μετὰ Bias τετραετίαν ὑποπεσέτωσαν.
Conc. Ancyr. Can. vi. Edit. Gesneri 1559. p. 16.]

[2 Ceterum μετανοεῖν, quum est verbum absolutum, proprie significat
post factum sapere, et de errore admisso ita dolere ut corrigas: quod
(ut opinor) Latinis proprie significat resipiscere. Itaque nunquam
ponitur nisi in bono: ut meo quidem judicio Ausonius in illo suo
Epigrammate omnibus noto μεταμέλειαν potius quam μετάνοιαν dicturus
fuerit, si versus pentametri ratio permisisset. Semper enim μετανοίᾳ
coheret 6 σωφρονισμὸς, sicut hec duo recte conjunguntur a Plutarcho in
dialogo πότερα τῶν ζώων φρονιμώτερα. Μεταμέλεσθαι vero declarat post
rem aliquam factam sollicitum esse et anxium, quod Latini dicunt
penitere ; atque etiam usurpari potest in yitio. Beze Nov. Test.

p. 5.]

Ὁ “ὩΣ.
μ᾿

x |
x1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 435

saith of Ausonius using μετάνοια in the sense you mean,
it seemeth you do not understand him. For he saith, that
μετάνοια is never used but in good part. So that in my
judgment Ausonius® would have said rather μεταμέλεια than
μετάνοια in that his known epigram, if the measure of his
pentameter verse would have borne it.

Martin. Thirdly, that the ancient Latin interpreter doth commonly Marty, 7.

so translate these words throughout the new testament, that needeth μετανοεῖν.
cenitentiam

no proof, neither will I stand upon it, though it be greater authority agere.
than they have any to the contrary, because the adversaries know it
and mislike it; and for that and other like points it is belike, that one

of them saith it is the worst translation of all, whereas Beza his master Dis. jof Sand.

saith it is the best of all‘. So well they agree in judgment, the master Prefat in ms
Nov. Test.

and the man. an. 1557.

Fulke. The Latin interpreter, as it appeareth in many Furxe, 7.
places, had no perfect understanding of the Greek tongue ;
but in the Latin it is manifest that he was very rude, in-
somuch that Lindanus thinketh he was a Grecian rather
than a Latinist. Yea, he hath a whole chapter thus intituled,
“That the authors of the vulgar translation of the Psalter Pe opt, Gen.
and the New Testament were Grecians,”’ nec Latine satis @P-®%
eruditos, “and not sufficiently learned in the Latin tongue.”
By which testimony it may be gathered, what credit is to be
given to the Latin terms that he useth, differing from the
Latin phrase used by them that are learned in that tongue.
I could bring example of many terms and phrases, that you
yourself are ashamed to follow, which pretend so precise a
translation out of the vulgar Latin. What my mislike is
of that translation, and how contrary to that which Beza
saith thereof, | have opened elsewhere, to your shame. Only
here I must tell you, that albeit in respect of learning I
disdain not to acknowledge myself Beza’s scholar, (of whom,
nevertheless, I have learned very little) yet I would you
should know I am no stranger’s man, though you, and
such traitors as you are, had rather be the pope’s men than
true servants to the queen of England.

hy Sum dea, que facti non factique exigo poenas:
Nempe ut pceniteat, sic Metancea vocor.
Auson. Epig. in Simulacrum Occasionis et Pcenitentie. |
[* See Beza’s opinion of the Vulgate translation in note upon
eap. ii. No. 8, p. 175.]
28—2

: a
436 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

Martin,8. Martin. I come to the fourth proof, which is, that all the Latin
church and the glorious doctors thereof have always read as the vulgar
Latin interpreter translateth these words, and expound the same of
penance and doing penance. To name one or two for an example.
Ep. 108. St Augustine's place is very notable, which therefore I set down, and
Agunt homi- May be translated thus: “Men do penance before baptism of their for-
es Peniten- mer sins, yet so that they be also baptized, Peter saying thus: ‘Do
Act. ii. 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 Yeconciled again ; as in all churches they do which be called penitentes.
tis appellan. For of such penance spake St Paul, 2 Cor. xii. 21, saying, ‘That I la-
ment not many of them which before have sinned, and have not done -
Act. viii. 1g, Penance for their uncleanness. We have also in the Acts, that
Utageret pe- Simon Magus, being baptized, was admonished by Peter to do penance
nientiam- ‘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 lms and prayers are watchfully used, and humbling our souls we cease

agere peni- not after a sort to do daily penance'.”

FuLxe, 8, Fulke. That “all the Latin church and the glorious
doctors thereof” have always read as the vulgar Latin in-
terpreter translateth, you prove by an example of St
Augustine. In which also it is manifest that St Augustine

[: Agunt enim homines ante baptismum pcenitentiam de suis pri-
oribus peccatis, ita tamen ut etiam baptizentur, sicut scriptum est in
Actibus Apostolorum, loquente Petro ad Judeos et dicente: Agite
penitentiam et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine Domini Jesu
Christi; et dimittentur vobis peccata vestra. Agunt etiam homines
peenitentiam, si post baptismum ita peccaverint, ut excommunicari
et postea reconciliari mereantur; sicut in omnibus ecclesiis illi qui
proprie pcenitentes appellantur. De tali enim pcenitentia locutus est
Apostolus Paulus, ubi ait; Ne iterum cum venero humiliet me Deus
apud vos; et lugeam multos ex iis qui-ante peccaverunt, et non egerunt
penitentiam super immunditia, et luauria, et fornicatione quam egerint:
neque enim scribebat ista, nisi eis qui jam baptizati fuerant. Habemus
etiam in Actibus Apostolorum, Simonem jam baptizatum, cum pecunia
vellet emere ut per impositionem manus ejus daretur Spiritus Sanctus,
admonitum a Petro ut de hoc gravi peccato ageret poenitentiam. Est
etiam poenitentia bonorum et humilium fidelium pcene quotidiana, in
qua pectora tundimus dicentes: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, &c......
Propter hee jejunia et eleemosyne et orationes invigilant ; in quibus
cum dicimus, Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus, mani-
festamus habere nos quod nobis dimittatur: atque in iis verbis humili-
antes animas nostras, quotidianam quodammodo agere peenitentiam non
cessamus.—Augustin, Epist. ccrxv. Opera, Vol. τι. pp. 1362-1363. ]

XIII, | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLF. 437

understandeth the phrase, not only for the exercise of public
penitentes, but also for the inward repentance of the
heart. But because you challenge all the doctors of the
Latin church for the use of this word penitentia, I pray
you consider what Tertullian writeth against Marcion, who
cavilled about the repenting ascribed in scripture to God.
In Greco sono*, 86. “In the Greek sound the name of
‘repentance’ is made not of confession of an offence, but
of changing of the mind.” And in his book De Penitentia,
where he treateth even of public repentance, citing the
testimony of John Baptist, he saith, Non tacet Johannes,
Penitentiam initote, dicens. “John holdeth not his peace,
saying, ‘Begin repentance.’” MHilarius also sheweth what I Ps. exviii.
‘ . A Ε Phe (.exix.
penitentia doth signify, when he saith, Peccatt penitentia 1%.
est ab eo quod penitendum intellexeris destitisse®: ‘“ Re-
pentance of sin is to have ceased from that which you
have understood that it must be repented of.” Likewise
against the Novatians that deny repentance, Cum ad pont- τὰ Peal.
tentiam per quam ὦ peccatis desistitur* : ‘“‘ When unto re-
pentance, by which men cease from sins, the doctrine of the
law, prophets, gospels, apostles, exhorteth them that have
sinned.” And even your vulgar interpreter in Saint Mark
saith, penitemini, for that he saith in Matthew, Agite peni-
tentiam ; by which it is certain that he meaneth one thing
in both, namely repentance of heart, and no satisfaction of
work.

Mart. In these words of St Augustine it is plain that he speaketh Manriy, 9.
of painful or penitential works for satisfaction of sins, that is, penance ;
again, that there are three kinds of the same, one before baptism, another
after baptism for great offences, greater and longer, the other daily for
common and little venial faults, which the best men also commit in this
frail nature. Again, that the two former are signified and spoken of in
the three places of scripture by him alleged. Where we see that he
readeth altogether as the vulgar interpreter translateth, and expoundeth

[? Nam et in Greco sono pcenitentie nomen non ex delicti con-
fessione, sed ex animi demutatione compositum est, quam apud Deum
pro rerum variantium sese occursu fieri ostendimus. Tertullian. adv.
Marcion. Lib. π. cap. 24. Opera, p. 472. edit. Rigalt. 1641.]

[3 Hilar. in Psalm. cxviii. p. 347. edit. Bened. Paris, 1693.]

[* Cum ad peenitentiam, per quam a peccatis desistitur, doctrina
legis, prophetarum, evangeliorum, apostolorum eos qui peccaverint
adhortetur. Hilar. Tract. in Psal. exxxvii. p. 500.]

FuLkgE, 9.

In Lue. lib.
X. cap. 22.

438 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

all three places of penance for sin, and so approveth the signification
of the Greek word. Yea, in saying that for venial sins we knock our
breast, fast, give alms, and pray, and so cease not quotidianam agere
penitentiam; what doth he mean but daily penance and satisfaction ?
Read also St Cyprian (beside other places) Epist. 1. Num. 6: where his
citations of scripture are according to the old Latin interpreter, and his
exposition according, of “doing penance” and “ making satisfaction” for
sins committed. But I need not proceed further in alleging either St
Cyprian or other ancient fathers for this purpose, because the adversaries
grant it. Howbeit, in what terms they grant it, and how malapertly
they accuse all the ancient fathers at once for the same, it shall not be
amiss here to put down their words.

Fulke. St Augustine speaketh nothing of satisfaction
for sins, but, as I have said, of such exercises as were
appointed by the church, to testify their repentance. The
occasion of all these words was of one that was a Nova-
tian, who said that Peter was not baptized when he was
received into repentance after his denial. And where he
used this word, Egisse penitentiam, St Augustine denieth
that he did open penance, as they that we properly called
penitentes: Quod autem dicitur Petru egisse penitentiam' ;
“But where it is said that Peter did penance, we must
beware that he be not thought so to have done it as they
do it in the church which are properly called penitentes.
And who can abide this, that we should think that the chief
of the apostles is to be numbered among such penitents ?
For it’ repented him that he denied Christ, which thing
his tears do shew.” These words declare that agere peni-
tentiam, with Augustine, signifieth to be “ inwardly repentant,”
as well as to do those external works which are tokens of
repentance: also that tears, fastings, and such like, are
arguments and signs of repentance before God, and not any
part of that repentance in deed, and much less any satis-
faction for sins. Of this penance, or repentance, of St
Peter St Ambrose saith, Zacrymas ejus lego, satisfac-

[* Quod autem Petrus dicitur egisse poenitentiam, cavendum est ne
ita putetur egisse, quomodo agunt in ecclesia qui proprie poenitentes
vocantur. Et quis hoc ferat, ut primum apostolorum inter tales pceni-
tentes numerandum putemus? Peenituit enim eum negasse Christum,
quod ejus indicant lacryme. Augustin. Epist. couxv. Opera, Vol. τι.
pp. 1359, 1360. ]

xu. | | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. . 439

tionem non lego”; “1 read of his tears, I read not of his
satisfaction.” In that Augustine useth the words of the
old interpreter, it is no matter, for he useth also his meaning.
But this usage of his proveth not the antiquity of the vulgar
Latin translation, but contrariwise it is certain that St
Augustine followed another translation ; for in the text,
2 Cor. xii., where your vulgar Latin hath, Super immunditia
et fornicatione et impudicitia quam gesserunt, St Augustine
readeth, Super immunditia et luxuria et fornicatione quam
egerunt. That St Cyprian useth the term agere pondten-
tiam, and “satisfaction” also, speaking of public repent-
ance, it shall be easily granted; but in none other sense
than I have often declared. But where you say that his
citations are according to the Latin interpreter, it is false.
For Apoe. ii. your vulgar text is, Memor esto itaque unde
excideris, et age penitentiam, et prima opera fac: but
Cyprian’s citation is, Memento unde cecideris, et age poeni-
tentiam, et fac priora opera*. Likewise Psalm Ixxxvili. you
read in your vulgar Latin, Visitabo in virga iniquitates
ecorum, et in verberibus peccata eorum: but Cyprian citeth
thus, Visitabo in virga facinora eorum, et in flagellis delicta
eorum. But that his exposition is of any other penance
than of open penance, or of any other satisfaction than of
satisfaction to the church, your adversaries will not grant
you, although they may grant you that he ascribed too much
unto such external tokens of repentance.

Martin. Whereas the reverend, godly, and learned father, Edmund + ali
Campion, had objected in his book the protestants’ accusation of gg 1°
Cyprian, for the matter of penance ; the good man that answereth for
both universities saith thus to that point : “ But whereas Magdeburgenses Whitaker, p.
(Lutheran writers of that city) complain that he depraved the doctrine ton. Bam.
of repentance, they do not feign or forge this crime against him, but Doetrinam
utter or disclose it. For all men understand that it was too true. Neither P®™t#-
was this Cyprian’s fault alone, that he wrote of repentance many things De peeniten-
incommodiously and unwisely, but all the most holy fathers almost at ἴα Imprudenter.
that time were in the same error. For whiles they desired to restrain
men’s manners by severe laws, they made the greatest part of repentance Penitentiz.
to consist in certain external discipline of life, which themselves pre-
scribed. In that they punished vice severely, they were to be borne

[? Ambros. Oper. Vol. τ. p. 1523, edit. Bened. |
[* Edit. Rigalt. p. 26. Epist. xur. See Epist. ru. Opera, p. 72. ]

FuLKE,
10.

Martin,

11.

440 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

withal; but that by this means they thought to pay the pains due for
sins, and to satisfy God's justice, and to procure to themselves assured
impunity, remission, and justice; therein they derogated not a little
from Christ's death, attributed too much to their own inventions, and
finally depraved repentance.” Thus far the answerer.

Fulke. If Campion were such a “reverend, godly, and
learned father” among you, whose levity, treason’, and ig-
norance in divinity, hath been so lately tried among us,
we know how to esteem of the whole pack of you. Whose
learning if it had been never so great, as by the time of his
study in divinity, and the trade of his travailing life, since
he gave himself thereto, no wise man can esteem that it.
was great; yet being so lately attainted of high treason
against the prince and the state, none that is honest and
dutiful would have bestowed upon him the commendation of
godliness. As for that which M. Whitaker hath answered
against him, although not “ in the name of both the univer-
sities,” by whom he was never authorised to be their advocate,
yet so as neither of both the universities need be ashamed
of his doing; forasmuch as I know he hath confuted your
quarrels already, I will leave you in this matter wholly to
contend against him; assuring you of my credit (which I
know is but small with you) that he shall be found suffi-
cient to match with as strong an adversary as the seminary
of Rheims can make out against him.

Martin. Mark how he accuseth the fathers in general of no less
crime than taking away from Christ the merits of his passion, attributing
it to their own penance and discipline. Which if they did, I marvel he
should call them in this very place, where he beginneth to charge them
with such a crime, sanctissimos patres, “most holy fathers.” The truth
is, he might as well charge St Paul with the same, when he saith we
shall “be the heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, yet so if we suffer
with him, that we may also be glorified with him.” St Paul saith, our
suffering also with Christ \is necessary to salvation. Master Whitaker
saith, it is a derogation to Christ’s suffering. Christ fasted for us, there-
fore our fasting maketh nothing to salvation. He prayed for us, was

[? Campion with other Romish priests was found guilty of treason,
according to the Act of 25 Edw. III., and of adhering to the bishop of
Rome, the queen’s enemy, and of coming into England to disturb the
peace and quiet of the realm, and was executed at Tyburn, Dec. 1,
1581. A full account of the trial is given in MS, Harl. 6265. fol. 223. ]

xn] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 44)

scourged, and died for us ; therefore our prayer, scourging, and imprison-
ment, yea, and death itself, for his sake, make nothing to life everlasting ;
and if we should think it doth, we derogate from Christ's passion. Alas!
is this the divinity of England now-a-days, to make the simple believe
that the ancient fathers and holy men of the primitive church by their
severe life and voluntary penance for their sins, and for the love of
Christ, did therein derogate from Christ's merits and passions ?

Fulke. Τῇ the fathers at some time, by attributing Funxe,
too much to external discipline, were carried somewhat too
far, whereby not a little was derogated from the merits of
Christ’s death; yet they are not charged directly to have im-
pugned the dignity thereof, which, when their eyes were
attentively bent upon it, they did worthily magnify and
extol. That we must be conformable to the suffering of
Christ, if we will be made partakers of his glory, it is the
divinity that is now taught in England: but that any suf-
ferings, or any good works of ours whatsoever, do merit any
part of eternal glory, the divinity preached in England doth
most justly abhor. But that the holy men of the primitive
church, by thei severe life, and hearty repentance for their
sins, testified by tears, fasting, and other chastising of their
flesh, for the love of Christ, did derogate from Christ’s merits
and passion, it is a lewd slander out of France, from the
traiterous seminary at Rheims; but no part of the divinity of
England, allowed by the universities of Cambridge and Ox-
ford, as you would make simple men believe that it is.

Martin. Y may not stand upon this point, neither need I. The Ta i

principal matter is proved by the wsonsaakdy confession, that the holy ©

doctors spake, wrote, and thought of “penance,” and “doing penance,”

as we do, in the same terms, both Greek and Latin; and with catholics

it is always a good argument, and we desire no better proof than this.

The protestants grant all the ancient fathers were of our opinion,

and they say it was their error. For, the first part being true, it is

madness to dispute whether all the ancient fathers erred, or rather the new

protestants ; as it is more than madness to think that Luther alone might

see the truth more than a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cyprians, a

thousand churches: which, notwithstanding the palpable absurdity p10! Ad

thereof, yet M. Whitaker avoucheth it very solemnly. cemEdmundi

Campiani,
158.
Fulke. The confession you charge the adversaries to Furxe,
make, is of your own forgery, not of their concession. 12"
_ But, for want of other proof, it was the best you could

442 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

do, to feign our grant; but you are not able to shew our
deeds thereof in writing: as neither of the rest, that “the
ancient fathers were all of our opinion, by the protestants’
grant,” that ‘Luther might see more of himself alone than,”

~&e.; but whatsoever M. Whitaker hath advouched, I leave

Martin,
13.

Ῥ. 109.
p- 101.

pp. 114, 117.

to himself to answer.

Martin. And yet again, (that the reader may see how they play
fast and loose at their pleasure,) this is the man, that when he hath
given us all the fathers on our side, not only in the matter of penance,
but also in invocation of saints, and in divers other errors, as he calleth

them; the very same man, I say, in the very next leaves almost, re-

neweth Master Jewel’s old brag, that we “have not one clear sentence for
us of any one father within six hundred years after Christ ;” and again,

ες that “the same faith reigneth now in England, which these fathers pro-

FULKE,
13.

Martin,
14,

fessed.” What saith M. Whitaker? Not their faith concerning penance,
or invocation of saints (as yourself confess), or other such like errors
of theirs, as you term them. Why are you so forgetful, or rather so
impudent, to speak contraries in so little a room? Such simple answer-
ing will not serve your adversary’s learned book, which you in vain go
about by foolish rhetoric to disgrace; when the world seeth you are
driven to the wall, and either can say nothing, or do,say that which
confuteth itself with the evident absurdity thereof.

Fulke. Master Whitaker is not so inconsiderate to “play
fast and loose,” as you are intemperate and untrue in ac-
cusng him. Howbeit, there is no doubt but he will meet
you, and handle you according to your virtues. But see-
ing you give such high commendation to Campion’s pamphlet,
as that you call it a learned book, (wherein, beside a little
rank rhetoric, more meet for a boy that learneth to practise
his figures, than for a grave divine to use in so serious a
cause, there is nothing that any learned man may think
worthy of any answer,) we may well perceive what you
count learning, and what be the pillars of your popish re-
ligion. The books are both in print; let the world judge
of both indifferently.

Martin. But to leave M. Whitaker (who is a simple companion to
sit in judgment upon all the ancient doctors, and to condemn them of
heinous errors in the matter of penance), I trust the reader seeth, by

' the former discourse, the usual ecclesiastical signification, and, conse-

μετάνοια.
μετανοεῖν.

quently, both the true and false translation of the foresaid Greek words.
Not that they must or may always be translated “penance,” or ‘ doing

Xu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 44.3

penance.” For in the scriptures God is said panitentiam agere, who can- μετανοεῖν.
not be said to do penance, no more than he can be said to amend his
life, as the protestants commonly translate this word. Therefore I con-
clude, that this word being spoken of God in the scriptures, is no more
prejudice against our translation of doing penance, than it is against
theirs, of amendment of life. Likewise when it is spoken of the re- μετανοοῦν-

probate and damned in hell; who, as they cannot do penance properly, P&-,San: ¥-

so much less amend their lives. agentes.

Fulke. Master Whitaker taketh not upon him to “sit Furxe,

in judgment of all the doctors,’ although he may note 15:
some error or other in every one of them, whose writings
of any substance do remain with us. But after all this
brabbling' about peanitentiam agere, you come home, . and
confess that it must not always be translated “doing of
penance :” because God himself, after your vulgar translation,
is said, agere penitentiam, which with the Septuaginta is
μετανοεῖν. No man could better have confuted your vain
~quarrelling than you have done yourself: for by this it is
manifest, that the vulgar interpreter did not mean by agere
penitentiam any more than we do by repentance. And
therefore the best and the most simple translation is, to
use the words “repent” and “repentance.” And the
Greek word, as Tertullian telleth you, signifieth changing
of mind, which may be without acknowledging of error:
although it cannot yet be properly said of God that he
-changeth his mind, when he is said to repent. As likewise
it is not necessary that they which be in hell should amend
their lives, when it is said they repent. Neither do we
translate the word simply ‘amendment of life,” but shew that
amendment of life must necessarily follow in them that truly
repent, as the scripture teacheth us.

Martin. Moreover, it is purposely against penance, that they Marry,
translate amiss both in Daniel and Esdras, whose voluntary mourning, ες xm
fasting, afflicting of themselves for their own sins and the people’s, is Dan. x.’

[᾿ Brabbling. To brabble, to clamour, to contest noisily.—Johnson. ]

[2 ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡμέρας ἧς ἔδωκας τὴν καρδίαν σου τοῦ συνεῖναι,
καὶ κακωθῆναι ἐναντίον Κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ σου. “ Ex die primo, quo posuisti
cor tuum ad intelligendum, ut te affligeres in conspectu Dei tui,’ Vulg.
“ From the first. day that thou didst set thine heart to understand and
to humble thyself before thy God,” Geneva Version, 1560. ]

4.4.4. A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cn.

notoriously set forth in their books. There they make the angel say
thus to Daniel: “From the first day that thou didst set thine heart
to humble thyself.” What is this humbling himself? can we gather
any penance thereby? None at all; but if they had said, according to

κακωθῆναι, the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, “ om the first day that thou didst

set thine heart to afflict thyself,” we should easily conceive works of

n ayn “penance ;” and it would include Daniel’s mourning, fasting from flesh,

* wine, and other meats, abstaining from ointments, the space of the days
mentioned in the beginning of the same chapter.

Fulke.. The word “humbling” doth as well comprehend
all those exercises of fasting and mourning, which the holy
men did use to testify their repentance, and to provoke them-
selves to hearty repentance for their sins and the sins of the
people, as the word “afflicting.” Another translation calleth
it “chastening.” The Hebrew word signifieth “to bring low,”
or “cast down;” therefore it is spoken of women that are
carnally known, which is without affliction. But when it is
used of such godly exercises, it declareth for what end they
serve, namely, to humble and bring low our proud rebellious
nature, and to be signs of humiliation, as St Basil saith of
sackcloth and ashes, “not to be by punishment satisfaction
for our sins.” Your own vulgar Latin interpreter translateth
the same word, Gen. xvi. 9, humiliare', “humble thyself,”

r “submit thyself under thy mistress’ hand,” and oftentimes
in that sense. And even in this sense of humbling, by signs
of repentance, he useth the word humiliatus, speaking of
Achab, 2 Kings xxi. 29, where the Hebrew word is otherwise.
And Psalm xxxv. 13, the same word ginnethi he translateth
humiliabam, “ And in their sickness I put on sackcloth, and
humbled my soul with fasting.” So doth he oftentimes, when
such bodily chastisement is signified thereby. Wherefore
this, as all the rest, is a false and unreasonable quarrel
against our translation, as though by it we meant to deny
the use of afflicting or chastening the body with fasting,
mourning, and other like exercises of repentance.

Martin. Again, in all their bibles of the years 1562, 1577, 1579,
they make Esdras, ix. 5, after his exceeding great penance, say only

Γ᾿ ᾿Αποστράφηθι πρὸς τὴν κυρίαν σου, καὶ ταπεινώθητι ὑπὸ τὰς χεῖρας
αὐτῆς, Gen. xvi. 9. “ Revertere ad dominam tuam, et humiliare sub
manu illius,” Vulg. ‘Return to thy dame, and humble thyself under
her hands,” Geneva Version, 1560. ]

Xu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 445

this, “About the evening sacrifice I arose up from my heaviness :᾿ ἐπ ki 2
neither translating the Hebrew, which is the same word that in aoa Bey

Daniel, nor the Greek, which signifieth affliction and humiliation. ΓΙ

Fulke. First, your Greek text of Esdras confirmeth Εσυτκε,
our translation of Daniel. Secondly, I say, that by this 16.
“heaviness” they mean all that humiliation and affliction
whereof he spake before; which is easy for every man to

understand, that is not blinded with malice. And what other

thing is affliction but heaviness, grief, and sorrow, whereof
the holy man spake twice before, I think no wise man can
tell.

Martin. Again, in the prophet Malachi, iii. 142, they translate Marin,
thus, “Ye have said, It is but vain to serve God, and what profit 7.
is it that we have kept his commandments, and walked humbly
before his face?” What is this same “humbly?” When we say in
English, “he goeth humbly,” we imagine or conceive no more but
this, that he is an humble man, and behaveth himself humbly: but
they know very well the prophet speaketh of another thing; and if
it had pleased them to have translated the Hebrew word fully and “Ip
significantly, in the sense of the Holy Ghost, they might have
learned by conference of other places, where the same Hebrew word
is used, that it signifieth such heaviness, sadness, sorrowfulness, and af-
fliction, as men express by black mourning garments; the nature of
the word importing blackness, darkness, lowering, and the like:
which is far more than walking humbly, and which is wholly

suppressed by so translating. See the psalms xxxiv. 14, xxxvii. 7, πενθῶν καὶ

xli. 10; where the prophet useth many words and speeches to ex- σκυθρωπά-
press sorrowful penance ; and for that which in Latin is always con- “Hh
tristatus, in Greek a word more significant, in Hebrew it is the same -
kind of word that they translate “humbly.” Whereas indeed this word D377)
hath no signification of humility properly, no, not of that humility ite
I mean, which is rather to be called humiliation, or affliction, as the

Greek words imply. But it signifieth properly the very manner, κακωθῆναι,
countenance, gesture, habit of a pensive or forlorn man: and if they es a
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

[? Εἴπατε, μάταιος ὁ δουλεύων Θεῷ, καὶ ri πλέον, ὅτι ἐφυλάξαμεν
τὰ φυλάγματα αὐτοῦ, καὶ διότι ἐπορεύθημεν ἱκέται πρὸ προσώπου Κυρίου
παντοκράτορος, Mal. iii. 14. “ Et quia ambulavimus tristes,” Vulg.
Cranmer’s, the Genevan, and the Bishop’s Bible render ἱκέται “humbly,”
and the two latter have the rest of the verse as given by Martin. |

FuLKr,

17.

Maatin,
18.

Dan. iv. 24.

ἐν ἐλεημο-
tA ;

σύναις λύ-

τρωσαι.

mp2
py

δικαιοσύ-
νην.
ἐλεημοσύ-
νην.

In Ps. xlix. 5.

Psal. οχί.
[exii. ]

446 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

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. What a many of vain words are here spent, to
make a vain cayil 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 ¢ristes, which is as far from your
pretended “penance,” as “ humility.” The Septuaginta
translate the word οἰκέται, 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 humility,
which is contrary to pride, and not of the tokens of repent-
ance, which are mourning apparel, and such like.

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 against them, which is word for word
according to the vulgar and common reading: secondly, the Chaldee
word which they translate, “break off,” by Munster’s own judgment,
in lexico Chaid., 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 8,
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 τ which Beza translateth, “ his
beneficence: or liberality remaineth, &c.” Again, St Jerome, a sufficient

[᾿ Kai ras ἁμαρτίας σου ἐν ἐλεημοσύναις λύτρωσαι, &c., Dan. iv. 24.
“Et peccata tua eleemosynis redime,” Vulg.]

χαπ.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 4.47

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- aay αν
self saith, “that by the name of justice with the Hebrews is also ὦ
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 oe aa

no doubt, but the translators were vehemently affected ; yet δ
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,”
r “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 enjom 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 P75
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-

pr

Pp

Martin,
19.

448 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ort.

fication were more principal than other, it were more reason
to say, that pherak signifieth rather and more principally “to
break” or “ dissolve,” because the word signifieth 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
him 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
thy sins,” or “deliver 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. 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 Titus’, (where the apostle exceedingly

Γ᾽ wa φροντίζωσι καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι οἱ πεπιστευκότες τῷ
Θεῷ, Tit. iii. 8. “ Ut curent bonis operibus preesse 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. |

xu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 449

exhorteth to good works,) “ maintain good works,” and “shew forth good
works,” rather than according to the ancient Latin translation, bonis προΐστα-

ν Ἢ σθαι καλῶν
operibus presse, “to be chief and principal in doing good works ; ἔργων.
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 Fuxxe,

is plainly revealed by knowledge of the tongues, which was a
hidden from many of the ancient fathers, to delight rather
in error which is old, than in truth which is newly discovered!
The word προΐστασθαι 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.]

Martin, |.

Futkg, 1.

450 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

CHAPTER XIV.

Heretical Translation against the Holy Sacraments, namely
Baptism and Confession.

Martin. Awnotusr 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. ‘That the sacraments help nothing toward our
salvation,” is another of Martin’s slanders, no assertion of
ours. or 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 liars 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 lie 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.

