MARTIN, 39. We charge them for forsaking and false trans own Hebrew and Greek text. 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 readings 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, detracting, 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 example. Gen. iii. 15., where the Hebrew truth teacheth, that the seed of the woman shall break the serpent's head, and the Greek translateth the pronoun in the masculine gender, (he) meaning Christ, and some ancient copies of your vulgar Latin have ipse; you nevertheless follow that blasphemous corruption, that in these latter times hath been received in your vulgar Latin bibles, and read still in your text ipsa, she; which though you would wrest blasphemously to the virgin Mary, which is proper to Christ, cannot by the circumstance of the place be aptly referred to any but to Eve. Martin. And if they follow sincerely their Greek and Hebrew text, which they profess to follow, and which they esteem the only authentical 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 lating their 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 translate 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. Fulke. 39. We crave no pardon, if it can be proved that FULKE, 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- MARTIN, 40. ness, before we enter to examine their translations, mark and gather 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 cannot yet imagine. Fulke. Hitherto I hope the indifferent reader will con- FULKE, fess, that you have driven us to no jumps nor shifts, but 40. 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 [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. &c. Nowell's Confutation of Dorman's last book, entitled a Defence 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 protestants are driven unto by the catholics, as it were the jumps and turnings of an hare before the hounds. FULKE, 41. mine own simple labours, who being one of the meanest, having confuted ten or twelve of your popish treatises, can receive no reply of any man, but only of poor Bristow, to whom in this respect I confess myself more beholding than to all the papists beside, saving that I have rejoined to him almost two years ago, and yet I hear not of his answer. Martin. First, we are wont to make this offer (as we think) most reasonable and indifferent: that forasmuch as the scriptures are diversely expounded of us and of them, they neither be tied to our interpretation, nor we to theirs; but to put it to the arbitrement and judgment of the ancient fathers, of general councils, of universal custom of times and places in the catholic church. No, say they, we will be our own judges and interpreters, or follow Luther, if we be Lutherans; Calvin, if we be Calvinists; and so forth. Fulke. For expounding of the scriptures, we will not refuse the arbitrement and judgment of the ancient fathers, of general councils, of universal custom of times and places in the catholic church; for this you say is your offer, which was never refused of us, though you most falsely affirm, that we say we will be our own judges and interpreters, or follow Luther, if we be Lutherans; Calvin, if we be Calvinists, &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 disjoining 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 arbitrement 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 Constantinople 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 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. 42. 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, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees. No, say they; we admit none of these for scripture. 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. 42. Fulke. That the scriptures are plain and easy to be FULKE, understood, of them that use the ordinary means to come to it, for all doctrine necessary to be known, and sufficient to determine every matter, the Holy Ghost himself doth testify, 2 Tim. iii. and some of the ancient fathers also do bear witness, 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 reverence 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. 43 Martin. Well, let us go forward in their own dance. You allow at MARTIN, the least the Jews' canonical books of the Old Testament, that is, all that are extant in the Hebrew bible, and all of the New Testament without exception. Yea, that we do. In these books then, will you be FULKE, 43. MARTIN, 44. כארי 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 innumerable corruptions, what reason is there, that we should follow that translation only; especially seeing God hath given us knowledge of the tongues, that we may resort to the fountains themselves, as St Augustine exhorteth? As for the Greek translation of the Septuagint, from which your own vulgar Latin varieth, (although we reverence it for the antiquity, and use it for interpretation of some obscure places in the Hebrew,) why should you require us to be tried thereby, which will not be tried by it yourselves? If I were as captious as you are with John Keltridge about the Greek bible of the Septuagint interpreters, I might make sport with you, as you do with him: but I acknowledge your synecdoche, that you mean the Old Testament 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 have been in sundry ancient copies, to discern that which is proper to the whole context, from that which by error of the writers or printers hath been brought into any copy, old or new. Martin. 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 Hebrew, 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 |