Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Response to preface · Martins comments 15 – Martins comments 17
MART. 15. Wherevpon it riseth that one of them defendeth this as very wel said of Luther, That he esteemed notIbid. pag. 101. the worth of a rushe a thousande Augustines, Cyprians, Churches, against him selfe. And an other very finely & figuratiuely, (as he thought) against the holy Doctor & Martyr S. Cyprian, affirming that the Church of Rome can not errePraef. ad 6. theses Oxon pag. 25. in faith, saith thus: Pardon me Cyprian, I woulde gladly beleue thee▪ but that beleeuing thee, I should not beleeue the Gospell. This is that which S. Augustine saith of the like men, dulcissimè vanos esse, non peritos, sed perituros, necLib. Confess. 1. cap. 14. lib. 7. c. 20. tam disertos in errore, quàm desertos à veritate. And I thinke verily, that not onelyonly we, but the wiser men among them selues, smile at such eloquence, or pitie it, saying this, or the like most truly, Prodierunt oratores noui, stulti adolescentuli.Cicer. de Senect.
FVLK. 15. Why shoulde you not at your pleasure vponupon your false assumption generall, inferre one or two slaunders particular. M. Whitaker defendeth that it was well said of Luther. That he esteemed not the worth of a rush a thousand Augustines, Cyprians, Churches, against himselfe. Woulde God that eueryevery Papist would reade his owne words in the place by you quoted, that he might see your impudent forgerie. For I hope there is no Christian, that will imagine, that either Luther would so speake, or any man of honestie, defend him so speaking. For Luther was not so senselesse, to oppose his owne person, but the truth of his cause, grounded vponupon the holy Scriptures, not only against one thousand of men, holding the contrary, but euen against tenne thousand of Angels, if they should oppose them selues against the truth of God. But I am too blame to deale so much in M. Whitakers cause, who ere it be long, will displaye the falshoode of Gregorie Martin, in a Latine writing, to his great ignominie.
The next cauil is vponupon M. Rainoldes words, in his preface to his sixe positions, disputed vponupon at Oxford, where against Cyprian, affirming that the Church of Rome can not erre in faith, he sayth: Pardon me Cyprian, I would gladly beleeue thee, but that in beleeuing thee, I shoulde not beleeue the Gospel. These wordes you confesse that he spake figuratiuely, and finely, as he thought: but that he vsed the figures of Ironve and concession, you will not acknowledge, but all other men may easily see. For first he no where graunteth, that S. Cyprian affirmeth, that the Churche of Rome can not erie in fayth. But immediatly before the wordes by you translated, after he had proued out of the eleuēth to the Romans, that the particular Church of Rome may be cut of, as well as the Church of the Israelites, which were the naturall braunches, he asketh the question Quid? & Cypriano secus est visum? What? And did it seeme otherwise to Cyprian? Pardon me Cyprian, &c. His meaning is plaine, that Cyprian thought not otherwise than S. Paule hath written, or if he did, it was lawfull to dissent from Cyprian. As a litle after he sayth: Quare si Romanam Ecclesiam errare non posse, &c. Wherefore if Cyprian thought that the Church of Rome could not erre in that point, by the sentence of the Papistes, he him selfe is to be condemned of errour: for diuerse Papistes whome he nameth, confesse that eueryevery particular Church may erre, and Verratus, one of them, affirmeth that the Church of Rome is a particular Church, which the rest can not deny. And in deede that which Cyprian writeth, is about certaine runneagate Heretikes, that flying out of the Church of Carthage, sought to be receiued of the particular Church of Rome. All this while here is no graunt that Cyprian affirmeth, that the Church of Rome cannot erre in faith. And if Cyprian had so affirmed contrary to the scripture, it might hauehave bene iustly replied vntounto him, which S. Augustine saith when he was pressed with his authoritie. Contra Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 31. Nos nullam Cypriano facimus iniuriam. We do Cyprian no wrong, when we distinguish any writings of his from the Canonical authoritie of the diuine Scriptures. And in truth the wordes which M. Rainolds before cited out of S. Cyprian, lib. 1. ep 3. ad Cornel. are spoken of no matter of faith, but in a matter of discipline. Neither doth Cyprian say, that the Church of Rome can not erre in faith, but that those Heretikes which brought letters from schismatikes & profane persons, did not consider, that they are Romans, whose faith is praised by the cōmendation, or preaching of the Apostle, to whom perfidia, falshood, or false dealing can hauehave none accesse. Meaning that the Romans so long as they cōtinue in that faith which was praised by the Apostle, cā not ioyne with Heretikes and Schismatikes, that are cast out of other Catholike Churches. For that he could not meane that the Pope or Church of Rome cannot erre in faith (as the Papistes affirme) it is manifest, for that in a question of religion▪ he dissented both from the Bishop and Church of Rome, as all learned men knowe he did, which he would neuer hauehave done, if he had beleeued they could not erre. And that his meaning was not that the Bishop of Rome could not erre in matters of discipline, it is manifest in the next epistle, where he complaineth, that Basilides a wicked man, after his crimes were detected, and his cōscience made bare by his owne confession, went to Rome, and deceyued our fellow Bishop Stephanus, dwelling farre of, and being ignorant of the case, so that he sought ambitiously to be vniustly restored into the Bishoprike from whence he was iustly deposed. These things proue, that S. Cyprian thought it no impossible thing, for the Bishops and Church of Rome to erre in faith or gouernment. Wherefore that you cite out of Augustine agreeth best vntounto your selfe, and such as you are, who imploy al your eloquence and vtterance, to set foorth lies and slaunders. Laste of all, when you hauehave nothing else to disgrace those graue and learned writers, you woulde make them by abusing a peece of Tullie, cōtemptible for their youth, among such as know them not, who if they wanted half a score yeares a peece, of that ripe and well seasoned age they hauehave, yet with those giftes of godlinesse and learning, which God hath in great measure bestowed vponupon them, they were worthie to be reuerenced. So that Venemous traytor, which writeth of the persecution of the Papistes, maketh me a very yong man, and therefore contemned of the auncient Fathers at Wisbiche, and yet I can easily proue, that I was of lawfull age, if more than twise one and twentie yeares will serue, before euer I sawe Wisbiche castle.
