Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue

FVLKE.

WHETHER these five abuses have been common to all heretics, & whether it hath been the fashion of all heretics to pretend Scriptures for show of their cause: though I will spare now to inquire of, as a thing wherein learned men at the first sight may espy the great skil that Martin pretendeth to have in discerning of heretics and heresies; yet will I show (by the grace of God) that none of these five abuses are committed by us, or our Catholic translations, & that the popish heretics are in some sort, or other guilty of them all.

FULK. 1. First we deny no one book of the Canonical scripture that hath been so received of the Catholic church, for the space of 300. years, & more, as it hath been often proved out of Eusebius, S. Jerome, and other ancient authorities: but the Papists in advancing Apocryphal books to be of equal credit with the Canonical Scriptures, do in effect deny thē all. Besides that to add unto the word of God, is as great a fault as to take away from it, the one being forbidden under as heavy a curse, as the other. Those blasphemies of Pighius & Eccius, the one calling the holy Scripture a nose of wax and a dumb judge, the other terming the Gospel written, to be a black Gospel, and an ynkie Divinity, and that of Hosius acknowleging none other express word of God, but only this one word Ama, or dilige, love thou: what other thing do they import, but a shameless denial of all books of the holy Scripture in deed, how soever in word they will seem to admit them.

FULK. 2. We neither doubt of the authority of any certain book of the holy Scriptures, neither cal we any of them into question, but with due reverence do acknowledge thē all, & everyone to be of equal credit & authority, as being all inspired of god▪ givē to the church for the building up thereof in truth, and for the avoiding of fables, & heresies: But the Papists arrogating to their Pope, authority to allow or refuse, any book of holy Scripture, & affirming that no Scripture hath authority, but as it is approved by their church, do bring all books of the holy Scripture into doubting, & uncertainty, with such as will depend vpō their Pope, & popish churches authority: which they affirm to be above the holy Scriptures, saying they might as well receive the gospel of Nicodemus as of S. Mark, & by the same authority reject the Gospel of S. Matthew, as they have done the Gospel of S. Bartholomew. These blasphemous assertions although some of them would couler, or mitigate with gentle interpretations: yet their is no reasonable man but seeth, into what discredit and uncertainty they must needs bring the authority of the Canonical books of holy Scripture with the simple and ignorant.

FULK. 3. We expound not the Scriptures after our own private conceit, and fantasie: but as near as God giveth us grace, according to the plain and natural sense of the same, agreeable unto the rule or proportiō of faith, which been approved by the ancient fathers, and Catholic church of Christ, in all matters necessary to eternal salvation. Not bringing a new and strange sense which is without the Scriptures, to seek confirmation thereof in the Scriptures (as the manner of heretics is rightly noted by Clemens) but out of the Scriptures thenselves seek we the exposition of such obscure places as we find in them, being persuaded with S. Augustine, that nothing in a manner is found out of those obscure and dark places, which may not be found to be most plain lie spoken in other places. And as for the approved sense of the holy ancient Fathers, and Catholic Church of the eldest and purest times, if the Papists durst stand unto it, for the deciding of many of the most weighty controversies, that are between us, there is no doubt, but▪ they should soon and easily be determined, as hath been shown in diverse and many treatises, written against them. In which if anything be brought, so plainly expounding the Scripture against their popish heresies, as nothing can be more express nor clear, then they are driven to seek new and monstrous expositions of those Fathers interpretations: or else they answer, they are but those Fathers private expositions, appealing to the Catholic churches interpretation, which is nothing else but their own private conceipte and fancy, having no record to prove that Catholic Churches interpretation, but the present heretical opinions, of this late degenerated Antichristian congregation. And whē they have discoursed never so much of the Catholic churches interpretation, they reduce and submit all men's judgments to the determinatiō of their Councils, & the decrees of the Councils to the approbation of their Pope, which as he is oftentimes a wicked man of life: so is he ignorant and unlearned in the Scriptures, to whose most private censure, the holy Scriptures themselves, and all sense and exposition of them is made subject, under color that Christ praying for Peter, that his faith should not fail in temptation, gave all Popes such a prerogative, that they could not err in faith▪ though they were wicked of life, void of learning, ignorant in the Scriptures, destitute of the spirit of God, as is proved moste invincibly by example of diverse Popes, that have been heretics, and mainteyners of such errors, as are not now in controversy between us (least they should say we beg the principle) but of the sect of the Arians, Monothelites, Eutychians, Sadducees, and such other.

FULK. 4. The original text of the holy Scripture we alter not, either by adding, taking away, or changing of any letter, or syllable, for any private purpose, which were not only a thing most wicked and sacrilegious, but also vain, and impossible. For, seeing not only so many ancient copies of the original text are extant in diverse places of the world, which we cannot, if we would, corrupt, and that the same are multiplied by printing into so many thousand examples, we should be rather mad than foolish, if we did but once attempt such a matter, for maintenance of any of our opinions. As also it is incredible, that Marcion the mouse of Pontus, could corrupt all the Greek copies in the world, as Lindanus, of whom you borrowed that conceit, imagineth, in those places in which he is charged by Tertullian. For Marcions heresy was not so generally received by the Greek Church, that all men would yield unto him, neither was Tertullian so sound of judgment in the Latin Church, that whatsoever he judged to be a corruption in Marcion▪ must of necessity be so taken. But if adding, and detracting from the Scripture, be proper notes of heretics, who can purge Stephen Gardener, & Gregory Martin? The one for adding unto a the verse of the Psalm, this pronowne se, him self, to prove the carnal presens, citing it thus. Escam se dedit timentibus eum. He gave himself to be meat▪ to them that fear him, whereas the words of the Prophet, according to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin are no more but▪ Escam dedit. He hath given meat, &c. The other in his fond book of schism, citing this text out of 1. Cor. 10. as many Papists do against the certainty of Faith. Qui stat, videat ne cadat. He that standeth let him take heed he fall not. Whereas not only the truth of the Greek: but even the vulgar Latin translation hath. Qui se existimat stare, He that thinketh or supposeth that he standeth, let him take heed that he fall not. But of such additions and detractions, used by the Romish rattes, far worse than the myse of Pontus, we shall have more occasion to speak hereafter.

