The Answer to the Preface of the Rhemish Testament, Part 20
To the next ſection page 13.
Leaſt there ſhould want anie thing, wherein theſe enemies of God and of his word, ſhould not play their parts againſt th' originall Greek: they hauehave thought good to ſet vponupon it with a new accuſation of ſuperfluitie: whereof notwithſtanding they cannot bring a worde of reaſon, beſide the bare authoritie of Eraſmus, whoſe naked teſtimonie (without proofe) againſt the Greeke they are content to admitt: which notwithſtanding they vtterlye reiect, when (with good and ſubſtantiall reaſon) it commeth againſt th' old trāſlator. But let vsus ſee into th' authoritie. Firſt it is confeſſed of the Ieſuites, that the Greeke copies read the ſuppoſed ſuperfluities, with full conſent. And doe they thinke that ſuch a conſent of Greek copies ſhall not be able to weigh downe th' authoritie of the vulgar tranſlation, and …raſmus allowance of it in this place: where neither vntruth of doctrine nor anie vnſutablenes to that which either goeth before or commeth after, is able to bee ſhewed. If you your ſelues ſhould lay in ballance together, Eraſmus which here maketh for your vulgare, and Valla that maketh againſt him: we ſuppoſe that vnleſſe your extreame pouertie in this caſe drawe you to doe otherwiſe, you would giuegive the better weight to that ſkale, wherein you lay Valla: as one that dealt not ſo roughly with Monckery and other your pedlary as did Eraſmus. And as for the preheminence and authoritie, that all the Greek copies hauehave before th' old tranſlator (thoſe Papiſts excepted only which hauehave made themſelues driuels & drudges vntounto him:) we refuſe no mans weights, nor no mans iudgment. Beſide that to diſburden the Greeke of this falſe ſurmiſe of ſuperfluitie: we hauehave the Syrian paraphraſt, which in this poynt is not ſuperfluous in that being long before the vulgar, he beareth witnes in all theſe pretended ſuperfluities vntounto our Greeke copies; as vntounto thoſe that are moſt auncient. Now as for the place Math. 6. for thine is the kingdome &c. If Eraſmus had vnderſtood that it is taken out of the booke of Chronicles, written by the pen of the holy Ghoſt: he would (no doubt) hauehave taken heed howe he had called this concluſion of the Lords praier, triſles. For it appeareth manifeſtly, that this ſentence was borrowed from the Prophete Dauid, …. Chro. 29 11.with ſome abridgement of the Prophetes words: which being then fit to ſet forth the zeale and preſent touche of the louelove wherewith hee loued the Lorde, was not ſo fit (without an abſtract) for that prayer wherein our ſauiour ſought all ſhortneſſe poſsible. Secondlie, that cannot be ſuperfluous without the which we ſhuld not hauehave had a perfect form of Praier. For whē prayer ſtandeth, as well in praiſing of God and thankſgiuing, as in petitions and requeſts to be made vntounto him: it is euident that if this concluſion had bene wanting, there had wanted a forme of that prayer, which ſtandeth in praiſe and thankſgiuing. Laſt of all, if to giuegive a reaſon of that which goeth before be ſuperfluous, then this concluſion may be ſo. But we ſuppoſe that it wil be a ſtrange voice in th'eares of all the learned; to affirme that a ſubſtantiall reaſon giuen of any thing, ſhould be iudged reaſonleſſe, and the coupling vp of the cauſe with the effect in their ſurmiſed ſuperfluitie of this place. Rom. 11. 6. is charged likewiſe. Where it is no maruel although they iudge the latter propoſition ſuperfluous: ſeeing they are not able to beare th'enimity of the former, as that which hangeth their blaſphemous opinion of merit; ſo that it can draw no breth vvhen it appeareth. Which becauſe the Apoſt. would be ſure to hang thorowlie, he doubled his coard by a manifeſt oppoſition, frequented oftentimes of the holy ſcriptures. And therfore vvith the ſame knife they cut off this branche, that they may lop as ſuperfluous boughs a nomber of ſentences in the Scriptur, eſpecially in S. Iohn And theſe men that account Logicall reaſoning ſuperfluous in th'Apoſtle: how wil they bear the holy ghoſts rhethorick, in repeating one thing in one place, by variety of words alone without any variety of ſentence: which is ſo cuſtome-able a thing in the Proph. as ye Rabbins (for auoyding of tediouſnes) note ye whole ruleforeign therof in fiue letters. And if they wil not giuegive th'Apoſt. leaue to vſe his Logicke, vvithout reproach of ſuperfluity: they may (vvith better reaſon) denie the Prophets that figure of Rethorick, vvhichwhich of all other they moſt delighted in. Laſt of al, Eraſmus teſtimonie heere (vponupon vvhome they only leane) is not ſo full. For he doth not condemne the place of ſuperfluity but ſuſpecteth it. There follovveth Mar. 10. 