MART. 16. The 4. point is, of picking quarels to the very originall text: for alter and change it I hope they shall not be able in this watchfull world of most vigilant Catholikes. But what they would do, if all Bibles were only in their handes and at their commaundement, ghesse by this: that Beza against the euidenceBeza the mouse of Geneua, gnavveth the text of Scripture. of all copies both Greeke and Latine, (In his Annot. vponupon the newe Testam. set forth in the yeare 1556.) thinketh foreign, is more than should be in the text Mat. 10: and foreign Luc. 22. foreign Act. 7: the first, against Peters supremacie: the seconde, against the real presence of Christs bloud in the B. Sacrament: the third, against the making of what soeuer images, whether they be adored or no. Thus you see how the mouse of Geneua (as I told you before of Marcion the mouse of Pontus) knibbleth and gnaweth about it, though he can not bite it of altogither.
FVLK. 16. In this point you do nothing but picke quarrels, seeing you confesse that neither they hauehave, nor can alter, or chaunge any thing of the originall text. If Beza expresse his coniecture vponupon some grounde or similitude of reason, that foreign in Mathew 10. foreign Luc. 22. and foreign Act 7. might perhaps be added to the texte out of the margent or otherwise, and yet dothe not precisely affirme it, but leaue it to iudgement and triall of auncient copies, if any shall be found to fauour his coniecture, what hath he like to the mouse of Pōtus Marcion, which altered & corrupted the text? you say he knibbleth & gnaweth about it, though he can not bite it of altogither. And for what aduātage? forsooth, because the first worde maketh for Peters supremacie, a poore supremacie that Peter can gaine in that he is named the first in the Cataloge of the Apostles, which is but a primacie of order, not of honour, or as Ambrose saith, a primacie of confession, not of honour,De ineam. dom. cap. 4. of faith, not of degree. The secōd word you say is against the real presence of Christes bloud in the B. Sacrament. You are a perilous catte that can spie a mouse gnawing at the real presence, which none of the auncient Fathers, or late writers before these dayes could finde in those wordes. And as for making of Images who doth forbidde, except it be in any vse of religion, whiche God doth forbidde in the second commaundement of the first table. And where you will hauehave men to ghesse what we would do if all Bibles were only in our hands, by this example of Bezaes coniectures. I wishe men rather to consider what the Romish rattes were like to do in that case, which in their translation of the ten commaundementes for the peoples instruction, hauehave cleane gnawen out the second commaundement, and because they cannot bite it cleane out of the Bible, they seeke all shiftes to hide it vnderunder the first commaundement. Finally whether Lindanus and you do picke quarrels against all the euidence of all Greeke copies, I referre me to your 4. section, where out of Lindanus you falsely affirme that certaine of Marcions corruptions remayne in the Greke text vntill this day.
MART. 17. He doth the like in sundrie places which you may see in his Annotat. Act. 7. v. 16. Where he is saucie against al copies Greeke and Latin to pronounce corruption, corruption, auouching & endeuouring to proue that it must be so, and that with these words, To what purpose should the holy Ghost, or Luke, adde this? Act. 8. v. 26. But because those places cō cerne no cōtrouersie, I say no more but that he biteth at the text, and would change it according to his imagination, if he might: which is too proud an enterprise for Beza, & small reuerence of the holy scriptures, so to call the very text into controuersie, that whatsoeuer pleaseth not him, crepte out of the margent into the text, which is his common and almost his only coniecture.
FVLK. 17. Where Beza noteth corruption in places that concerne no controuersie, it appeareth that without parcialitie he desireth to restore the texte to sinceritie. And yet he is charged of you with pride and saucinesse. Why more I pray you, than Lindanus, of whom you learned to pratle so much of the mouse of Pontus? Which lib. 2 de optim. gen. interpret. scripturas, hath diuerse chapters of the defect of the Greeke text, of the redundance, and of the corruption thereof. If Lindanus might doe this with modestie, and desire to finde out the truth (as I thinke he did) why may not an indifferent reader, iudge the like of Beza, in his doings? As for creeping out of the margent into the texte, which you say is his common and almost onelyonly coniecture, why may it not come to passe in writing out of the bookes of the Scripture, as it hath in other writings of other auctors. And that eyther by that meanes, or by some other meanes, corruption hath hapned to al copies that at this day are extant, both Greeke & Latine, in naming Hieremie for Zacharie, Math. 27, Who is so blinde that he wil not see? yet the ordinarie Glose cōfesseth, that there were diuerse copies in times past, in which the name of Hieremie was not, but the worde Prophete generally. Likewise in the vulgar Latine texte, in the beginning of S. Markes Gospell, Esay is cited for that which is written in Malachie▪ and some Greeke copies hauehave the same, frō whence it is like the Latine translation receaued that errour. But the more part of best Greeke copies, leaue out the name of Esay. Howe these corruptions should come into the text, except it be out of the margent, if you can finde a better coniecture, we shall be content with more patience to heare you, than you can abide to heare Beza.