FULK. 5. As touching false and heretical translations, which is the chief argument of this book, I doubt not, but by the grace of god to clear our english translators from any willful corruptions, for the maintenance of any error, or heresy: such as were those of the Arians & Pelagians, which Gregory Martin, as though he uttered some great piece of skill, doth so diligently express. I shall have occasion also to show, that the Papists them selves of our times, maintaining their corrupt vulgar translation, against the truth of the original texts of Greek, and Hebrew, are most guilty of such corruption, and falsification, whereof although they be not the first authors, yet by obstinate defending of such errors, they may prove worse than they which did first commit them. For the authors of that vulgar translation, might be deceived, either for lack of exact knowledge of the tongues, or by some corrupt, and untrue copies which they followed, or else perhaps that which they had rightly translated, by fault of the writers, & negligence of the times might be perverted: but these men frowardly justifying all errors of that translation, howsoever they have been brought in, do give plain testimony, that they are not led with any conscience of God's truth, but willfully carried with purpose of maintaining their own errors: least if they did acknowledge the error of the Romish church in that one point they should not be able to defend any one jot of their heresy, whose chief color is the credit and authority of that particular and false church, rather than any reason or argument out of the holy Scriptures, or testimony of the most ancient Christian and Catholic church.

FULK. 6. It is very true, that so many Heretics as pretend the authority of the holy Scriptures, abuse the same to their own destruction: and no Heretics worse than the Antichristians, or Papists. As partly hath been seen already in everyone of your five marks, & more may appear in those four pointes which you will handle in the Preface, because the argument of your whole book is the fifth: so that in the ende you shall be proved no wiser with your five pointes, than he that came forth with his five eggs, & never a good of them all. But you ask, if it were not easy for you to show (if you would stand upon them) that the Protestants use all the said sieve means of defacing the Scripture? I answer no, and that shall you see when demonstratiō is made, how vainly you have labored in the last point: which howsoever you would have it appear to be a sudden writing, of small travail, by interlacing a few lines here & there, against M. Whitaker, against me, & some other: yet it is evident both by Bristowes threatening, and Campions promise, that it hath been a work of some years unto you: wherein beside that you are beholding much to Lindanus, for diverse quarrels against Calvin, and to sir Thomas More, for many cavillations against W. Tyndals translation: there is little worthy of so long study, and large promises, as have gone before this diligent discovery: so that if you will make the like trial in the rest, you shall find them as hard to prove as this last.

FULK. 7. I know not whether ever Luther denied S. James epistle as unworthy of an Apostolical spirit, but I believe you may take a twelve months day more to prove it, as also that he did so contemn it, that he called it an epistle of straw. But M. Whitaker which denied it so vehemently▪ must ask of me, who moste slatly confess (saith M. Martin) that it was so. I pray you sir, urge me not to confess more than I know, or ever knew. But you have confessed it already in two printed books, Retent. pag. 32. Disc of the Rock, pag 307. In the place first cited, there are these words But to proceed: LVTHER DENIETH THE EPISTLE OF S. JAMES, BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST HIS HERESY OF IVSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONELY. We allow not Luther, neither did he allow him self therein, for he retracteth it afterward. First those words of Luther's denial being printed in a diverse letter, may testify sufficiently to every reasonable man, that they are the objection of Bristow, and not the confession of Fulke, who not simplye admitteth them as true, but by concession, proveth that if they were true, yet Luther's opinion, against which he him self hath written, ought not to prejudice him, and much less all other men, that never held that opinion. In the later cited place, are these words. And as touching the epistle of S. James, it is a shameless slander of him to say that the Protestants reject it, but we must hear his reason. First Luther calleth it a strawen epistle. So Luther called the Pope supreme head of the Church, and the mass a sacrifice propitiatory. If Protestants be charged to hold whatsoever Luther sometime held, and after repented. &c. Who seeth not in these words, that I rehearse the objection of Saunder, which is common to him with many other Papists, which not discussing whether it be true or no, but supposing it were as Saunder and the rest of the Papists do affirm. I show that it is no good consequence, to charge all Protestants with Luther's private opinion, which perhaps he held sometime, and after retracted, more than to charge us with all opinions of Papistry, which de did hold, before God opened his eyes to see the absurdity of them. And yet if he had held that opinion, and never retracted the same, he were not in worse case than Eusebius, who in plain words affirmeth, that the same epistle is a counterfeit or bastard epistle, lib. 2. cap. 23. Do you not see now how flatly Master Fulke confesseth that it was so? Such confessions as these, are now & than extorted out of the ancient fathers writings, which are not living to expound their meanings. But I had thought Master Martin could have discerned between a suppose or concession, and an absolute assertion, or a flat confession, especially of one whose writing is plain enough, and beside is alive to interpret himself, if any ambiguity were therein. But be it that Master Martin either would not, or could not see in my writing anything else but a flat confession of Luther's denying of S. James epistle, and calling it an epistle of straw, of what forehead proceedeth it, that he willeth Master Whitaker to ask Calvin in argum. Epist. Iacobi, whether Luther so speak of that epistle? in which argument Luther is not once named by Calvin, so far is it, that he doth testify any such thing against Luther. Only he saith, that some there are in these days, which think that epistle not worthy of authority, which could not be understood of Luther, who long before Calvin wrote that argument, had forsaken that opinion, if ever he held any such, as all those Dutche Bibles and Testaments of Luther's translation, in which those words so much baited at, and so much sought for are omitted, do give sufficient testimony. What Flaccus Illyricus reporteth▪ who perhaps held that opinion him self, and would father it upon Luther, I have neither opportunity to seek, nor care to know. But howe great a matter it is, that all the Popish Germans, and other, who have written against Luther, do so spitefully gnawe upon, I have learned at length by relation of Master Whitaker. whom you send to ask of me: who after long search and many editions turned over, at the length lighted upon a Dutch Testament, by likehood one of the first that Luther did set forth in the German tongue, in which he findeth neither denial of S. James epistle to be Canonical, nor affirmation that it is unworthy of an Apostolical spirit, no nor that whereof there hath been so much babbling of all the Papists, that he calleth it an epistle of straw simply, and in contempt, but only in comparison of the epistles of Paul and Peter, and other books of the new Testament, the excellency of which one above another, after he hath shown in sundry degrees, at last he saith, the epistle of James in comparison of these, is strawye, or like straw. Which he saith not in respect of the credit or authority thereof, but in regard of the argument or matter handled therein, which all wise and godly men will confess to be not so excellent and necessary, as the matter of the holy Gospels and Epistles of some other of the Apostles, namely of Paul, Peter, and John. Our Savior Christ himself, John. 3. 12▪ calleth the doctrine of regeneration, in such plain manner as he uttered it, to Nicodemus, earthly things in comparison of other greater mysteries, which he could have expressed in more heavenly & spiritual sort. If I have spoken to you (saith he) of earthly things, and you have not believed, how if I should speak to you of heavenly things, will you believe? Were not he an honest and a wise man, that upon these words of Christ spoken in comparison, would conclude by his authority, that regeneration were a contemptible matter, a thing not spiritual, not heavenly, but simply and altogether earthly. And yet with, as good reason, for ought I see or can learn of Luther's words concerning this matter, he might so infer, as the Papists do enforce, the like against Luther. Wherefore it is nothing else but a famous and infamous cavillation, to the confusion of all the Papists which write against Luther, that no one of them omitteth upon so false and frivolous a ground, to slander him so heinously, and to charge all Protestants with his assertion so enuiously: which if it were his, should not be so evil as other Catholic writers have affirmed of that Epistle, and therefore not sufficient to charge him, and much less others with heresy: but being not his simple affirmation, yet because it hath been offensively taken, he him self hath put it out, and given it over. O what a stir would they keep, if they had any weighty matter of truth to burden him withal?