χιν.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 451

Martin. For this purpose Beza is not content to speak as the Martin, 2.
apostle doth, Rom. iy. 11', that circumcision was “a seal? of the justice σφραγίς.
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 ina oat
presumptuously, that the English Bezites themselves here also dare not ΕἾ πα.
follow him in translation, though in opinion they agree. The cause
of his wilful translation he declareth in his 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 Furxe, 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

[* Kat σημεῖον ἔλαβε περιτομῆς, σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς
πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ᾽ εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν
πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας, εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι καὶ αὐτοῖς τὴν δικαιοσύνην.
Rom. iv. 11. “Et signum accepit circumcisionis, quod obsignaret
justitiam fidei, que fuerat in preputio: ut esset pater omnium creden-
tium in preputio, ut imputetur etiam ipsis justitia,’ Beza. “Εἰ
signum accepit circumcisionis, signaculum justitie fidei que est in
preputio: ut sit pater omnium credentium per preputium, ut repu-
tetur et illis ad justitiam,’ Vulg. |

[? Quod obsignaret, σφραγῖδα. Quid magnificentius dici de ullo
sacramento possit? Itaque qui veteris foederis sacramenta a nostris re
ipsa distinguunt, nunquam videntur Christi officium quam late pateat
cognovisse, Bez Nov. Test. p. 180,7

29—2

Usurpant.
edit. 1556.

Marty, 3.

Aets xix. 3.

452 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

not you ashamed most impudently to say he refused the
term of “seal,” stgillum, and for sigillum hath used quod
obsignaret: whereas the word that he saith he refused is
signaculum. Signaculi nomen quod vetus interpres et
Erasmus usurpavit libens refugi, partim quod non sit admo-
dum usitatum, partim quod non satis videatur illam vim
obsignationis declarare: “The term signaculum, which 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 ayoideth,
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 sigillum. 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 little image, wnde
sigillares, &c., it is not proper nor full to express the Greek
word o@paryis. That he maketh circumcision equal unto the
sacraments of the new testament, I have shewed before,
that it is in matter, substance, and end; which 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.

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-
cerning certain that had not yet received the Holy Ghost’: “Unto

Γ' Εἰς ri οὖν ἐβαπτίσθητε ; οἱ δὲ εἶπον, Eis τὸ Ἰωάννου βάπτισμα.
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? 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. |

χιν.] 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
necessary, that wheresoever there is mention of John’s baptism, we eae:
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 Fuxxs, 8.
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 mate. 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 Nicene 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

Martin, 4.

? ,
εἰς Tl.

εἰς TO
ὄνομα.

Εὐ1ΚΕ, 4.

4δ4 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

preaching to the people, that they should believe in Christ
Jesus, which was coming after him, were also baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ, who had granted those visible graces
of his holy Spirit to be bestowed upon them that believed 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 believe 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. But doth the Greek lead him, or force him to this trans-
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
it is said by the same Greek phrase, “that they were baptized in the
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. The Greek doth allow him so to translate; and
“to be baptized in the name of Jesus,” and “into the name of

ων
a

XIV. | 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 Marmn, 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 iii. 5.
into the kingdom of God',” (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, and in tit.
and not material water. As though our Saviour had said to Nicodemus, ἣν
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 ἢ fi. 5.

ation upon us abundantly, that is, the Holy Ghost®. And lest we should regeneratio-
8

Senet, add

etrudit in nos

> , “ » A x ’ > ’ »
΄' >
[) ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν Shunde.

εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. John iii. 5.

Aquam vivam, ὕδωρ ζῶν. Hic quidem (nempe in Joh. iv. 10) non
dubium est quin allegorice per aquam intelligatur immensa illa caritas
Dei erga nos in Filio effusa in corda nostra per Spiritum Sanctum in vitam
eternam, cujus fit mentio, Rom. vy. 5, neque video cur aliter sit expli-
candum quod scriptum est supra, iii. 5. Beze Nov. Test. p. 112. ]

Γ᾿ οὐκ. ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ὧν ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς, ἀλλὰ κατὰ
τὸν αὑτοῦ ἔλεον ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς, διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας, καὶ ἀνακαι-
νώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου, οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως, Tit. iii. 5, 6.
“Non ex operibus justis que fecerimus nos, sed ex sua misericordia
servavit nos per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationem Spiritus Sancti
quem effudit in nos copiose,” Beze 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 the 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 merey
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. ]

Quem effudit,
as Beza him-
self transla-
teth.

Comment. in
hune locum.

456 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

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
all one, but most plainly distinguisheth them, saying, “that God of his
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
us. Calvin taketh away water clean, and will have him speak only of
the Holy Ghost, which Flaccus Illyricus the Lutheran himself wondereth

. at, that any man should be so bold, and calleth it plain sacrilege against

Futxg, 5.

the efficacy of the sacraments.

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. iii. 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 m 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. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. : 457

Martin. And if we should here accuse the English translators also, Marmn, 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 which 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 his commentary playeth the sp. sancti,
heretic, as Calvin doth. πυηλινενῥν κ᾿

Fulke. When Aristides could be accused of no crime, Funke, 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

believe the bold surmises (what said I, surmises? nay, im-

pudent and contentious affirmations,) of this blind 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 ἐξομολο-
reader might easily gather sacramental confession, they translate thus, %heeot gon-

“Acknowledge your faults one to another,’ James v. It is said a little son is
8. Cyprian
[" A name frequently used in old writers for a horse.] fathers, Ἐς.
[ἢ Ante expiata delicta, ante exomologesin factam criminis, ante brass. gait
purgatam conscientiam sacrificio et manu sacerdotis. Cyprian. de lapsis,.
fol. exvi. edit. Paris. 1512. 4to. 1829, p. 371. ᾿
Hujus igitur poenitentie secunde et unius, quanto in arcto negotium
est, tanto operatior probatio; ut non sola conscientia proferatur, sed
aliquo etiam actu administretur. Is actus, qui magis Greco vocabulo
exprimitur et frequentatur, exomologesis est. Tertullian. de Pcenitent.
cap. ix. ]

In the order
of visitation
of the sick.

458 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

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
their communion-book, (as it seemeth, out of this place,) that 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

Funke, 7.

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. 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 ἐξομολογεῖσθε, “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 little, which 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, which 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

ee

XIV. | 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 believe are absolved from
their sins, by the ministry of the preacher; yet is not
preaching 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 English 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 English answerable to both: make your
syllogism out of that place to prove popish shrift, when
you dare.

Marty, 1.

Chap. vi.
Eccles. vii. 31.
ἱερεῖς.
ἱερία.

1 Tim. iii.
Bib. 1562. &
1577.

Atdkovo.w

Fux, 1.

460 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ou.

CHAPTER XV.

Heretical Translation against the Sacrament of Holy Orders,
and for the Marriage of Priests and Votaries.

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
“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
themselves. As when they say in all their bibles, “ Fear the Lord with
all thy soul, and honour his ministers.” In the Greek it is plain thus,
“and honour his priests,” as the word always signifieth; and in the
very next sentence themselves so translate, “ Fear the Lord and honour
the priest.’”” But they would needs borrow one of these places for the
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
translate thus, “ Likewise must the ministers be honest,” &c. And a
little after, “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife,” Lo, the
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. 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 λειτουργοὺς cometh immediately after, than any
purpose against the order of “priest,” or to dignify the name

Γ᾿ Ἔν ὅλῃ ψυχῇ σου εὐλαβοῦ τὸν Κύριον, καὶ rods ἱερεῖς αὐτοῦ
θαύμαζε: ἐν ὅλῃ δυνάμει ἀγάπησον τὸν ποιήσαντά σε, καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς
> - 4 > ‘ ~ ‘A κα ἧς , c , *
αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς. φοβοῦ τὸν Κύριον, καὶ δόξασον ἱερέα. Eccles. vii.
29, 80, 81.

δ μων.

xv. | 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 διάκονοι 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 Marrn, 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 BAEC
in his translation he useth always the word “minister” in the general ΝΣ
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, Furxe, 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 διάκονος 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.

Martin, 3.

For mes-
senger and
legate, the
scripture
useth these
words,

Ἢ
ἄγγελος,
πρεσβευ-
τῆς, πρεσ-
βεύειν.

1 Cor. xiv.
23, 24.

1 Tim. 11].

FuLKg, 3.

462 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

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
“elders” and “eldership” for “priests” and “ priesthood,” so do they
most impudently term St Peter and St John laymen: they say for
apostle, “ambassador,” and “messenger,” John xiii. 16; and for
“apostles of the churches,” “ messengers” of the same, 2 Cor. viii.; for
“bishops,” “overseers,” Acts xx. Why, my masters, doth idiota signify
a “layman?” Suppose a layman be as wise and learned as any other,
is he idiota ? or that one of your ministers be as unlearned and ignorant
as any shepherd, is he not idiota? So then idiota is neither clerk nor
layman, but every simple and ignorant man. They that spake with
miraculous tongues in the primitive church, were they not laymen
many of them? yet the apostle plainly distinguisheth them from édiota.
So that this is more ignorantly or wilfully translated than neophytus,
“a young scholar,’ in all your bibles.

Fulke. There can be no greater wrangling, nor more
unprofitable, than about words and'terms. But why, I pray
you, should the terms of “elder” and “eldership” be more
profane and secular in English, than they be in Greek, yea,
than the names of “ancients” and “ seniors,” which you your- —
selves in your translation use for the same office? Will you
never be ashamed of these vanities, which turn always to your
own reproach? Yet “do they,” say you, “most impudently
term St Peter and John laymen.” And do not you dishonour
them as much, to say in your translation, they were of the
vulgar sort? What signifieth λαϊκὸς, “a layman,” but one of
the vulgar sort, or common people? Again, were they of
that clergy whereof Annas and Caiaphas were high priests ;
or were they not. as perfectly distinct from that sacrificing
priesthood, as any layman at this day is from the christian
clergy? Yet you go on whither the fury of your malice
doth carry you, and say that idiota is neither “clerk” nor
“layman,” but “every simple and ignorant man.” If it be
so, then reform your translation as well in this place of the
Acts iv., as in 1 Cor. xiv., where you call idiota “of the
vulgar sort, or the vulgar ;” and pluck yourself first by the
nose for false translating, before you find fault with us.
Again, if the high priests did take the apostles for unlearned
and laymen, what impudence is it to say that we term them
so? And touching your signification of zdiota, although the
priests knew that they had not been brought up in study of

Xv. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 463

learning, as they themselves were; yet, hearing their bold
and wise answer, they could not take them for simple and
ignorant men: therefore it followeth, that they meant they
were none of their clergy, rather than that they were
ignorant and foolish; for simple in the good part they would
not acknowledge them to be. As for the term “ ambassador,”
and “messenger,” for the Greek word ἀπόστολος, John xiii.
16, [it] may well be used in that place, seeing it is like he
speaketh as generally of the word ἀπόστολος, as he doeth
of δοῦλος, which is “a servant.” “The servant is not greater
than his lord, nor the ambassador than he that sent him.”
And for “the messengers of the churches,” when those are
understood by the word ἀπόστολοι, which are sent on
message from the churches, and not those that are sent by
Christ to preach unto the churches, no wise man can blame
the translation. Acts xx., where ἐπισκόπους are of us trans-
lated “overseers,” of you “bishops ;” yet in your note you
say, ‘or priests,” as though the word may signify “ priests,”
which all men of skill do know to signify “overseers,”
although the term be given to them which before are called
πρεσβύτεροι, “elders or priests.” But it proceedeth of
great “ignorance, that neophytus is translated in all our bibles,
‘a young scholar.’” O what knowledge have we learned of
you, to translate neophytus “a neophyte!’ For before we
did take neophytus to signify one that is newly planted,
or lately engraffed, and by a metaphor, one that is a young
and new scholar in the mysteries of the christian religion.
But because your pope useth to make boys and unlearned
young men bishops and great prelates in your church, you
cannot abide, that a young scholar should by St Paul’s rule
be excluded from a bishoprick, and therefore you mock the
reader with a “neophyte.” We know that in the ancient
church they were called neophyti,. which were lately bap-
tized; but yet in the same sense, because they were young
scholars: and therefore look in the Homilies that are entitled,
ad Neophytos, and you shall see, they are directed and spent
almost or altogether in teaching the principles of christian
religion plainly, wherein they were but young scholars, not
yet perfectly instructed.

Martin. Now, for changing the name “apostle” into “messenger,” Marrin, 4.

Annot. in
Matt. x. 2.

Annot. in
Rom. xvi. 7.

In tit. Evang.
Matt. &
111. 11. & x. 2.
& ν, 25.

Fux, 4.

Martin, 5.
Nov. Test,
1580.

464 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [on

though Beza do so also in the foresaid places, yet indeed he controlleth
both himself and you in other places, saying of the same word, “apos-
tles:" “A man may say in Latin legates, but we have gladly kept the
Greek word ‘apostle, as many other words familiar to the church of
Christ.” And not only of the principal apostles, but also of the other
disciples, he both translateth and interpreteth in his commentary, that
they are “notable apostles ;” and he proveth that all “ministers of the
word,” as he termeth them, are and may be so called. And for your
“ overseers,” he saith episcopos, and not superintendentes, which he might
as well have said, as you “overseers.” But to say the truth, though he
be too profane, yet he doth much more keep and use the ecclesiastical
received terms than you do, often protesting it, and as it were glorying
therein against Castaleon especially. As, when he saith presbyterum,
where you say “elder ;” diaconum, where you say, “minister,” and so
forth. Where if you tell me that howsoever he translate, he meaneth
as profanely as you, I believe you; and therefore you shall go together,
like master, like scholars, all false and profane translators; for this
Beza, who sometimes so gladly keepeth the name of apostle, yet calleth
Epaphroditus legatum Philippensium, Philip. ii. 15. Whereupon the
English Bezites translate, “your messenger,’ for “your apostle.” As
if St Augustine, who was our apostle, should be called “our mes-
senger.”

Fulke. You cannot leave your old bias, in wresting
men’s sayings far beyond their meaning. Therefore you
allege against us the saying of Beza, for the term of
“apostles” to be retained, where mention is made of the
apostles of Christ, not only those that are specially so
called, but also all the ministers of the word. But what is
this, to term them by the honourable name of “apostles,” which
are not sent by God, but by men, about some civil or
ecclesiastical business? For both he and we call Epaphro-
ditus “the messenger,” and not the apostle of the Philippians,
because he was sent by the Philippians unto Paul, and not by
Christ unto them. As for that Augustine which was sent by
Gregory, [he] might better be called Gregory’s apostle than our
apostle; for he was not sent by us, but to us; not immediately
from God, as an apostle should, but from Gregory, and by
Gregory. Touching the terms of “bishops,” “elders,”
“ ministers,” “ priests,” &c., enough hath been said already.
Our translators have done that which they thought best to
be done in our language, as Beza did in the Latin language.

Martin. As also, when you translate of St Matthias the apostle,
that “he was bya common consent counted with the eleven apostles,”

xv.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. ὁ 465

Acts i. 26'; what is it else, but to make only a popular election of
ecclesiastical degrees? as Beza, in his annotations, would have us to ray gr cng
understand, saying, “that nothing was done here peculiarly by Peter, 23.

as one of more excellent dignity than the rest, but in common by the

voices of the whole church ;” though in another place upon this election

he noteth Peter to be the chief, or Corypheus. And as for the Greek συγκατε-
word in this place, if partiality of the cause would suffer him to con- ψηφίσθη.
sider οὗ 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 Furs, 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 Marri, 6,
among you. For we understand by Master Whitgift’s books against nis defence,
the puritans, that he and his fellows deny this popular election, and posi 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 xetporovia, 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. a da

Fulke. The diversity of the translation proceedeth of Fuuxx, 6.
this, that the former translators did not observe the nature

Γ᾿ Καὶ συγκατεψηφίσθη pera τῶν ἕνδεκα ἀποστόλων, 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.” ]

30

[eutxe.]

an Act. Hom.

Martin, 7. Ὁ

Bib. 1577.

χειροτονή-
σαντες.

Beza, ibid.

Pag. 200. ad
rat. Camp.

466 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

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,
when speaking of this election he useth these words: Jam
et illud considera, quam et Petrus agit omnia ex communt
discipulorum sententia, nihil auctoritate sua, nihil cum
imperio'. “Now also consider this thing, how Peter doth all
things by common consent of the disciples, nothing 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 net 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.

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
not this word accordingly, but altogether as the puritans, thus: “ When
they had ordained them elders by election in every church.” Acts xiv.
verse 235, For if the Greek word signify here the people’s giving of
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,
they all agree to translate “elder” for “priest :” and Master Whita-
kers telleth us afresh in the name of them all, that there are no

[2 ὅρα δὲ αὐτὸν μετὰ κοινῆς πάντα ποιοῦντα γνώμης" οὐδὲν αὐθεντικῶς,
οὐδὲ ἀρχικῶς. Chrysost. Hom. 1π|. in Acta Apost. Opera, Vol. rv.
p- 622, edit. Savill. ]

[? Χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς πρεσβυτέρους kat’ ἐκκλησίαν, 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. ]

χν.] 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. 1 have satisfied your desire before, if you list Furxe, 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 Marrm,8.
making their ministers (which the puritans also are forced to allo Beza, Anno
by other words of scripture, howsoever they dispute and jangle against Ὶ
χειροτονία), 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 1 Tim. iv. 14.
prophecy, with imposition of the hands of priesthood® ;” they translate, τοῦ χαρί-
“Neglect not the ‘gift;’” and Beza most impudently, for “by pro- διὰ rp SN
phecy,” translateth “to prophecy :” making that only to be this gift, τείας.

[5 My ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας
μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου, 1 Tim, iv. 14. |

30—2

2 Tim. i.

Futxe, 8,

Martin, 9.

χάρισμα.
Phil. i. 29.

ἐχαρίσθη.

408 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
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 grace or gift before given.

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 χάρισμα into “gift” is true and proper to the
word. For albeit the word χάρις be taken, not only for the
favour of God, but also for his gracious gifts; yet χάρισμα
is never taken in the scripture but for a free gift, or a gift
of his grace. That Beza referreth the preposition διὰ 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.

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,” which is much more
significant to express the Greek word than “gift” is, because it 18
not every gift, but a gracious gift, or a gift proceeding of marvellous
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
this much, “To you this grace is given,” &c. So when God gave

χν.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, | 4.69

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 ae epi δες

by this word, because it was a grace (as Theodoret calleth it,) given χάρισμα.
unto him. And therefore also the alms of the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xvi. 3,

are called “their grace,” which the protestants translate “liberality,” τὴν χάριν
neglecting altogether the true force and signification of the Greek words. μῶν":

Fulke. Here is no evidence at all, that the order of Forxe, 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 dogbolt' 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
him that ordaineth, and of him that is ordained. But we
suppress the word “ grace,” you say, because charisma sig-
nifieth, αὖ 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. ΑΒ 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 χαρίζομαι 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. ]

[3 Ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, od μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν,
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ mdcxew Philipp. i. 29. “Quia vobis donatum
est pro Christo,” Vulg.. “For to you it is given for Christ,” Rhemish
version, 1582. |

Martin,
10.

2 Tim. i. 6.

Forxe,
10.

470 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

When St Paul appealed to Cesar, Acts xxv., affirming that
no man could give him into the hands of his adversaries,
he useth the same word χαρίσασθαι. 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 χαρίζεσθαΐ: 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,
ealleth the alms of the Corinthians their “ grace,” is it not
better English to say “their liberality?”* for although their
liberality proceeded of God’s gift, yet the apostle, adding
the pronoun ὑμῶν, meaneth the “free gift of the Corinthians,”
not the “ grace of God.”

Martin. But concerning the sacrament of orders, as in the first
to Timothy, so in the second also, they suppress the word “grace,”
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. These coleworts were sodden enough once before,
that they need not be set on again. The word χάρισμα,
if you find it a hundred times, signifieth no more but “a
free gift,’ or “a gift that is freely given,” even as the
English word “ gift” doth; whereof the proverb is, “ what

& οὐδείς. pe δύναται αὐτοῖς χαρίσασθαι, Acts xxv.11. “Nemo potest
me illis donare,” Vulg. | :

[3 "Ore οὐκ ἔστιν ἔθος Ῥωμαίοις χαρίζεσθαί τινα ἄνθρωπον εἰς ἀπώλειαν,
Acts χχυ. 10. ᾿

[3 Ὅταν δὲ παραγένωμαι, obs ἐὰν δοκιμάσητε δ ἐπιστολῶν, τούτους
πέμψω ἀπενεγκεῖν τὴν χάριν ὑμῶν εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ. 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.] 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,
“vou 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- Marry,
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 1 Cor. ix. 5.
power to lead about a wife being a sister, as well as the rest of the 1380. τοῦ
apostles?” Whereas the apostle saith nothing else but, “a woman a ἀδελφὴν
sister,” that is, a christian woman; meaning such holy women as fol- ita ἢ
lowed Christ and the apostles, to find and maintain them of their
substance. So doth St Jerome interpret it, and St Augustine‘, both Lib. i.advers.

De to: mon,
Γ΄ Si autem nobis illud opposuerit ad probandum, quod omnes apo- “" *

stoli uxores habuerint, ‘ Numquid non habemus potestatem mulieres,
vel uxores circumducendi? ..... jungat et illud, quod in’ Grecis
codicibus est, ‘ Numquid non habemus potestatem sorores mulieres, vel
uxores circumducendi? Ex quo apparet eum de aliis sanctis dixisse
mulieribus, que juxta morem Judaicum magistris de sua substantia
ministrabant, sicut legimus ipsi quoque Domino factitatum. . . . . ᾿
Aut certe, si γυναῖκας uxores accipimus, non mulieres, id quod additur,
sorores tollit wxores; et ostendit eas germanas in spiritu fuisse, non
conjuges. Hieron. adv. Jovin. Lib. 1. cap. 14. Tom. 1v. Pt. ii. p. 167.
edit. Ben. ᾽
Fefellit eos verbi Greci ambiguitas, quod et uxor et mulier eodem
verbo Grece dicitur. Quanquam hoc ita posuerit apostolus, ut falli non

ΤῊ Collectan.
CEcu. super
hune locum.

Annot. Matt.
ν, 28. ἃ

1 Cor. vii. 1.
Quia non
additur

TLVOS aut

ἀδελφοῦ.

ΕσΤΚΕ,
it.

1 Tim. iii.

ite ἃ,
1 Cor. ix. ὅσα.

472 ‘A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ex

directly proving that it cannot be translated “wife,” but “woman :”
and the Greek fathers most expressly. And as for the Greek word,
if they say it is ambiguous, St Augustine telleth them, that as the
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
circumstances, and consider the Greek word alone in itself, and Beza
will tell us in other places, that it signifieth a woman rather than a
wife ; reprehending Erasmus for translating it “wife, because there is
no circumstances annexed why it should so signify:” thereby declaring
that of itself it signifieth “woman ;” and therefore much more when
the circumstances also, as St Augustine saith, maketh it certain that
so it doth signify.

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 live 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
scripture of the apostles, but also Clemens Alexandrinus, a
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 gyneceum, &c'. “ By means of whom the

debuerint : quia neque mulierem tantummodo ait, sed sororem mulierem;
neque ducendi, sed circumducendi. Veruntamen alios interpretes non
fefellit hee ambiguitas, et mulierem, non uxorem, interpretati sunt.
Augustini de Opere Monachorum. Opera, Vol. vi. p. 803.]

Γ᾽ Λέγει οὖν ἔν τινι ἐπιστολῇ, Οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα
περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι; οὗτοι μὲν οἰκείως τῇ διακονίᾳ
ἀπερισπάστῳ τῷ κηρύγματι προσανέχοντες, οὐχ ὡς γαμέτας, GAN ὡς
ἀδελφὰς περιῆγον τὰς γυναῖκας, συνδιακόνους ἐσομένας πρὸς τὰς οἰκουροὺς
γυναῖκας, δὲ ὧν καὶ εἰς τὴν γυναικωνῖτιν ἀδιαβλήτως παρεισεδύετο ἡ τοῦ

xv. ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 478

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 Prefat.
here any new matter, which is not there sufficiently an-
swered.

Martin. Wherefore great must the impudency of Beza be, (and Marty,
of the English Bezites,) that knowing this and protesting it elsewhere ie
in his annotations, yet here translateth, sororem uaorem, “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 ee oe,
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 Cam 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?” σὺν γυναι-
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.1.2 No, say you, yoraucde
reprehending this translation, because it dehorteth from marriage. If μὴ ἄπτε-
not, shew your commission, why: you may translate in the foresaid ὅτ
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 anywise*.

Fulke. Nay, “great must be the impudency of ” the papists, > pa
that imagine the apostles which had wives of their own, did 2
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

Κυρίου διδασκαλία. Clem. Alex. Strom. Lib. mm. sect. 6. pp. 535—6.
edit. Venet. 1757. ]

[2 Bonum est homini uxorem non attingere. Erasmi Vers, Opera,
Vol. νι. p. 686. edit. Lug. Bat. 1705.]

[* See note, chap. 1. No. 18, p, 115.]

474 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ou.

Tertullian, the Montanist, in his book of Monogamy’, 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 wxor, by
the ambiguity of the Greek word γύνη, 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 living, 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, ministermg 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 1. 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

Γ᾿ Nec enim si penes Greecos communi vocabulo censentur mulieres
et uxores pro consuetudinis facilitate, (ceterum est proprium vocabulum
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 circum-
ducendi, sicut ceteri apostoli et Cephas? At ubi ea subjungit, que
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, que illis
eodem instituto, quo et Dominum comitantes, ministrabant. Tertull.
de Monogamia, cap, viii. p. 681. ed. Rigaltii. Lutet. 1641. ]

xv. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 475

been subject to great offence and obloquy! And what devil-

ish malice have you against 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 ctemen. _
was forsaken by Peter? The story of his martyrdom, if Cronica cro-
it be true, affirmeth that she continued with him to his! Fascicul
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 yuvy 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 Marrin,
wife, “I beseech thee also, faithful yokefellow,” Phil. iv. 3: for in ate ἐ
English what doth it else sound, but ‘ man and wife ?” But that St Paul peleta
should here mean his wife, most of the Greek fathers count it ridi-
culous and foolish, St Chrysostom*, Theodoret*, GEcumenius, Theophy- Socie ger-

lactus®, Beza and Calvin both mislike it, translating also in the Theophylact
h, ifh

pain ἊΣ

Ξ Ἷ Ἐν woman, it

Γ᾽ Clementine Recognitiones: apud Gallandi Biblioth. Patrum, should be

Vol. π.] the Greek

Γ᾿ Σύζυγε. ἢ ἀδελφόν τινα αὐτῶν, ἢ καὶ ἄνδρα μιᾶς αὐτῶν οὕτω
καλεῖ: ὡς ἂν εἰ ἔλεγε: νῦν ἀδελφὸς εἶ γνήσιος, νῦν ἀνὴρ γνήσιος, ὅτι
μέλος γέγονας. . . . . Τινὲς δέ φασιν ὄνομα ἐκεῖνο κύριον εἶναι τὸ
σύζυγε.. Πλὴν εἴτε τοῦτο, εἴτε ἐκεῖνο, οὐ σφόδρα. ἀκριβολογεῖσθαι δεῖ.
Chrysostom. in loc. edit. Sav. Tom. 1v. p. 76.]

Γ᾿ τὸν δὲ σύζυγόν τινες ἀνοήτως ὑπέλαβον γυναῖκα εἶναι τοῦ ἀπο-
στόλου: οὐ ψρυσεσχηκόνεν τοῖς ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους γεγραμμένοις, ὅτι
τοῖς ἀγάμοις συνέταξεν ἑαυτόν. Theodoret. in loc. Tom. 1π|. p. 838. ed.
Paris. 1743. ]

[> Δυοκοῦσί μοι αὗται ai γυναῖκες τὸ κεφάλαιον εἶναι τῆς ἐκκλησίας
τῆς ἐκεῖ: παρατίθεται οὖν ταύτας ἀνδρί τινι θαυμαστῷ, ὃς ἢ ἀδελφὸς ἦν
μιᾶς αὐτῶν, ἢ καὶ ἀνήρ... .. Τιψὲς δὲ πλανηθέντες, τὴν αὑτοῦ γυναῖκά

FULKE,
13.

Martin,
14,
Heb. xiii.

Nov. Test.
an. 1565.

Ld
476 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cx.

masculine gender; St Paul himself saith the contrary, that he had no
wife, 1 Cor. vii. And as for Clemens Alexandrinus, who allegeth. it
for Paul’s wife, Eusebius plainly insinuateth, and Nicephorus expressly
saith, that he did it ἀνταγωνιστικῶς, by the way of contention and
disputation, whiles he earnestly wrote against them that oppugned
matrimony.

Fulke. The Greek word being σύζυγε, signifieth ‘a fel-
low or companion in yoke:” they have not therefore translated
amiss, when they say “ yokefellow,” which signifieth “fellow
in any yoke whatsoever.” If it sound “man and wife” in
English, what matter is that? for so it soundeth in Greek.
Men must not follow the sound of words only, but examine
the matter. And great probability there is, that he speaketh
there of his wife, as Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh ; neither
doth St Paul himself say precisely, he had no wife, 1 Cor.
vii., but that he lived without the use of a wife, which might
be, his wife consenting to remain at Philippi. That the
later writers mislike the judgment of Clemens, and specially
that fabulous historian Nicephor, it derogateth nothing to
his credit, nor to the likelihood of the matter. That Theo-
phylact saith, the adjective should be of the feminine gender,
he is not to be credited above Clemens Alexandrinus, who
knew the purity of the Greek tongue as well as he. But
whether it be to be understood of his wife or no, we leave
it indifferent, and translate according to the Greek word,
without prejudice of either opinion; which kind of translation

at other times you do highly commend.

Martin. Again, for the marriage of priests, and of all sorts of
men indifferently, they translate the apostle thus : “ Wedlock is honour-
able among all men.” Where one falsification is, that they say,
“among all men,” and Beza, inter quosvis, and in the margin, in
omni hominum ordine’, “in every order or condition of men,” and in

φασι τὸν Παῦλον παρακαλεῖν ἐνταῦθα: ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν: ἵνα yap τἄλλα
ἐάσω, ἔδει γνησία σύζυγε εἰπεῖν. Theophylact. Tom. 1. p. 454. ed.
Ven. 1755.

