Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Response to preface · Martins comments 13 – Martins comments 14
MART. 13. But I come to the thirde point of voluntarie expositions of the Scripture, that is when eueryevery man expoundeth according to his errour and Heresie. This needeth no proofe, for we see it with our eyes. Looke vponupon the Caluinistes and Puritanes at home, the Lutherans, Zuinglians, and Caluinists abrode: reade their bookes written vehemently, one secte against an other: are not their expositions of one and the same Scripture as diuerse and contrarie, as their opinions differ one from an other? Let the example at home be, their controuersie about the distinction of Ecclesiasticall degrees, Arch-bishop, Bishop, and minister: the example abroade, their diuerse imaginations and phantasies▪ vponupon these most sacred wordes, Hoc est corpus meum.
FVLK. 13. That eueryevery one of vsus expoūdeth the scripture voluntarily according to his errour or heresie, you say it needeth no proofe, for you see it with your eyes. You hauehave very cleere sight to see a mote in other mens eies, but can not see a beame in your owne. You make your demonstration by the Caluinists and Puritans at home, & the Lutherans, Zuinglians, & Caluinists abroad▪ the one for the distinctiō of Ecclesiastical degrees, Archbishop, Bishop, & Minister: the other for their diuerse imaginations & phantasies of these wordes▪ Hoc est corpus meum. But I beseech you sir, touching the domestical dissentiō, what is the text, or what be the texts of Scripture? vponupon which these voluntarie expositions▪ are made▪ for the distinction or confusion of Ecclesiastical degrees? If they had bene as ready as Hoc est corpus meum, they should hauehave bene set downe, as well as that. But I suppose they are yet to seeke for that controuersie, as I take it standeth rather in collections than interpretations, and in question whether the political gouernment of the Church be distinctly expressed in the scripture, or no. As for the cō tention abroad, I confesse to stand a great part in exposition of that text, wherin although the one part doth erre, is that a sufficient cause to condēne thē both. The church of Africa, and the Church of Rome, and the two principall lights of them both Cyprian and Cornelius, dissented about rebaptizing them that were baptized of Heretikes. The Aphricans not in one text onelyonly, but in theCyprianus, & ali… in Concilio Aphricano. exposition of many, differed from the Romanes, & from the truth, yet it were hard to condemne them both for Heretikes, & least of all them that held the truth. S. Augustine and S. Hierom dissented about a text of S. Paule to the Galathians, of Peters dissembling, as their contrary epistles doe testifie. The truth was of S. Augustines side, yet was not the other an heretike, following a wrōg interpretation. And to come nearer home vntounto you, the Dominicans & Franciscans Friers were at daggers drawing (as we say) yea at most sharpe and bitter contention betwene themselues, and all the Popish Church was deuided about their brawling, concerning the conception of the virgin Marie, whether she were conceaued in sinne, or no, where many texts of Scripture must needes receiue voluntarie expositions, if not of both partes, yet at the least of one parte: which of those will you say were heretikes? If you say neither of both, then must you hauehave stronger reasons to proue vsus all heretikes, than voluntarie expositions, where parties be in diuerse opinions, especially in matter not ouerthrowing the foundation of Christian religion. And when you hauehave gathered the most voluntarie expositions you can finde, yet shall you finde none so grosse, so absurde, so impertinent, as you Papistes hauehave coyned, for maintenaunce of your errours and heresies, of which you your selfe are ashamed, though otherwise you hauehave iron foreheads and brasen faces. A few examples among a great many shall suffice. God made man according to his owne image, that is to say, we must hauehave images in the Church. No man lighteth a candell and putteth it vnderunder a bushell, the meaning is, that images must be set vponupon the altar. God made two great lightes, the Sunne and the Moone, that is, the Pope to be aboue the Emperour. Beholde here are two swordes: that is, the Pope hath power of both the swordes. Put on the whole armour of God, that is, the Priest must put on all his vestiments, before he saye Masse. I am become as sownding brasse, or as a tinckling Cymbal, that is, the bels in the steeple signifie preaching of Gods word. I might fill many leaues, yea a whole booke of such popish expositions, as the Papistes in our dayes dare not for shame abide by.
MART. 14. And if you will yet hauehave a further demonstration, this one may suffice for all. They reiect Councels, & Fathers, and the Catholike Churches interpretation, vnlesse it be agreeable to Gods word, and whether it be agreeable or no, that Luther shall iudge for the Lutherans, Caluin for the Caluinists, Cartwright for the Puritans, and an other for the Brethren of louelove: briefly them selues will be iudges both of Councels and*Whitak. pag. 17. & 120. Fathers, whether they expound the Scriptures well or no, and eueryevery youth among them vponupon confidence of his spirit and knowledge wil saucily controule not onelyonly one, but all the fathers consenting togither, if it be against that which they imagine to be the truth.
FVLK. 14. We had neede of a better demonstration than the former, by which you your selues are proued Heretikes, rather than we. But let vsus see how handsomly you begin. They reiect (say you) Councels and Fathers, and the Catholike Churches interpretation, vnlesse it be agreeable to Gods word. Thus farre you say wel. We doe reiect not only those that you name, but euen an Angel from heauen, except his message be agreeable to Gods word. But all the rest that you assume to the ende of this section, is a starke staring lye, except that you saye of H. N. for the brethren of louelove, which are more like to you than to vsus. For neither Luther, nor Caluin, nor Cartwright is iudge among vsus, whether any thing be agreeable to the worde of God, but whatsoeuer any of them doe saye, it is examined and tryed by the Scriptures. And the Scriptures them selues, where they are so obscure, that neither by cōmon sense, knowledge of the original tongue, Grammer, Rhetorike, Logike, storye, nor any other humane knowledge, nor iudgement of any writers, olde, or new, the certaine vnderstanding can be found out, they are either expounded by conference of other plainer textes of Scripture, according to the analogie of faith: or els they remaine stil in obscuritie, vntill it shall please God to reueile a more cleere knowledge of thē. But none so like the familie of louelove as you Papists are, which reiect councels, fathers interpretation of the most auncient Catholike Church, yea & manifest Scripture it self, except it be agreable to the iudgement of your P. M. Pontifex Max. the Pope, as those familiar diuels, submit all things to the sentence, & authoritie of their H. N. Shame you nothing therefore to quote Whitaker pag. 17. & 120. as though he affirmed, that we our selues will be iudges, both of Councels, & Fathers, whether they expound the Scriptures well or no? because he writeth (percase) that we ought to examine al mens writings by the word of god. Doth the Apostle make eueryevery man iudge of all thinges, when he willeth eueryevery man to examine all things▪ and to hold that which is good? If any youth vponupon confidence of his wit, or knowledge, presume too much in diuine matters, we count it rashnesse. But that any youth among vsus, vponupon confidence of his spirit, will saucily controwle all the fathers cōsenting togither against his fantasie, except it be some Schismatike or Heretike, that is cast out from amongest vsus, I doe vtterly denye, neither are you able to proue it of any that is allowed among vsus.