FULK. 8. You may well let it pass, for it is not worth the time you spend in writing of it, and if you had been wise, you would utterly have omitted it. But what say you of Toby, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees most certainly by us rejected? They were allowed (you say) for Canonical by the same authority that S. James Epistle was. And think you that S. James Epistle was never allowed for Canonical before the third Council of Carthage? For, of the other it is certain they were never received by the Church of the Israelites before Christ his coming, nor of the Apostolic and primitive Church for more than 300. years after, as both Eusebius out of Origines, and the Council of Laodicea Can. • 9. confirmed afterward by the sixth general Council of Constantinople showeth for the Greek Church, and S. Jerome in prologo Galeato for the Latin Church. As for the provincial Council of Carthage holden by 44. Bishops of Africa, if we were bound to receive it for these books, we must also acknowledge five books of Solomon, which in the same Council are authorised, whereas the Church never knew but of three. And although the book of wisdom should be ascribed to Salomō, there could be but four. Again, how they understand the word Canonical, it may be gathered both out of the words of the same Canon, where they give none other reason of the approbatiō of all those books of Scripture, but that they have received them of their fathers to be read in the Church: and also out of S. Augustine, who was one present at the same Council: which after he hath declared how a man should discern the Canonical Scriptures from other writings, by following the authority of the Catholic Churches, especially those that have deserved to have Apostolic sees, and to receive their Epistles, he addeth further. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scriptures canonicis, vt ease quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesijs Catholicis, praeponat eis quas quaedā non accipiunt. In eis vero quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat ease, quas plures grauiores{que} accipiunt eis quas pauciores minoris{que} authoritatis Ecclesiae tenent. Si autem alias inuenerit à pluribus, alias à grauioribus haberi, quanquam hoc inuenire non possit, aequalis tamē auctoritatis ease habēdas puto. Totus autem canon scripturarum in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus, his libris continetur. He shall hold therefore this mean in the canonical Scriptures, that he prefer those which are received of all catholic churches, before those Scriptures which some Churches do not receive. But in those which are not received of all, let him prefer those Scriptures which the greater number and graver churches do receive, before those which churches fewer in number & of less authority do hold. But if he shall find some Scriptures to be had of fewer churches & other some of graver churches, although you cannot find this thing, yet I think they are to be accōpted of equal authority. Now the whole canō of scriptures in which we say this consideration must be occupied is contained in these books. Five books of Moses, that is Genesis, Exodus, &c. By this saying of Augustine, it is manifest, that he calleth canonical Scriptures, not only those books that ought of necessity to be received of all churches: but also such as were received of some, & of some were not, in which mumber were these books of Toby, Ecclesiasticus, & the Maccabees, which by his own rule, were not to be received as of absolute & sovereign authority, because the Apostolic churches of Asia & Europa, & those of grauest authority, among which was the church of Rome in that time, did not receive thē, as witnesseth not only S. Jerome a Priest of Rome, but also Ruffinus of Aquileia, in symbolo, who both declare what books were received in their churches as canonical, & of irrefragable authority to build principles of faith upon them, & what books were admitted only to be read for instruction of manners. And therefore according to the rule of Augustine & testimony of the ancient fathers, & because it cōsenteth with the rest of the scriptures, & not for Calvin's pleasure we receive the Epistle of S. James, though it hath not been always, and of all Churches received. Concerning the name of Calvinists, as of all other nick names, that it pleaseth you of your charity to bestow upon us, it shall suffice to protest once for all, that we acknowledge none other name of our profession, but Christians, & Catholics: and that we have neither received that Epistle, nor rejected the other, because it pleased Calvin so. This may serve for a clear demonstration, that in the first English Bibles that were printed under the name of Thomas Matthew, before Calvin wrote any word of the reiectiō of those books, or of receiving of the other, they are called Apocrypha, & printed with other of that mark, by thenselves, & the Epistle of S. James without any question acknowledged to be one of the canonical Epistles, whereas Calvin's Institution was first printed An. 1536. & his argument upon S. James Epistle 1551. You may see what honest dealing the Papists use, to bring the truth into discredit, & the professors thereof into hatred with the simple & unlearned people, bearing thē in hand, that we have no cause to receive or refuse books of Scripture, but Calvin's pleasure. But the God of truth will one day reward these impudent liars & shameless slanderers.