Ναὶ ἐρωτῶ καί σε, σύζυγε γνήσιε, συλλαμβάνου αὐταῖς, &c. Philipp.
iv. 5. “ Etiam rogo et te, germane compar, adjuva illos,” Vulg. “ Yea,
and I beseech thee, faithful yokefellow,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva.
“True yokefellow,” Authorised version. ‘ Yea, and I beseech thee my
sincere companion,” Rhemish. ] ;

[? The marginal note of the 1565 edition has, “inter cujusvis ordinis
homines,” p. 542. ]

xv.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. | 477

his annotation he raileth, to make this translation good: whereas the

Greek is as indifferent to signify, that “marriage is honourable by ali ἐν πᾶσι.
means, in all respects, wholly, throughly, altoaothor? ” So doth not

only Erasmus, but also the Greek fathers expound it, namely Theo- See 5 eum.
phylact, whose words in the Greek be very significant, but too long.

here to trouble the reader with them. “Not in part,” saith he, “ho-

_ nourable, and in part not: but wholly, throughout, by all means
honourable and undefiled, in all ages, in all times.’ Therefore, to
restrain it in translation to “persons” only, (though it may also very

well be understood of all persons that have no impediments to the
contrary,) that is to translate falsely.

Fulke. I have answered already, that seeing the ga
apostle threateneth the judgment of God against fornicators **
and adulterers, the most apt signification of the words ἐν
πᾶσι, is, “among all men:” although that which you would
have, comprehendeth “all persons,” as well as “all other things,
means, respects,” &c. If any persons have an impediment to
the contrary, such as God’s word doth allow, their marriage
by this text is not authorised. But priests have no impedi-
ment when they are, by the word of God to be chosen, as
well of married men as of any other, 1 Tim. in. Tit. i.;
neither can it be any falsification to translate so as both the
words in the Greek tongue do signify, and’the reason of the
place doth require. Theophylact’s words, you say, be long:
and so it seemeth they be for your purpose; therefore you
take but a piece in the midst, cutting off both the be-
ginning and the end that make against you*. “In all (saith

Γ" Τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσι, καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος, Heb. xiii. 4. “ Hono-
rabile connubium in omnibus, et torus immaculatus,” Vulg. “ Honora-
bile est inter quosvis conjugium, et cubile impollutum,” Beza. “Inter
quosvis, ἐν πᾶσι, id est, inter cujusvis ordinis homines.” Novy. Test. in
loc. edit. 1556, 1582. ‘“‘ Wedding is in all things honourable, and bed
unwemmed (unspotted.)” [A Sax. “unwemmed, purus,” | Wiclif's ver-
sion. “ Let wedlock be had ‘in price in all points, and let the chamber be
undefiled,” Tyndale. “ Wedlock is to be had in honor among all men,
and the bed undefiled,”.Cranmer, Geneva. “ Marriage honorable in all,
and the bed undefiled,” Rheims. “ Marriage is honorable in all, and the
bed undefiled,” Authorised version. }

[3 Ὅρα πόσος περὶ σωφροσύνης αὐτῷ λόγος: καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἀνωτέρω
ἁγιασμοῦ μνημονεύων, περὶ ταύτης ἔλεγε, καὶ πάλιν μετα ταῦτα ἐρεῖ περὶ
lal > a > \ a a
πόρνων καὶ μοιχῶν. Ἔν πᾶσιν οὖν, μὴ ἐν τοῖς προβεβηκόσι μὲν ἐν δὲ τοῖς
, a“ a a
νέοις ov, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πᾶσιν. Ἢ καὶ ev mace τρόποις, καὶ ἐν mace καίροις,
‘ " Uj Ἁ > ‘ 3 4 » 4 > ’ Α ΄“ ,ὔ ͵ >
μὴ ev θλίψει μὲν, ἐν δὲ ἀνέσει οὔ μὴ ἐν τούτῳ μὲν τῷ μέρει τίμιος, ἐν

Martin,
15.

τίμιος ὁ
,
γάμος.

τιμήν.

ἐν τιμῇ.

47
78 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 Q&cumenius 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. 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, both by that which goeth
before, and that which immediately followeth, all which are exhorta-
tions; and let the protestants give us a reason out of the Greek text,
if they can, why they translate the words following by way of ex-

ἄλλῳ δὲ οὔ: GAN ὅλος δ ὅλου τίμιος ἔστιν. ᾿Ἐνταῦθα δὲ ἐντρέπονται
οἱ τὸν γάμον διαβάλλοντες αἱρετικοί: ἰδοὺ γὰρ τίμιος ὀνομάζεται, “ὅτι ἐν
σωφροσύνῃ τηρεῖ. Theophylact. in loc. Tom. m. p. 756.’ edit. Venet.
1755. |

; . Ake
xv. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 479

hortation, “ Let your conversation be without covetousness;” and not ἀφιλάργυ-

these words also in like manner, “ Let marriage be honourable in all.” ois ee

Certain it is, that the Greek in both is all one phrase and speech; τίμιος ὃ
and Beza is much troubled to find a good reason against Erasmus, 7“#°*
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. 1 have already shewed that the verb of the Fourxe,
indicative mood is here to be understood, because the verb 15"
which followeth in the same verse is of the indicative mood.
Again, the particle δὲ, 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, Chrysostom’,
Theodoret?, Theophylact®, G&cumenius, 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 live
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,

Γ᾽ Ei yap γάμος συνεχωρήθη, δικαίως ὁ πόρνος κολάζεται, δικαίως ὁ
μοιχὸς τιμωρεῖται. ᾿Ἐνταῦθα πρὸς τοὺς αἱρετικοὺς ἀποδύεται. ᾿Ἐνταῦθα
καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίους αἰνίττεται, ὅτι βδελυρὰν ἡγοῦντο τὴν κοίτην. Καὶ ὃς ἂν ἧ,
φησιν, ἀπὸ κοίτης, οὐκ ἔστι καθαρός. Οὐκ ἔστι βδελυρὰ τὰ ἀπὸ φύσεως,
ὦ ἄγνωμον καὶ ἀναίσθητε ᾿Ιουδαῖε, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἀπὸ προαιρέσεως. Chrys.
in loc. ed. Sav. Tom. 1v. pp. 596, δ98.7

[? Τὸ μὲν yap ἔννομον, τὸ δὲ λίαν παρανόμον: καὶ τὸ μὲν 6 Θεὸς
ἐνομοθέτησεν ἐξ ἀρχῆς" ποιήσωμεν γὰρ αὐτῷ, ἔφη, βοηθὸν, καὶ διαπλάσας
ἤγαγε καὶ συνῆψε. Theodoret. in loc. Tom. us. p. 459. Paris. 1742. ]

[* 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.

Masten, Martin. Moreover it is against the profession of continency in
᾿ priests and others, that they translate our Saviour’s words of “single
Matt. xix. 11. 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
saying’.” 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. 161. when they say, “There are some chaste, which have made themselves
ξ 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
εὐνοῦχοι. 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, which were an horrible mortal
sin, but having those parts, as other men have, yet geld themselves
εὐνούχισαν (for so is the Greek,) and make themselves unable to generation.
cauTouse 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,

εὐνοῦχοι, and εὐνουχίζειν.

Furxe, Fulke. Concerning the former part of this matter,
16. 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 εὐνοῦχοι, and εὐνούχισαν, 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

[? Οὐ πάντες χωροῦσι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, ἀλλ᾽ ois δέδοται. εἰσὶ yap
εὐνοῦχοι, οἵτινες ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτω" καί εἰσιν εὐνοῦχοι,
οἵτινες εὐνουχίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων" καί εἰσιν εὐνοῦχοι, οἵτινες
εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. Matt. xix, 11, 12.

xv. | 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 suai y purpose of continency,
which they may not break:’ I answer, that we deny πού
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 Epiphanims? itp gine

and Saint Jerome*, that immoderate advancer of virginity, Tleron. ep.

that it is better to marry than out of marriage to live “™
incontinently.

Martin. The Bezites here are blameless, who translate it word Martin,
for word “eunuchs:” but they are more to blame in another place, |
where in derogation of the privilege and dignity of priests they translate Mal. ii. 7.
thus: “ The priest’s lips should preserve knowledge, and they should fs Sigs
seek the law at his mouth ;”’ where in the Hebrew and Greek it is σουσιν.
as plain as possibly can hd spoken, “The priest's lips shall keep Dw
knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth*.” Which is a wp2
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, Theinfallible
under pain of death, to stand to the priest’s judgment, which in this the pret

of religion.
ver. 4

[? Οἱ yap διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰσχυνθῆναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κρυφῆ πορνεύοντες
ποιοῦσι πορνείας, ἢ μονότητος ἢ ἐγκρατείας οὐ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ἔχουσι τὴν
ὁμολογίαν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς Θεὸν τὸν εἰδότα τὰ κρύφια καὶ ἐξελέγχοντα πᾶσαν
σάρκα ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ, περὶ ὧν ἕκαστος ἥμαρτε: κρεῖττον τοίνυν
ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν μίαν, καὶ μὴ περισσοτέρας" κρεῖττον πέσαντα ἀπὸ δρόμου
φανερῶς ἑαυτῷ λαβεῖν γυναῖκα κατὰ νόμον, καὶ ἀπὸ παρθενίας πολλῷ χρόνῳ
μετανοήσαντα εἰσαχθῆναι πάλιν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Epiphan. Apostol.
Heres. Ix. sect. 7. Tom. 1. p. ὅ12. Ed. Morell. Paris. 1622. |

[* Sanctum virginum propositum, et ccelestis angelorumque familie
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. rv. p. 796. ]

[* Ὅτι χείλη ἱερέως φυλάξεται γνῶσιν, καὶ νόμον ἐκζητήσουσιν ἐκ
στόματος αὐτοῦ, δίοτι ἄγγελος Κυρίου παντοκράτορός ἐστιν, Mal. ii. 7.
“Labia autem enim sacerdotis custodient scientiam, et legem requirent
ex ore ejus: quia angelus Domini exercituum est,” Vulg. ]

91

[ruLKe.|

ἘΠΚΕ,

17.

482 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cx:

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. The verb indeed, which the prophet Malachi

-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
against 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 limited 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. | 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’ lips should do, not
a promise or assurance that they alway did so.

Martin. And when the prophet addeth immediately the cause of Maxrrrx,
this singular prerogative of the priest, quia angelus Domini exercituum
est, “because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts,” which 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 Mal. iii. 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 τὸν ἄγγε-
in the gospel, Matt. xi. Luke vii. telling the people the wonderful Angctum
dignities of St John, and that he was more than a prophet, citeth ον
this place, and giveth this reason: “For this is he of whom it is
written, Behold I send mine angel before thee.” Which St Hierome*
calleth meritorum αὔξησιν, “the increase and augmenting of John’s ener ΤΣ
merits or privileges, that in Malachi he is called an angel:” and St
Gregory” saith, “He which came to bring tidings of Christ himself, meg in
was worthily called an angel, that in his very name there might
be a dignity ;” and al! 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 covenant®.”” Mal. iii. 1.

Fulke. It is not safe to translate always “the messenger Furxe,
of God” by the name of “an angel,” which is commonly 18

[ Et quia ad privilegium prophetale etiam Baptiste accessit pre-
mium, ut Dominum suum baptizaret; unde infert meritorum αὔξησιν,
faciens de Malachia testimonium, in quo etiam angelus predicatur.
Hieronymi Comment. in Matt. Lib. τι. Vol. rv. p. 1. edit. Martianay. |

[? Quod enim Grece angelus, hoc Latine nuntius dicitur. Recte
ergo, qui nuntiare supernum Judicem mittitur, angelus vocatur, ut
dignitatem servet in nomine, quam explet in operatione. Greg. Magn.
in Evang. Liber. 1. Hom. vi. edit. Paris. 1705. Tom. 1. p. 1455. B.]

[3 Καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς διαθήκης, Mal. iii. 1. “Et angelus testamenti,”
Vulg. ‘“ Even the messenger of the covenant,’ Cranmer’s bible, 1562,
Bishops’ bible, 1584, Authorised version. |

31-—2

TNID
mm

Martin,

See Apoc. c.
ii. and iii. in
the English
bible, 1562.
“‘Tothe mes-
senger of the
eongrega-
tion,” &e.
Angelo ec-
elesiz.

Gal. iv. 14.

FuLKE,
19.

484 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

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 light. 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 “ messenger.” Your own vulgar
interpreter, Agg. i. 13, translateth Maleach Jehovah, nuntius
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. If St Jerome in all these places had translated nuntium.
then the English were “messenger :” but translating it angelum, and
the church and all antiquity so reading and expounding it as a term
of more dignity and excellency, what mean these base companions t
disgrace the very eloquence of the scripture, which by such terms 0:
amplification would speak more significantly and emphatically? Wha
mean they, I say, that so envy against Castaleo for his profaneness
themselves to say, for angel, “messenger,” for apostle, “legate,” o1
“‘ ambassador,” and the like? Are they afraid, lest by calling met
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
tians, “As God’s angel you received me, as Christ Jesus.” But t
proceed.

Fulke. ‘The very eloquence of the scripture” is best
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 turr

[2 Kat εἶπεν Ἀγγαῖος ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἐν ἀγγέλοις Κυρίου τῷ λαῷ
Haggeus i. 15. “Et dixit Aggeus nuncius Domini de nunciis Domin
populo,” Vulg. |

xv. ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. A485

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 English 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 Apoe. a
angel by nature, and allegeth that which God promiseth, « 6.
that his enemies, the Jews, shall worship before his feet, to

ῶ

_ 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, Mann,
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 :” ἐν προσώ-

_ that is, (as St Ambrose expoundeth it,) “in the name of Christ, in +e ae
his stead, as his vicar and deputy.” But they translate it, “In the :
sight of Christ?” 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. v. 4.

the name and with the virtue of our Lord Jesus Christ ; so ex-

pounding what he meaneth also in this place.

2 ᾧ δέ τι χαρίζεσθε, καὶ ἐγώ" καὶ yap ἐγὼ ὃ κεχάρισμαι, εἴ τι κεχά
’¢ xap , Y yap ἐγὼ ὃ kexaptopat, χα-

ρισμαι, δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα μὴ πλεονεκτηθῶμεν ὑπὸ τοῦ
Σατανᾶ, 2 Cor. ii. 10, 11. “Cui autem aliquid donastis, et ego: nam et

ied 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. ] ᾿

FuLke,
20.

2

Maartix,
21

Matt. ii.
Nov. Test.
1580.

τοῦ εἶναι
εἰς ἄρχον-
τα τοῦ
Ἰσραήλ.

ΤῊΣ
δ

ποιμαίνω.

ποίμαινε.

486 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ox.

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 ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ, “ in
the sight of Christ,” we respect what the Greek phrase
doth more properly require; yea, what the Hebrew phrase
mipenet 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. And it may be, that for some such purpose they change
the ancient and accustomed reading in these words of St Matthew, Ka
te enim ewiet dux qui regat populum meum Israel; translating thus:
“Out of thee shall come the governour that shall feed my people
Israel,” for, “that shall rule my people Israel’.” This is certain, that
it is a false translation, because the prophet’s words, Mich. v. (cited
by St Matthew,) both in Hebrew and Greek, signify only a “ruler”
or “governour,” and not a “ pastor” or “feeder.” Therefore it is
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
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-
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
in the same word, “feed and rule my sheep,” John xxi, yea, and that
in a rod of iron, as when he stroke Ananias and Sapphira to corporal

& death, as his successors do the like offenders to spiritual destruction
‘ (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.”

_ .[} ἐκ σοῦ yap ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν pov τὸν
Ἰσραήλ. Matt. ii. 6. “For out of thee shall come the captain that shal
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. ]

xv. | - RANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. . 487

Fulke. That we should not mean any thing against the Furxe,
government of Christ, whom we wish and desire from our 7!
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. vy. 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 ποιμαίνειν, 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 metaphorically, “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 ποιμαίνειν, 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 βόσκε twice, and ποίμαινε 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 establish 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
ποίμαινε Ta πρόβατά μου, “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

5
᾿
5
yy :
μ᾽
ὋΝ
4
Ϊ
“a
κὶ
δ᾽.
i
ἐν ᾿
t
"2
i
‘
if
rat
fs

488 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

duly exercised by them that have authority, we need not
learn of you. The other text, Psalm 11,, Apoc. i. 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
22. 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

βασιλεῖ ws it be unto the king, as to the chief head,” 1 Pet. ii.: where in this
προ ὐκ ρας ~ 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,”

Bibl 1577. or “to the king as the superior!’ 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 against such title, and

Rely tga 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
ol. eee 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

[' Ὑποτάγητε οὖν πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει διὰ τὸν Κύριον᾽ εἴτε βασιλεῖ,
ὡς ὑπερέχοντι, 1 Pet. ii. 18, “Either to the king as to him that is
higher in the state,” Wiclif, 1880. “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, 1582.
“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. ]

ΠΣ κα, ΝΕ. ee ee

χν.] 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
religion 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 religion. 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, Warr,
or confess their fault. And as for the king’s supremacy over the 29.

church, if they make any doubt, let them read St Ignatius’ words, kpist. 7. ad

who. was in the apostles’ time, even when St Peter gave the foresaid °"7°™*
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 ἐν ἄρχου -
to God for the salvation of the whole world; and among magistrates ὑςρωσύνη
and temporal rulers none is like the king*. See his other words im- ἐστὶν, τὸ
mediately following, where he preferreth the bishop’s office before the 7°") 0" .
γαθῶν ev
king's and all other things of price among men. ἀνθρώποις
ἀναβεβη-
Fulke. Wowsoever those epistles be truly or untruly Poke,
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

[? Ἐγὼ δὲ φημὶ, Τίμα μὲν τὸν Θεὸν ὡς αἴτιον τῶν ὅλων καὶ κύριον"
ἐπίσκοπον δὲ ὡς ἀρχιερέα, Θεοῦ εἰκόνα φοροῦντα κατὰ μὲν τὸ ἄρχειν
Θεοῦ, κατὰ δὲ τὸ ἱερατεύειν Χριστοῦ" καὶ μετὰ τοῦτον τιμᾷν χρὴ τὸν βασι-
λέα, κι τ. € Ignat. ad Smyrnenses, p. 198. ed. Voss. Londini, 1680.

The passage however is not from the genuine, but the interpolated
Epistle. |

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.

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 humane creature,
and as we have translated, “to every human creature;” meaning

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 κτίσις 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 κτέσις 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 κτίσεως, nm Latin
creature, Mark xvi., “of the creation;” and im the same
sense do our translators use the word of ordinance.

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 ordimances “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,

ι at
~ ae ee

a ων

tion, a text Dacaeite tins ceo apace cence
unto all “manner ordimance of man ;” whereof hath ensued the false

a τυ κὐ ath death: εἰ the iin, spi Udes deeaiat
Ἂ rs eae csr chase 80 cep cd ca ee
ne: amen sition ὅτε ταις stetnias onl lowe. ἀρεῖν ἀρὸν

Fulke. It is no strange case for an heretic and a traitor, Feuxe,

_ of God, and the christian magistrate, protector of the same,

to devise and πον eee never was intended, never

of the Mlk es del eemelites “men’s traditions,” “ com-

4 mandments of men;” and to the maintenance of all temporal

laws, be they never so wicked, we should translate <ordi-

manee,” 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 im matters of re-
ligion only, but m cases concerning her crown and dignity,
_ hearts to her Majesty; whose clemency hitherto hath spared
_ them that acknowledge her princely authority, although m
᾿ς all other pomts of popery they contmue as obstinate as ever
they were.

492 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

CHAPTER XVI.
Heretical Translation against the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Marmy,1. Martin. Bur 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 peculiar to
Christians, and (as St Augustine saith) “in the sanctification also and
holiness of a sacrament,” they make no account of it, but flatly deny
it.

Fux, 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 live 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 live
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

tum h
magnum est. great secret!.” Whereas the Latin church and all the doctors thereof

[! Td μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν' ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, 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 μυστήριον.
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 ἣν

of the woman?.” And so in sundry places, again, if one be restrained μυστήριον.
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 Saera-
Christ :” and the Calvinists in their Latin and Greek catechism say, δύο μυστή-
“Two sacraments,” or, “two mysteries.” pra.

Fulke. The English word “secret” signifieth fully as Fuuxe, 2.
much as the Greek word μυστήριον, in which we must seek
no holiness, 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 ? Μυστήριον therefore signifieth “every secret;” sa-
cramentum oniy “an holy sacrament:” as when you say,
Apoc. xvi, “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 ?”

[? ἐγώ σοι ἐρῶ τὸ μυστήριον τῆς γυναικὸς, Apoc. xvii.7. “Ego dicam
tibi sacramentum mulieris,’ Vulg. “1 shall shew to thee the sacrament
of the woman,” Wiclif. “The mystery of the woman,” Tyndale, Cran-
mer, Geneva, Rheims, Bishops’ bible, Authorised version. |

494. A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH’ [ση:

Were itho- No doubt, there can be no other cause, but to avoid both those words,
nest or lawful : . . ὌΝ

totranslate, Which are used in the Latin and Greek church, to signify “the 58:
pani oe craments.” For in the Greek church the sacrament of the body
Bapusmus, and blood itself is called but “a mystery” or “mysteries,” which yet

**washi

hid lium, the protestants themselves call a true sacrament. Therefore if they

ed ag should have called matrimony also by that name, it might easily have
ken signify sounded to be a sacrament also. But in saying it is a great secret,

mmo” they put it out of doubt that it shall not ‘be so taken.

Fo.Ke, 3. Fulke. Seeing the word “secret” that we use, signi-
fieth wholly as much as “ mystery,” we hope all reasonable
men will allow the same also. “Sacrament” without prejudice
to the truth we could not translate; and “mystery,” for the
better understanding of the people, we have expressed in
the English word, “secret ;” out of which, if it have any
force of argument in it, you may prove matrimony to be a
sacrament, as well as out of the Greek word “mystery.”
But it is the sound of an unknown word, that you had rather
play upon in the ears of the ignorant, than by any sound
argument out of the scripture to bring them to the know-
ledge of the truth.

Mariiwn,4. Martin. They will say unto me, Is not every sacrament and
mystery in English a secret? Yes, as angel is a messenger; and
apostle, one that is sent. But when the holy scripture useth these
words to signify more excellent and divine things than those of the
common sort, doth it become translators to use baser terms instead
thereof, and so to disgrace the writing and meaning of the Holy
Ghost? I appeal to themselves, when they translate this word in

1 Tim. ii. other places, whether they say not thus: “ And without doubt, great

Eph. iii.9. was the mystery of godliness; God was shewed manifestly in the

eee Ol flesh, &c.” again, “The mystery which hath been hid since the world
began, but now is opened to his saints ;” again, “I shew you a mystery,
we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.” And the like.
Where if they should translate “secret,” instead of “mystery,” as the
Bezites do in one of these places, saying, “I will shew you a secret
thing ;” what ἃ disgracing and debasing were it to those high mysteries
there signified 2 And if it were so in these, is it not so in “matrimony,”
which the apostle maketh such a mystery, that it representeth no
less matter than Christ and his church, and whatsoever is most ex-
cellent in that conjunction? Now then, if in all other places of high
mystery they translate it also “mystery,” as it is in the Greek; and
only in “matrimony” do not so, but say rather, “This is a great
secret,” using so base a term in so high and excellent a mystery ;
must we not needs think, (as no doubt it is,) that they do it because

Xvi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 495

of their heretical opinion against the sacrament of matrimony, and for
their base estimation thereof?

Fulke. Now you fly to your old shift of the ecclesias- Furxe, 4.
tical use of terms, which you cannot prove to be like, of this
English word “mystery,” which is commonly as profanely
and secularly used as any other word. For what is more
common among artificers, than their science or mystery of
weaving, of dyeing, and such like? And yet the word may
be used of the highest secrets of christian religion, as it is of
our translators. And wheresoever they have said “a mys-
tery,” they might as truly have said “a secret;” and where
they say “a secret,” they might have said “a mystery.”
But where you say, that “in all other places of high mystery
they translate the word ‘mystery,’ ” it is false. For Matt. xii.
Mark iv. Luke viii., where all the mysteries of the kingdom
of God are spoken of, they translate mysteria “the secrets
of the kingdom of heaven ;” and 1 Cor. iv., where the sacra-
ments and all other secrets of the christian religion are
spoken of, they translate μυστηρίων “stewards of the myste-
ries of God.” Wherefore it is a shameful and senseless slander
that here only we use this word “secret,” to shew our base
estimation of matrimony.

Martin. But they will yet reply again, and ask us, what we gain Marry, 5.

by translating it either “sacrament,” or “mystery ?” Doth that make

it one of the sacraments properly so called, to wit, such a sacrament

as baptism is? No, surely; but howsoever we gain otherwise, at least

we gain the commendation of true translators, whether it make with

us or against us. For otherwise it is not the name that maketh

it such a peculiar sacrament. For, (as is said before,) sacrament is

a general name in scripture to other things. Neither do we there-

fore so translate it, as though it were forthwith one of the seven

| sacraments, because of the name: but as in other places, whereso-

" ever we find this word in the Latin, we translate it “ sacrament’, (as

4 in the apocalypse, “the sacrament of the woman”;) so finding it here, Apoe. xvii.
we do here also so translate it: and as for the diverse taking of it

here and elsewhere, that we examine otherwise, by circumstance of

the text, and by the church’s and doctors’ interpretation; and we

find that here it is taken for “a sacrament” in that sense as we say,

“seven sacraments:” not so in the other places.

Fulke. No reasonable man can charge us to be false Funxs, 5.
translators, when we turn the Greek word into that which it

Martin, 6,

Jude, 4.
Acts vii. 45.
Col. iv. 11.

FuLKgE, 6.

496 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.-

doth generally, properly, and always signify. And for all
your bragging of sincere translating, if you should translate
Tob. xi. I am persuaded you would not say, “it is a good
thing to hide the king’s sacrament :” yet is the Latin word
in that place sacramentum, and the Greek μυστήριον. But
it is sufficient for you to have a shadow of something to find
yourself occupied, rather than you would be saying of
nothing.

Martin. As when we read this name “Jesus” in scripture com-
mon to our Saviour and to other men, we translate it always alike
“Jesus ;” but when it is “ Jesus Christ,” and when some other “ Jesus,”
we know by other circumstances. Likewise presuppose baptism in the
scripture were called “a sacrament:” yet the protestants themselves
would not, nor could thereby conclude, that it were one of their two
sacraments: yet I trow they would not avoid to translate it by the
word “sacrament,” if they found it so called. Even so we, finding
“matrimony” so called, do so translate it, neither concluding thereby
that it is one of the seven, nor yet suppressing the name, which no
doubt gave some occasion to the church and the holy doctors to esteem
it as one of the seven. They contrariwise, as though it were never
so called, suppress the name altogether, calling it “a secret,” to put
it out of all question, that it is mo sacrament: which they would
not have done, if the scripture had said of baptism or the eucharist,
“This is a great sacrament.” So partial they are to their own opinions.

Fulke. Except you thought you had to do with very
ignorant persons, or else esteemed too much of your lately
professed divinity, you would never cumber the reader with
such childish trifles of the name of Jesus, of the bare name
of sacrament, which could not prove baptism or the Lord’s
supper to be sacraments, &c., and what we would do if we
found them so called, &c. I have already told you what we
have done, where not only the sacraments, but all other
precious jewels of Christ’s church, committed to the dispen-
sation of his ministers, are called μυστήρια, and translated
“secrets,” without any abasement of the dignity of them,
or without any intent to suppress any of the honour and
reverence which is due unto them. Wherefore, using the
word “secret” in this text, we had no purpose to derogate
anything from the worthiness of matrimony, much less from
the spiritual mystery which the apostle offereth to be con-
sidered by it in Christ and his church,

xvit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 497

CHAPTER XVII.

‘Heretical Translations against the blessed Sacrament, and
Sacrifice, and Altar.

Martin. Now let us see concerning the eucharist, which they allow Marry, 1.
for a sacrament, how they handle the matter to the disgracing and
defacing of the same also. They take away the operation and efficacy
of Christ’s blessing pronounced upon the bread and wine, making it εὐλογήσας.
only a thanksgiving to God: and to this purpose they translate more εὐχάρ ‘ern
gladly “thanksgiving,” than “blessing ;” as Matt. xxvi. the Greek Bib, 1662.

Ce 1577.

words being two, the one signifying properly “to bless,’ the other
“to give thanks,” they translate both thus, “when he had given Great difter-
thanks’.” Likewise Mark xiv. in the bible printed 1562. And when papain’
they translate it “blessing,” they mean nothing else but “ giving blessing,”
thanks,” as Beza telleth us in his annotations, Matt. xxvi. 26. We and “giving
reply, and by most manifest scripture prove unto them, that the former
Greek word doth not signify “thanksgiving” properly, but “ blessing,”
and a blessing of creatures to the operation of some great effect in
them: as when Christ took the five loaves and two fishes, to multiply Benedixit eis,
them, he blessed them, Luke ix*. What say they to this, think ὑλόγησεν

αὐτούς.
Annot. in
Luke ix. 16.
Γ᾿ λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸν ἄρτον, καὶ εὐχαριστήσας, Matt. xxvi. 26.
“ Accepit Jesus panem, et benedixit, et fregit,” Vulg. ‘“ Accepit Jesus
panem ; et quum benedixisset, fregit,’ Beza. “Jesus took bread and
blessed and brake,” Wiclif. “Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, brake
it, and said,” Tyndale, Geneva. “ Jesus took bread, and when he had
given thanks, he brake it,’ Cranmer. “Jesus took bread, and blessed,
and brake,” Rheims. “Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake
it,” Authorised version.
λαβὼν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἄρτον εὐλογήσας ἔκλασε, Mare. xiv. 22. “ Accepit
Jesus panem; et benedicens fregit," Vulg. “Quum accepisset Jesus
panem, et benedixisset, fregit.” ‘Jesus took bread and blessed and
brake,” Wiclif, Tyndale. “Jesus took bread, and when he had given
thanks, he brake it,’ Cranmer. “ Jesus took bread, blessed, brake, and
gave to them, Geneva. “Jesus took bread, and blessing brake, and
gave to them,” Rheims. “Jesus took bread, and blessed and brake it,’
Authorised version. |
[2 εὐλόγησεν αὐτοὺς, Luc.ix.16. “ Blessed,” all the versions. λαβὼν
τὸν ἄρτον εὐλόγησε, Luc. xxiv. 80. “He took bread and_ blessed,”
Wiclif, Rheims. “He took bread and blessed it,’ Cranmer, Authorised
version. ‘He took bread, blessed it,’ Tyndale, Geneva.
ἔλαβε δὲ τοὺς ἄρτους ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, καὶ εὐχαριστήσας διέδωκε τοῖς μαθη-

[ ruLKE. |

Funke, 1.

498 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [on.

you? Doth not the Greek word here plainly signify, “blessing of
creatures?” ‘ No,” saith Beza, “no doubt but here also it signifieth
giving thanks.” How, Beza? He addeth, “Not as though Christ had
given thanks to the bread, for that were too absurd: but we must
mollify this interpretation thus, that he gave thanks to God the Father
for the loaves and the fishes.” Is not this a notable exposition of
these words, benediwxit eis ?