29. where (with other things) wiues being ſpoken of in one verſe, is not vvith them repeated in the next. Whereupon is concluded, that in the former verſe it is a ſuperfluitie. And if it vvere not, for reuerence of Eraſmus learning, vve might vvell ſay it vvere a fond concluſion. For vvhy may ther not be aſvvell a defect in the latter verſe, as a ſuperfluitie in the former: and rather a defect heere, then ſuperfluitie there; conſidering that in Luke, Luk. 18. 29there is a full agreement of all Greek copies, reading as Saint Mark doth in the former verſe. But that this reaſon is neither proofe of ſuperfluitie nor defect: it is manifeſtly ſhevved by a like place. For th'Apoſtle hauing nombred and marked out diuerſe giftes & offices in the Church: in the two next1. Cor. 12. 28. foreign verſes making rehearſall of them againe, leaueth out two: of which notwithſtanding he might as trulie affirm that which he aſcribeth to th'other as of anie of them whatſoeuer. If therefore in a rehearſall the leauing out of ſome thinges ſent before, be an argument of ſuperfluitie: let them thruſt out theſe two ordinarie offices out of the Church; and together with the whole honourable traine of the greeke copies, which they will be eaſilie intreated vntounto: let them alſo condemn their vulgare tranſlation. Nay more then that, let them condemne (with the greeke) their owne vulgar in this verie place of Saint Marke: vvhichwhich hauing made mention of fathers in the former verſe, maketh no more mention of them, in the verſe following then of wiues. And vvhere they would proue, that by theſe two pricks" in Robert Stephanus edition of the new Teſtament in Greeke, is noted a ſuperfluitie in the greeke: vve know not vvhether vvee ſhould aſcribe it vntounto their blockiſhe ignorance, or to their hatefull mallice againſt the truth. For doe they think that Robert Steuen and Criſpine, men of great iudgement and learning, both ſo ſenſeles, as to hauehave put that for the text of the Scripture, vvhichwhich by their note, they vvould diſcredite with the reproach of ſuperfluitie: vvhoſe purpoſe vvas to ſhevve by thoſe notes, ſome diuerſity of reading in thoſe places, which they ſo marked: as it is manifeſt by th'examples heere alledged. In all vvhichwhich Maiſter Beza declareth, that there is difference amongſt the greeke copies. But yet the difference is not ſuch, but both by the greater number of the greeke copies, and by their antiquitie, manifeſtly confirmed by the Syrian Paraphraſt, and laſtlie by the good cohaerence & ſute of one ſentence with another: it may eaſilie appear that there is defect in the vulgare, and no ſuperfluitie in our editions. As in Mar. 6. 29. hovve aptlie is that threatning added againſt the refuſers of the Goſpell, that it ſhall be eaſier &c. So in Matth. 20. 22. the ſimilitude of Baptiſme vvith the death and afflictions of our Sauiour Chriſt, and his Apoſtles, is not only elegant to declare, how they ſhoulde be ouerwhelmed with them, as the bodye is plunged in the waters: but alſo comfortable exceedinglie, to ſhew that as the perſon baptiſed, lifteth vp his head, after that he hath bine ſowced in the waters: ſo both he and his Apoſtles ſhould hauehave a certaine and moſt aſſured good iſſue, out of all their trobles, and death it ſelf. Of which comfort, liuelie ſet forth in this ſimilitude, which was not in the ſimilitude of drinking the cup: the Church had bene depriued of, if there had not bene either wiſer heades or diligenter hands then your vulgar had. Which being repeated in the 23. verſe ſhould not hauehave bene iudged a ſuperfluitie, ſeing beſide th'uſe of repetition, to imprint it deeplier in memory, there is a noble increaſe whereby it is declared, that they ſhall aſſuredlie ſuffer with him: that ſo calling them home from their ambitious preaſing after ſuperioritie ouer their fellowes, they might think to prepare themſelues to trovbles.