Well let us now see under what pretence, it pleased Calvin to reject these books. Under pretence forsooth (saith Martin) that they were once doubted of, and not taken for Canonical. I pray you sir, where doth Calvin pretend that only cause? In his Instit. li. 3. c. 5 sect. 8. He allegeth diverse other causes touching the books of Maccabees, as every mā that will may read. Shame you nothing to forge such manifest untruths, & that in such matters as you may be convinced in them by ten thousand witnesses? What credit shall be given to you in matters that consist upon your own bare testimony when you force not to fain of other men, that wherein every man may reprove you? And as for the only pretence you speak of, Calvin doth so little esteem it, that notwithstanding the same, he doubteth not to receive the Epistle of S. James because it is agreeable to the whole body of the canonical Scripture as if you had read his argument upon that Epistle you might easily have perceived.

FULK. 9. The mouth that lieth killeth the soul. The reader may think you have small care of his souls health, when by such impudent lying you declare that you have so small regard of your own. But what shall he mark? That heresy, &c. You were best say that Eusebius, Jerome, Ruffine & all the churches in their times were heretics, & that only heresy was the cause of their denial of these books. For such reasons as moved thē move us, & something also their authority. But how prove you that only heresy moveth us to reject thē? Because M. Whit. against the orders, & Hierarchies, & particular patronages of Angels writeth in the name of the rest. That we pass not, &c. Take heed least upon your bare surmise you belie him where you say he writeth in the name of the rest, as in the next sectiō following you say, he writeth in the name of both the universities, for which I am sure he had no cōmissiō frō either of thē, although he did write that which may well be aduouched by both the universities, yet I know his modesty is such, as he will not presume to be advocate for both the universities, and much less for the whole church, except he were lawfully called thereto. This is a common practice of you Papists, to bear the world in hand that whatsoever is writ̄ by any of us in defense of the truth is set forth in the name of all the rest, as though none of us could say more in any matter, than any one of us hath writ̄, or that if any one of us chance to slip in any small matter, though it be but a wrong quotatiō▪ you might open your wide sclaunderous mouths against the whole church for one man's particular offense. Now touching anything that M. Whit. hath written, you shall find him sufficient to maintain it against a stronger adversary thā you are, & therefore I will medle the less in his causes. And for the orders & patronage or protection of Angels by God's appointment, we have sufficient testimony in the Canonical Scriptures, that we need not the uncertain report of Tobies book to instruct us what to think of thē. But as for the Hierarchies, & patronage of Angels, that many of you Papists have imagined & written of, neither the canonical Scriptures, nor yet the Apocryphal books now in controversy, are sufficient to give you warrātise. The like I say of freewill, prayer for the dead, & intercession of Saints. But it grieveth you that those Apocryphal scriptures, which have been universally received for canonical in the church of God above 1100. years should find no more reverence among us. Stil your mouth rūneth over. For in the time of the Canon of the council of Carthage. 3. which you quote, these books were not universally reverenced as canonical. And Augustine him self speaking of the book of Maccabees,

This writeth S. Augustine, whē he was pressed with the authority of that book by the Donatists, which defended that it was lawful for them to kill themselves, by example of Razis, who is by the author of that book commonded for that fact. Finally, he addeth a condition of the receiving it, if it be soberly read or heard. These speeches declare, that it was not received without all controversy, as the authentical word of God: for then should it be received necessarily, & because it is God's word especially, & how soever it be read or heard it is received of the Church, not only necessarily, but also profitably. Beside this, even the decree of Gelasius, which was near 100. years after that council of Carthage, alloweth but one book of the Maccabees. Wherefore the universal reverence that is boasted of, cannot be justified.

But M. Whitaker is charged in the margent, to condemn the service book, which appointeth these books of Toby & Ecclesiasticus to be read for holy Scripture, as the other. And where find you that in the service book M. Martin? Can you speak nothing but untruths? If they be appointed to be read, are they appointed to be read for holy Scripture, and for such Scripture as the other canonical books are? The service book appointeth the Litany, diverse exhortations and prayers, yea homelies to be read: are they therefore to be read for holy & canonical Scriptures? But you ask. Do they read in their Churches Apocryphal and Superstitious books for holy Scripture? No verily. But of the name Apocryphal I must distinguish, which sometimes is taken for all books read of the Church, which are not canonical: sometime for such books only, as are by no means to be suffered, but are to be hid or abolished. These books therefore in controversy, with other of the same sort, are sometimes called Hagiographa, holy writings, as of S. Jerome praefat. in lib. Tobiae: sometime Ecclesiastica, Ecclesiastical writings, and so are they called of Ruffinus. Because (saith he) they were appointed by our Elders to be read in the Churches, but not to be brought forth to confirm authority of faith: but other Scriptures they named Apocryphal, which they would not have to be read in the Churches. So saith S. Jerome in praefat. in Prouerb.

These ancient writers shall answer for our service book, that although it appoint these writings to be read: yet it doth not appoint them to be read for Canonical Scriptures. Albeit they are but sparingly read, by order of our service book, which for the Lord's day, & other festival days, commonly appointeth the first lesson out of the Canonical Scriptures. And as for superstition, although M. Whitaker say, that someone thing sauoreth of I know not what superstition, he doth not by and by condemn the whole book for superstitious, and altogether unworthy to be read, neither can he thereby be proved a Puritan, or a disgracer of the order of daily service.