Fulke. The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ
being a matter of some great weight and controversy be-
tween us, you might not omit but note our false translations
against it. But because we have dealt so sincerely as malice
hath nothing to blame therein, you must feign a quarrel and
forge a controversy, where none is. between us, namely,
that we take away Christ’s blessing pronounced upon the
bread and wine, making it only a thanksgiving unto God:
which is a false and impudent slander, as in that which
followeth concerning this matter most plainly shall appear,
even by testimony of him whom you do most slander in this
case. But let us see what fault is in our translation, Matt.
xxvi. and Mark xiv. Two of our translations for εὐλογήσας
say, “ when he had given thanks.” To this I answer, that
Beza telleth you that in seven Greek copies the word is
εὐχαριστήσας, which signifieth “giving of thanks,” without
controversy; as also εὐλογήσας doth, but not only so, ex-
pressing rather the Hebrew word ‘732, which signifieth both
“to bless and to give thanks.” But seemg Saint Luke and
Saint Paul, reporting the institution of the supper, do use the
word εὐχαριστήσας, which signifieth “ giving of thanks;” we
count them the best interpreters of the other two evange-
lists, which plainly teach us that by “blessing” they mean
“giving of thanks,” or that the Greek word doth here
signify “giving of thanks,” as in many other places. The
place, Luke ix., where Christ blessed the loaves, is also
interpreted by St John, who reporting the same miracle (as
Beza sheweth) useth the word which signifieth only thanks-
giving: but because εὐλόγησεν is in Luke used as a verb
transitive, which cannot signify thanksgiving or prayer made

ταῖς, John vi. 11. “ Jesus therefore took the loaves, and when he had
given thanks, he distributed to them that sat,” Rheims. We find
the Rhemish version translating in Matt. xxyvi. 26. εὐχαριστήσας,
“blessed it,” in John vi. 11. “ and when he had given thanks.” ]

;

:
}
|
Ἷ
4

xvi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 499

to the creatures, we must understand that he “blessed the
loaves, that is, he gave thanks to God for them, and withal
prayed that so small a quantity of bread and fish might
feed so great a multitude, and that his whole feast might be
referred to the glory of God'.” This is Beza’s interpretation;
which, because it was too long for your quarrel, you cut off
the better part of it, and like a grinning hypocrite, scoff at
a piece as though it were the whole exposition of these

words, benedixit eis, “he blessed them.”

Martin. We ask him in the like cases, when God blessed Adam Marti, 2.

and Eve, Gen. i. and ix. Noe and his children, saying, “ Increase and εὐλόγησεν

multiply ; when he blessed the children of Israel, and they multi- Ἐν ον,
plied exceedingly; when he blessed the latter things of Job more εὐλόγησεν
than the first, Job xlii.; was this also a giving of thanks, and not τὰ ἔσχατα.
an effectual blessing upon these creatures? What will they say, or

what difference will they make? As God blessed here, so he was

God and man that blessed the loaves and fishes there. If they will

say, he did it as man, and therefore it was a giving of thanks to

God his Father: to omit that he blessed them as he multiplied

them, that is, rather according to his divine nature than human, we

ask them, when he blessed as man, was it always giving of thanks?

He blessed the little children, he blessed his disciples, when he as- Luke xxiv.

cended: was this giving thanks for them, as Beza expoundeth his ae

[? Apud Johannem vero in hujus historie narratione, vi. 11, scrip-
tum est kal εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκε, et gratiis actis dedit. Itaque non dubium
est, quin εὐλογεῖν hoe loco significet τὸ εὐχαριστεῖν, id est, gratias
agere. Quia tamen additur relativum αὐτοὺς, et nimis absurdum fuerit
cogitare Christum egisse panibus gratias, aut precatum esse panes et
pisces, emollienda est hec interpretatio. Dicitur ergo panibus bene-
dixisse, id est, de his panibus ac piscibus gratias egisse Deo Patri, et
simul eum precatus ut tantilla panum ac piscium copia tantam mul-
titudinem pasceret: denique ut totum hoc convivium ad Dei gloriam
referretur. Sic de Samuele dicitur, 1 Sam. ix. 18. MAT WI. id
est, benedicere solet sacrificio; et a Paulo, 1 Tim. iv. 5. cibus dicitur
sanctificari verbo et oratione, sive gratiarum actione. Utrumque
enim ibi conjungit Apostolus, ut hic quoque -conjungendum est.
Nam partim pro cibo prestito aguntur Dei gratiz, partim autem poti-
tur ut pure et sobrie eo uti liceat, ut reliquam vitam in Dei cultu
consumamus. Inde factum ut Christiani dicantur benedicere mense et
consecrare mensam, quum tamen hec benedictio non ad ipsos cibos sed
ad Deum potius et convivas pertineat. In poculo vero benedictionis, cui
benedicimus, ut scribitur 1 Cor. x. 16. ut ipsum benedicendi verbum
possit eodem modo explicari, tamen prorsus diversus est benedictionis
finis, ut suo loco explicabimus. Beze Nov. Test. p. 86.]

32—2

500 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH {cn.

blessing of the loaves and fishes? When we bless the table or the
meat upon the table; when St Paul saith, 1 Timothy iv. “all meat is
ἀμέ αν, lawful that is sanctified by the word and by prayer ;” is all this nothing

ean never vert 2 . 4 Ἶ
signify giv- but giving thanks? So saith Beza in express words.

ing thanks. : :
Fuuxe, 2. Fulke. When I see those often most impudent mvectives

against Beza and other, I muse with myself whether you
have read Beza and the other yourself, or whether you give
credit to some malicious caviller, who is set on work to pick
quarrels out of other men’s writings to serve your turn.
But when I consider all circumstances of every place, and
namely how you object against Beza that which he saith
of the blessing, or consecrating of our ordinary meats. and
drinks, I think it is not like but that you have read the
places yourself. And then, of all that ever I knew, I must
esteem you the furthest from sincerity and honest dealing,
that so often, so openly, so confidently, so purposedly commit
so vile and shameful forgery. Beza saith that “ our meat is
sanctified by the word of God, and prayer and thanksgiving.
For the 1 Tim. iv., the apostle joineth both, as here, Luke ix.,
we must join both together. For partly for the meat given
to us thanks is given to God; partly petition is made that
we may use it purely and soberly, that we may spend the
_rest of our life in the worship of God. Hereof it cometh
that Christians are said to bless the table, and to consecrate
the table, whereas yet this blessing pertaineth not to the
meats themselves, but to God rather, and them that shall be
partakers of them. But in the cup of blessing which we
bless, as it is written, 1 Cor. x. 16, although the word of
blessing may be expounded after the same manner, yet the
end of the blessing is altogether diverse, as in due place we
shall expound'.” These are the words of Beza. Is all this
nothing but giving of thanks ?

Martin, 3. Martin. We go forward, and prove the contrary yet more mani-
festly in the very matter of the blessed sacrament, for the which
they multiply all the aforesaid absurdities. We tell them that St

τὸ ποτή- Paul saith thus, “ The chalice of blessing, which we bless, is it not,” &¢?
ριον τῆς ᾿
δ γία». [? See the preceding note. |

ff Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, 1 Cor. x. 16. Upon which
words Beza annotates thus: Benedictionis, τῆς εὐλογίας: Id est, gra-
tiarum actionis, sive quod adhibetur in solenni illo epulo quo Domino

- , - ,. oad . ὰν a
gratias agimus; unde etiam Eucharistia dicitur. Cui benedicimus, ©

ἘΠ εν
..

ὩΣ

Ἷ

xvi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 501

How could he speak more plainly, that the chalice or cup (meaning

that in the cup) is blessed? Which St Cyprian de Cen. Dom. expli-

cateth thus, Calix solemni benedictione sacratus, “The chalice, conse-

crated by solemn blessing.” (Ecumenius thus, “The chalice which : Bree i
blessing we prepare,” that is, which we bless and so prepare; for so it δὶ εἴλο.
must signify, and not as Beza would have it, “which with thanks- γοῦντες
ΜῊΝ ~ Ε ἃ 3 κατασ-
giving we prepare.” And that I prove by his own words immediately ,..,, Lowen:
before, where he saith that the Greek word being used of the apo- Annot. in
stle transitively, that is, with a case following, cannot signify giving ἦν
thanks. How then can it so signify in προ μάλ ος words, who

- doth interpret the apostle’s meaning by the apostle’s own words and

phrase? Yea, (that you may note a notorious contradiction,) how

doth Beza then in the place of Luke before alleged (where the same

Greek word is a plain transitive as in this place) expound it of εὐλόγησεν
giving thanks for the bread and fishes? A liar (they say) must be 777%
mindful to make his tale agree in every point. He that before forced the

word in every sentence to be nothing else but thanksgiving, even

when it was a plain transitive, now confesseth that he never read

it in that signification, when it is a transitive. And so we have that

the blessing of the cup or of the bread is not giving thanks, as they

either translate or interpret it.

Fulke. J must continue my admiration of your impudence; Furxg, 3.
for Beza saith expressly in this place, 1 Cor. x., that to bless
here is “to sanctify or consecrate, because that the ordinance
of God being rehearsed and set forth, the bread and wine
are appointed to this holy use, that they should be the
sacraments of the true and natural body and blood of Christ,

εὐλογοῦμεν. Id est, quod cum gratiarum actione sumimus, ut interpre-
tatur Chrysostomus. Sed nusquam legi εὐλογεῖν transitive usurpatum
pro gratias agere, de quo verbo pluribus diximus Matt. v. 44. Item
xxv. 34. Item xxvi. 26. Item Lue. ix. 16. ubi eadem constructione
ac significatione accipitur atque hoc in loco, quamvis in diversum finem.
Puto enim εὐλογεῖν idem hic declarare atque infinitis locis veteris testa-
menti Wp, id est ἁγιάζειν καὶ καθιεροῦν, sanctificare seu consecrare, quia
scilicet recitata et exposita Dei ordinatione, panis et vinum huic usui
sacro destinatur, ut sint veri et naturalis corporis et sanguinis Christi
sacramenta, id est, symbola et tessere, et ita quidem ut una cum signo
etiam id quod significatur vere nobis offeratur et exhibeatur a Deo.
Quia vero cum Dei laude et solenni gratiarum actione conjuncta est
tota hee actio, idcirco Paulum existimo verbo εὐλογεῖν rem totam sig-
nificasse, ut meo quidem judicio Gcumenius plane et breviter exposuerit
ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, id est, ὃ εὐλογοῦντες κατασκευάζομεν, id est quod cum laude
et. gratiarum actione adornamus; nequis nos putet consecrationis voca-
bulo magicam aliquam incantationem intelligere. Beze Nov. Test. PP-
212, 213. ]

"» "

502 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ‘| CH.

that is, the signs and pledges thereof, and that in such sort,
that the same thing which is signified is offered to us to
be received spiritually. And because this whole action is
joined with the praise of God and solemn thanksgiving,
therefore I esteem that St Paul signified this whole matter
in the verb εὐλογεῖν. So that in my judgment CXcume-
nius hath plainly and briefly expounded ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, that
is, ‘which with praise and thanksgiving we prepare.’ Which
I admonish, lest any man should think that by the term
of consecration we mean any magical incantation.” That you
would prove by Beza’s words, that he hath not justly ex-
plicated the meaning of Cicumenius, it is too, too beyond
all measure of impudence. For Beza, not contrarying that
which he said before, sheweth how the cup is blessed, sanc-
tified, consecrated, namely, by prayer, praise of God, and
thanksgiving. For which he citeth Chrysostom, who ex-
poundeth these words of St Paul, “which we bless,” to mean
“which we receive with thanksgiving.” As for the place
of St Luke ix., Beza himself citeth it, and many other like,
to prove that εὐλογεῖν, with an accusative case, signifieth
“to bless,” “to sanctify,” “to consecrate,” as also in that place,
Luke ix., he expoundeth it. And yet you will make him
a lar, forgetting what tale he told before. Indeed that
rule you give is meet for a crafty liar, that hath some care
to maintain his credit: but such an impudent liar and
shameless forger as you are, hath no regard of any thing,
but to deceive them whose ignorance and simplicity is such,
as they neither can nor care to examine your slanders.

Marrtx,4. | Martin. And surely in the word εὐλογεῖν this is most evident, that
it signifieth in this case the blessing and consecration of the creature or —
element ; insomuch that S. Basil and 8, Chrysostom in their liturgies —

εὐλόγησεν or masses say thus by the same Greek word: “ Bless, O Lord, the

nt” sacred bread, and bless, O Lord, the sacred cup.” And why, or to
ριον, what effect? Τῷ followeth, “changing it by the Holy ϑριυ". Where
eee is signified the transmutation and consecration thereof into the body
and blood. But in the other word εὐχαριστεῖν there may be some
question, because it signifieth properly “to give thanks ;” and therefore

7 ἃ r , dé 4 o ” , ὃ . ὦ εὖ

Γ' ἐυλόγησον, δέσποτα, τὸν ἅγιον ἄρτον. Ποίησον τὸν μὲν ἄρτον τοῦτον

n a - τ by

τίμιον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ gov. Τὸ δὲ ἐν ποτηρίῳ τούτῳ τίμιον αἷμα τοῦ
Χριστοῦ σου εὐλόγησον, δέσποτα, μεταβαλὼν τῷ πνεύματί cov τῷ ἁγίῳ
ρ μ] ᾽ ’ μ t μ' 9 > Si

Chrys. Opp. Sav. Tom. νι. p. 998.]

\

᾿
i
.
4
;
Ἵ
.
ἢ
q
»
4

LS Ὑ ΡΒ ΘΒΝ Ὅν

xvu.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 503

may seem to be referred to God only, and not to the element and
creature. But this also we find contrary in the Greek fathers, who
use this word also transitively, saying, panem et calicem eucharistisatos,

or panem in quo gratie acte sunt, that is, “the bread and the cup τὸν ἄρτον
made the eucharist, the bread over which thanks are given ;” that οι Χαριστης-

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 Irenzus, lib. iv. 34. in the same places expound 105,
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 ἀξίων

seemeth to take it, Eccl. Hier. c. 3. in fine, who in the selfsame
chapter speaketh of the consecration thereof most evidently.

Fulke. That the creatures or elements are blessed and Furs, 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
15 performed by the word of God, prayer, and thanksgiving,
both Justinus and Ireneus do most plainly testify with
Beza and us. ‘“ When the mixed cup and bread,” saith —
Ireneus, “‘ receiveth the word of God, it is made the eu-

charist®,” &e. “The bread on which, or for which, thanks is Τὴν. v. «. 9.

given. The bread which is of the earth, receiving the vo-

cation or invocation of God.” So saith Justus: “The meat Apolog. 9.

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

[2 Nostra autem consonans est sententia eucharistie, et eucharistia
rursus confirmat sententiam nostram. Offerimus enim ei que sunt ejus,
congruenter communicationem et unitatem predicantes 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. Irenei adv. Heres. Lib. 1v. cap. 34. Edit.
Lutet. Paris. p. 363, 1639. ] '

[? Sic autem, secundum hee videlicet, nec Dominus sanguine suo
redemit nos, neque calix eucharistie 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,
Ῥ. 434.4

Martin, 5.

Liturg. S.
ac. Basil.
Chrys.
εὐχαριστή-
σας, εὐλο-
γήσας,
ἁγιάσας.

Hom. de Ju-
da proditore.
Aug. ep. 59.

De bono vi-
duit. c. 16.

504

A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

prayers and thanksgiving with all his might, and the people
consenteth, saying, Amen', 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.

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
the chalice, and thanksgiving to Christ. St James, and the Greek
fathers in their liturgies, put both words in the consecration of each
element, saying thus, “ Give thanks, sanctifying, breaking ;” and, “ giving
thanks, blessing, sanctifying ;” and, “taking the cup, giving thanks, sanc-
tifying, blessing, filling it with the Holy Ghost, he gave it to us his
disciples.” St Chrysostom, who in many places of his works speaketh
much of thanksgiving in these holy mysteries, doth he not as often
speak of the blessing, consecration, yea, and the transmutation thereof,
and that with what words, and by what power it is done? Doth
not St Augustine say of the same, Benedicitur et sanctificatur, “It is
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 &c. “It is very meet and right, always and in. all places
to give thee thanks;’ which the Greek church also in their li- |

17 , a a ~ > ~ » \ ,
[Ἔπειτα προσφέρεται τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἄρτος, καὶ ποτήριον
ιν’ \ , ‘ e \ 3 ‘ , a \ a
ὕδατος καὶ κράματος, καὶ οὗτος λαβὼν αἶνον καὶ δόξαν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων
διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου ἀναπέμπει" Kat
μ μ
εὐχαριστίαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατηξιῶσθαι τούτων map αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ ποιεῖται" ob
συντελέσαντος τὰς εὐχὰς καὶ τὴν εὐχαριστίαν, πᾶς ὁ παρὼν λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ
λέγων, ἀμήν: τὸ δὲ ἀμὴν τῇ “EBpaid: φωνῇ τὸ γένοιτο σημαίνει. εὐχα-
ριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ προεστῶτος, καὶ ἐπευφημήσαντος πάντος τοῦ λαοῦ,
οἱ καλούμενοι παρ᾽ ἡμῖν διάκονοι διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν παρόντων μετα-
λαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐχαριστηθέντος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος, καὶ τοῖς
> “- » , . . .
οὐ παροῦσιν ἀποφέρουσι.. Justini Martyris, Apol. τ. Opera, Vol. τι,
Ῥ..97, edit. Paris, 1636.]

XvIL. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 505

j 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.

| Fulke. If it were to prove anything that we deny, Fuuxe, 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 C&cumenius.
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 Marrin, 6.
is a solemn name, taken of the word εὐχαριστεῖν, 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 Ireneus doth plainly signify, when he de-
clareth, “that being before bread, and receiving the invocation of Lib. 4. ο. 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 Ireneus’ words before alleged, panis εὐχαριστη-
et calix eucharistisatus, signify, ‘the bread and chalice made the Resi is
eucharist ;’ and consequently we learn, that the active thereof is στεῖν.
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 [ cu.

that when it is said εὐλογήσας, or εὐχαριστήσας, 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.

Fuixe, 6. Fulke. That the elements are blessed and consecrated
by prayer and thanksgiving, as Justin, Irenzeus, 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, εὐχαριστηθεὶς, 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.

Martiw,7. Martin. After they have turned blessing or consecration into
bare thanksgiving, which is one step toward the denying of the real
ὃν δεῖ o}- presence, they come nearer, and so include Christ in heaven, that he
2 naga cannot be withal upon the altar, translating thus: “Whom heaven
must contain until the times that all things be restored',” Acts iii. 21 ;

[? ὃν δεῖ οὐρανὸν μὲν δέξασθαι ἄχρι χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων,
Acts iii. 21. “Whom the heaven must contain until the time that all
things be restored,” Geneva, 1557. “To wit, Jesus Christ which must
receive heaven,” Tyndale, Cranmer. ‘Whom the heaven must (truly,
Rheims) receive,” Authorised version, 1611. ]

a ΠΣ»:

xvit. | 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” ™
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 δέξασθαι.
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 Futxs, 7.
cap. i. sect. 36. Your 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 little, 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 Marriy, 8.
the Greek to another man, and that after he had well tried by tia. 84

: : ; A ; Ad Rat.
public conference, that he was not ignorant; and so objecteth it, as Gamp.}
though he knew not three words in that tongue, whereas he had Gaknie:
heard him read and interpret St Basil, not the easiest of the Greek Be presumed

doctors. This is palpable impudency, and a face that cannot blush, and before he
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 Whitakers, 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

[3 Quare nativum Christi atque humanum corpus in celo 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.]

Funke, 8.

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. 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
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 could 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 1 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 catholic church, whereof we
are members, able to match them therein; that I say not
to excel them. And whereas you would maka 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 late 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 English 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

Martin, 9.

Hom, 2. ad
po. Antioch.

Lib. 3. de Sa-
eerdotio.

Funxg, 9.

510 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [on.

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 little 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. 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-
ment, because it is placed and contained in heaven. For St Chrysostom
telleth you, that ‘“‘Christ ascending into heaven, both left us his flesh,
and yet ascending hath the same'.”. And again, “‘O miracle!” saith he,
“ἢ that sitteth above with the Father, in the same moment of time is
handled with the hands of 411. 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. Master Whitaker is not so young a divine, but
he knoweth that Chrysostom speaketh of the ineffable

Γ᾽ ‘O μὲν yap ᾿Ηλίας μηλωτὴν ἀφῆκε τῷ μαθητῇ, ὁ δὲ vids τοῦ Θεοῦ
" , Γ ‘ , cn Ar ‘ ξ - ὶ ε A "HAL > οδυ-
ἀναβαίνων τὴν σάρκα ἡμῖν κατέλιπε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ. καὶ ὁ μὲν ίας am
~ 4 » «A
σάμενος, 6 δὲ Χριστὸς καὶ ἡμῖν κατέλιπε, Kal ἔχων αὐτὴν ἀνῆλθε.
enlace ‘ai

Chrysost. Hom. τι. Opera, Vol. νι. p. 472, edit. Saville. ]

xvu. | 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 receiver’.

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 πως i.
also must be briefly touched), when our Saviour saith, Luke xxii, "™:; %.
“ This is the chalice the new testament in my blood, which (chalice) τὸ ποτή-
is shed for you’.” For so ‘which’ must needs be referred according practi is
to the Greek. In which speech, ‘chalice’ must needs be taken for νον.
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 calice, illud est quod Blas Sy
fluxit de latere: “That which is in the chalice, is the same that ὁ
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 ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ
the Greek will bear, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, cea Mee

which (blood) is shed for you.” νον.

Fulke. ‘It is a famous place” indeed, that never a one Furxr,
of the ancient writers could consider for any real presence to ir
be drawn out of it. How Beza hath translated it, I have at

¢ \ 7 ‘ , 4 Ν A ς , > a “
ΓΞ ὅταν γὰρ ἴδῃς τὸν Κύριον τεθυμένον, καὶ τὸν ἱερέα ἐφεστῶτα τῷ
», Ν > , ‘ , > , “ , la
θύματι, καὶ ἐπευχόμενον, καὶ πάντας ἐκείνῳ τῷ τιμίῳ φοινισσομένους
3 > \ a A
αἵματι, dpa ἔτι μετὰ ἀνθρώπων εἶναι νομίζεις καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἑστάναι,
GAN οὐκ εὐθέως ἐπὶ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς μετανίστασαι, καὶ πᾶσαν σαρκικὴν

. διάνοιαν τῆς Ψυχῆς ἐκβάλλων, γυμνῇ τῇ ψυχῇ καὶ τῷ νῷ καθαρῷ περι-

βλέπεις τὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς ; ὦ τοῦ θαύματος, ὦ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίας.
ὁ μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἄνω καθήμενος, κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ἐκείνην ταῖς ἁπάντων
κατέχεται χερσὶ, καὶ δίδωσιν αὑτὸν τοῖς βουλομένοις περιπτύξασθαι καὶ
περιλαβεῖν. ποιοῦσι δὲ τοῦτο πάντες διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τῆς πίστεως.
Chrysost. de Sacerdot. Lib. τι. Opera, Vol. νι. pp. 15, 16.]

[3 Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον, ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί pov, τὸ ὑπὲρ
ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον, 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. ]

Martin,

Ad rat.

Camp. p. 34.

Against D.
eee tui

Chap. i.
num. 37, 38.
&e.

FuLKE,
11.

Martin,
12.

Ῥ. 35.

Pref. in Nov.
Test. an. 1556.

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. But what pertaineth this to the English heretics, who
translate, “ which is shed,” so indifferently that it may signify, “ which
cup,” or, “which blood” is shed? Thus far it pertaineth, because
they do not only defend this translation by all means, but they tell
us plainly, namely Fulke, that they refer “ which” to the word “ blood,”
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
other their foul and manifold shifts to avoid this place, I have ‘spoken
in another place of this book.

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 little lust hereafter to
insult against mine ignorance, before you be able to weigh
the matter yourself with sounder knowledge.

Martin. Only M. Whitakers, to -say truly, hath brought some-
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
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

τ... νὰ

xvu.| 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 Furxx,
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, Marri,
so against the sacrifice also of the altar it is, that they control St ! Wy.
Jerome’s translation in the Old Testament, concerning the sacrifice of
Melchisedec, who “ brought forth bread and wine! ;” Gen. xiv. 18 ; that The sacrifice
is, offered, or sacrificed bread and wine; which we prove to bé ieee
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.
her. 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 Noein
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 Re ee
and wine, for he was the priest of God most high.” Which reason αν

[ Kat Μελχισεδὲκ βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ ἐξήνεγκεν ἄρτους καὶ οἶνον.
Gen. xiv. 18. “ At vero Melchisedech rex Salem, proferens panem et
vinum,” Vulg. |

99

[FULKE. |

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-
ἦν δὲ ἱερεύς. versaries will not have it translated in any wise, “for he was the
ΝῊ] priest,” as though the scripture gave a reason, why he brought forth
Ὑπὸ : bread and wine; but, “and he was a priest,’ &c. wrangling about
2 the signification of the Hebrew conjunction.

Furkr, Fulke. That St Jerome was author of the vulgar

si 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 | 7
is in controversy, upon the conjunction which is indefinite:
and we without partiality have translated the conjunction 5
copulative, as it doth most commonly and ordinarily signify. — ᾿ς

. >
Martin, 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, Beza, annot,
and that by the authority of Theophylact, and allegation of examples
out of the scripture, and translate accordingly thus: “Blessed art thou Nov. Test.

among women, because the fruit of thy womb is blessed.” Let them Ῥρθράιμιν δος

give us a reason, why the said conjunction is here by their translation dictus, ὅτο.
quia, or enim, where it was never so translated before ; and it must not ks oS
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. 18.
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- Furxe,
tain ‘a colour of your popish sacrifice, we shew great “par- 1+
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. Τὸ 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 Melchisedee, 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 Marri,
“altar,” and “table,” is notorious.- For the name of “altar,” (as they 15:

33—2

θυσιαστή-
ριον.

ΓΞ

θυσιαστή-
ριον.
-. ix. v. 13.
ἱερόν.

516 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

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, tom. v. Nazianz. de Gorgonia sorore. Basil in Liturg. Socrat.
Lib. τ. Hist. c. 20, and 25. Theodoret. Hist. Lib. 1v. c. 20. Theophyl. in
23 Matt. Cypr. epist. 63. Optat. cont. Parm. Aug. ep. 86. and Lib. rx.
Confess. c. 11. and 13. et alibi s@pe) 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 within two chapters, 1 Cor. ix
and x., saying: “Know you not, that they which wait of the temple

are partakers of the temple?” and, “Are not they which eat of the

sacrifice partakers of the temple?”—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 “temple’.”

[2 of τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ προσεδρεύοντες τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ συμμερίζονται,
1 Cor. ix. 18. “ Qui altari deserviunt, cum altari participant,” 4
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, 1562. “ They that serve the altar are participators of the
altar,” Rheims. ἢ

Οὐχὶ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσί ᾿
1 Cor. x. 18. “ Nonne qui edunt hostias, participes sunt altaris ?” Vulg. r
** Were they that eat sacrifices not partners of the altar?” Wiclif. “ Are _
not they which eat of the sacrifice partakers of the altar?” Tyndale,
Geneva, Bishops’ bible, 1584, Authorised version. “ Partakers of the
temple?” Cranmer, 1539, 1562. ‘“ They that eat the hosts, are they
not partakers of the altar?” Rheims. |

a

XVII. } TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 517

Fulke. That the ancient fathers used the name of Fuxxx,

“altar,” as they did of “sacrifice,” “sacrificer,” “levite,” and i

such like, 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 believe, as the apostle taught us, that it

is the communion of the body and blood of Christ, and the 1 Cor. x. 11.

Lord’s supper: as for the corruption you pretend, I cannot

think, as 1 have answered before, it was anything else but Chap. 1.

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 im 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,” Marmn,

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

aged 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 *

Pthe king looked upon the table, and “that they did eat up such things τράπεζα.

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 places. Wherein I See the Bib.

cannot but pity their folly, and wonder exceedingly how they could
imagine it any disgrace, either for “table” or “ altar,” if the idols also

[ἢ “ 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.” |

& 1577

518 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH | cH.

had their ‘“‘tables” and “altars;” whereas St Paul so plainly nameth

1Cor.x. 21. 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.

Fun, Fulke. That the authors of the first translation in the

τὰ fabulous story of Bel for “table” translated “ altar,” as 1
cannot excuse them of error, so I dare discharge them of any
partiality or favour of the communion-tabie. 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, m the margin, placeth
the word “table,” which ts 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.

Martin, Martin. And here, by the way, the reader may note another ex-

11. 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 —

a 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.

a Fulke. It were an infinite matter to note, not only all
17. the follies that you commit, but also the impudent assertions

ΠΣ
ἄμ -

ΩΝ

;

Xvit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, — 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,” you
shall never be able to prove; howsoever CXcumenius 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-offermgs 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 Marri,
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 Saviour’. For PA" Si
it is he that said, ‘1 am the bread that descended from heaven.’” Where τὸν ἄρτον
the prophet, so long before saying “bread,” and meaning his “body,” αὐτοῦ.
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 1 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 factus est;
et dixerint, Mittamus lignum in panem ejus, crucem videlicet in corpus
Salvatoris. Ipse est enim qui ait: Ego sum panis qui de celo descendi.
Comment, Hieronymi, Lib. u. in Jeremiam xi. 19. Opera, Vol. mr.
p- 585.]

FULKE,
18.

MartTIN,
19.
ἐμβάλω-
μεν.
Mittamus.

walal2)

Psal. xxi.

Destruamus.
Ponamus.
Mittamus.

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 ?

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.

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
readeth ; but it must signify, “Let us destroy.’ They say truly,
according to the Hebrew word which now is. But is it not evident
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
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, nashchita,
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

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.

Fulke. Τί we should acknowledge the Hebrew word to Furxe,
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. Your 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, myMw)
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 Maran,
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 haye a
pretence of true translation, and we promised in the preface in such:
cases not to call it heretical translation. ἡ

FULKE,
20.

Martin,
21.

That water
and wine
ought to be
mingled in
the chalice,
Prov. ix.

See 8. Au-
gustine De
Civit. Dei,

lib. 17. ο. 20.

FuLKE,
21. -

A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

522

Fulke. To this cavil against the certain truth of the
Hebrew text, I have sufficiently answered in my confutation
of your preface, sect. xliv.,. 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.

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’’
Speaking 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*.

