they translate a secret in the profane sense; whereas they know how these Bib. 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 xeporovía, which they translate, ordaining by election, as it was in the profane court of Athens; whereas St Hierom telleth them, that ecclesiastical writers take it for giving holy orders by imposition of hands? Do they not the like in many other words, wheresoever it serveth their heretical purpose? And as for profane translation, is there any more profane than Beza himself, that so often in his annotations reprehendeth the old translation by the authority of Tully and Terence, Homer and Aristophanes, and the like profane authors? yea, so fondly and childishly, that for olfactum, which Erasmus useth, as Pliny's word, he will needs say odoratum, because it is Tully's word. Fulke. In translating the scripture, we use the word "re- FULKE, pentance" in the same signification that the scripture useth 15. METávola. In other ecclesiastical writers, we can nevertheless understand it as they mean it. Concerning that unlearned distinction of latria and dulia, we do rightly to shew out of profane writers that it is vain, and that the terms signify all one; and you yourself confess in your marginal note, that sometimes in the scripture λατρέυω and λατρεία populo Dei, ut illi etiam templum fabricaretur; cum Dominus dicat, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies: quod in Græco est, λarpevσeis." Cap. xx. also cap. xxix. Opera, Vol. VI. 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 creaturæ, sed creatori: non eo modo quo jubemur per caritatem servire invicem, quod est Græce dovλevew, sed eo modo quo tantum Deo servitur, quod est Græce λarpeve." (Opera, Vol. VIII. 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 scripture, 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 dovλevw is used for serving God. The two words are frequently used promiscuously in scripture: λarpeúw is applied to the service of men, as well as God. Compare Deut. xxviii. 48. Lev. xxiii. 7, where λarpeúw is used in a servile sense. In the whole of the 4th chapter of Galatians dovλeúw is applied to the worship of God. Nonnus interprets λarpeía by dovMoon and doûλos: for, says Casaubon, that unsound distinction which confines λarpeia to God, and dovλoσúvŋ to angels, had not arisen. MARTIN, 16. FULKE, 16. do not signify the service and honour that is proper to God: as for Sovλeuw, [it] is in more than an hundred places used for the service and honour proper to God. St Augustine, 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, contrary to the property of their tongue; as is proved by Eustathius, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Suidas, and by later writers, no protestants, Laurentius Valla, and Ludovicus Vives. Mysterium we translate a "secret," or a "mystery," indifferently; 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 XepоTovia, 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 presbyterum, "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 “presbyter 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 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." 17. That presbyter hath sig from the apo not an elder. Can. 2, 3, 4. Can. Apost. 32. Martin. In the first and second canon of the apostles we read thus: MARTIN, Episcopus a duobus aut tribus episcopis ordinetur. Presbyter ab uno episcopo ordinetur, et diaconus, et alii clerici1: that is, "Let a bishop be consecrated or ordained by two or three bishops." "Let a priest be nified a priest made by one bishop." See in the fourth council of Carthage the diverse stles' time, manner of consecrating bishops, priests, deacons, &c. where St Augustine was present and subscribed. Again, Si quis presbyter contemnens episcopum suum, &c.: "If any priest contemning his bishop," make a several congregation, and erect another altar, that is, make a schism or heresy, let him be deposed. So did Arius, being a priest, against his bishop Alexander. Again, "priests and deacons, let them attempt to do can. 40. nothing without the bishop." The first council of Nice saith: "The holy Can. 3.3 synod by all means forbiddeth, that neither bishop, nor priest, nor deacon, &c., have with them any foreign woman, but the mother, or sister, &c., in whom there is no suspicion." Again, "It is told the holy council, can. 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 și Țis ouv ἐπίσκοπος, given by the apostles, mingling water with wine, but offer an unmingled ἢ πρεσβύ sacrifice, let him be deposed," &c. But of these speeches all councils be repos". full where we would gladly know of these new translators, how presbyter must be translated, either an "elder," or a "priest." 17. Fulke. I think you have clean forgotten your promise FULKE, so lately made. That this word presbyter hath always been peculiar for a "priest," you bring many testimonies, some counterfeit, some authentical, in which the name of peoẞUTEPOS and presbyter is found; but that in all them it is peculiar Vel tribus Episcopis. Et reliqui cleri. Canon xxx. Concilia edit. Labbe, Vol. 1. p. 26, not. xxxii.] [ Can. xxxviii. Edit. Labbe.] [ Can. xviii.] [Can. xxxii. Vol. vi. p. 1157.] [3 Can. iii. Vol. 1. p. 28.] MARTIN, 18. for a "priest," you shew not at all. Some colour it hath of that you say, in the 14th canon of the Nicene council, and Carth. iii. c. 24, repeated Const. vi., where mention is made of sacrifice and offering; for so they did improperly call the administration of the Lord's supper, in respect of the sacrifice of thanksgiving that was offered therein. After which phrase also, they called the ministers iepeis 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 priesthood, 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 service, 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 frumentis1: "And let no more be offered in the sacrifices, than that which is made of grapes and corn." This was bread and wine, not the natural body and blood of Christ. Wherefore these improper speeches prove not a sacrificing priesthood, whereby the natural body and blood of Christ should be offered in the mass, which is the mark you shoot at. Martin. Do not all the fathers speak after the same manner, making always this distinction of "bishop" and "priest," as of the first and Ep. 2. ad second degree? St Ignatius, the apostle's scholar, doth he not place Trallianos. presbyterium, as he calleth it, and presbyteros, "priests," or the "college τὸ πρεσBUTEPLOV. of priests," next after "bishops," and "deacons” in the third place, reoi perßú- 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 Evangelum, the temple, so are bishops, priests, and deacons in the church, for place Epitaph. Nepotiani, c. 9. τεροι. Comment. in c. 7. Michea. Ep. 85. ad [1 Vol. 11. 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. Comment. Hieronymi in Michææ, c. vii. Opera, Vol. ш. p. 1549.] 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 gradus presbyter ordinatur; "he becometh a man of the clergy, and by the accustomed degrees is made," what? a "priest," or an "elder"? when he saith, Mihi 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, Ep. 60. apud were hardly induced to be made presbyteri, did they refuse the eldership? What was the matter, that John the bishop of Jerusalem seemed to be so much offended with Epiphanius and St Jerome? was it not because Epiphanius made Paulianus, St Jerome's brother, priest within the said Ep. 1. ad John's diocese ? Hiero. c. 1. Heliod. Fulke. Before the blasphemous heresy of the popish FULKE, sacrifice of the mass was established in the world, the fathers 18. did with more liberty use the terms of "sacrifice" and "sacrificing 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 πрeσßúтeρos, 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." 19. Martin. When all antiquity saith, Hieronymus Presbyter, Cecilius MARTIN, Presbyter, Ruffinus Presbyter, Philippus, Juvencus, Hesychius, Beda, presbyteri; and when St Jerome so often in his Catalogue saith, such a man, presbyter; is it not for distinction of a certain order, to signify that they were priests, and not bishops? namely, when he saith of St Chry [3 Et ut sciamus traditiones apostolicas sumtas de veteri testamento, quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levitæ in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi episcopi et presbyteri et diaconi vendicant in ecclesia. Hieronymi Epist. c. i. ad Evangelum. Opera, Vol. IV. p. 803.] [* Capti episcopi, interfecti presbyteri, et diversorum officia clericorum. Subversæ ecclesiæ, ad altaria Christi stabulati equi, martyrum effossæ reliquiæ. Hieronymi, Epitaph. Nepotiani. Opera, Vol. IV. p. 274.] |