FULKE, 11. MARTIN, 12. διάκονος. Diaconus. S. Tim. iii. Bib. 1577. 1579. Prebstre. 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 without distinction, in your note upon Acts xx. v. 28, where they are called "bishops," which before, v. 17, are called πpeoẞúτεροι, 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 translating 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 "superintendent:" 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 controversy 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? Fulke. Here I must answer you, that we have no FULKE, 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 iepeis, 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 Testament: 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 commendeth unto us. And although we have not such a consistory of elders of government, as in the primitive church they had, and many churches at this day have; yet have we also elders of government to exercise discipline, as archbishops, and bishops, with their chancellors, archdeacons, commissaries, officials; in whom if any defect be, we wish it may be reformed according to the word of God. Martin. "Apostles" you say for the most part in your translations (not MARTIN, always), as we do, and "prophets," and "evangelists," and "angels," and 13. such like; and wheresoever there is no matter of controversy between you and us, there you can plead very gravely for keeping the ancient ecclesiastical words; as your master Beza, for example, beside many other places Beza in cap. where he bitterly rebuketh his fellow Castaleon's translation, in one place 25, &c. writeth thus: "I cannot in this place dissemble the boldness of certain In 3. cap. men, which would God it rested within the compass of words only! These men therefore, concerning the word baptizing, though used of Baptizo. 5. Mat. num. x. num. 2. Mat. num. 11. Baptism. Baptizo. Mediator. FULKE, 13. MARTIN, 14. 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 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 in 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 baptisms; 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 translation 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 MeTavociv. 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 εἴδωλον. Confut. of the Reas. fol. 35. μετάνοια. of life? Whereas in the Greek church pœnitentes, 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. 14. Dionys. Ec. Fulke. That Castaleo "did for foolish affectation of fine- FULKE, ness," you slander us to do "for furthering of heresy." And here again with loathsomeness you repeat your rotten quarrel Her. cap. 3. of idols translated "images," which was to discover your abominable idolatry, cloaked under a blind and false distinction. of images and idols. The word μeTávola we translate "repentance;" 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 2: "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 untruly; for not every changing of the mind is godly repentance, 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: “ Μετὰ τὸ ἐξελθεῖν τοὺς κατηχουμένους, τῶν ἐν μετανοίᾳ τὴν εὐχὴν γίνεσθαι. Quibus (catechumenis) egressis, orent etiam hi qui in pœnitentia sunt constituti." Ed. 1559. p. 34.] [ε δοῦναι μετάνοιαν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, Acts v. 31. “ Το give repentance to Israel and remission of sins," Rhemish Version, 1582.] [ Αραγε 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.] [· ὅτι κατεκρίθη, μεταμεληθείς, Matt. xxvii. "Seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself," Rhemish version.] [FULKE.] 17 MARTIN, 15. Latria. μετανοίᾳ ὄντες, gumeni, were called év μeTavola ovтes, "such as are in repentance," 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, fasting, 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 repentance, 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 Tpeía in the the ecclesiastical sense and use deduced out of the scriptures they differ scriptures, almost always very much. Do they not the like in mysterium and sacramentum, which Mat.num. 10. λατρεύω and λα used for the service and honour proper to God. August. de Civit. Dei. li. x. c. 1. [1 Hic est enim divinitati vel, si expressius dicendum est, deitati debitus cultus, propter quem uno verbo significandum quoniam mihi satis idoneum non occurrit Latinum, Græco ubi necesse est insinuo quid velim dicere. Aarpeíav quippe nostri, ubicumque sanctarum scripturarum positum est, interpretati sunt servitutem. Sed ea servitus, quæ debetur hominibus, secundum quam præcepit apostolus servos dominis suis subditos esse debere, alio nomine Græce nuncupari solet: λarpeia vero, secundum consuetudinem qua locuti sunt qui nobis divina eloquia condiderunt, aut semper, aut tam frequenter ut pæne semper, ea dicitur servitus quæ pertinet ad colendum Deum. Augustini de Civitate Dei, Lib. x. c. i. Opera, Vol. vii. p. 381.] [ Upon the 33rd verse of the 23rd chapter of Exodus, Augustine thus speaks: Hic Græcus δουλεύσης habet, non λατρεύσης. Unde intelligitur, quia et douλeía debetur Deo tanquam Domino, λarpeía vero nonnisi Deo tanquam Deo. Quæstiones in Exodum. xciv. Opera, Vol. II. 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 Spiritui Sancto, Deum esse Spiritum Sanctum dubitare non possent, cui tanta religionis servitus, quæ latria dicitur, legitime exhiberetur in |