FULK. 10. As for pieces of Daniel, & of Hester, we reject none, but only we discern that which was written by Daniel in deed, from that which is added by Theodotion the false Jew, & that which was written by the spirit of God of Esther, from that which is vainly added by some Greekish counterfecter. But the reason why we reject those patches (you say) is because they are not in the Hebrew, which reason S. Augustine rejecteth. Here you cite S. Augustine at large, without quotation, in a matter of controversy. But if we may trust you that S. Augustine rejecteth this reason yet we may be bold upon S. Jerome's authority, to reject whatsoever is not found in the canō of the Jews, written in Hebrew, or Chaldee. For whatsoever was such, S. Jerome did thrust through with a spit or obeliske, as not worthy to be received. Witnes hereof S. Augustine him self, Epist. ad Hier. 8. & 10. in which he dissuaded him from translating the Scriptures of the old Testament out of the Hebrew tongue, after the 70. Interpreters, whose reasons as they were but frivolous, so they are derided by S. Jerome, who being learned in the Hebrew & Chaldee tongues, refused to be taught by Augustine, that was ignorant in them, what was to be done in translations out of them. Also Hieronym him self testifieth that Daniel in the Hebrew, hath neither the story of Susanna, nor the hymn of the 3. children, nor the fable of Bel & the Dragon: which we (saith he) because they are dispersed throughout the whole world have added, setting a spit before them, which thrusteth them through, lest we should seem among the ignorant to have cut of a great part of the book. The like he writeth of the vain additions that were in the vulgar edition unto the book of Esther, both in the Preface, & after the ende of that which he translated out of the Hebrew. There are other reasons also beside the authority of S. Jerome, that move us not to receive them. As that in the story of Susanna, Magistrates & judgment of life & death are attributed to the Jews being in captivity of Babylon, which hath no similitude of truth. Beside out of the first chapter of the true Daniel, it is manifest, that Daniel being a young man was carried captive into Babylon, in the days of Nebucadnezer, but in this counterfect story, Daniel is made a young child in the time of Astyages, which reigned immediately before Cyrus of Persia. Likewise in the story of Bel and the Dragon, Daniel is said to have lived with the same king Cyrus, and after when he was cast into the lions den, the Prophet Habacuck was sent to him out of Jury, who prophesied before the first coming of the Chaldees, and therefore could not be alive in the days of Cyrus, which was more than 70 years after. The additions unto the book of Esther in many places, bewray the spirit of man, as that they are contrary to the truth of the story, containing vain repetitions, & amplifications of that which is contained in the true history, & that which most manifestly convinceth the sorgerie, that in the epistle of Artaxerxes, cap. 16. Haman is called a Macedonian, which in the true story is termed an Agagite that is an Amalekite, whereas the Macedonians had nothing to do with the Persians many years after the death of Esther & Haman. I omit that in the ca. 15. ver. 12. the author maketh Esther to lie unto the king in saying that his countenance was full of all grace, or else he lieth him self, v. 17. where he saith, the king beheld her in the vehemēcy of his anger, & that he was exceeding terrible.

As for other reasons, which you suppose us to follow, because these parcels were once doubted of by certain of the fathers, it is a reason of your own making, and therefore you may confute it at your pleasure. But if that be true which Master Whitaker by a figurative speech doth more than insinuate, parte of S. Markes and S. Luke's Gospel, may also be called in controversy. Why? what saith M. Whitaker? Marie, that he cannot see by what right that which once was not in credit, should by time win authority. But when I pray you was any part of S. Mark or S. Luke out of credit? if any part were of some person doubted of, doth it follow that it was not at all in credit? you reason profoundly, and gather very necessarily. As likewise that he forgetteth him self in the very next lines, admitting S. James epistle (though before doubted of) for Canonical. Will ye say that S. James epistle was once not in credit, or not worthy of credit, (for that is his plain meaning) because it was doubted of, yea rejected of some? yea, you say it must needs be gathered of his words, that we receive it but of courtesy, and so may refuse it when it pleaseah us. Demonstrate this in a syllogism out of his words if you can, or all the whole rabble of Reims, if you be able. For my part I can but marvel at your bold assertions, and abhor your impudent enforcements. As for other contradictions, notorious absurdities, dumb blanks, & I know not what other monsters you feine unto him, without all proof or particular declaration, all wise men see howe easy a matter it is to rail & slander in generals, & whē you dare come to particulars, I doubt not but the world shall see your vanity so detected by M. Whitaker him self, that you shall have little joy thus insolently to deface his godly & learned writings. It had been more than time that his book had been confuted, which hath been abroad a year and a half almost, if you can with such facility by only noting such matters, show that he confuteth him self. But somewhat you must say afar of, to save your credit with your Disciples, to keep them play for the time, while with long study, and great travail, you are crowding out great trifles.