Fulke. Τὸ 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
Aquarit, that contended for only water, had retained the
precise institution of Christ in wine only, which the serip-
ture mentioneth, and not allowed them a mixture of water,

[ p. 79, 80.]

[ἢ “Sapientia edificavit sibi domum, excidit columnas septem: im-
molavit victimas suas, miscuit vinum, et proposuit mensam suam.”
Prov. ix. 1, 2, Vulg. ]

[? Sed et per Salomonem Spiritus sanctus typum Dominici sacrificii
ante “premonstrat, immolate hostie, et panis et vini, sed et altaris
et apostolorum faciens mentionem: Sapientia, inquit, edificavit 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 predicatione ad craterem, dicens: Qui est insipiens
declinet ad me, et egentibus sensu dixit, Venite, edite de meis jpanibus,
et bibite vinum quod miscui vobis. Vinum mixtum declarat, id est,
calicem Domini aqua et vino mixtum prophetica voce prenuntiat.
Cypriani Epist. lxiii. |

: mA

χνπ.] 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- Martin,
mony, here also frame their translation accordingly, suppressing alto- 22.
gether this mixture or mingling, and instead thereof saying, “She sinl. 1579.5
hath drawn her wine,*” 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 ἐκέρασεν,
evidently signify “ mingling” and “ mixture,” as it is in the Latin, and as seciee ‘a;
all the Greek church from the apostles’ time hath used this word Miscui.
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 ; λαβὼν τὸ
St Justin, in the end of his second apology, calling it of the same AB se
Greek word κρᾶμα, that is (according to Plutarch), wine mingled yjixtus calix.
with water; likewise St Ireneus, 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 *27%33° Υἱ.

can, 32.
word by another equivalent, and more plain to signify this mixture. μιγνύναι."

Fulke. The authority of the holy scriptures with us is Funsr,
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.]

[ἢ Geneva bible, 1560. ]

Martin,

sie

FuLKe,
23.

7902

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
“οὗ 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. Thus then the Greek is neither “drawing of wine,” nor
“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
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. The dictionaries are more sure to teach what
a word doth signify, than what it doth not signify. I con-
fess, Pagnine giveth none other signification of that root
JOD, but miscuit. But even the word miscuit may signify
“ἐν pouring out,” when there is no respect of joining divers
things together, but of serving one with the cup, as Tully
useth the word: Quz alteri misceat mulsum, tpse 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
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

oe Α
“ἢ.
ee y
4
Ἢ

xvi]. 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. xxiil.,
the drunkards that continued at the wine, and went to seek
Jon “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, lémsoch, to mingle strong drink ;” not to mingle it ποῦ
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.

Martin, 1, .

Ps. exxxviii.

Psal. xliv.

TY

οἱ φίλοι

σοῦ.

FuLKe, 1.

526 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ~ [ors

CHAPTER XVIII.

Heretical Translation against the honour of Saints, namely
of our blessed Lady.

Martin. Ler us pass from God’s holy sacraments to his honour-
able saints in heaven; and we shall find that these translations
pluck from them also as much honour as they may. In the psalm
Cxxxviii., where the catholic church and all antiquity readeth thus,
Nimis honorati sunt amici tui, Deus’, ὅδ. “Thy friends, O God, are
become exceeding honourable, their princedom is exceedingly strength-
ened ;” which verse is sung and said in the honour of the holy
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,
“ How dear are thy counsels (or thoughts) to me, O God! O how great
is the sum of them’!” 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?
doth not the Greek put it out of doubt, which is altogether ac-
cording to the said ancient Latin translation ?

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 ὦ

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. |

XVI. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 527

a more sincere interpreter, that expoundeth the whole verse
“even as we do.

Martin. And you, my masters, that translate otherwise, I be- apr, 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 Sy
them strengthened, or their princedoms,” as in the Greek also it is DP ὦ Ν Ἢ
most manifest? Why do you then hunt after novelties, and forsake
the trodden path of the ancient, and pass the bounds which our holy ¢ αἱ i ἀρχαὶ
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 gpito. rhe-
common interpretation of this place, and then saith, Quidam ewponunt, S528".
“Some expound it otherwise ;” why had you rather be of that lesser ™dice
“some that expound otherwise,” than of the great society of all ancient my ai:
interpreters ἢ

Fulke. The Hebrew is as we have translated, “ How great Fuxxe, 2.
is the sum of them!” So doth Kimchi expound it; so doth
Pagnine ; and to the same effect Justinian: and the same
word, yatsemu missapel, “the sum of them is greater than ΩΝ)
can be numbered,” Psal. xl.; where the prophet speaketh bepp
of the counsels, or thoughts of God, as in this place. Where
you quarrel at us for followmg the lesser number, when
Pagnine saith, guidam, &c., you may know, if you list,
that Pagnine himself is one of those quidam, that translateth
even as we do, “ How precious are their thoughts unto me;
how are the sums of them multiplied!” As for Jerome, whom
you would have us to follow, instead of “princes” hath “ poor
men ;” and therefore you do injuriously to require us to
follow him, whom you follow not yourselves. You must
therefore indict Pagnine of heretical translation, beside all
protestants; or else you are very partial.

Martin. But this new-fangled singularity of teaching and trans- Marrin, 3.
lating otherwise than all antiquity hath done, shall better appear
in their dealing about our blessed lady, whose honour they have
sought so many ways to diminish and deface, that the defence and
maintenance thereof against the heretics of our time is grown to
a great book, learnedly written by the great clerk and Jesuit, father
Canisius, intituled Mariana.

Fulke. 1 think Canisius in all his great book, ἰῇ δὴ Εὐπκε, 3.
Mariana, meddleth not with our English translations; and
therefore very idly was this matter brought in, to tell us

Martin, 4.

Bib. 1579, ὅς
1577.

Luke i. 28.
Acts vii. 8.

Ambr. lib. 2.
in Luke i.

Fuk, 4.

528 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ CH.

of Canisius’s book, called Mariana. I have seen a blasphe-
mous book against (I may justly say, though it were pre-
tended in the honour of) the blessed virgin, called Mariale.
I have seen that horrible blasphemous Psalter of Bonaventure,
perverting all the psalms unto the honour of the virgin
Mary, with intolerable blasphemy against God and the holy
mother of Christ, whose greatest honour is in the kingdom
of her Son, and in his infinite glory.

Martin. Concerning our purpose, what was ever more common,
and is now more general and usual in all christian countries, than in
the Ave Marie, to say, Gratia plena, “full of grace ;” insomuch that
in the first English bible it hath continued so still, and every child
in our country was taught so to say, till the Ave Marie was ba-
nished altogether, and not suffered to be said, neither in Latin, nor
English? What ancient father of the Latin church hath not always
so read and expounded? What church in all the west hath not.
ever so sung and said? Only our new translators have found a
new kind of speech, translating thus: “ Hail thou that art freely
beloved,” and, “ Hail thou that art in high favour.” Why this, and
that, or any other thing, rather than, “Hail, full of grace1?” St
John baptist was full of the Holy Ghost, even from his birth; St
Stephen was full of grace, as the scripture recordeth of them both:
why may not then our Lady much more be called “full of grace,”
who (as St Ambrose saith) “only obtained the grace, which no other
women deserved, to be replenished with the author of grace 2”

Fulke. The salutation of the Virgin may be said still,
either in Latin or English, as well as any part of the holy
scripture beside; but not to make a popish orison of an
angelic salutation. That we have translated “ Hail, Mary,
freely “beloved,” or, “that art in high favour,” we have
followed the truth of the Greek word, not so denying theré-
by, but that the virgin Mary, of God’s special goodness with-
out her merits, as she confesseth, was filled with all gracious
gifts of the Holy Spirit, as much as any mortal creature
might be, except our Saviour Christ, whose only privilege it
is to be free from sin, and to have received the gifts of the
Holy Ghost without measure in his manhood.

[' Καὶ εἰσελθὼν ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπε, χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμέμη"
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.]

XVI. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 529

Martin. They will say, the Greek word doth not so signify. Marrt, 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 ἡλκωμένος be “full of sores,” why is not Luke xvi. 20.
κεχαριτωμένη “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 periculosus, erumnosus. 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 Furxg, 5.
foolish cavillation of ulcerosus, I have discussed sufficiently,
cap. i. sect. 43.

Martin. But hath it indeed any such signification? Tell us, you Marr, 6.
that profess this great skill of the tongues, what syllable is there in χαριτῶσαι.
this word that soundeth to that signification? St Chrysostom and the Para in
Greek doctors, that should best know the nature of this Greek word,
say that it signifieth, 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. xliv.
is word for word gratificata, “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 8. eg de
this title κεχαριτωμένη, because the Holy Ghost descended into the = 6
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 Pal, xliv.
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 Futxe, 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
94

[FULKE. |

Marty, 7.

John Kel-
tridge,
preacher of
the word in
London. In
his Sermons
within the
tower, print-
ed, fol. 14.
Gross igno-
rance and
singular pride
in many of
the new
clergy.

So he called
the priests of
the seminary,
as if one
would call a
monk a mo-
nastery, or a
nun a nun-

nery.
Page 37 of
part 2.

FuLkE, 7.

530 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

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 anol Ghost, which the angel promised should
come upon her.”

Martin. Now let the English Bezites come with their new term,
“freely beloved,” and control these and all other ancient fathers, both
Greek and Latin, and teach them a new signification of the Greek word,
which they knew not before. Let John Keltridge, one of their great
preachers in London, come and tell us, that “the Septuaginta and the
best translations in Greek have no such words as we use in the Ave
Marie ;’ but that the word which the Septuaginta uses, is κεχαριτωμένη,
&ec. Who ever heard such a jest, that the preacher of the word of
God in London, (so he is called in the title of his book,) and preacher
before the Jesuits and Seminaries in the tower, which is next degree to
the disputers there ; whose sermons be solemnly printed, and dedicated to
one of the queen’s council; who seemeth to be such a Grecian, that he
confuteth the vulgar Latin translation by the signification of the Greek
word, and in other places of his book allegeth the Greek text; that —
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. Concerning John Keltridge, against whose ig- +
norance and arrogance you insult, I can say nothing, because 4
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 —

xvi. | 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 Marmn, 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. 1. 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 1 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- Futxe, 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 delight
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 tuum', “She shall bruise thy head,”

[ΤῊΣ LXX. have Gen. iii. 15, αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν. The
Vulgate renders the whole passage thus:

“Jnimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tanta et semen
illius ; ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus.”’ ].

34—2

Sand. Rock
Dise. p. 145.

Fuxe, 9.

Dise. Sand.
p. 145.

532 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

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 xliv., where the prophet inveigheth against
them that offer sacrifice to the “ Queen of heaven.” This they think 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

and planets; and the Septuaginta call it not only βασίλισσαν, “ queen,”
but τὴν στρατιὰν, “the host of heaven,” Jerem. vii.; and St Jerome
not only rveginam, but rather, militiam celi; and when he nameth it
reginam, *“‘ queen,” he saith we must understand it of the moon, to
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. 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 lie, and slandered me, you will note the place your-
self, where I may be discharged, and your own impudency be
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-

a

xvu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 533

pent’s head,’ the popish church hath either wilfully corrupted,
or negligently 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 swcult, cap. vii.,
where this text is cited, though the printed 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
τειρήσει, conteret, he did read τηρήσει, servabit; there is
no great account to be made of his reading. St Augustine
in Psalm ci. 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'. Gregory’ 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: Jpsa tuum observabit caput, et tu
ejus observabis caleaneum. In magno mysterio dictum, in figura dictum
ecclesie future, facte de latere viri sui, et hoc dormientis. Erat autem
Adam forma futuri. Hoe apostolus dicit: Qui est forma futuri. Pre-
figuratum est quod futurum erat, facta est ecclesia de ~latere domini
dormientis in cruce. Nam de latere crucifixi percusso, sacramenta ec-
clesie profluxerunt. Augustini Enarrat. in Psalm. ciii. Opera, Vol. tv.
pp. 1668, 1669. ]

[? Cum vero antiquus hostis neque in exordio intentionis ferit,
neque in itinere 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 : psi calcaneum meum observabunt. Quia enim in

pig

534 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ἴση.

woman, not to the virgin Mary, Mor. Lib. τι. 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-
teret’, 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. deVillic. Iniquo, 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, Jpsa conteret caput
twum 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
xliv. 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 actionis ?
Sive ergo maligni spiritus, sive pravi quique homines, illorum superbie

sequaces, calcaneum observant, cum actionis bone finem vitiare desi- —

derant. Unde et eidem serpenti dicitur: Ipsa tuum observabit caput,
et tu calcaneum ejus. Caput quippe serpentis observare, est initia |

suggestionis ejus aspicere, et manu sollicite considerationis a cordis aditu
funditus extirpare. Gregorii Moral. Lib. 1. cap. xxxvi. Opera, Vol. 1.
p. 36, edit. Bened. 1705.]

Γ΄ Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem. Et si adhuc dubitas quod
de Maria non dixerit, audi quod sequitur: Jpsa conteret caput tuum.

Cui hec servata victoria est, nisi Marie? Ipsa procul dubio caput con- —

trivit venenatum, que omnimodam maligni suggestionem tam de carnis
illecebra, quam de mentis superbia, deduxit ad nihilum. Bernardi
Homil. τι. de Laudibus Virgin. Matris. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 744, edit.
Mabillon. 1719.]

σῶν

[3 Edit. Paris. 1602. p. 241. Cave places this sermon among those —

wrongly ascribed to Bernard. Vol. ττ. p. 708. edit. Montf. ]

ee ee ea Βει

+

=a

XVILL. | 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 heayen,” 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 ας "

Jesus*?” Why not “she,” as well as he? For in St Luke the angel saith Capi. 2 mi Be
to our Lady also, “Thou shalt call his name Jesus*.” 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. 60.

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
6811. And surely, the usual pointing of the Greek text, (for Beza

[® καὶ παρέλαβε τὴν γυναῖκα αὑτοῦ: καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν, ἕως οὗ
ἔτεκε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον' καὶ ἐκάλεσε τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦν,
Matt. i. 24,25. ‘And Joseph, as soonas 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.] :

[+ Μὴ φοβοῦ, Μαριάμ: εὗρες yap χάριν παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ. Καὶ ἰδοὺ,
συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ, καὶ τέξῃ υἱὸν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦν,
Luke i. 80, 81. “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. |

FuLKE,
10.

Martin,
11.

536 -A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu.

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 2

Fulke. The matter is not worth the weight of an hair,
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. 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 you know 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-
mentaries, but that must not be made the text of scripture, because other
doctors expound it otherwise; and being in itself, and in the original
tongue, ambiguous, and indifferent to divers senses, it may not be
restrained or limited by translation, unless there be a mere necessity,
when the translation cannot possibly or hardly express the ambiguity
and indifferency of the original text.

Fulke, The authority of one doctor, agreemg with the
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,

xvi. | 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 me ἐς
after his death, or they shall remember him, that some of the Greek cing ?
fathers gathered, and concluded thereupon, (CEcum. in Caten. Gagneius τῶν τῇδε,
in hune locum,) “That the saints in heaven remember us on earth, and βού ΣΝ
make intercession for us'.” Which ambiguity both in the Greek and the ὑπὲρ τῶν
Latin should be also kept and expressed in the English translation ; and ζώντων.
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 ioe.
have it read, and as though it might be read no otherwise than they προς
prescribe.

Fulke. O&cumenius, who lived in a superstitious time, ἐρατὸν
telleth, that “‘some men understood this saying of Peter by !?
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, Gicume-
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
(Ecumenius; and C&cumenius himself a doctor of as little

fs Τουτέστι, καθεκάστην καὶ διηνεκῶς τὴν τούτων μνήμην, βούλονται
παριστᾷν ἀπὸ τούτου, ὅτι καὶ μετὰ θάνατον οἱ ἅγιοι μέμνηνται τῶν τῇδε,

‘ , ς ‘ “ ’ SLA Ν c “ / A
καὶ πρεσβεύουσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν ζώντων. ἄλλοι δὲ ἁπλῶς μεταχειριζόμενοι τὸ
ῥητὸν, οὕτω νοοῦσι, &c. CEcumen. in 2 Epist. Cathol. Petr. Comment.
Vol. u., p. 534. Lut. Paris. 1631. |

538 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cn.

authority as any other, in respect of the late season in which
he lived.

As for Gagneius, that came after him, who seeth not
how little 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.

χιχ.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 539

CHAPTER XIX.

Heretical Translation against the distinction of Latria
and Dulia.

Martin. In this restraining of the scripture to the sense of some Marri, 1.
one doctor, there is a famous example in the epistle to the Hebrews’, yep. 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 1570. ens
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 Bip. 1562.
text, “leaning, God ;” forcing αὐτοῦ to signify αὑτοῦ, which may be,”
but is as rare as virge ejus for virge sue; 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.31.
text, from whence they were translated; which Hebrew words them- ἽΓΠ1}}})"
selves translate in this order: “ He worshipped toward the bed’s head.” νυν
If “he worshipped toward the bed’s head,” according to the Hebrew, mopn 7
then “did he worship toward the top of his sceptre,” according to the τ΄ -
Greek ; the difference of both being only in these words, “sceptre,”’ Sicee ot
and “bed,’ (because the Hebrew is ambiguous to both,) and not in τὸ ἄκρον
the order or construction of the sentence. Tein

Fulke. The restraining of simple men from error is ΕὟΤΙΚΕ, 1.
counted of you the restraining of the scripture; as though
the scripture were a “nose of wax’,” 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

Γ’ Πίστει Ἰακὼβ ἀποθνήσκων ἕκαστον τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ιωσὴφ εὐλόγησε, καὶ
προσεκύνησεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὑτοῦ, Heb. xi. 21. “ Fide Jacob
moriens singulos filiorum Joseph benedixit, et adoravit fastigium virge
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.]

Γ᾿ Pighius, Hierarch. Eccles. Assert. Lib. m1. c. iii. fol. 80. ed, 1538. ]

Martin, 2.

πρὸς ναόν.

δ40 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 Augustine’ 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 αὐτοῦ is “forced to signify αὐτοῦ,"
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 αὐτοῦ, rather than αὐτοῦ, as Matth. iv.,
‘his paths,” “his meat,” “his hand;” Matth. v., ‘his disciples,”
and elsewhere in every place®.

Martin.. 'To make it more plain: when the prophet David saith,
Adorabo ad templum sanctum tuum, Psalm y. and exxxvii. is not the true

[* Nam facile intelligeretur senem, qui virgam ferebat eo more; quo
illa etas baculum solet, ut se inclinavit ad Deum adorandum, id utique
fecisse super cacumen virge sue, quam sic ferebat, ut super eam caput
inclinando adoraret Deum. August. Question. in Genesim. cap. clxii.
Opera, Vol. m1. pp. 661, 662. ] '

[? The Vulgate reads αὐτοῦ, but the text of Stephens, Plantin, Gries-
bach, and Scholtz, αὑτοῦ ; and αὐτοῦ is often put for ἑαυτοῦ. ]

=e ee

es i

ye Δ,

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, ele ὄρος.
before the ark, toward the place where his feet stood? May any man 1 Pings vii ‘iii.
be so bold, by adding and transposing to alter and obscure all such Josh. ἮΝ τ
places of holy scripture, that there may appear no manner of adoration εἰς parle
toward or before a creature ; and for worshipping or “adoring” toward ΤΩΣ cxxxt.
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 ἐπὶ,

“ 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. Funke, 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. GEcum. in Collectan. Damase. Lib. 1. pro imaginibus, Leont. apud
Damase. put so little force either in this preposition ἐπὶ, or the other πρὸς, «is.
alleged, that they expound all those speeches as if the prepositions
were of phrase only, and not of signification, saying, “Jacob adored τῇ ῥάβδῳ
Joseph’s sceptre, the people of Israel adored the temple, the ark, the mere. ee
holy mount, the place where his feet stood,” and the like; whereby tots τόποις
St Damascene proveth the adoration of creatures, named dulia, namely see
of the cross and of the sacred images: if, I say, they make so little κυνεῖν.
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 ἐπὶ, to signify
“leaning upon,” that it shall in no wise signify anything tending to-
wards adoration ?

Fulke. The worship that Chrysostom and QC&cumenius Funke, 3.
speak of, is a civil reverence done to Joseph, or to his
sceptre, in respect of the kingdom of Ephraim, that should

Marti, 4.

am
Psal. xeviii.
CXxxi.

ah Yap)
1 |

Psal. xev. or
xevi.

mi)

προσκυ-
νεῖν.

ninnw?

Psal. xeviii.

Funxe, 4.

542 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ en.

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 ἐπὶ should signify “toward,” as it doth not properly,
but “upon,” your counterfeit distinction of dulia and latria
should never the sooner be received.

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
in English, without prepositions, “Adore ye his holy hill:” “we will
adore the place where his feet stood:” ‘ Adore ye his footstool.” For
you know that there is the same preposition also, when it is said,
“ Adore ye our Lord;” or, as yourselves translate, “ worship the Lord τ᾿
where there can be no force nor signification of the preposition. And
therefore in these places also your translation is corrupt and wilful,
when you say thus: ‘‘ We will fall down before his footstool; fall ye
down before his footstool, before his holy mount, or worship him upon
his holy hill:” where you shun and avoid, first, the term of “adora-
tion,” which the Hebrew and Greek duly express by terms corre-
spondent in both languages throughout the bible, and are applied for
the most part to signify “ adoring’ of creatures. Secondly, you avoid
the Greek phrase, which is at the least to “adore” towards these holy
things and places; and much more the Hebrew phrase, which is, to
“adore” the very things rehearsed : “to adore God's footstool,’ as the
Psalm saith, “because it is holy,” or, “because he is holy,” whose
footstool it is, as the Greek readeth.

Fulke. Τῇ the apostle had meant nothing by the prepo-
sition, he might, and would, as it is most like, have left it
clean out: yea, if he had meant no more, but the adoration
of Joseph’s sceptre, what needed he to have added the top,
or the extremity? or why was the top of his sceptre more
to be adored, than all the other length of it? But certain
it is, the apostle would express the Hebrew preposition, which
must needs have some signification. And where you ask them
that have skill in the Hebrew, whether there be any force in

xix. TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 543

the preposition, in those sayings out of the, psalm, that speak
of worshipping, or falling down before his footstool, his
holy hill, &c. 1 answer, Yea, there is great force, for the
hill was not to be worshipped, but he whose tabernacle or
temple was on it. But you object, that we ourselves neglect
the preposition, Psalm xcvi., and say, “ worship the Lord.”
The fault is the less, because the worship is referred to none
but the Lord; yet the precise translation in that place should
be, ‘bow down,” or “fall ye down before the Lord in the
glorious sanctuary.” And where you say we “shun the word
of adoration, which the Hebrew and Greek duly do express
by terms applied, for the most part, [to] signify adoring of
creatures ;” you have packed up a great number of untruths
together, as it were in a bundle. First, that we shun the
term of “adoring,” for doubt of your dulia: which is utterly
untrue; for it is avoided partly, because it is more Latin than
English, partly because it doth not express either the Greek
or the Latin terms, which the scripture useth. Secondly, you
ayouch, that both the Hebrew lishtachavoth, and the Greek ninnw>
TPOTKUVEL', 12. +6. whereas all that be learned in both the
tongues do know, that the Hebrew word doth signify properly
to “bow down,” and therefore is used of such bowing down
as is not to the end of adoration, as Psalm xlu. 5, 6, “ Why
art thou cast down, O my soul?” and in divers other places:
the Greek word also signifieth, to use some gesture of body
in worshipping, and sometimes to fall down, as Herodotus,
προσκυνέειν προσπίπτοντας “they must worship the king
falling down before him.” Finally, where you say, they “are
applied to the adoring of creatures,” if you call it adoration,
which is used in civil manner to princes and other persons
of authority, I grant it is often so applied; but if you mean
of religious adoration, it is expressly forbidden to any creature
or image of creature, by the second commandment in the
Hebrew term, and by the words of our Saviour Christ to
the devil, Matth. iv., in the Greek word, “Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve:”
where Satan desired not to be worshipped as God with divine
honour, but that our Saviour Christ would fall down before
him and worship him, as an excellent minister of God, to

[*. The old editions read without a hiatus. Supply from the pre-
ceding page, evpress adoration. |

Martin, 5.

Pref. in
Ps. xxxili.

Fux, 5.

544 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ oH.

whom the disposition of all the kingdoms of the world, as he
falsely said, were by God committed, Luke iv. 6: which utterly
overthroweth your bold distinction of dulia and latria, seeing
it was that which you call dulia, that the devil required, but
our Saviour Christ telleth him, that all religious worship and
service pertaineth only to God. Touching the adoration of
God’s footstool, I have spoken sufficiently before, cap. 1. sec. 41.

Martin. This being most manifest to all that have skill in these
tongues, it is evident that you regard neither Hebrew nor Greek, but
only your heresy; and that in St Paul's place aforesaid of “ adoring”
Joseph's sceptre, you alter it by your own fancy, and not by St Au-
gustine’s authority; whom I am sure you will not admit reading in
the psalm, “ Adore ye his footstool,’ and so precisely and religiously
reading thus, that he examineth the case, and findeth thereby that
the blessed sacrament must be “adored,” and that no good Christian
doth take it before he “adore” it. Neither will you admit him when
he readeth thus of David, ‘‘ He was carried in his own hands,” and
interpreteth it mystically of Christ, that he was carried in his own
hands, when he gave his body and blood to his disciples’. Yet are
St Augustine's interpretations, howsoever you like or mislike them,
very good; as also that above named, of Jacob’s leaning upon his staff
and adoring, may be one good sense or commentary of that place ; but
yet a commentary, and one doctor’s opinion, not the sacred text of
scripture, as you would make it by so translating.

Fulke. et Pagnine for the Hebrew word, the Greek
lexicons for the other, be judge between us. For you are
the most impudent advoucher, I think, that ever became a
writer. That we lean to Augustine’s judgment in this case,
it is not because we make him an author of truth, but a
witness of the same against such venomous tongues and pens
as yours is, that call every thing heretical that savoureth
not of your own drowsy dreams of antichristian heresy.
Neither is it reason, that by using the testimony of Augus-
tine, where he beareth witness to the truth, we should be

[1 Et ferebatur in manibus suis. Hoc vero, fratres, quomodo posset
fieri in homine, quis intelligat? Quis enim portatur in manibus suis?

Manibus aliorum potest portari homo, manibus suis nemo portatur. —

Quomodo intelligatur in ipso David secundam literam, non invenimus;
in Christo autem invenimus. Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis,
quando commendans ipsum corpus suum, ait: Hoe est corpus meum,
Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis. Ipsa est humilitas Domini
nostri Jesu Christi, ipsa multum commendatur hominibus. Augustini
Enarrat. in Psalm. xxxiii. Opera, Vol. τν. p. 305. ]

Ἐπ ΟΣ τ ΡΠ ee ΤΥ, οὖ.
he, -" Ἂν τὺ Ly ee ido
ἱρὰ ἡ «Ὁ 4 -

xx. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 545

bound to every interpretation of his, when he declineth there-
from. Where you say that, “by adoring the footstool of
God,” he findeth “that the blessed sacrament must be
adored,” you say untruly: he gathereth that Christ’s hu-
manity or body must be adored, but not the blessed sacra-
ment ‘thereof. Likewise when he saith, upon a feeble
ground of a false interpretation, “that Christ was carried
in his own hands in the sacrament;” he affirmeth it not so
absolutely as you allege it, but’ quodam modo, “ after a
certain manner, he bare himself in his hands,” when he
said, “this is my body.” Yea, in that place Augustine,
as in many other, declareth his judgment, that he acknow-
ledged not the corporal manner of presence, and eating of
Christ’s body, in the sacrament, for which you papists so
greatly contend: that you are content to make so many
senses of the scripture, it declareth that you acknowledge
none certain, and so derogate all credit and authority from
the word of God, which may have so many meanings, as
there be divers doctors that have commented upon it: where-
as divers interpretations may have all a true sense; but it
is impossible that they should all be senses of the same
scripture.

Martin. And if St Jerome like not the Greek doctors’ interpreta-
tion in this place, of “adoring” Joseph and his sceptre; yet he also
saith, that Jacob “adored” toward Joseph’s rod, or toward the bed’s

Martin, 6.

head, and not, “leaning upon his staff he adored,” which you make

the text of scripture. And though he think, that in this place is not
meant any “adoration” of Joseph; yet, I am sure, for “adoration” of
holy things, namely relics, the holy land, and all the holy places
and monuments of Christ's being and doing upon the earth, you will
not be tried by St Jerome. And again, why St Paul should say, that by
faith he “ adored,” and “in respect of things to come,” it is not otherwise
easy to understand, but that he partly foresaw the kingdom of Ephraim
in the posterity of Joseph; partly the kingdom of Christ prefigured
in Joseph then prince of Egypt, and so by faith “adored” his sceptre
or toward his sceptre, which is all one, as the Greek fathers for the
most part expound it. But let us hasten toward an end.

Fulke. St Jerome indeed denieth that Jacob did worship Fuxxe, 6.

his staff or sceptre, or toward the top of his son’s sceptre,
but only toward the bed’s head, as the Hebrew text is. For
reverent estimation “of relics, the holy land, and the monu-

35

[ruLKe.|

540 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [on

ments of Christ’s doing and being,” as he sometimes upon
contention perhaps was immoderate, so for adoration of such
things, after such idolatrous manner as is used in the popish
church, he was far off: yea, he saith expressly, “that he
doth not allow the adoration of any creature,” and that
“to adore any creatures, is plain idolatry.” Has autem
non dico martyrum reliquias, &c. ‘“ But we do worship and
adore, I say not the relics of martyrs, but neither the sun
truly, nor the moon, &c.; not angels, not archangels, not
cherubin, not seraphin, or any name that is named in this
world, or in the world to come; lest we should serve the
creature rather than the Creator, which is blessed for ever.
But we honour the relics of martyrs, that we might adore
him, whose martyrs they are’.”

Do you not hear how Jerome alloweth the adoring of
creatures? I see no cause therefore, why we may not be
tried by his judgment for adoration of holy things, and
namely relics, and whatsoever you will name beside, seeing
he maketh adoration proper only to God.

Finally, the apostle saith not, “that Jacob adored in re-
spect of things to come,” but that ‘by faith he blessed his
son concerning things to come,” and worshipped God, whom
no man can worship truly but by faith. And Jacob’s faith
was the more commendable, that beg near his end, and
in that infirmity of body, he doth believe the promises of
God made to him concerning his sons, and also gave thanks
unto God for those benefits which he should never taste of
in the flesh; but was assured by them, as tokens of God’s
favour towards him, to the attainment of the land of eternal
life, whereof the land of Canaan was but a holy figure and
sacrament.

