10.

Martin. If presbyter, by ecclesiastial use, be appropriated to signify MARTIN, a priest, no less than episcopus to signify a bishop, or diaconus a 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? See chap. vi. numb. 12.

p. 199.

Fulke. The word priest, by popish abuse, is commonly FULKE,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 iepeis, or sacerdotes. Therefore the translators, to make a difference between the ministers of the Old Testament and them of the New, calleth 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 presbyter 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 #рeo ßurepos an elder, even as your vulgar Latin translator doth divers times, as Acts xv.2 and xx.3; 1 Pet. v.,

[ Acts xv. 22. Τότε 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.]

[3 Acts xx. 17. μetekadéσato toùs πpeoßurépous. Vulgate, “Vocavit majores."]

[ 1 Pet. v. 1. πρεσβυτέρους τοὺς ἐν ὑμῖν παρακαλώ. Vulgate, "Seniores ergo, qui in vobis sunt." Rhemish version, "The seniors therefore that are among you."

See also Acts ii. 17. κaì oi πрeoßúrepoi, &c. Vulgate, "Seniores." Acts iv. 5. id.]

and elsewhere calleth them seniores or majores natu, which you commonly call the ancients, or seniors, because 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 sometimes 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 observe that distinction, which the apostles and evangelists always do keep, when we call sacerdotes priests, for difference 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 idololatrical 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 authority defaced, the king made supreme head, then their translation was made accordingly; and if afterward, when these errors were well established in the realm, and had taken root in the people's hearts, all was altered and changed in their later translations, and now they could not find that in the Greek, which was in the former translation; what was it at the first, but wilful corruption to serve the time that then was? See chap. iii. 5. chap. xvii. numb. 15, chap. xv. numb. 22.

Fulke.

For images, altars, the catholic church's autho- FULKE, rity, the king's supremacy, nothing is altered in the latter 12. translations, that was falsely translated in the former, except perhaps the printer's fault be reformed. Neither can any thing be proved to maintain the popish images, altars, church's authority, or pope's supremacy, out of any translation of the scriptures, or out of the original itself. Therefore our translations were not framed according to the time; but if any thing were not uttered so plainly or so aptly as it might, why should not one translation help another?

Martin. If at the first revolt, when none were noted for heretics MARTIN, 13. and schismatics but themselves, they did not once put the names of schism or heresy in the bible1, but instead thereof division and sect, Bib. 1562. insomuch that for an heretic they said, an author of sects; what may we judge of it but as of wilful corruption? See chap. iv. numb. 3.

Titus iii.

13.

Fulke. Yes, reasonable men may judge, that they did FULKE, it to shew unto the ignorant people, what the names of schismatic and heretic do signify, rather than to make them believe, that heresy and schism was not spoken against in the scripture. That they translated heresy sect, they did it by example of your vulgar Latin interpreter, who, in the 24th of the Acts, translateth the Greek word aipéoews sectæ. In which chapter likewise, as he also hath done, they have translated the same word heresy.

14.

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 wilful 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 νουBeσíav mapaiтou. Wiclif, 1380, renders it, "Eschew thou a man heretic ;" 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, "Reject 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, “Sectæ Nazarenorum." Rhemish version, "Sect of the Nazarenes." "Sect of the Nazarites," edit. 1534, 1539, 1557.]

FULKE,

14.

king as having pre-eminence." So did Beza first translate carcase, and afterward soul1. Which alteration in all these places is so great, that it could not be negligence at the first or ignorance, but a plain heretical intention. See chap. xvii. numb. 15, chap. v. numb. 4, 5, chap. xv. numb. 22, chap. vii. numb. 2.

Fulke. Nay, it may be an oversight, or escape of negligence, 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 authority, there is altar in both places, 1 Cor. ix. and x. For the term congregation changed into church, it was not for shame of the former, which was true, but because the other term of church was now well understood, to shew that the word of scripture agreeth with the word of our creed; or perhaps to avoid your fond quarrel, not now first picked, to the term congregation. Whereas the former was, "To the king or chief head," the latter saying, "the king as having pre-eminence," doth nothing derogate unto the former, and the former is contained under the latter. For I hope you will grant, that the king is chief head of his people; or if the word head displease you (because you are so good a Frenchman), tell us what chief doth signify, but an head? Now this place of Peter speaketh not particularly of the king's authority over the Church, or in church matters: therefore if it had been translated "supreme head," we could have gained no greater argument for the supremacy in question, 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

eis

[· Οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδου. “ Non derelinques animam meam," Edit. 1582. "Non derelinques cadaver meum,” Edit. 1556. Nov. Test. Beza. "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.]

[ Extolling a mistake apparently for excelling. The translations alluded to here are of 1 Pet. ii. 13: Υποτάγητε οὖν πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει διὰ τὸν Κύριον· εἴτε βασιλεῖ, ὡς ὑπερέχοντι. "Whether it be unto the king as unto the chief head," Tyndale, 1534; Cranmer, 1539; Geneva, 1557. "Whether it be unto the king as unto the superior," Geneva, 1560. "Whether it be to the king, as excelling," Rheims, 1582. "Whether it be unto the king as having the pre-eminence," Bishops' Bible, 1584. "Whether it be to the king as supreme." Authorised version, 1611.]

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.

15.

Martin. If they will not stand to all their translations, but fly to MARTIN, that namely, which now is read in their churches3: and if that which is now read in their churches, differ in the points aforesaid from that that was read in their churches in king Edward's time; and if from both these they fly to the Geneva bible, and from that again to the other aforesaid: what shall we judge of the one or the other, but that all is voluntary, and as they list? See chap. iii. numb. 10, 11, 12, chap. x. numb. 12.

Fulke.

If of three translations we prefer that which FULKE, is the best, what sign of corruption is this? If any fault 15. 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 idolum, 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. IV. p. 263.) that copies should be provided by all dignitaries for their private houses, and by all church officers for the use of their cathedral and parish churches. (See Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, in Dr Cardwell's Synodalia, Vol. 1. p. 123. Documentary Annals, Vol. 11. p. 11.) The edition quoted in these notes is that printed by Barker, fol. 1584.

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

[4 Τεκνία, φυλάξατε ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων, 1 John v. 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.]

[PULKE.]

8