FULK. 11. Now concerning the seconde pointe, which is calling of some books into controversy or moving scruples about them, to diminish their credit, or authority, whether you be guilty of that crime rather than we, I have somewhat noted before. But with what evidence you are able to charge us, it cometh now to be considered: you will go no further than the epistle to the Hebrews. You may be ashamed to have gone so far. For of all books of the New Testament, their is none that we might worse spare to confound your blasphemous heresies, than that epistle, which is the very mall to beat into powder the abominable Idol of your Mass, and your sacrilegious priesthood serving to the same. Wherefore it is without all color that you charge us, to seek to diminish the credit of that epistle. But you will not ask why we doubt of, or rather think it not to be S. Paul's, because we will tell you, that it was once in doubt. If you acknowledge that the auctor of this epistle was once in questiō, you clear us of moving scruples about it, or calling it in question, which was your first charge. Let Eusebius, Jerome, and other ancient writers, bear that blame, if it be blame worthy, to tell what other men's opinions have been in such a matter. Some holding that it was written by S. Luke, some by S. Barnabas, some by S. Clemens. But you must wit if you will, that they which at this day doubt of the writer thereof, or else think it not of S. Paul's penning, have other reasons to lead them, than only because it was doubted of. For beside those reasons which they had, which of old time doubted of the writer thereof, as the diversity of the style, and inscription thereof, and manner of reasoning, they have also observed something out of the epistle itself, which seemeth to argue, that it was not writ̄ by S. Paul: as that in the beginning of the 2. chapter he saith, The doctrine of salvation was confirmed to us by thē that heard it, after it was first spoken by the Lord himself, which seemeth to agree with the profession of S. Luke in the beginning of his gospel. Whereas S. Paul denieth that he learned his gospel os men, but only by revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1. v. 12. But of all thē that doubt, or think it not to be S. Paul's epistle, there is not one that doubteth of the authority thereof, but that it is equal with the epistle to the Romans, or the gospel of S. John. Although in the Latin church as S. Jerome testifieth, it hath been doubted whether it were Canonical. The cause seemeth to be the heresy of the Novatians, which abused a text out of the 6. chapt. against remissiō of sins committed after grace received, which we show was no sufficient cause to refuse so divine an epistle, seeing the Apostle speaketh not of particular faults, which are common to the faithful oftentimes every day, but of an utter apostasy, & falling clean away frō the truth of the gospel once known & professed, into an horrible contempt & persecuting of the same. But we must make you a reasonable answer, why in the English Bibles printed 1579. & 1580. we presume to leave out S. Paul's name, out of the very title of the said epistle? which name is in the Greek & Beza's Latin translatiō, which we profess to follow. I answer without any presumptiō, that that which is uncertain we spare to affirm. Exāple we have not only that ancient Greek copy whereof Beza speaketh, which leaveth out the name of Paul, but also diverse printed books in which that name is left out. Beside it is certain, that title was not of ancient time universally added. For S. Hier. in Catalogo scriptorū ecclesiast. after he hath recited all the epistles of S. Paul, at length he cometh to this epistle, Epistola autē quae fertur ad Hebraeos, &c. But the epistle which is called unto the Hebrews, is not thought to be his, for the difference of the style & speech, but either writ̄ by Barnabas, as Tertullian holdeth, or by Luke the Evangelist, as some men think, or by Clemens, that after was B. of the Roman church, whom they say to have ordered & adorned the sentences of Paul in his own speech, or else truly, because Paul did write unto the Hebrews, & because of the envy of his name among thē he cut of the title in the beginning of the salutation. These things considered, what need those tragical exclamations in so trifling a matter? Doth not the title tell it is S. Paul's? why strike they out S. Paul's name? what an heretical peevishness is this? For lack of good matter, you are driven to loud clamors against us, but I will even conclude in your own words, I report me to all indifferent men of common sense, whether we do it to diminish the credit of the epistle, which of all S. Paul's epistles we might least miss, when we come to dispute against your Popish sacrifice, & sacrificing priesthood: or whether you do not craftily move a scruple in the minds of simple persons, to make thē doubt of the authority of that epistle (whose double cannon shot you are not able to bear, whē it is thūdred out against you) under color that it is not of sound credit among our selves, that use it against you. Which of all the lies that ever Satan invented, & taught you to utter, is one of the most abhominable.

FULK. 12. If you know so well that the authority of the Canonical scripture, standeth not vpō the certainty of the auctor: as in deed it doth not. For the books of Judges, of Ruth, of Samuel the later▪ of the Kings, &c. who can certainly affirm by whom they were written? with what forehead do you charge us to doubt of the authority of this epistle, because we report out of the ancient writers, the uncertainty of the auctor? or leave out that title which is not certainly true? But yet (you say) to be Paul's or not Paul's, apostolical or not apostolical, maketh great difference of credit and estimation. If by apostolical you mean of apostolical spirit or authority, I agree to that you say of apostolical, or not apostolical. If you mean apostolical that only which was writ̄ by some Apostle, you will make great difference of credit & estimatiō between the Gospel of Mark, Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles, from the gospels of Matthew and John. But which of us I pray you that thinketh that this epistle was not writ̄ by S. Paul, once doubteth whether it be not of Apostolical spirit and authority? Which is manifest by this, that both in preaching and writing we cite it thus, the Apostle to the Hebrews. And if it were written by S. Luke, or by S. Clement, which both were Apostolic men, seeing it is out of controversy that it was written by the spirit of God, it is doubtless Apostolical and differeth not in credit and estimation from those writings that are known certainly to have been writ̄ by the Apostles. But I marvel greatly why you write, that to be Paul's or not Paul's, maketh great difference of credit & estimation. Those epistles that are Peters and John's are not Paul's, & yet I think their is no great difference of credit & estimation between them & Paul's. What you think I know not, but you write very suspiciously. You ask what made S. James epistle, or the second of Peter and the rest, to be sometimes doubted of, but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles? Yes, something else, or else they doubted vainly of them, and without just cause, as I think they did. But when their were two Apostles called James, he that doubteth whether the epistle was written by James the brother of John, & is persuaded it was written rather by James the son of Alphaeus, doubteth nothing of the credit, authority, & estimation of the epistle. No more do we, which doubt whether the epistle to the Hebrews were written by S. Paul, seeing we are persuaded it was written either by S. Barnabas, or by S. Luke, or by S. Clement, as the ancient writers thought, or by some other of the Apostles or Evangelists, we make no question but that it is Apostolical, and of equal authority with the rest of the holy scriptures. But Eusebius denied the epistle of S. James, because he was persuaded that it was written by no Apostle or Apostolic man, and therefore saith plainly that it is a bastard or counterset: and so belike was Luther deceived▪ if ever he denied it, as you say he did. But if titles of books be of no importance (say you) then leave out Matthew, Mark, John, and Paul in his other Epistles. What need that I pray you? Is there no difference between leaving out a title whereof there hath been great uncertainty, and diversity in God's church, and which in some Greek copies both written and printed is left out: and in leaving out those titles that never were omitted, nor never any question, or controversy moved of them by any of the ancient catholic fathers? But you will us to urge no more the title of the Apocalypse of S. John the Divine, as though it were not S. John the Evangelists, & we shall please I know not what heretics of our time except it be the Papists whom it would most concern, that the revelation of S. John in which their Antichrist of Rome is so plainly described were brought out of credit. But if you had read Beza's preface before the Apocalypse, you should find that even by that title, he gathereth a probable argument, that it was written by John the Evangelist, because it is not like that this excellent name THE DIVINE could agree to any John in the Apostles time so aptly, as to Saint John the Evangelist, beside the consent of all antiquity, ascribing that Revelation to Saint John the Evangelist and Apostle. Last of all (you say) it is most certain and we know best by our usual doings, that it is a principal way to discredit any book, to deny it to be the authors under whose name it hath been received. Howe certain it is with you, whereof no man else but you can see any light of reason or necessity of conclusion, I know not, but we are not so void of wit, if we lacked honesty, that we would discredit Paul's Epistle, by saying it was Peters, or Augustine's sermon, by saying it was Ambrose, or Chrysostom's work by saying it was Basils. But if we would bring any book out of credit by denying the auctor whose title it hath borne: we would rather entitle it to some other writer of less credit, or later time, or by some other arguments prove it unworthy of credit, not by only denying it to be the auctors, under whose name it hath hene received.