[*? Nos autem non dico martyrum reliquias, sed ne solem quidem —
et lunam, non angelos, non archangelos, non cherubim, non seraphim, —
et omne nomen quod nominatur, et in presenti seculo et in futuro, ©
colimus et adoramus: ne serviamus creature potius quam Creatori, —
qui est benedictus in seecula. Honoramus autem reliquias martyrum, —
ut eum cujus sunt martyres adoremus. Epistola xxxvu. Hieronymi —
ad Ripar. Opera, Vol. IV. p. 279. Edit. Martianay. |

Χχ.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 547

CHAPTER XX.

Heretical Translation by adding to the Text.

Martin. Because in the last corruption I spake of adding to the Marri, 1.

text, though it be their common and universal fault in every contro-

versy, as is to be seen in every chapter of this book; yet here I will

add certain places not yet mentioned. As, “The rest of the acts of 2 Chron.
Jehoakim, and his abominations which he did, and carved images that in Bib. ‘562.
were laid to his charge, behold they are written, &c.” these words,

“carved images laid to his charge,” are more than is either in the Against
Greek, or the Hebrew. ata ni

Fulke. You forget yourself in the first place, whereof Funxe, 1.
is made mention, Chap. m1. sect. 9; where I have answered,
that our first translators added that which is the common in-
terpretation and supply of them that write upon this place;
but because that had been better in the note, than in the
text, it is corrected in two later translations”.

Martin, Again, “Saul confounded the Jews, proving (by conferring Mant, 2.
one scripture with another), that this is very Christ®.” These words, Acts Las
“by conferring one scripture with another,” are added more than is
in the Greek text; in favour of their presumptuous opinion, that con- For confer-
ference of scriptures is enough for any man to understand them, and eaten. pie
so to reject both the commentaries of the doctors, and exposition of Gia.”
holy councils, and catholic church: it is so much more, I say, than is
in the Greek text, and a notorious corruption in their bible, read daily

in their churches as most authentical. See the rest of their bibles,

[5 Omitted in the Bishops’ bible, 1584, Genevan, 1560, Authorised
version, 1611.]

[® Σαῦλος δὲ μᾶλλον ἐνεδυναμοῦτο, καὶ συνέχυνε τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους τοὺς
κατοικοῦντας ἐν Δαμασκῷ συμβιβάζων ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, Acts ix.
22. ‘“Saulus autem multo magis convalescebat, et confundebat Judeos,
qui habitabant Damasci, affirmans quoniam hic est Christus,’ Vulg.
“But Saul increased in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt
at Damascus, affirming that this was very Christ,’ Tyndale, Cranmer,
Geneva, (confirming). ‘“ Affirming that this is Christ,’ Rheims.
“Proving that this is very Christ,’ Authorised version. The part
included within brackets, which is cavilled at by Martin, is only found
in one edition, the Bishops’ bible of 1584. The passage seems to have
erept in from the margin of the Genevan version.]

35-2

ο. li. v. 16.

τίς συμβι-
ἄσει.

συμβιβά-

σεις.

»

al ᾿
Με κι
᾿

-

548 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

and thou shalt find no more, for all those words, but, “ affirming,” or
“confirming ;” and the self-same bible in the first epistle to the Co-
rinthians translateth the same Greek word thus, “ Who shall instruct?”
And indeed, that is the true and usual signification of the word, both
in the Old Testament, and in the New, as Deut. iv. “Thou shalt
teach them thy children.” And Isaiah xl. “Who shall instruct our
Lord?” the Hebrew word also in both places signifying no more,
but instructing and teaching. And so doth the apostle cite it to the
Corinthians out of Isaiah, and he useth it to the Colossians, ii. 2. in the
same signification as the church readeth and expoundeth it: and so
consequently St Luke, in the place whereof we now treat, saith nothing —
else, but that St Paul earnestly taught or instructed them that Jesus |
is Christ. And yet our new translators, without respect of Hebrew or |

Greek, have coined a new signification, of conferring one scripture with —

Foxe, 2.

Martin, 3. -

1 Pet. i. 25.
Bib. 1562.
1577

Against tra-

another. So ignorant they are in the signification of Greek words, or
rather, so wilfully malicious.

Fulke. Hither you make a loud lie, or else some one
print which you have of the Bishops’ bible, which you call
Bib. 1577, hath put that into the line, that should be the
note in the margin. For, of four translations that I have, — .
never a one hath that addition. The Bishops’ bible hath
that, chap. ix. 22, thus: ‘“ But Saul increased the more in
strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, —
affirming that, this was very Christ.” The Geneva bible
thus: “But Saul increased the more in strength, and con-—
founded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, confirming that —
this was the Christ,” where the note in the margin upon the
word, “confirming,” is this: “proving by the conference of —
the scriptures.” Thomas Matthew’s bible translateth that
verse thus: “ But Saul increased in strength, and confounded
the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, affirming that this was”
very Christ.” Master Coverdale’s bible, 1562, hath it thus:
“But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded \
Jews which dwelt at Damascus, affirming that this was very
Christ.” Thus are all our translations without that addition;
which, although it is not to be borne in the text, yet is no
heretical addition, \except you count it heresy to prove ἃ
thing by conference of scriptures. ᾿

Martin. Again, in the first epistle of St Peter they translate thus" £
“The word: of the Lord endureth ever; and this is the word which
[2 τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα Κυρίου μένει eis τὸν αἰῶνα. Τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τὸ ῥῆμα

εὐαγγελισθὲν εἰς ὑμᾶς, 1 Pet. i. 35. “ And this is the word which by ἔμ.

wn” f
hee
vil

ay

xx. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 549

by the gospel was preached unto you.” Where these words, “by the
gospel,” are added deceitfully and of ill intent to make the reader

think that there is no other word of God but the written word; for

the common reader hearing this word “gospel,” conceiveth nothing

else. But indeed all is the gospel, whatsoever the apostles taught,

either by writing, or by tradition and word of mouth, as St Paul
speaketh, 2 Thess. ii.; and St Peter saith nothing else in the place

alleged, but, “This is the word which is preached among.you,” as τὸ ῥῆμα
the Geneva bibles translate ; or more significantly, “which is evange- “ah pe
lized among you,” as we translate: for though there be greater ΛΗ
Significancy in the Greek word than is expressed by bare preaching or

telling a thing, as having a goodly relation and allusion to the word
evangelium, “ gospel ;” yet neither do they in any other place, neither Evangelizo.
can they translate it, “to preach by the gospel,” but simply, “to aaron
preach,” “to tell,” “to shew,” as, “preaching peace by Jesus Christ,” ssenaetee
Acts x. 39., (so themselves translate it,) and Psal. xcv. (or xevi. 2.) “Be tee ie:
telling of his salvation from day to day.” Which in other places is ma
spoken by other Greek words that have no signification at all of ἀπαγγεί-
gospel, as immediately in the said Psal. xcv., (or xcvi. 3.) and Psal. οἷν. Serbvel
(or cy. 1.) and Acts xiii. 5., and xvii. 3., and John i. 3. ov,

_ Fulke. The other before is not a more lewd slander, than imi
this is a foolish cavil. The Greek word signifieth not simply Furxe, 3.
“to preach,” [but “to preach*] the gospel,” or “good tidings,”

which both may, and ought to be expressed, where the phrase

of our tongue will abide it. And therefore the Geneva trans-

lation is imperfect in this place, rather than the other. When

you say “evangelized,” you do not translate, but feign a

new word, which is not understood of mere English ears; as

you do in am hundred places beside, to make the scripture

dark and unprofitable to the ignorant readers. And if the

word signifieth no more but “to preach,” ‘to tell,” “to shew,”

as you would seem to prove by a number of quotations, why

do you use that new word “evangelize?” which, if it were
understood and in use, is more than simply “to preach,”

*to tell,” “to shew.” But of all other your mad surmises,

this is the most monstrous, that this is “added to make the

reader think that there is no other word of God, but the

written word.” Doth “gospel,” I pray you, signify the writ-

ten word? The common hearer, you say, hearing this word

᾿ ‘gospel was preached among you,’ Tyndale, Geneva. ‘ Preached unto
you,’ Cranmer, Bishops’ bible, Authorised version. |
Γ᾿ These words are supplied as necessary to the sense. |

Martin, 4.

550 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH © [cu.

“ gospel,” conceiveth nothing else. 1 am persuaded there is
no such reader in England, except it be some of your viper-
ous brood, that thinketh the gospel to be nothing but the
story written by the four evangelists: whereas all true
Christians know the gospel to be contained, not only in
those stories, but also in other writings of the apostles; and
that the gospel is preached, whensoever a good sermon
teaching the way unto salvation is preached. Howsoever
the Septuaginta used the word evangelizo in the Old Testa-
ment, we are not to learn the signification thereof out οἵ.
their translation, but out of the scribes of the Holy Ghost —
in the New Testament.

Martin. All which words signify only “to tell,” “to shew,” “to
declare,” and are used indifferently for and with the other word which
they here only translate, “‘to preach by the gospel.” Whereas in all

_ other places, when they will translate it most significantly, they express

Luke ii. 10.
Acts xiii. 32.
Gal. iii. 8.
Dominus da-
bit verbum.
evangelizan-
tibus. Qui
evangelizas
Hierusalem.
Psal. Ixvii.
Isai. xl.

Εσ ΚΕ, 4.

it by “bringing glad tidings;” and in some places where it should be
expressed most significantly in respect of evangelising or preaching
the gospel, there they translate it barely “preachers,” and “ preaching.”
Only St Peter's place aforesaid must be stretched to signify, “the word
preached by the gospel,” to insinuate and uphold their heresy of the —
written gospel only, or only written word, against apostolical traditions —
not written. If this be not their meaning, let them give us a good reason
why they translate it so in this one place only.

Fulke. When we vary about the signification of the
word εὐαγγελίζειν, or indeed when we vary not in substance, —
though you must. brabble about it for a countenance, what
mean you to teach us the signification of other words, except
you would make folk believe that we know nothing but what
we learn of you? I say again, if in the New Testament we
have not fully expressed the signification of the Greek word,
εὐαγγελίζειν, either it is because our English phrase could
not express it, or else it is a fault of negligence. But in the”
Old Testament, where we have not that word, because we
translate out of Hebrew, what reason is there that you should”
exact the significancy of that word when we do not translate
it? The senseless insinuation that you dream of, I am sure
was far from the translators’ minds, seeing we have manifest
and inevitable scriptures to confound your heretical blasphemy
of the imperfection and insufficiency of the word and gospel”

xx. ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 551

of God written unto eternal salvation. And if the word
gospel,” when it is added to the text out of the verb of
evangelizing, do insinuate the heresy of the written gospel
only, why do you, Matt. i. 5, translate, pauperes evan-
gelizantur, “to the poor the gospel is preached ?” Would
you think it were an honest surmise of me to say you avoid
the name of the gospel, so often as you express it not in
translating that word, for hatred you bear the gospel? And
yet it hath more likelihood than many that you have invented
and prosecuted. against us.

Martin. It is written of Luther, that he for the self-same heresy, in Martin, 5.
his first translation into the German tongue, left out these words of Lind. Dubit.
St Peter altogether, “This is the word which is evangelized, or preached * “
to you.” Whyso? Because St Peter doth here define what is the word
of God, saying, “that which is preached to you,” and not that only which
is written: which false dealing of Luther is no small presumption against
the like heretical meaning of our English Protestants, who, I am sure, in
this point of controversy of the word written and unwritten, will not
deny that they agree with the Lutherans.

Fulke. That any such sentence was upon any purpose Funxz, 5.
left out by Luther in his translation, for my part, I believe it
not, neither upon your report, nor upon your author Linda-
nus’ credit. If the printer did omit a line, yet what reason
were it to think that Luther did it upon such a cause ? which
were to no purpose for him, except he should have left out
all those texts of scripture, where preaching of the gospel or
word of God is mentioned. What you have left out, I have
noted before; and yet I have not pronounced the cause why,
so confidently as you do of that omission, which you know
not whether it be so or no.

Martin. Again, in the Epistle of St James, they add the word Marmn, 6
“scripture” into the text, saying’, “ But the scripture offereth more Jam. iv. 6.

ει ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει; πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ
πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν ; μείζονα δὲ δίδωσι χάριν, James iv. 6.
“Either do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, the Spirit that
dwelleth in you (in us, Cranmer) lusteth even contrary to envy: but
giveth more grace,” Tyndale, Cranmer. “ Either do ye think that the
scripture saith in vain, the Spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth after
envy? but the scripture offereth more grace,’ Geneva, 1557, 1560,

Futxg, 6.

. Martin, 7.

552 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

grace:” where the apostle may say as well, and indifferently, “The
Spirit or Holy Ghost giveth more grace ;” and it is much more pro-
bable, and is so expounded of many. Let the good reader see the
circumstance of the place, and abhor their sauciness in the text of
holy scripture. ;

Fulke. The nominative case in the Greek is wanting,
which is expressed in the verse before, and in this verse is
supplied by the translators, yet printing it so in another
letter, that the reader may know it is not in the Greek; as
they do in five hundred places beside, where a verb or a
noun, or a pronoun, or any other word, must of necessity be
understood to fill up the sense, which you in your precise
translation observe not, when you add any such thing, beside
many imperfect sentences that you make, because you will
not seem to add that which in translation is no addition, but
a true translation. But here you say “the apostle may as
well understand the Holy Ghost,” as the scripture. When
there is a nominative case before that agreeth with the
verb and the sense, it is far-fetched to understand a no-
minative case of him that is not spoken of. I will set
down the whole text, that the reader may judge what
perilous addition is here committed by our translators. “Do
you think that the scripture saith in vain, the spirit that
dwelleth in us lusteth after envy? But (the scripture or)
it giveth more grace, and therefore saith, God resisteth
the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” In grammar
schools they use to examine it thus, “ who, or what giveth,
who, or what saith?” -Doth not the scripture, mentioned
immediately before, answer to these questions most aptly ?

Yet men must “abhor our sauciness,” or rather your spiteful
a Ρ |

maliciousness.

Martin. One addition of theirs I would not speak of, but only —

to know the reason why they do it, because it is very strange, and

1 know not what they should mean by it. This I am sure, if they —

do it for no purpose, they do it very foolishly and forgetfully, and

1580, Bishops’ bible, 1584. In all which editions the words “the ;
scripture” are printed in such a way as to indicate that they are —

merely added to make the text more intelligible. ‘“ Do ye think that
the scripture saith in vain, The Spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to

envy? But he giveth more grace; wherefore he saith, God resisteth
the proud,” &c., Authorised version. ]

:

xx. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 553

contrary to themselves. In the gospel of St Mark’, in the reckoning Mark iii. 16.
of the apostles, they add these words, “And the first was Simon,”

more than is in their Greek text. Which addition they learned of Bibl. 1579.
Beza, whose contradictions in this point are worthy noting. In St. Matt. x.2.
Matthew, where these words are, he suspecteth that “first” was
added by some papist, for Peter's primacy: here, where the word is
not, he avoucheth it to be the true text of the gospel, and that
because Matthew readeth so. ‘There he alleged this reason, why it
could not be said, “the first, Simon,’—because there is no conse-
quence nor coherence of second, third, fourth, &c.: here he saith
that is no impediment, because there be many examples of such
speech; and namely in the said place of St Matthew. There he
saith it is not so, though all Greek copies have it so: here it must
needs be so, though it be only found in certain odd Greek copies of
Erasmus, which Erasmus himself (as Beza confesseth) allowed not,
but thought that these words were added in them out of St Matthew.
What these contradictions mean, I know not; and I would learn the
reason thereof of his scholars, our English translators, who by their

master’s authority have made the self-same addition in their English
translation also.

Fulke. It seemeth, you like the addition well enough, Fuke, 7.
because it importeth a shadow of Peter’s primacy; but yet
your malice 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

Γ΄ καὶ ἐπέθηκε τῷ Σίμωνι ὄνομα ἹΤέτρον, Mark iii. 16. “ Et imposuit
Simoni nomen Petrus,” Vulg. “ Primum Simonem (et imposuit Simoni
nomen Petrum),” Beze 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, πρῶτον
Σίμωνα. Hee verba testatur Erasmus in nonnullis Grecis codicibus
extare, neque tamen ea admittit, sed ex Mattheo resumpta arbitratur.
Ego vero non dubito quin hee sit germana lectio. Nam preterquam
quod ita loquitur Mattheus et Lucas, nisi ita legas, versiculus proximus
incipiens a particula καὶ, 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. |

Martin, 8.

Col. i. 23.

»» ᾿ ,
οὗ ἠκούσα-
τε, τοῦ κη-
»
ρυχθέντος.

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 καὶ, shall
have no word at all with which it may be knit. But in St
Matthew, you say, he “suspected that the word ‘first’ 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
malicious 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. There is also another addition of theirs, either proceed-
ing of ignorance, or of the accustomed humour, when they trans-
late thus’: “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,” &c. For all these varieties they have,
and none according to the Greek text, which is word for word as
the vulgar Latin interpreter hath most sincerely translated it: “Un-
moveable from the hope of the gospel, which 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

Γ' Εἴγε ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ ἑδραῖοι, καὶ μὴ pera-
κινούμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὗ ἠκούσατε, τοῦ κηρυχθέντος
ἐν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν, Col. i. 28, “ Si tamen permanetis
in fide fundati et stabiles, et immobiles a spe evangelii, quod audistis,
quod predicatum est in universa creatura, que sub ccelo est,” Vulg.
“Tf 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 th
and St John in his first Epistle, ii. 24., and St Jude, 3. and 20., all tim vi
use the like exhortations. 27h ΒΆΡΕΙ.

Pulke. Were is no addition of any word that may not Funke, 8.
be comprehended in the Greek. For ov, being the genitive
case, signifieth not only “which,” but also “whereof,” or “of
which,” and κηρυχθέντος, “ that hath been, or which hath
been preached.” Here is only the poor word “how,” which
is a superfluous word, even in our English; for the sense is all
one if you leave it out : “unmoveable 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 Marzi, 9.

with Hymeneus 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 unmoveable in the faith’ and gospel which 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 Funxe, 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 [ cx.

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 evangelit quod
audistis predicati in universa creatura, &c.; but a spe
evangelit quod audistis, quod predicatum 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 Rome, 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.

χχι.} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 557

CHAPTER XXI.

Certain other Heretical Treacheries and Corruptions,
worthy of observation.

Martin. Tury hold this position, that the scriptures are not hard Marni, 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. iii.
St Paul's epistles are hard, and other scriptures also, which the un- pee ce
learned (saith he) pervert to their own destruction’; therefore they of the arte
labour tooth and nail to make this subtle difference, that St Peter saith fv; 41.
not, “ Paul’s epistles are hard,” but “some things in St Paul’s epistles ποῖ:
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 ἐν οἷς
eannot be referred to the-things, but must needs be understood of the ἐδ ἕω
epistles. Wherefore, the Greek copies being indifferent to both, and Crisp.

[! ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς, λαλῶν ἐν, αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων, ἐν
οἷς ἐστι δυσνόητά τινα, ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν, ὡς καὶ
τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὑτῶν ἀπώλειαν, 2 Pet. iii. 16. “ Sicut
et in omnibus epistolis, loquens in eis de his, in quibus sunt quedam
difficilia intellectu,” Vulg. “Ut qui in omnibus fere epistolis loquatur
de istis, inter que sunt nonnulla difficilia intellectu,” Beza.' “ Yea,
almost in every epistle, speaking of such things: among which are many
things 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 ἐν ais: the received reading by Griesbach and
Scholtz is ἐν ois. :

Inter que, ἐν οἷς. Relativum ois, ut recte observat doctissimus
interpres, non coheret cum τούτων. Beza in locum. ]}

>
ἐν ols.
>
ἐν ais.

Fu.Ke, 1.

558 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

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
only ; Beza translating, inter qu@ sunt multa difficilia, and not, in quibus,
as it is in the old vulgar translations, most sincere, and indifferent
both to epistles and things.

Fulke. We hold of the scriptures, as St Augustine
teacheth', de Doct. Chr. Lib. τι. 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 lie 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 concernmg 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

[? 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 eruitur,
quod non planissime dictum alibi reperiatur. Augustini de Doctrina
Christiana, Lib. 1. cap. vi. Vol. m1. p. 45.]

xx1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 559

your wit, but rather I think it proceedeth of the crafty
malice 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 Marin, 2.
meaning ; that is, when the Greek text is indifferent to two senses, Comuptio |
and one is received, read and expounded of the greater part of Pescineg 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’
epistle”, 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 dreipac-
evil, as well as the other? is it because of the Greek word, which is 7S κακῶν,
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.”

[2 Ὅτι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι: 6 yap Θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστι κακῶν,
πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα, James i. 195. “ 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.]

Fuxe, 2.

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. 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, ἀπείραστος κακῶν, 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 followimg the
judgment of the vulgar interpreter, that hath ¢ranslated it
actively, doth indeed make it indifferent to both significa-
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 C&cumenius upon
St James, turneth this place of scripture thus: Deus enim
malis tentart nequit. And Cicumenius in his commentary
is plain of the same judgment; for repeating the text as
before, he saith: Jurta eum qui dixit (quanquam externus
sit a nobis et a fide alienus), divina beataque natura neque
molestias sustinet neque aliis prebet'. “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 Gicumenius is collected out
of a great number of Greek doctors. But “the very cireum-
stance of the words next before,” say you, doth require it
should be taken actively. A good interpreter will consider
the cireumstances of the words following, as well as of the —
words going before. For the words following declare that

[? ᾿Απείραστος δὲ ὁ Θεὸς κακῶν, κατὰ τὸν εἰρηκότα, (κἂν τῶν θύραθέν.
ἐστιν ἡμῖν,) τὸ θεῖόν τε καὶ μακάριον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει, οὔτε
ἑτέροις παρέχει. CEcumen. in Epist. Cathol. Jacobi Comment. Vol. 1.
Ῥ. 446. | . Lig

χχι.] 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 Oicume-
nius interpret the place.

Martin. This reason is so coherent and so necessary in this place,
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
is a tempter to evil.” Is that possible to be proved? Yea, it is
possible and plain: Beza’s words be these, Inducit Dominus in
tentationem eos quos Satane 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
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 i., he translateth not passively, so as the

36

[ruLKe.|

Martin, 3.

Annot. Nov-
Test. an. 1556.
Matt. vi. 33.

Futke, 3.

562 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cn.

passive is opposite to the active, but as the one may be
resolved into the other, the same sense remaining, which
every child m the grammar school knoweth. Ego amo te,
tu amaris a me, “1 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 lived 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 Satane
arbitrio permittit, ut cor eorum impleat, sicut 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 speaketh'.” 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 —

be ’Avavia, διατί ἐπλήρωσεν 6 Σατανᾶς τὴν καρδίαν σου, Acts v. 8.
* 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, Satane arbitrio,” &c.] ᾿

XxI. | 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 hemous 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. 1s not this to say, “God is a tempter to evil,” clean Martiy, 4.
eontrary 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-

τ, in Rom.
retic of them all, wrest and wring themselves from the absurdity ar OMe ie

of this opinion, as they endeavour and labour to do exceedingly, Whit. ad Rat,
because it is most blasphemous; yet shall they never be able to 139. 10
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 προγνώσει.

prescience ?” which is so false, that.the English Bezites in their trans+ Ss

lation are ashamed to follow him.

Fulke. Beza, that said the one, defieth the other. For Fu.xr, 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

Martin, 8.

Corruption
in abusing
catholic
words.

2 Mach. vi. 7.

Bib. 1570.2
πομπεύειν
τῷ Διονύ-
σῳ.
Procession.
Bib. 1562.
1577.

Forks, 5.

564 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH.

evil,” which followeth in the very next words, “God temptetl
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 sm? 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 doctrine of God’s eternal providence and
foreappointment of all things, as we do.

Martin. Another exceeding treachery to deceive the reader is this,
that they use catholic terms and speeches in such places where they
may make them odious, and where they must needs sound odiously
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 Bacchus.”
Let the good reader see the Greek lexicon, if there be any thing in

this word like to the catholic church’s procession; or whether it —

signify so much as “to go about,” as their other bibles are translated,
which meant also heretically, but yet durst not name “ procession.”

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 πομπεύειν, it
signifieth to go in a solemn pomp, such as your processions —
are; and so doth our lexicon teach us, in pompa incedere, ~

1 7 δὲ / ε -“ » Ul \ ᾿»»
[* γενομένης δὲ Διονυσίων ἑορτῆς ἠναγκάζοντο κισσοὺς ἔχοντες πομ-

πεύειν τῷ Διονύσῳ, 2 Macchab. vi. 7.]
[? Geneva Bible, 1560.]

Ve eae Pe ee ee
λων 2

XX. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 565

“to go solemnly ina pomp’.” And if it signifieth not so much

s “to go about,” as you say, I pray you tell us, why your
vulgar Latin interpreter hath translated it by cireumire, or
whether circumire doth not signify “to go about;” or whether
the worshippers of Bacchus did not go about with garlands
of 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 Martin, 6.
kings of Judah had founded to burn incense*,” 4 Reg. xxiii. 5. So they Founded.
translate (the Hebrew being simply “to give,’ “make,” “ appoint, Ἢ 33
because in the catholic church there are foundations of chantry- oy D2
priests, chapels, diriges, &c. Neither is it sincerely, and without ill
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 Fuxxe, 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.

[* Numerous instances are adduced by Stephens in his Thesaurus
where πομπεύω has this signification. Vol. m1. pp. 199, 200.]
| Γ΄ καὶ κατέκαυσε τοὺς χωμαρὶμ ovs ἔδωκαν βασιλεῖς ᾿Ιούδα, 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 [ cnr.

Martix,7. Martin. Again, “silver shrines for Diana’,” Acts xix. 24., be-
Org ‘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.

Furxe,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
pda. found an altar*,” Acts xvii. 23. So they call the superstition of the

τα. 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.
σέβασμα. jj, 4, and Sap. xv. 17), not the manner of worshipping.

Furxz, 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 σεβάσματα,
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 applied to discredit them,
when the term of “ devotion’ ‘is indifferent, as the term of —
“religion,” either to true or to false devotion and religion ! .

Γ᾿ Ποιῶν ναοὺς ἀργυροῦς ᾿Αρτέμιδος, Acts xix. 24. ‘Silver houses,”
Wiclif. “Silver shrines,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops’ bible, Geneva,
Authorised version.]

[3 διερχόμενος yap καὶ ἀναθεωρῶν τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν, εὗρον καὶ
βωμὸν, ὅχο., Acts xvii. 28. ‘“ Preteriens 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. | 4 7

Pe nee licens gad ον

xxi] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 567

Martin. Again, “The Jews had agreed, that if any man did con- Martin, 9.
fess that he was Christ, he should be excommunicated®,” John ix. 22. ἵνα ἀποσυ-

“And Jesus heard that they had excommunicated him,” v. 35: to “47°72

γένηται.

‘make the Jews doing against them that confessed Christ sound like
‘to the catholic church’s doing against heretics in excommunicating Excommuni-

cation.

them, and so to disgrace the priest's power of excommunication;
‘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 bearers
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 like discipline to the church’s excommunica- Furs, 9.
tion had the Jews, in excluding men from their synagogues
or assemblies; and therefore of the similitude 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 Marry,
“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

[3 ἵνα ἐάν τις αὐτὸν ὁμολογήσῃ Χριστὸν, ἀποσυνάγωγος γένηται,
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.]

Matt. xxiii.

568 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH

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. 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. xxii.
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 dunstical?

᾿ doctors between noster magister and magister noster; as also

it is a like 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 applied 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 light 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 4
commandment, Matt. xxiii.

[ Dunstical, a word probably invented by the Thomists against
Duns Scotus and his followers. See Todd’s Johnson’s Dictionary,
v. Dunce. | ;

XXL | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. - 569

Martin, Contrariwise, as they are diligent to put some words Manriy,
odiously where they should not, so they are as circumspect not to”
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 i
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
“ orace,” 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 Demosth.
Demosthenes said to A’schines, τί ταῦτα; ῥήματα ἢ θαύματα ; “ What ies
are these? words or wonders?” Certainly they are wonders, and very
wonderful in catholic men’s ears; and whether it be sincere and not
heretical dealing, I appeal to the wise and indifferent reader of any sort.

Fulke.. For all the terms quarrelled at in this section, Furxe,
we have answered before; except perhaps for the term of 1}:
“love,” which is used instead of “charity,” expressing what
charity is indeed, and not as it is commonly taken of the
common people, for an effect of charity, when they call
“alms” “charity.” No man that patiently could abide the
people to be instructed, would cavil at the explication of the
word “ charity” by “love,” when in the English tongue the
word “ charity” of the common people is either not under-
stood, or taken for another thing than the Latin word cha-
ritas doth signify. As for the “ wonders of words,” that
Demosthenes spake of, I know not where more properly they
shall be found than in your affected novelties of terms, such
as neither English nor Christian ears ever heard in the
English tongue: Scandal, prepuce, neophyte, depositum,
gratis, parasceve, paraclete, exinanite, repropitiate, and
a hundred such like inkhorn’ terms. Yea, I would gladly

[? Ink-horn : pedantic, such as “smell of the ink-horn.” Gascoigne. |

Rom. ii.
Acts xx.

570 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH _[cu.

know why, among so many Greckish and Latinlike terms,
gazophylacium is not a ‘gazophilace,” but “a treasury ;” ence-

nia, “the dedication,” and not “the encenes;” as well as pasce
P ,

“ Pentecost,” azymes, parasceve. Belike the church must

have treasure, and the “feast of dedication” must not lie hid

in a new-found term. Why should adventus be sometime

“the coming,” and sometime “the advent,” except it were
for the sound of the time of advent, before the feast of

the nativity of Christ? Why should Latin words be trans-
lated in Greekish terms ? as scissuras into “ schisms,” wmu-
latores, “ zelators,” and such like? These, and such other,

‘be “wonders of words,” that wise men can give no good
reason why they should be used.

xxi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 571

CHAPTER XXII.

Other Faults, Judaical, Profane, Mere Vanities, Follies,
and Novelties.

. Martin. Now leaving matters of controversy, let us talk a little Manny, 1.
with you familiarly, and learn of you the reason of other points in
your translation, which to us seem faults, and savour not of that
spirit which should be in christian catholic translators.

Fulke. Our translations, as near as the translators could Futxe, 1.

see the truth, are even and just with the original text; the

sense whereof, if it do not always contain such excellent

matter as the Septuaginta or vulgar Latin translation have
supposed, there is no cause why our translators should be
blamed, whose office is to regard what the original truth is,

and not to draw it for any respects to another meaning than

the Spirit of God expresseth in those words.

