Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Response to preface · Martins comments 49 – Martins comments 50
MART. 49. Well, say we, if you will needes hauehave it so, take your pleasure in choosing your text. And if you will stande to it, graunt vsus that Peter was chiefe among the Apostles, because your owne Greeke text saith, The first, Peter. No, saithMat. 10. Beza: we will graunt you no such thing, for these wordes were added to the Greeke text by one that fauoured Peters primacie. Is it so? then you will not stande to this Greeke texte neither. Not in this place, saith Beza.
FVLK. 49. In graunting Peter to be the firste, wee neede not graunt him to be the chiefe, and if we graunt him to be the chiefe, it followeth not that he is chiefe in auctoritie. But if that were graunted, it is not necessarie that he was head of the Church. And albeit that were also graunted, the Bishop of Rome could gaine nothing by it. But what saith Beza, where the texte saith, the firste Peter? If wee muste beleeue you, hee saith, No, wee will graunt you no suche thing, for these wordes were added to the Greeke texte by one that fauoured Peters primacie. I praye you Martin where hath Beza those wordes? will you neuer leaue this shamefull forgerie? Beza in the tenth of Mathew doth only aske the question. Quid si hoc vocabulum, &c. what if this worde were added, by some that would establish the Primacie of Peter? for nothing followeth that may agree with it. This asketh Beza but as an obiectiō, which immediatly after he answeareth, & concludeth that it is no addition, but a naturall word of the text, found in all copies, confessed by Theophylact an enimie of the Popes primacie, and defendeth it in the third of Marke, where it is not in the common Greeke copies nor in the vulgar Latine, against Erasmus, who finding it in some Greeke copies, thought it was vntruely added out of Mathew. But Beza saith: Ego verò non dubito quin haec sit germana lectio. But I doubte not but this is the true and right reading of the texte: and therefore hee translateth Prim…in… Simonem, the firste Simon, out of the fewe copies Erasmus speaketh of. Therefore it is an abhominable slaunder to charge him with following the common receyued texte where it seemeth to make against you when hee contendeth for the truth against the common text, yea and against your owne vulgar Latine, to giuegive you that which you make so great accompte of, that Peter in the Cataloge of the Apostles was firste. So greatly hee feareth to acknowledge that Peter was called first. And so true it is that you charge him to say. No, wee will graunt you no such thing, for these wordes were added to the Greeke texte by one that fauoured Peters primacie. I hope your favourers seeing your forgerie thus manifestly discouered, will giuegive you lesse credite in other your shamelesse slaunders, at the leastwise this in equitie. I trust all Papistes will graunt, not to beeleue your report against any mans writing, except they reade it thōselues. Now …at this worde, (the first) argueth no primacie, or superioritie, beside those places quoted by Beza, Act. 26. 20. Rom. 1, 8. & 3, 2. You may read 1. Par. v▪ 23 & 24. where the posteritie of Leui and Aaron are rehearsed as they were appointed by Dauid in their orders, or courses. Subuel primus, Rohobia primus, sors prima Ioiarib, &c. where least you should thinke of any headship, or principalitie, because the Hebrue is somtime foreign, & the Greeke foreign, you may see, that Subuel is called primus of the sonnes of Gerson, when there is no more mentioned, & more expresly, Rohobia is called primus of the sonnes, of Eleazer, of whome it is sayd, that he had no more sonnes, & that foreign signifieth here, the first in order, it appeareth by those generations, where the second, third, or fourth, is named, as in the sonnes of Hebron, and of Oziel. Also in the sonnes of Semei, where Iehoth is counted the first, Ziza the second: Iaus and Beria, becaused they increase not in sonnes, were accounted for one familie. In all which, there is no other primacy, than in the first lot of Ioiarib, where the Hebrew worde is harishuon, and so follow theforeign rest…n order, vntounto foure and twenty courses. Therefore there is no cause why we should not stand to the Greeke text, in that place, neither did Beza euer deny to stande to it.
MART. 50. Let vsus see an other place. You must graunt vsus (saywe) by this Greeke text, that Christes very bloud which was shed for vsus, is really in the chalice, because S. Luke sayth so in the Greeke text. No, sayth Beza, those Greeke wordes came out of the margem into the text, and therefore I translate not according to them, but according to that which I thinke the truer Greeke text, although I finde it in no copies in the world, and this his doing *See chap. 1. num 37. chap. 17. num. 11.is maintained & iustified by our English Protestants, in their writings of late.
FVLK. 50. Still Beza speaketh, as you inspire into him, while he speaketh through your throte, or quil. The truth is, Beza sayth, that either there is a manifest Soloecophanes, that is an appearance of incongruitie, or els those wordes (which is shed for you) seeme to be added out of S. Mathew, or els it is an errour of the writers, placing that in the nominatiue case, which should be in the datiue. For in the datiue case did Basil read them in his morals, 21. definition.
Neuertheles, all our olde bookes (sayth Beza) had it so written, as it is commonly printed in the nominatiue case. Here are three seuerall disiunctions, yet can you finde none, but one proposition that you set downe, as though it were purely and absolutely affirmed by Beza. Likewise, where you speake of no copies in the world, you say more than Beza, who speaketh but of such copies as he had, who, if he were of no better conscience, than you would hauehave him seeme to be, might faine some copie in his owne handes, to salue the matter. But the truth is, that since he wrote this, he found one more auncient copie, both in Greeke, and Latine, which nowe is at Cambridge, where this whole verse is wanting. But of this matter, which somewhat concerneth my selfe particularly, I shall hauehave better occasion to write in the places by you quoted, cap. 1. num. 37. and cap. 17. num. 11. where I will so iustifie that which I hauehave written before, touching this place, as I trust all learned and indifferent Readers, shall see how vainely you insult against me, where you bewray grosser ignorance in Greeke phrases, than euer I woulde hauehave suspected in you, being accounted the principall Linguist of the Seminarie at Rhemes.