FULK. 13. That everyone of us expoundeth the scripture voluntarily according to his error or heresy, you say it needeth no proof, for you see it with your eyes. You have very clear sight to see a mote in other men's eyes, but cannot see a beam in your own. You make your demonstration by the Calvinists and Puritans at home, & the Lutherans, Zwinglians, & Calvinists abroad▪ the one for the distinctiō of Ecclesiastical degrees, Archbishop, Bishop, & Minister: the other for their diverse imaginations & phantasies of these words▪ Hoc est corpus meum. But I beseech you sir, touching the domestical dissentiō, what is the text, or what be the texts of Scripture? upon which these voluntary expositions▪ are made▪ for the distinction or confusion of Ecclesiastical degrees? If they had been as ready as Hoc est corpus meum, they should have been set down, as well as that. But I suppose they are yet to seek for that controversy, as I take it standeth rather in collections than interpretations, and in question whether the political government of the Church be distinctly expressed in the scripture, or no. As for the contention abroad, I confess to stand a great part in exposition of that text, wherein although the one part doth err, is that a sufficient cause to condemn thē both. The church of Africa, and the Church of Rome, and the two principal lights of them both Cyprian and Cornelius, dissented about rebaptizing them that were baptized of Heretics. The Aphricans not in one text only, but in the exposition of many, differed from the Romans, & from the truth, yet it were hard to condemn them both for Heretics, & least of all them that held the truth. S. Augustine and S. Jerome dissented about a text of S. Paul to the Galatians, of Peters dissembling, as their contrary epistles do testify. The truth was of S. Augustine's side, yet was not the other an heretic, following a wrong interpretation. And to come nearer home unto you, the Dominicans & Franciscans Friers were at daggers drawing (as we say) yea at most sharp and bitter contention between themselves, and all the Popish Church was divided about their brawling, concerning the conception of the virgin Marie, whether she were conceived in sin, or no, where many texts of Scripture must needs receive voluntary expositions, if not of both partes, yet at the least of one parte: which of those will you say were heretics? If you say neither of both, then must you have stronger reasons to prove us all heretics, than voluntary expositions, where parties be in diverse opinions, especially in matter not overthrowing the foundation of Christian religion. And when you have gathered the most voluntary expositions you can find, yet shall you find none so gross, so absurd, so impertinent, as you Papists have coined, for maintenance of your errors and heresies, of which you yourself are ashamed, though otherwise you have iron foreheads and brazen faces. A few examples among a great many shall suffice. God made man according to his own image, that is to say, we must have images in the Church. No man lighteth a candell and putteth it under a bushel, the meaning is, that images must be set upon the altar. God made two great lights, the Sun and the Moon, that is, the Pope to be above the Emperor. Behold here are two swords: that is, the Pope hath power of both the swords. Put on the whole armor of God, that is, the Priest must put on all his vestments, before he say Mass. I am become as sownding brass, or as a tinkling Cymbal, that is, the bells in the steeple signify preaching of God's word. I might fill many leaves, yea a whole book of such popish expositions, as the Papists in our days dare not for shame abide by.

FULK. 14. We had need of a better demonstration than the former, by which you yourselves are proved Heretics, rather than we. But let us see how handsomely you begin. They reject (say you) Councils and Fathers, and the Catholic Churches interpretation, unless it be agreeable to God's word. Thus far you say well. We do reject not only those that you name, but even an Angel from heaven, except his message be agreeable to God's word. But all the rest that you assume to the ende of this section, is a stark staring lie, except that you say of H. N. for the brethren of love, which are more like to you than to us. For neither Luther, nor Calvin, nor Cartwright is judge among us, whether anything be agreeable to the word of God, but whatsoever any of them do say, it is examined and tried by the Scriptures. And the Scriptures them selves, where they are so obscure, that neither by common sense, knowledge of the original tongue, Grammar, Rhetoric, Logike, story, nor any other human knowledge, nor judgment of any writers, old, or new, the certain understanding can be found out, they are either expounded by conference of other plainer texts of Scripture, according to the analogy of faith: or else they remain still in obscurity, until it shall please God to reueile a more clear knowledge of thē. But none so like the family of love as you Papists are, which reject councils, fathers interpretation of the most ancient Catholic Church, yea & manifest Scripture itself, except it be agreeable to the judgment of your P. M. Pontifex Max. the Pope, as those familiar devils, submit all things to the sentence, & authority of their H. N. Shame you nothing therefore to quote Whitaker pag. 17. & 120. as though he affirmed, that we our selves will be judges, both of Councils, & Fathers, whether they expound the Scriptures well or no? because he writeth (percase) that we ought to examine all men's writings by the word of god. Doth the Apostle make every man judge of all things, when he willeth every man to examine all things▪ and to hold that which is good? If any youth upon confidence of his wit, or knowledge, presume too much in divine matters, we count it rashness. But that any youth among us, upon confidence of his spirit, will saucily controwle all the fathers consenting together against his fantasie, except it be some Schismatike or Heretike, that is cast out from amongst us, I do utterly deny, neither are you able to prove it of any that is allowed among us.

FULK. 15. Why should you not at your pleasure upon your false assumption general, infer one or two slanders particular. M. Whitaker defendeth that it was well said of Luther. That he esteemed not the worth of a rush a thousand Augustine's, Cyprians, Churches, against himself. Woulde God that every Papist would read his own words in the place by you quoted, that he might see your impudent forgery. For I hope there is no Christian, that will imagine, that either Luther would so speak, or any man of honesty, defend him so speaking. For Luther was not so senseless, to oppose his own person, but the truth of his cause, grounded upon the holy Scriptures, not only against one thousand of men, holding the contrary, but even against ten thousand of Angels, if they should oppose them selves against the truth of God. But I am too blame to deal so much in M. Whitaker's cause, who ere it be long, will displaye the falsehood of Gregory Martin, in a Latin writing, to his great ignominy.