Martin. First, you are so profane, that you say, “The ballad of Marriy, 2.
ballads of Solomon,” so terming that divine book, Canticum canticorum,
containing the high mystery of Christ and his church, as if it were
a ballad of love between Salomon and his concubine, as Castaleo
wantonly translateth it. But you say more profanely thus: “ We have Isai. xxvi. 18.
conceived, we have borne in pain, as though we should have brought
forth wind*.” I am ashamed to tell the literal commentary of this
your translation: why might you not have said, “ We have conceived,
and, as it were, travailed to bring forth, and brought forth the spirit ?”

Is there anything in the Hebrew to hinder you thus far? Why would
you say “wind,” rather than “spirit?” knowing that the Septuaginta
in Greek, and the ancient fathers, and St Jerome himself, who trans- ambr. lib. 2.
lateth according to the Hebrew, yet for sense of the place, all expound Se toys.
it both according to Hebrew and Greek, of the Spirit of God, which ™ Ps: vi

rope finem.

is first conceived in us, and beginneth by fear, which the scripture δὸς δ Je,
calleth the beginning of wisdom; insomuch that in the Greek there this place.

are these goodly words, famous in all antiquity: ‘‘Through the fear

[" Διὰ τὸν φόβον σου, Κύριε, ἐν γαστρὶ ἐλάβομεν, καὶ ὠδινήσαμεν, καὶ
ἑτέκομεν πνεῦμα σωτηρίας σου, Isai. χχγὶ. 18 ;

Fux, 2.

572 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cx.

of thee, O Lord, we conceived, and have travailed with pain, and have
brought forth the spirit of thy salvation, which thou hast made upon
the earth.” Which doth excellently set before our eyes the degrees
of a faithful man’s increase, and proceeding in the spirit of God, which
beginneth by the fear of his judgments, and is a good fear, though
servile, and not sufficient; and it may be, that you, condemning with
Luther this servile fear, as evil and hurtful, mean also some such
thing by your translation. But indeed the place may be understood
of the other fear also, which hath his degrees, more or less.

Fulke. I marvel why this word “ballad” should seem
to you to be profane, more than this word “song,” or “ can-
ticle.” Songs and canticles be many as ill as any ballads.
But the other matter is of great weight, Esai. xxvi., where,

for “ the spirit,” we translate “ wind,” which is such an ab-

1D
m1?
son

surdity, that you are “ ashamed to tell the literal commentary
of this our translation.” Belike you are afraid of such a fault
as St Lambert, in your legend, is reported to have com-
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 similitude 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-
tion; for the word chemo, quasi, “as it were,” is placed before
the word jaladhenu, which signifieth “bringing forth,” and
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 like
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 English, as the prophet hath said Furxe, 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. exlvii.,
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 Marri, 4.
for the angel’s honour that carried Abacuck, ‘He set him into Ba-

ἐν ῥοίζῳ
τοὺ πνεύ-
ματος
αὐτοῦ.

FuLkE, 4.

Martin, 5.

Bib. 157).
Vulg.

TN.

574 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cn.

bylon, over the lake by the force of his spirit’;” but thus, “through
a mighty wind, ’—so attributing it to the wind, not to the angel's power,
and omitting clean the Greek pronoun αὐτοῦ, “his,” which sheweth
evidently, that it was the angel’s spirit, force, and power.

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 ῥοῖζος, which is a force with a noise, is more
apt to the wind, than to the Spirit: and in other writers
πνευμάτων ῥοῖζος 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 αὑτοῦ, but αὐτοῦ, whereof you
made great difference, as indeed there is difference, in another
case.

Martin. Again, where the prophets speak most manifestly of Christ,
there you translate clean another thing, as Isaiah xxx. 20.; when St
Jerome translateth thus, and the church hath always read accord-
ingly: on faciat avolare a te ultra doctorem tuum; and, Erunt oculi
tui videntes preceptorem tuum®: that is, “ And (our Lord) shall not cause
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,
“1 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. 29, where the holy church readeth,
“Rejoice, you children of Sion, in the Lord your God, because he
hath given you the doctor of justice*®;” there you translate, “the rain

[? Bel and the Dragon, v. 39. ]

[ἢ Kal δώσει Κύριος ὑμῖν ἄρτον θλίψεως, καὶ ὕδωρ στενὸν, Kal οὐκ
ἔτι μὴ ἐγγίσωσί σοι οἱ πλανῶντές σε" ὅτι οἱ ὀφθαλμοί σου ὄψονται τοὺς
πλανῶντάς σε, Isai. xxx. 20. ““Απᾷ 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.]

[Γ᾿ Kat τὰ τέκνα Σιὼν χαίρετε καὶ εὐφραίνεσθε ἐπὶ τῷ Κυρίῳ Θεῷ
ὑμῶν, δίοτι ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν τὰ βρώματα εἰς δικαιοσύνην, Joel ii. 29, ““Θαυϊᾷ

XXII. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 575

of righteousness.” Doth the Hebrew word force you to this? You See *™*
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 Lyte ἩΜ
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- Furxe, 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, applied to the like
end. God be thanked! there be plain and evident testi-
monies of Christ in the scripture, which no malice 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 ΓΤ
to signify a “ doctor,” “teacher,” or “master :” first, it
seemeth you have your Hebrew but from hand to mouth:
for chap. ii. sect. 25, where as we translate, moreh shaker, ma)
‘a teacher of lies,” Abacuck 11, you say, we translate another “pw

dedit vobis doctorem justitie,” Vulg. “For he hath given you the rain
of righteousness,” Geneva, 1560. ““ For he hath given you the former
yain moderately,” Authorised version. |

[* Els τὴν κοιλάδα τοῦ κλαυθμῶνος, εἰς τὸν τόπον ὃν ἔθετο: καὶ yap
εὐλογίας δώσει 6 νομοθετῶν, Psal. lxxxiii. 6. “In valle lacrymarum in
loco, quem posuit,”’ Vulg. Psal. Ixxxiv.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.

πορεύσονται ἐκ δυνάμεως εἰς δύναμιν, Psal. Ixxxiii. 7. “ Etenim
benedictionem dabit legislator,” Vulg. Psal. lIxxxiv. 7. ‘They go from
strength to strength,” Geneva version, 1560, Authorised version.] _

Martin, 6.

Isai. xxxiii.

Futxe, 6.

576 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [oH.

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 717°, 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 Ixxxiv. after he hath told you how Jerome
translateth it, he telleth you how R. 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 Psalm Ixxxiv. 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. And again, where St Jerome translateth, and the church
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. The word “stability*,” Esai. Χχχῆ, 6. χε
cludeth not faith, but sheweth wherein faith is grounded. ~

[2 Ἔν νόμῳ παραδοθήσονται, Isaiah xxxiii. 6. “Εἰ erit fides in tem-
poribus tuis,” Vulg. “And there shall be stability of thy times,”

᾿
|

Xx. | 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- Marr, 7.
cerning Christ, “Cease from the man whose breath is in his nostrils ; Isai. ii.
for wherein is he to be esteemed??” you would say I did you wrong,
because it is so pointed now in the Hebrew: whereas you know very ΓΙ
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 2?” |
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- ἐν τινὶ ἐλο-
body or some thing ;” as St Paul speaketh of the chief apostles, and Hina | 6.
it is our phrase in the commendation of a man.

-Fulke. So long as you acknowledge we have translated Funxs, 7.
truly according te the Hebrew text that we read, there is no
reason that you should burden us with false imterpretation,
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. ]

[? Geneva Bible, 1560. Παύσασθε ὑμῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπον; ᾧ ᾧ ἀναπνοὴ
ἐν μυκτῆρι αὐτοῦ" ὅτι ἐν τίνι ἐλογίσθη αὐτός ; Isaiah ii. 22. “Quiescite
ergo ab homine, cujus spiritus in naribus ejus est, quia excelsus re-
putatus est ipse,” Vulg. ‘Cease therefore from man, in whose nostrils
there is wrath : for wherein is he to be accounted of?” Bishops’ bible,
1584. “Fear not ye then any man, whose breath is in his ncany:
For what is he of reputation?” Cranmer, 1562. |

37

[FuLKE. |

578 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ou.

breath was in his nostrils,’ and therefore he was of no
strength, even as David useth the same argument, Psalm
exlvi. for the purpose. The Chaldee paraphrase also did
read even as the Septuaginta.

Martin, 8. Martin. The like excuse you would have by alleging the Hebrew
vowels, if you were told that you much obscure a notable saying of
the prophet concerning Christ, or rather the speech of Christ himself

Hos. xii. 10. by his prophet, saying: “I have spoken by the prophets, and I have
multiplied vision, and in the hand of the prophets (that is, by the
prophets) have I been resembled.” Which latter words do exceedingly

express that all the prophets spake of Christ, as our Saviour himself
ggg xxiv. declareth, “ Beginning from Moses and all the prophets to interpret

Actsiii. unto the two disciples the things that concerned him;” and as St
Peter saith in these words, “ All the prophets from Samuel, and that
spake after him, did tell of these days.” This prophecy then being

ἐν χερσὶ so consonant to these speeches of the New Testament, the Greek also

pang ts sd being word for word so, the Hebrew by changing one little prick (which

DIN the latter Jews have added at their own pleasure) being fully so, as we

+ -": yead with the Catholic church; why pretend you the Jews’ authority —
my DAN to maintain another less 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 ?

Foxe, 8. Fulke. Seemg our Saviour Christ hath promised that
never a prick of the law shall perish®, 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
Ehe Hebeww also some later Catholic men, that so translate the Hebrew. But. the
tainruleto difference between them and you jis, that they, with reverence and
τωρ a id
[? Kal λαλήσω πρὸς προφήτας, καὶ ἐγὼ ὁράσεις ἐπλήθυνα, καὶ ev
χερσὶ προφητῶν ὡμοιώθην, 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 ministration of
prophets,” Cranmer, 1562. “1 have also spoken by the prophets, and
I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes by the ministry of the
prophets,” Geneva, 1560. ]

[? See p. 55.]

XXL. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 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 SND
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 like 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, retaming the word assimula- Furxe, 9.
tus sum, doth thus expound it in his note: Hoc est volunta-
tem ~meam similitudinibus 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-catholics, 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. xliv.’ :
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,’ Marrin,
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 Faults in the
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 ἐμὴν
the Hebrew text, you bring three examples, which, if they ὦ
were all faults, contain no matter of doctrine whereby we

Γ᾿ pp. 79, 80.]
37—2

Martin,
11.

Bib. 1579.

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 Britannie, 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. Likewise, where the Hebrew saith, “ Zedechias his brother,”
meaning the brother of Joachim, you translate, “ Zedechias his father’s
brother,” as indeed the truth is, according to the Greek, and to the
scripture, 2 Kings xxiv. 19.; and therefore your bible, which followeth
the Hebrew here also, translating, “his brother,” yet in the margin

putteth down as more true, “uncle.”

Fulke. This argueth no fault in the Hebrew text, but
gross ignorance of the Hebrew tongue in you, which knew —
not that ach signifieth, not only a “brother,” but also any —
other kinsman, as the “uncle,” “cousins,” and such like; 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. iii. and —
iv. Finally, it is a thing so commonly known to them which ~
have but a little 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 patrwwm, as —
you may see in the bible printed by Plantin, 1567. "

χχπ.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 581

Martin. Likewise in another place the Hebrew is so out of frame, Manrin,
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 sée 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. τ δομέ le

Fulke. The third fault you find is, 1 Chron. ii. 18., Furxs,
where the interpreters are deceived while they take eth for |”
a sign of the accusative case, which in that place, as in divers D8
other, is taken for a preposition, “of” or “by ;” as, Gen. iv. mime
Eve saith, “I have obtained a son,” eth Jehovah, “of the VYITMR
Lord,” or “by the Lord’s gift,” &c. Gen. xliv. “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 Jerioth';” that
is, he had children by these two women, Azuba his 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 exactly
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 18
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

[? Kai Χαλὲβ vids ᾿Ἐσρὼμ ἔλαβε τὴν Τ'αζουβὰ γυναῖκα, καὶ τὴν ᾿Ιεριώθ:
καὶ οὗτοι υἱοὶ αὐτῆς. Caleb vero filius Hesron accepit uxorem nomine
Azuba. de qua genuit Jerioth. Vulg. 1 Paralip. ii. 18.]

Isai. xXxvii.
22

παρθένος,
θυγάτηρ.
τὴν κεφα-

λὴν αὐτῆς.

582. A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.

despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn: O daughter of Jerusalem,
he hath shaken his head at thee.” In the Hebrew, Greek, St Jerome's
translation and commentary, it is clean contrary: “The.virgin daugh-
ter of Sion hath despised thee,” (Ὁ Assur:) “the daughter of Jeru-

ΤῊ salem hath shaken her head at thee.” All are the feminine gender,
> mys and spoken of Sion literally, and of the church spiritually triumphing
* 7%: over Assur and all her enemies: you translate all as of the masculine

Alleluia.
Bib. 1577.

m7

FuLKE,
13.

Martin,
14.

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
not the reason of your doings, why you have left out Alleluia nine
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. Jt seemeth that our translators followed too
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 exly. it is not in the

Hebrew; but in the other five psalms it is both m the ©

beginning and in the end of every one of them.

Martin, Again, you translate thus: “Many which had seen the
first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their

ee! νι... πῶ | ee a a ....

xxi. | 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 their
eyes, wept.” You imagined that it should be meant, they saw Salo-
mon’s temple, when it was first founded; which because it was un-
possible, therefore you translated otherwise than is 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 Fuuxe,
of both translations, and the sense is all one, whether *

_ beiasedho be referred to the first house, named before, or 102

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. 18.) Marmiy,
“On the right hand of mount Olivet,” rather than as it is in the ai πὸ
vulgar Latin; and why, “Ye abject of the gentiles, Isaiah xlv. 20. ~
rather than “ye that are saved. of the gentiles;” you belike know mew Dn

some reason, we do not, neither by the Hebrew, nor the Greek. οἱ σωζόμε-
20, ἀπὸ τῶν
θνῶν.

Fulke. The Geneva bible hath according to the He- oS
brew, ‘the mount of corruption,” which was indeed the oN)
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;”
but in this place, in detestation of the idolatry, is ane e
maschith, signifying “corruption,” as Bethel was called
Bethaven, Osee iv. 15.

In Esai. xlv. two of our translations have, according to
the usual signification of the Hebrew word, pelitei, “you that 29
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. xliy. translateth it, “‘of them that fled,” or “fugitives.”

Meeks

Martin. Howbeit in these lesser things, (though nothing in the Marr,
scripture is to be counted little,) you might perhaps more freely have 16
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

ὅ84 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH

Bib, 1562. you do most evidently in your most authentical translations, saying
Deut. xxiii, 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.”

Pwr n RS) What is this to say, but that usury is not here forbidden, unless
ΡῈ hurt the party that borroweth? which is so rooted in most men’s

ΠΣ hearts, that they think such usury very lawful, and daily offend
wo) mortally that way. Where Almighty God in this place of holy scrip-

οὐκ ἐκτο- ture hath not a word of hurting, or not hurting, (as may be seen
ddehoa by the Geneva bibles,) but saith simply thus: “Thou shalt not lend
σου τόκον to thy brother to usury, usury of money, manry: of meat, usury of

ἐργυρίων, anything that is put to usury.’

“a ga Mark the Hebrew and the Greek, and see and be pais
: that you strain and pervert it,-to say for Non fenerabis 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
Ibid. v.20. 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.

Furxe, Fulke. You say well, that in the scripture nothing is
16, 17. to be counted little; and therefore even in these little things
we have endeavoured to follow the Hebrew, and have so

well followed it, that though you say much, yet you can

prove little against us. But concerning this text of usury,

whereof you would make us great patrons, it is marvel that
Tw 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
TW 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 Marri,
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, Bib. 1379.
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. 11.
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. Παρ ery τ
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. 29, for, “to the end that ἵνα μὴ λυθῇ
the law of Moses be not broken.” And, “the Son of man must suffer ὁ νόμος.
many things, and be reproved of the elders,’ Mark viii. 31, for, “be ἀποδοκι-
rejected ;” as in the psalm, “the stone which the builders rejected,” μα σθῆναι.
we say not, “reproving’ of the said stone, which is Christ. And
νεόφυτος, “a young scholar,” in all your translations falsely. And, “Simon 1 Tim. iii.
of Chanaan,” or “ Simon the Cananite,” who is called otherwise Zelotes, Mark iii.
that is, “zealous,” as an interpretation of the Hebrew word Cananeus ;
which I marvel you considered not, specially considering that the
Hebrew word for “ zealous,” and the other for a “Cananite,” begin with ,5 Ρ
diverse letters. And, “lest at any time we should let them slip,” for,
“Jest we slip or run by,” and so be lost.

Fulke. The first in Can. vii. is doubtless the printer’s Foren
fault, who did read in the written copy one cipher too much. !
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 See . son,
of whom came the Arabians, that dwelt in tents.” In the
third place, Esai. vu. 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 myn?
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 ἐνεργεῖν may be taken pas-
sively, as ἀσκεῖν, Beza in Mare. 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

Ann. 1562.
Matt. xxii.

Matt. xxiv.

Mark ν.
Matt. xxv.
Eph. iii.

Tit. i.

FuukKe,
19... "

586 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu.

signifieth “beasts,” that are possessed, and of possession
they be called κτήνη; 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 μὴ might be translated, “so that the law of Moses be not
broken,” as perhaps it may; but hereof I will not determine:
commonly ἵνα signifieth “to the end ;” yet is there no un-
godly sense contained in this translation. The seventh,
Mar, vii. 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 English. 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.
u., 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, like 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 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 ;” κιβωτὸν, “a ship ;” θόρυβον, “wondering ;” σβέννυται,
“are gone out :” ἐξουσίαν, “ 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 differmg 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
°

Xx. | 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,” ἐξουσίαν, I know
not where you mean, except it be Mark xii. where Erasmus
noteth that he hath read in some copy οὐσίαν, “ substance,”
which seemeth to agree aptly with the place. In the text,
Eph. ii. 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 small negligences or ignorances, Martin,
such as you will pardon us also, if you find the like. Neither do we 20.
greatly mislike that you leave these words, urim and thummim, and
chemarim, and ziims, and iims, untranslated, because it is not easy to Deut. xxxiii.
express them in English: and we would have liked as well in certain os ma
other words which you have translated, “images,” “images,” and still Hamanim.
“images,” being as hard to express the true signification of them as adultes.
the former. And we hope you will the rather bear with the late Mipntetecth-
Catholic translation of the English Testament, that leaveth also certain ®°™- *¥-
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. Furxe,
That you mislike us not for not translating a few words *™
whose signification is unknown, or else they cannot be aptly
expressed in the English 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

Martin,
21.

Bib. 1579.
Demosth.

2 Chron.
XxXXvi. 6.

σ. 32.

Fol. 172. 173.
160.

Epistle to the
Queen.

Bibl. 1562.
2 Kings xv.
16.

Cal fil.

FuLkKE,
21.

588 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ou.

signifying “ images,” and of your translator they be called
either imagines, simulacra, sculptilia, idola, &c. Our
English 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 so much matter by them, as you do, St Augustine 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. 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
rather Hebrew to them than English; pada σεμνῶς ὀνομάζοντες, as
Demosthenes speaketh, uttering with great countenance and majesty.
“Against him came up Nabuchadnezzar, king of Babel,” 2 Par. xxxvi. 6.,
for “ Nabuchodonosor, king of Babylon ;” “Saneherib,” for “Sennacherib ;”
“‘Michaiah’s prophecy,” for “ Michea’s ;” “ Jehoshaphat’s prayer,” for
* 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
translation, “ Elisa,’ for “ Eliseus;’ “Pekahia” and “Pekah,” for
* 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
understand you as well, as when your preachers say, “ Nabucad-
nezer, king of Babel.”

Fulke. Seeing the most of the proper names of the
Old Testament were unknown to the people before the scrip-
ture was read in English, 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 declination, 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-7?- _
resh, Darianesch, Beltzezzer, and the like, for Ezechias, Ezekiel, [7 °"™
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 Micheeas, 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 is an old heretical fashion, noted by
Eusebius, Lib. iv. c. 10, and by the author of the imperfect commen-
taries upon St Matthew, Ho. xliv., and by St Augustine, Lib. iii. c. 26.,
contra Cresconium.

Fulke. That Zuinglius is no patriarch of ours, you may Furxs,
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 framing 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 Irenzeus writeth, in bap-
tizmg. 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, Ste et modo heretict
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

Martin,
23.

J ehovah,
mm

Funke,
23.

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.

Martin. What shall I speak of your affectation of the word
Jehivah (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 his commentaries; and I would know of. them
the reason why in the Hebrew bible, whensoever this word is joined
with Adonai, it is 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 of the 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 English 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 Adonat,
it is to be read Elohim: you should rather demand why it
is otherwise pointed, when it is jomed 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. | 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 Marry,

bound unto you, for giving them, instead of God's blessed word and aes

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 English na- Fuuxy,
tion been, since God hath given learned translators, to ex- 24,
press in our mother tongue the heavenly mysteries of his
holy word, delivered to his church in the Hebrew and Greek
languages. Who, although they have in some matters, οὗ.
no importance unto salvation, as men, been deceived; yet
have they faithfully delivered 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. xii., for
placuerunt you translate latuerunt, 2 Pet. i., for coinquina-
tionis, which is in the text, you translate coinguinationes,
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 THE
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 PAGE

Gen. iv. 7. num. 28. num. 9...125, 390 | Canticles viii. 6. num. 46............. 152

xiv. 18. num. 42............ 147, 513 num. 5... S71

XXXVii. 35. NUM, 7...... 02000000 286 | Isai. ii. 22. num. 7........ piegae cats 577

Was SII. AB ρει κυ νυ es an 297 BEV. 18... Ὄρος, 571

2 Kings xxiii. 5, num. 6. ............ 565 XXX. 20, NUM, 5......0000.-00 00 574

2 Chron. xxviii. 19, num. 10........ 579 22. NUM. QB....0..0.0daee 00s 208

xxxvi. 8. num. 19.......... 202 XXXiii. 6. mum. 6... ine. scey abe 576

ET ey 547 | Jer. vii. 18. num, 9..............00.-- .. 632

ΤΣ 1x, Be TM EG. τ. ρον εύενετιν 444 xi, 99. nam. δι τορος 519

Peal UCU Fotis idcsinassccewshoyeeevs 575 xliv. 19. num, 9..........0c.0c000 532

Ixxxvi. 13. num, 138............ 299 | Dan. iv. 24..num. 18...........:0s0000: 446

Mum, 46. sce ors. 152 Vi, wen teh, ἜΣ ee ey 336

Ixxxix. 48, num. 14............ 301 5 ΤᾺ, nem, 18: ἰὸν τλνρ ob pie tenek 444

po ft | OR a ΕΥ̓ OR ἃ ἐλ ὙΌΣ 542 ΧΙ; 4. num. 26.2... secdeceenens 212

χύνει δον, ddchacs spo ἀὐρλυ λον aes §42 12, 17. 20. num, 16......... 517
CRs Racin hands nile Sapeeaxinte rel 332 | Hosea xii. 10. num. 8................. 578

OME is ess usonens pak ΠΡ cep vackas 542 xiii. 14. num, 46.,............. 152

CER RIK AG ΑΝ ΠΣ es hee 526 num. 165 λον ΤῈ 303
cxlvii, 19. 18. num, 3.....332, 573 | Joel ii, 23..............ccseceeecnwee cee eee 574
Proved. 12. mui. ὭΣ, νιον, ταις tees 309 | Hab. ii. 18. num. 23. num. 4...208, 573
ix. 2. num, 21. cum sequent. 522 | Mal, ii. 7. num. 17...........-...c0ee0es 481

ἘΑ͂Ν cs rea thetoscee satin nsiee 310 iL, 1. mete, “DB ΤΥ ΤΑῚ 483

mec STN GS πον ΣΝ ΙΝ 309 14. num 17s Bae couvnee 445
Canticles vi. 9. num. 10................ 237 : >

‘APOCRYPHA.

Wisd. iii. 14. num. 3...............++ 419 | 1 Macc. i. 51............. sais tboebin voees 332
KV: 1; MOM. θυ λυ si 213 ΚΕ ΑΘ τ 332
Ecclus. v. 5. mum, 4......0.c0.es0cesees 420 | 2 Mace. vi. 7. nUM, δι ον. ἐν. .Ἐς, 564

Vike BL iad εν, coe thw td as 460

—— oe

—— ὑπ ἷΝ

ee

[ruLKE. |

ἡ Δ Ὁ ων ων τῶν ων r ν "
INDEX. 593.
NEW TESTAMENT.
PAGE PAGE
Matt. i. 19. 25. num. 4........... 336, 535 | 2Cor. v. NUM. δι νειν κε σεις 409
fi 6 ιν aia’ lassUbWedbesewObeees 486 Vie dna .5 ποι δκδτς 382
PSSM hk scoscesncecccageavanss 428 16, nant: B,nccctisncdons 181
EVE ΜΝ τ, F....0.cccccccus ses 225 WiLL, AGN, Bi cccshecntedsonavenns 462
WAIN δ τ Δ: 230 | Gale v. 20. num. 9.1... νυ δῷ 221
MPT Be ne oins bie BARS Saipan 235. Eph. i. 6. sume Fe csiicminoas 410
xix. 1}, 12. num. 8............ 388 | Eph. i. 22. num. 2............-.22+:+0+ 226
num, 16........... 480 Be. 23, nua. «suc. 55 Fasesen 231
BE Vlesspsagssdicaronvesshasitns ois 497 Hi. 12, num. 3 > i.:....000 deb nos 378
Mark x. 52. num: δ," νον ρον τινος 425 NUM. δὴ. ρει οξ τον 421
RIV», Ae. νου ΠΣ νετεῖ. κνν.... 497 WMD. ci. « beacss anaes 492
Luke i, 28. num. 43................... 149 δι δι G.-t50. vevenappetideavace 100
Oe eee 528 pO RR ΠΡ Ὁ 179
es a ee 332, 336 Dee MAIN, BAS ικυυον ον δι τής 219
kD ee reas 428 2B. θᾶ, 9... ce Roane 226
viii. 48. 50. num. 9............ 425 | Phil. ii. 15. mum. 4.......ccecsceeeease 464
Xviii, 42. num. 9...............- 425 ἦγ: 3. MUM, {ιν νυν casstencensain 475
xxii, 20. num. 10............... 6 ἢ Col, 1.28, nam. 17... sn cicccenssceacveuss 362
, Bm ἢ ays ickecvsc. 512 Zo. BUM, G, ...0s02-sesseseceveses 554
Semen SER WOM. Po 5..5 ore vcncvacscese 375 $F. 90, ὙΠΟ, &... ocusvuastvannosincs 107
ix. 22, 23. num. ............... 567 Tihs tee SPAS I, «pacar es tucomunnes 100
Bi, TG. Wee, 4. 5... seyeevcss 462 BMG. Ti ancsnacsnentbaaxotane 179 —
Mare Es BO. TMS 8000. ioc ccssclecccs: 465 ἘΝ, Τὰς το, scons sataxonnes 191
ii. 27. num. 3, 4, 5.............:. 281 | 2 Thess. i. 5. num. 5.............-..++ 338
ἩΓΕ TAG Fs oocce nese ae 506 ἘΠ χη: 15.2.2 occas 359
Ὧν 19. τή, F.....;..-scanareeere 462 iy 85, MUM. SD, accsecetetasesen 166
Be. 5 ea Bo estes 547 Bibi Soadvcekencouzuhews cea tnes νὸς. 1606
ΧΙ. 29, rie. ἤιντι γόον δὴν... Φ45 ΚΓ Benne γι. 9. eth Fics «deena ons 460
δ FAs γον; πόδ... 466 PUIG. Osccacses -<otaeans 462
xv. 2. 4. 6. 22, 23. num. 4, 243, 244 8. 15, num. δ᾽. 460, 226
ἘΠ δ ΜΝ, © leis se sccv dak 244 iv. 14, num. 8............249, 467
t Xvii. 23, num. δ... τσ: 566 Ve bia FG. WAN, Di eess.5 atau 250
ἘΠΕ ὙΦ ΗΝ, GF vccd cs os-ncieneschs RSet Se Elis Te Og MGI. 1|00...... το ο ρος υτνο 470
MME. Dacsc cas senvevcsencs 452 Wee Ὁ, UN προ. cise cs sons pore 337
SK. ae, 20, tum, 21...../....-. 486 | Tit. iii. 8. num. ]9..................... 448
By, tam, &,.......:.... 248 WO; ren 13. τ ecaeve sss snes 111]
Rom, ii 26. nam, 1 ..................: 332 ii Boe, esa ces nah ae ceee 221
v. 6. 18. num. 13.......... 396, 401 | Heb. ii. δὲ num. 6..................... 349
viii. 18, 38. num. 3....... 343, 419 ν he RUT SO pond > ταρ κάναν Σ τῶν 150
sy βθα Ε ΨΕΣΩΝΑ 386 TOU bf iiccssadesscecesevenee 322
xi. 4. num. 19............ NE ιν. Wi, ἘΠ. RUD, ϑιροον 2s ene 338
ΟΣ ΣΝ ap, ee 220 ΤΙ ΙΉΜΗΝ ele te SF 416
eR MPR On scseecscssccencewes 107 Wee ES Ls νυν νυ ss saoe τον 357
Sk oy a ei 516 Fey MUI Os cccbake i ecseaks aes 416
ΝΙΝ S Blevescvncscoceundaes 518 ba PS PE 1 LAS Sse 539
xi. 2. num, 2, 3.......... 166, 168 ΧῊ, 3 DRE Bie. os san canner 226
Ne Ee 376 xiii, 4. num. 14................ 476
Ws HUI, Φ.......Ὁ csverseets 494 Bum. 482.5... 44504 150
Bp. Tam. 16. ......505:.-.. aoe | Jamies 1.18, name 2... 6... sisccsueceess 559
2 Cor. ii. 10. num. 20..........000.066 . 485 ἢ ἘΞ το ας ἈΨΕΝΕΝΕ μον, λει 551
Wee ada MUNI. Goncsccastvas sacdess 349 | 1.Pet. i. 18. 25. num. 6................ 173

594 oe cess

PAGE
1 Pet, 1, 18. 26. nam. 33.4.1... ον ορένο 548 | 2 Pet. iii. 16. num. 1..................
+ i. 18. mam, 5.0, ον ἡ 488 | 1 John v. 3. num. 14...................
ii. 13. mum. 24, 2...........4.. 490 21. nump-18.,.2a420b bw,
v. 1. num. 9 251 | Rev. xix. 8. num. 3.......... ᾿

BEZA’S CORRUPTIONS.

Psal. li. 6. num, 26> ........2..0.00005 122 | Acts xxvi. 20. num. 1 ...............
Matt. xxiii. num. 10.................. 567 | Rom. iv. 11. num. 2 .................8
Avis 2. ‘14; 0m. 99-58. 473 | 1 Cor. xii. 31. num. 8 ..... 4

11, 23. mam BY Sees). ccesewees 128 xili..2. numi6 ΠΕ ΟΣ ΕΝ

26 MDM HDA es ek 129 av. 10. num. 29 ssdeedeeen

ye EC τεῆς, ον tl ees ΒΕΌΟΡ ΤΣ 128 | 2 Thess. ii. 3. num. 3. ......... ΣΝ

num. 2 280 | Tit. iii. 5, 6. num, 46....... Rs otal wa

SH δ] exten. BG es ἃ 130 WII Ohba de ane ytaonrabe

+i 90, sam: Ὁ Soe As 403 7 Heb. -v. 7. num, 59...
xxvi. 20. num, 45,....:......... 150 na

INDEX OF MATTERS, &c.

A.

ADDITIONS to the text, allegation of,
examined, 547—556.

Altar, 110, 111, 112; translations con-
cerning it examined, 497525.

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, difference

between, 464.

Aquarii, a sect of heretics, 522.

Arias Montanus, 55, ὅθ, 79.

Aristotle, his meaning of δικαίωμα,
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
of the Latin interpretation, 48; not ad-
dicted entirely tothe Latin translation,
79; 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, id.; 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 πληροφορία, 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, 48: iii. 36, 43; xxii. 20,
511.—John vi. 11, 499; Acts ii. 23,
128; 24, 43; iii. 21, 130, 131, 158;
vii. 14, 48 ; 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; ν. 18, 160, 402.
—Hebrews v. 7, 127; his translations
not followed by English Protestants,
154; his rendering of μετάνοια, 155;
reasons why he refused the word
penitentia, 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

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, 2], 72, 91;
by Jug, 422; by Coverdale, 548.

Bishops not superior to priests in au-
thority of handling the sacraments,
461 ; superior for government, id.

Blasphemies of Romanist writersagainst
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.

C.

Cadaver, 84, 112, 280.

Calfhill, 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, #b.; 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. 3955 says justification is of God,

INDEX .

410, 411; his opinion of the election
of Matthias, 466; of apostles’ mar-
riages, 475, 478, 479; of the 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.

Circumire, 565.

Civil contract, 492.

Clemens Alexandrinus, 9, 473 ; says
the apostles had wives, 472.

Codex Beze, 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.
Dignor, 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, ὅσο.

E.

Ecclesia, meaning of the term, 58, 90,
229, 231; synagogue of the Jews
so called by St Luke and Augus-
tine, 227.

Ecclesiasticus, by Augustine’s rule, not
to be received, 20; not received by
apostolic churches, 20; or Reform-
ers, id.

_ Elders, 246, 251.

Election, popular, Whitgift’s opinion
of, 466.

Energumeni, 258.

Epiphanius, 194, 481.

Episcopius, 110, 266.

Erasmus, his translation of μετάνοια;
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 Irenzus concern-
ing it, 503; of Chrysostom, 502; of
Basil, ib.; of Justin Martyr, 504;
of Gcumenius, 505.

Eusebius, 16; exhorts to keep apos-
tolical traditions, 165.

Exomologesis, 457.

F.

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-

597

broke College, Cambridge, and Vice-
chancellor, ἐδ. ; his disputations with
the Papists, ἐδ. ; 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, ἐδ.

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.

ὅ98

I.

Idiota, 462; idiote, 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 Wuther’s
translation of Rom. iii. 17, 28, 154,
159.

Image, 218, 219.

Images and idols, the same in the mind
of Jerome, 188.

Images, conduct of Epiphanius con-
cerning, 194; opinion of Tertullian,
ib. ; of Irenzus, ib.; worshipping of,
forbidden by the scriptures, 206.

Imago, 103, 105, 179—216.

Inferi, 368, 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.

Irenzus, 194, 271; his sentiments con-
cerning the eucharist, 503.

Isidorus Clarius, his translations of

scripture referred to,—Gen. xxxvii. -

36, 2873; 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 Gicume-
nius, ἐδ. αὶ of Jerome, 545.

James, St, 222, 223.

James’s, St, Epistle, authenticity of, 165
received by Calvin, 21; why denied

INDEX

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, ἐδ. ; complains of the Sep-

tuagint translation, 495 not to be
credited against the truth of Old
Testament, 50; his opinion of Sep-
tuagint, 53; his meaning of χάρις,
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, 382—
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, 539—546,

Lenephesh, 82.

Limbus patrum, 84, 158, 1615 transla-
tions concerning it examined, 278—

——- Uh δΣ

Or MATTERS, &c.

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,
621.

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.

Μ.

Maccabees, by Augustine’s rule not to
be received, 20; not received by
apostolic churches, 20; Augius-

- tine’s opinion of it, 23; sometimes
called Hagiographa, 24; decree of
Gelasius allowed only one book, ἐδ. ;
not received by Jerome, ib. ; refused
by the Reformers, 77; not received
by church of Israel, ἐδ.

Marcion, 42, 302.

Mariale, 528.

Mariana, 527.

Marriage of priests, translations con-
cerning, examined, 460.

Martin, Gregory, brief account of, xii.
seqq.3 list of his works, xiii—xiv.

Maschith, 583.

Massecath, meaning of, 207, 210, 211.

Matrimony, translations affecting, exa-

‘mined, 492496 : no sacrament, 492;
not esteemed a civil contract, id.

Matthias, his election extraordinary,
465.

Melchisedec’s sacrifice, 513, 514, 515;
opinions concerning it discussed,
148, 149.

Merits, mention of, to be found rather
in the fathers than in scripture, 352;
Cyprian’s opinion of, id. ; not neces-
sarily included in worthiness, 355;
Augustine says they are of God, not
‘men, 353; translations concerning,

599

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.

Mischethith, 583.

Mors, 306.

Mysterium, 220, 260, 495.

Nashach, 584.

Nashlicha, 521.

Neophytus, 463.

Nephesh, 83.

Neshech, 584.

Novatians deny repentance, 437.

Novelty of terms in Rhemish transla-
tion, 569. δ

Ο.

CEcumenius, 228, 339, 363, 364 519,
561; his opinion of marriage of priest-
hood, 479; of intercession of saints,
537, 560.

Ordinance, term examined, 490,

bs

Papal church divided on the point of
the conception of the Virgin Mary,
36 wrests interpretation of scrip-
ture to secular ends, ὁ.

Papists add to scripture in their trans.
lations, 403. Their translations of
2 Cor. viii. 408; 2 Cor. i. 8, ib.;
1 Cor. xiii. 11, 1d.; erroneously trans-
late passages in Acts v. 4, x. 41,
1 Cor, xiv. 38, Heb. vii. 28, 394.

Penance, 257 ; translations concerning
it examined, 428432; reasons why
the word is not used, 429; Augus-
tine’s opinion of, 439; Cyprian’s,
ἐδ. : Ambrose’s, id.

Penitence, Tertullian’s definition of,
437.

600

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. ;

Penitentes, 436, 437, 438.

Penitentia, 155, 429, 432; signifies
change of mind, 443.

Penitentiam agere, 432, 437, 438, 443.

Penitentiam dare, 432.

᾿ Peeniterent, 379, 403.

Preaching, not a sacrament, 489.

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.

Recipere, 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

INDEX

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.

S.

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, 450459; are seals of
God’s promises to confirm our faith,
450.

Sacramentum, meaning of the word,
493, 496.

Sacrifice of the mass disclaimed, 24] ;
translations concerning it examined,
497 —525.

Saints, translations in honour of, ex-
amined, 526, 538.

Satisfaction, translation concerning it,
examined, 428432; 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, i6.; 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.

Sculptitle, 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,

a

———

oF MATTERS, ὅζο.

53, 80; Ambrose, his opinion of
their translation, 53.

Sermones de Sanctis, wrongly ascribed
to Augustine, 353.

Sheol, 59, 82, 128, 129, 153, 158, 284, 287,
299, 301, 303310, 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.

Ἔν

Table of the Lord, 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 peenitentia, 155, 443 ;
his opinion of exomologesis, 457 ; his
opinion of marriage of the apostles,
474.

Theodoret, his opinion of πληροφορία,
418; of apostles’ marriages, 475,
479.

Theodotion, 25.

Theophylact, his opinion of πληροφο-
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

601

corruptions in the New Testament,
61; forswears the pope, id.

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
ysed 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.

Vy

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

. remarks on, 63; not of high autho-

rity with fathers of Latin church,
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.

Ww.

Water not to be mingled with wine in
the sacrament, 522, 523.

᾿ Whitaker, William, 14, 564; his

opinion misrepresented by Martin,
132, 133; answer to Campian, 14,
69, 440, 442; vindicated, 467, 509,
530,

INDEX OF MATTERS.

Whitgift, his opinion of election in the
primitive church, 466.

Wisbech Castle, disputations in, iii.

Wisdom, book of, uncanonical, 354 ;
Jerome’s opinion of, id.

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, ἐδ.

Worthy, those such whom God maketh,
360; men not worthy by their own
merits, 1b.; worthy of God, or meet
for God, to be understood: of grace,
and not of merit, 355.

ΡΥ ΨΩ ee

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.

ddys, 158, 280, 282, 284, 287, 305, 307,
311, 313, 314, 316.

αἵρεσις, 224.

ἀντάμειψις, 370,

ἀνταπόδοσις, 370,

ἀντιμισθία, 8570. ;

ἄξιος, 345, 345, 347, 348, 354, 362, 363.

ἀξιόω, 363. ἀξιωθῆναι, 361. Chry-
sostom’s opinion of the word, ibd,
Signifies to be made worthy by merit,
ib, ἀξιωθήσεται, 353.

ἀξιῶσαι, to vouchsafe, account worthy,
365, 412.

ἀποδίδωμι, 841.

ἀπὸ, 828, 329.

ἀπόστολος, 463.

ἄρχων, 87.

ἀσθενὴς, 123, 124, 897. Meaning con-
firmed by scripture, 397.

ἀφιλάργυρος, 150.

αὔξησις, 483.

αὑτοῦ, αὐτοῦ, 540.

. βαρὺς, 398.

βόσκε, 487.

γάμος, 151.
γύνη,) 475. γυναῖκας 116.

δέξασθαι, 507.

διὰ, 468.

διάκονοι, 461.

δικαίωμα, 119, 224. δικαιώματα, 157,
333—336.

᾿ δόγματα, 170, 177.

εἰδωλολατρεία, 106, 179, 180.
εἰδωλολάτρης, 179.

εἴδωλον, 179, 196, 197, 202, 205, 206.
elxwy, 192, 203.

ἐκκλησία, 228.

ἐκοπίασα, 382.

évepyety, 585.

ἐξομολογεῖσθε, 408.

ἐξουσία. 375, 587.

ἐπίσκοπος, 463.

ἔργων, 368.

εὐαγγελίζειν, 550.

εὐλαβεία, 126, 127, 151, 323, 327.

εὐλογεῖν, 502. εὐλογήσας. εὐλόγησεν;
498.

εὐνούχισαν, 480.

εὐνοῦχοι. 480.

εὑρέσθαι, 866.

εὐχαριστηθεὶς, 506. εὐχαριστήσας; 498.

ἐχαρίτωσε, 411. κεχαριτωμένη, 149,
529, 530.

θυσιαστήριον, 253, 516.

ἱερεὺς, 109, 242, 243, 262, 269.
ἱκανὸς, 362, 363.

κακωθῆναι, 444,

καταξιωθέντες, 358. κατηξίωσεν, 364.
κατεργάζεται, 349, 350, 351.
κηρυχθέντος, 550,

κτήνη, 586.

κτίσις, 152, 490.

Kuptakn, 291.

λαϊκὸς, 462,
λέγω, 413, 414.
λειτουργοὺς, 460.
λογίζομαι, 344.

μεταμέλεια, 485.

μεταμέλειν, 155.

μετανοεῖν, 429, 433, 434,

μετάνοια, 155, 156, 161, 257, 429, 433,
443. Tertullian’s definition of it, 155.

μυστήριον, 224, 493—496.

ναοὶ, 151, 203, 566.

οἰκέται, 446.
οὐσία, 587.

παραδίδωμι, 174.
παράδοσις, 92, 151, 165—168, 177, 224.

604

πατροπαράδοτος, 173, 174, 175.
πέπεισμαι, 420.

πεπληροφορημένῃ, 417.

πληροῦμαι, 235, 236.

πληροφορείσθω, πληροφορηθεὶς, 417.
πληροφορία, 417.

πλήρωμα, 231, 294,

ποιμαίνειν, 487.

πομπεύω, 564, 565.

πράξεις, 368.

πρεσβυτέριον, 153, 250.

πρεσβύτερος, 261, 267. πρεσβύτεροι,

58, 109, 243, 245, 273, 275, 463.

_wpdoyvwors, 128.

προΐστασθαι, 449.

προστάγματα, 333, 334. |

ῥοῖζος, 574,

σέβασμα, 566. σεβάσματα, 152,
στήλη, 203.

συγκοπιάσασα, 381.»

σύγκρισις, 334,

σύζυγε, 476.

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.

συνεργοὶ, 383.
συνεργοῦντες, 384,
συνήργει, 424,
συνοικοδομεῖσθαι, 385.
σύνταξις, 334.
σφραγὶς, 452.
σχίσμα, 224,

πταπεινοφρόνησις, 434.
τράπεζα, 519.
τύραννος, 196, 201, 202.

ὑπερβολὴν, 424, 425.
ὑποπίπτω, 433, 434,
ὑπόπτωσις, 434,

χαρίζομαι, 469, 470. χαρίσασθαι, 470.
χάρις, 468.

χάρισμα, 468, 470.

χειροτονία, 162, 247, 248, 249, 260.
χωρεῖν, 388. χωρῆσαι, χωροῦσαι, 389,

ψυχὴ, 83, 280, 281.

ge SO nee —— ΗΝ

INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.

OLD TESTAMENT.

PAGE PAGR
ΤΕ DOS 8 sss. ios ae cdl ets occ ss ἘΝ 53h, |. Peal, exe Rix. UAC... cede ΝΣ ς 526
MED a cpvnivenyssinbenbioienss < ...128, 126 CB Dicsneaccsssinssscdismengeeee ... 309
Ὁ δ Ἶ: ΡΥ ΨΟΥΕ ΗΝ ΘῈ 147, 148, 513 Cxivil,- 18,.19...80L ὦ 332
a ae aa eee 444. |; Prov, ἢ 12: .:. tw A ia 309
Rss as cinch gsssepadverace nian 105 BRIA: -necncdadnigdnnen 0.01. eo §22
RENAL OO | sascacisescevdsiesecanens 286 BPSD, Bh ΣΕ ἈΘΣ τις. 300, 309
πῶς 287, 297 MOVE BO ΡΥ. τ 910
ΘΝ πιο 55 RS a9 539 Pp EU A DSP RAE of BEL) wh 309
PEs RINE y DO τ τούτο, eee PCIe Whe Gh ΨΥ ἘΠ ΜῈ ὅς ἴα. 237
PNRM. Ὑπὸ ρον ες, 988 φαϊξυδυιιῖ ον ον 152
ΙΝ ᾽ς ρον αν γεν 987.}} FRR, ΘΟ ον ntsstnins sanctniloncinteateone 577
a Oe NEE ESR οι 565 Sei SG an...s Ls. ceceideesatenes 571
BUT AME SKI, G0. osc nsecesnrdeeresss 565 MMB βου σον το Τὺ 574
RPI Wha sD era dsnecc cede ichesvetives 581 Ἐπ Σου δι 576
ΘΟ δ KVL. 1G... cccencterr esses 870 |. SOPOT MULTB. ... ..cnceusractsbunptonveces 532
ταν. & .....:.:..yeete. 202 πὶ ὅθι ΟΕ 519, 520
πεῖς δ᾽ dh wes ssdigeanens scateeticdves τς, 444 MAG ἘΚ νι 00Ὁ τ τὸν 534
BR δι; ρει satasaa ie ἐς ncthees SOG | ἘΝ ἐν Di τ κἀκ κεναῖς ται ΤΣ 440
4. iL at 122, 123 WES AG τ ΕΘΝ ΟΝ ΠῚ Ὁ 541
MMs, τ cayscaseotdsvnnesteatoms 306 ΕΡΜΗΣ ΘΛ. π. ΟΣ αν 336
εν οι μον 227 KN ΠΡ τς. Ὁ Ὁ 2. 444
εχ a OL Say Sea; Sr oe. ὅ78ι }: Eliade mil. WO. ριον Plans 578
PRAMAS Bock das'vis case's Dh nde ata 575 Pai iy 7 nae eee iS. ae 301
i) Se SF Ce BOO ORL AL, Be ik a ciacicsvneciese dae 574
lexxix. 48 ......... ἘΝ Υ ΘᾺ κι᾿ 801 1 4 .11..18- προ Gee 208
RON i οὐ τωρ κεν νυ. δ, κξζξ,ος δὲ Ὁ Hag. 1. US ,ὐν νου ιν νυνρος νος dtendtemteate 484
πα Se. SARs ee Sa eee BAD Ὁ 5181. δἰ 7. ριον οι έν πε cdl 48]
[op on VEER = Seen Spee a 332 BiB τ ρον 483
ἊΣ ΔΤ ἀν ΟΡ Ὁ ΕΝ ΠΝ 542 14. Ce nen i 445
APOCRYPHA.

Wisdom iii, & ..........00.0...csceceeeee 353 | Bel and the Dragon, or Daniel
ile ΠΑ δ νος 419 ἕν, 19. 375 BO secssaganvase 517
SWB ΟΝ cs saps dasoes 213 DEF cosuaseicastigdans ote 574
Eccles. v. 5 .....4....- Lat aie SOO Ὑδδ. 1. WG, GE... coco sstnareacess 332
ΜῊ WR coon to seh bases Sess 460 WE OES ccuscocnnshtesad ΟΝ, τς, 332
Bel and the Dragon, or Daniel BBC. Vie 7... 2: ὁκοκο κων ὐνα μενον σαν ενν 564

Mate Oe ΡΥ Wins dbase bedanias 212

606 INDEX

; NEW TESTAMENT.
PAGE PAGE
πόντος iiss edi ρος γέ es, HMMA ALS Bim aang sonticenvacsrasaengentenapnt 562
ae TE ee ee ON a 535 MF eickuidve se’ skbscs sus centhie ΠΤ το 177
RB oo 5, ccpsnete ted ket ΤΥ 486 "| USA a ROSNER rp (en 257
S5TRS 5c i δεῖς. τ ἀραὶ στ τε Ἢ Ἢ 428 ἈΝ τ περ ΛΑ ΟΣ 177
RE AEA Nee er 362, 428 3 RS MERE I Re PS A 379
νι ΔῸΣ ἘΚ ΕΨΕΣ ΟΕ ΜΡ] eaten 8602 Ti OP ais ΥΨΙΆΚΝ ὅν Ὁ Ὁ τ 547
ἐν GD isk viccastenwieunnte~ mepaaage 362 > Dap δ᾽ Sei RS 257
RD Sohn ἔρος νὸς νεῖ audepenes ‘177 ἈΠ BO ρος. eee 403
ties DES VA aesakasanstciveess 178 MIV. 22, BB s.0sspes 245, 246, 466
SAUD a cechrcchiv ee sabre. 166 xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23 .... 109, 243, 244
EE ani congalvexvnnace ὙΦ ΤΥ 225 οἰ ἊΝ ἈΜΜῈ ΡΥ". γι. 244
bts Pa i Renee naar rg Riveter ts 225 iy: SERRE δι 2 152, 566
Uk τἀπὶ BBA be eae 388, 480 ἘΠῚ 16) cnseea pees <s.ckaeveges lee 452
EWA. OD ΡΈΕΙ ΠΤ ὙΠ ΟΠ Ἢ 497 OA ΚΕ ΞΘ ΨΕΞΟΒΤΟΝ eae 151, 566
BAI UUs ths. ρα as 257 BE psenoc eis it ee era 203
pS oh OE ee ae 121 SME. csiccianss-ceceeeesiataes 109
a, 2G nis ΔΥῸ ΤΡ 553 bo ai) 10. ee τα 326
ἘΝ το νιν ἐν ΡΣ ὙΕΤῊΝ 425 Do th ee Eee lll
WATT, Nias γε δευδ λιν 108 xxy. 11,10... ἀρ τ 470
ρει μ να δαδο ἢ» 428 Ἐν ἢ Ὁ ΡΥ 7 0 161, 428
BA SA, DF. ΡΥ ἘΠ R96, 497 Ἐν, ἃς 10 iis. s0s.....c0cdieokeetbaree 337
BB ἴα: 327 Oe τ᾿ 119
Luke i. 6......... 118, 119, 157, 332, 336 Bi. Ἰδτοιιἐοιι 337, 403
DB BD δ 148, 149, 528 DE vessvasecsgdl eed 119, 332
30. 31... ρου wok 535 ὧν,.3,9...... Beak eee 406
Ee sade A bu Eos 428 BI πε ΣΎ τ τ΄. 48]
WER gtr kiadact ceaueiehien da ἘΠ΄. ΣΟΥ ΤΥ 108 We B.. cin scatieuscseoteveakeeeaeen 123
WEN αν ΠΣ ΉΡΗΝ ἘΣ nioteeee ΤῈ 178 18, 19...... 119, 120, 396, 401
ΜΔ GORE RAISER? | Tt 108 AL. 3B... .0i0555.cssscega eee 343
ES EE 5, ssub iepavaeaas ees 425 38... ER 419
BE ον ΨΎΤ ΤΕΥ ob lt 497 ἐκ | ee SS 386
BE Geaskafeosnentoedbhe sbhumeed 108 Ke: Ay by. δ. .s0s00senureiege ΕΒ 338
SVG M ckpewe svie<surcssss adhe 149 1 OMS ς , Ο᾿ 202
Ἐν ἀδλδον οὶ ῥενουνε νοῦ, δέ ντδχον δ 1 Lop ee | | Mee εν 220
WE ΘΕΟΣ: 357 iii. 9. 383
SLE 5 coacea ΣΕ ΠΕΣ Ἐν ν Ὁ Ἢ 857 Va ἡ ΡΠ 107
ὁ Ὁ Ἐπ ΠΥ ΡΈΣΎΨ ΝΟ skis . 511 VAL. 2 ....00c0scenhsnaeeke Geka 115
bo uh Ap | DURA ARS OMRON © Seapets 497 $B os τὐεουκ Gee 71, 115
Το SER eno GN Αδδω varntoesaene 375 18. ρος ase 516
ΠΝ ΘΟ iach tascecpesetovcicoaonivane 455 RVG sivcsvissarerascacee ee 500
Vo; MO aisskaerensdikoraceenee es ΣΟ ΘΗΝ 379 1G oss hs ee 516
Whe 11 οτος ον ee 498 τὸ ἄρ EEE ee 11 167
ἔν, Ὁ ᾽ν ον ἐστ 567 BO sis sn. νον Σ Sec ΑΝ 219
EN BB assay ieapehredanes onde? 462 SH ΤΠ τ 424
DGhe - ἡ ϑυκα ες, βαρ να θαῦνον, ΑΚ een tee> 465 ἘΠῚ Biv τρις ον ες ἐκ va veeoeeee 422
ἘΣ as viswadtepesoa sethagersincyhe der 109 KV. BB, D4... sos ,necsnpessens 462
23, 24, 27 ... 128, 129, 281, 283 VO no feocneansponessdeask de 362
MiP os fcce hodcoctivakapenaaucreresss 177 | a ERAS 66 376
SIGE SSER: cscisasne ewe anues 60, 130, 506 Biss acesduanaeseesdnr ae 124
AWD, Ge» ccusdirnessteasninehvaie vet 109 OB ns erates co0 301, 302

OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE,

PAGE PAGE

BOR Ὁ ΤΕ ΤΡ ΡΠ ἌΡ SE ΤΙ δι κου κιις, ἐἰρου εν κνεξοιανς 468

Bees BLO, 11. τοὺ δου λον κονοον 48ῦ WG δι oncnsssucesebscoenrenasoodeg 416

£0, 4.7 ΡΣ τι ἘΣ ΤΕΣ ΗΘ 59, 349 Divs csi'sap bees τ δ᾿ ΤΉ ΡΕΦΦΟ 837

Epp t BRN Pana am BIR ΕΙΣ ἢ “0. PINS 156g θ᾽... ἱονν ον 71, 245, 246

WL. Po ee acs 384 τ δ τε, δα δ 45h

Dee ban Soe eecatanes 181 8. WO secs scasevens 111, 219, 448

WHT AM eee cade en sce cocepdeSacas ΤΡ RGD A. 8 és scadsiccecsannihotetee 349

ἡ pie. iy oN 219 ΨΥ Ey Pry 127, 151, 323

BN FAME ARIE Π 410 EAD osirri cccinaseenveeeneen 338

eee recs ittas s Takes ia stsnete ee 226 po | Sete preter 251 eo 321

Ee oe 231 ι 9 is dscanvSévancneaddabaeeiwace 357

Me gives acc ccages ἐδ θυ Κα Σ 384 ἈΠ ae 539

Wt es τ oct ibaa cack ates 170 Dias poids idgveewessiaarteueestere 226

Ste γι. μὰν ἘΦ Nene 378, 421 ρον πρὸ τ 226

ik OEE ΣΕ ΡΡΡ 100 ΡΣ ΓΟ τ 477

ἢν ἀν ον 003. 226 4% cannes 150

ποτ οἰ ιν εν εζα cuccchuee 492. 1. Faines ἦν 138 ς..00..ἀἱοξευ εν εν ει σεεννι 559

ΠΥ τ ἔν εἰξροξεξουενονβοος 409 14... ΘΑ ΟΣ ΚΕ ΟΣ 425

1 1 ah 1s PEPTIC (ies CERRO ELE 464 ον MEE ΡΥ Ὁ oe 428

ἘΝ πεν τε εν πε γοῦν ἐὐοξος οὺς 470 Bes δ᾽ iss. ciccésicibsdequamenen 551

RE ag Do εξ: ee eee peer Ee 362 AE. Pe ee ee 251

, ee ee ee 854.} 1 Pet; 85.18 cscs scicdcistéeceteass 173, 174

Be SO scabies 107, 170 ΡΥ τ Ἢ 548

Sa: Sig τ τῇ 100, 106, 179, 191 ἮΣ WB sesvesaiscss ten 112, 152, 488

OPhiene. 1.4, Bice cece cekteee- even eee 338 Ws «ἄς, του πετονοευκονιν oars 109

Ll kasi B50: | 2 Pet: HO i...) .cs0.s. shee 71

te YG: ee cea 151, 166 ΠΣ ΡΨ ὙΠ. 0 Ὁ ἜΤ 557

Ce PPP Perey een ἘΒΙ 166 | 1 John £852 2.0... .c0cccsccscercccostenens 379

a SES ae eee re ee 71 ΘΝ eee 398

ἜΝ ΠΝ 462 ee νοὶ ὑδν 113, 193

ΠΥ, ΡΤ δὲ { ev, xiii. 8...<<scsvscavevivno eer 330

SES ro eee 249, 467 | ey ee ae ee 493

ἘΝ eee eee: 250, 251 mist: ΤΥ πρὶ 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 xliv.7, read xliv. 17.
Page 541, margin, for Dan. vi. 3, read vi. 10.

: wo oe
RAED sip dt are ΤῈ

* =f

OUP tay} Lia's Ah
4 ~ Γ : 5 Ὶ
. is :
ὁ weds Waived ἀνα

ytd ΠΕ SER wits ὯΞ
εὐ, be LaF MALASS νομὴ υνν ει OFX

μι:
sob εν te
1 ᾿

᾿ ὭΡΑΝ
be) = ae seal

Yo ete ; 4
+ 5 ὺ "
eae tly Sa py. ἐν ἐν ες

δώ ἡ

he Oth (ee Nota haps SES

ae ἡ

ὴ γα Ἷ Ἔν eS SHR Pw yk + digo dle van αὶ
. Ε ὮΝ tA | ’
2 ; fe oe ‘

erga RY
> iy
τ vk ἐπ εν α γα a ἃ
sete a Pat v
᾿ 9 "
rab bo ya ΟΥ̓ ἐὸν Vee τε eae F
¥ τὰς ar iy ‘
- +
des τι ae 2

ΠΡ δ UB EVE ic
ot e i » BAT ieee

Oy eet they theese κ᾿ Bie ee)

‘ke eee eR ἡγύφεν ἐν

BINDING SECT. AUGS 88

| BS Fulke, William
| 470 A defence of the sincere
M32F8 and true translations of th
Holy Scriptures into the
English tongue

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

.ι
>
-
.- τα
ὧν - ~<
- Me 7
.- -
--- =
Mees te we 7 :
a>* Le 7
. ΗΝ wm ae
΄ ws Sass
ai “> a oe
᾿ κα " aN ae
7 = x:
£

AO sm Note tee tag x
A Dep pe yoy p

nowy id ar Ny

rye 0 ςς Ἐπ SS i TKwrCQQ - tee m= =

moh Dintoness Ἵ ah δι" ate mi S40 aes ta ὅτι δρᾶρεν atc be ὁ * ν a ¥ ie " eh μα δῇ “ sdeuipal ces: Seite tee

| ; ‘ mead er α βωμός ἐν st, Ne nies abr στα r ro anew — ἐλ αι den eee a aos TE σον OWL MRA Nat: υ ANA a νώα penis ean? ϑησηηρεθυναύπο: δι, ες pmr
. pha v9 reheat if, Waa obeH ei => 9 eae peo aae

oe (πῇ
Σὰ ἈτΩ͂ ἀφ ι >
Ἀν peta ARS ae kee ν 1 a
var νεῖν gal SERN Se ONS peer ᾿
AND Seve pagn πλν sear tong τον τ υαστυ pre an tet ones ae eyed one ratetalasesd st
AD AIA RA a αμλνενυ φοφν τοὶ θυ τολμᾷ

OND 5g. AN ty x
pantie SNF ὦ SN penn nig ty OR NT
Scan ayen OAV Sah, ὰ apes :
πρδναρωκο PAIL MS Oa τως τὰς Riper clh me a a NE νην,

Soy ees A». acne iert pnt τ,
᾿ rr
γε

Ἀν ΡΡῚ