The next cavil is upon M. Rainolds words, in his preface to his six positions, disputed upon at Oxford, where against Cyprian, affirming that the Church of Rome cannot err in faith, he saith:

These words you confess that he spake figuratively, and finely, as he thought: but that he used the figures of Ironve and concession, you will not acknowledge, but all other men may easily see. For first he nowhere granteth, that S. Cyprian affirmeth, that the Church of Rome cannot erie in faith. But immediately before the words by you translated, after he had proved 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 natural branches, he asketh the question Quid? & Cypriano secus est visum? What? And did it seem otherwise to Cyprian? Pardon me Cyprian, &c. His meaning is plain, that Cyprian thought not otherwise than S. Paul hath written, or if he did, it was lawful to dissent from Cyprian. As a little after he saith: Quare si Romanam Ecclesiam errare non posse, &c. Wherefore if Cyprian thought that the Church of Rome could not err in that point, by the sentence of the Papists, he him self is to be condemned of error: for diverse Papists whom he nameth, confess that every particular Church may err, and Verratus, one of them, affirmeth that the Church of Rome is a particular Church, which the rest cannot deny. And in deed that which Cyprian writeth, is about certain runneagate Heretics, that flying out of the Church of Carthage, sought to be received of the particular Church of Rome. All this while here is no grant that Cyprian affirmeth, that the Church of Rome cannot err in faith. And if Cyprian had so affirmed contrary to the scripture, it might have been justly replied unto him, which S. Augustine saith when he was pressed with his authority. 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 authority of the divine Scriptures. And in truth the words 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 cannot err in faith, but that those Heretics which brought letters from schismatics & profane persons, did not consider, that they are Romans, whose faith is praised by the commendation, or preaching of the Apostle, to whom perfidia, falsehood, or false dealing can have none access. Meaning that the Romans so long as they continue in that faith which was praised by the Apostle, cā not join with Heretics and Schismatikes, that are cast out of other Catholic Churches. For that he could not mean that the Pope or Church of Rome cannot err in faith (as the Papists affirm) it is manifest, for that in a question of religion▪ he dissented both from the Bishop and Church of Rome, as all learned men know he did, which he would never have done, if he had believed they could not err. Wherefore that you cite out of Augustine agreeth best unto yourself, and such as you are, who employ all your eloquence and utterance, to set forth lies and slanders. Last of all, when you have nothing else to disgrace those grave and learned writers, you would make them by abusing a piece of Tully, cōtemptible for their youth, among such as know them not, who if they wanted half a score years a piece, of that ripe and well seasoned age they have, yet with those gifts of godliness and learning, which God hath in great measure bestowed upon them, they were worthy to be reverenced. So that Venemous traitor, which writeth of the persecution of the Papists, maketh me a very young man, and therefore contemned of the ancient Fathers at Wisbiche, and yet I can easily prove, that I was of lawful age, if more than twice one and twenty years will serve, before ever I saw Wisbiche castle.

FULK. 16. In this point you do nothing but pick quarrels, seeing you confess that neither they have, nor can alter, or change anything of the original text. If Beza express his conjecture upon some ground or similitude of reason, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Matthew 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Luc. 22. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Act 7. might perhaps be added to the text out of the margent or otherwise, and yet doth not precisely affirm it, but leave it to judgment and trial of ancient copies, if any shall be found to favor his conjecture, what hath he like to the mouse of Pōtus Marcion, which altered & corrupted the text? you say he knibbleth & gnaweth about it, though he cannot bite it of altogether. And for what advantage? forsooth, because the first word maketh for Peters supremacy, a poor supremacy that Peter can gain in that he is named the first in the Cataloge of the Apostles, which is but a primacy of order, not of honor, or as Ambrose saith, a primacy of confession, not of honor, of faith, not of degree. The second word you say is against the real presence of Christ's blood in the B. Sacrament. You are a perilous catte that can spy a mouse gnawing at the real presence, which none of the ancient Fathers, or late writers before these days could find in those words. And as for making of Images who doth forbid, except it be in any use of religion, which God doth forbid in the second commandment of the first table. And where you will have men to guess what we would do if all Bibles were only in our hands, by this example of Beza's conjectures. I wish men rather to consider what the Romish rattes were like to do in that case, which in their translation of the ten commandments for the people's instruction, have clean gnawen out the second commandment, and because they cannot bite it clean out of the Bible, they seek all shifts to hide it under the first commandment. Finally whether Lindanus and you do pick quarrels against all the evidence of all Greek copies, I refer me to your 4. section, where out of Lindanus you falsely affirm that certain of Marcions corruptions remain in the Greke text until this day.

FULK. 17. Where Beza noteth corruption in places that concern no controversy, it appeareth that without parcialitie he desireth to restore the text to sincerity. 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 diverse chapters of the defect of the Greek text, of the redundance, and of the corruption thereof. If Lindanus might do this with modesty, and desire to find out the truth (as I think he did) why may not an indifferent reader, judge the like of Beza, in his doings? As for creeping out of the margent into the text, which you say is his common and almost only conjecture, why may it not come to pass in writing out of the books of the Scripture, as it hath in other writings of other auctors. And that either by that means, or by some other means, corruption hath happened to all copies that at this day are extant, both Greek & Latin, in naming Hieremie for Zechariah, Math. 27, Who is so blind that he will not see? yet the ordinary Glose confesseth, that there were diverse copies in times past, in which the name of Hieremie was not, but the word Prophet generally. Likewise in the vulgar Latin text, in the beginning of S. Markes Gospel, Isaiah is cited for that which is written in Malachi▪ and some Greek copies have the same, frō whence it is like the Latin translation received that error. But the more part of best Greek copies, leave out the name of Isaiah. Howe these corruptions should come into the text, except it be out of the margent, if you can find a better conjecture, we shall be content with more patience to hear you, than you can abide to hear Beza.

FULK. 18. His biting (as you call it) at the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Luk. 1. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ast. 2. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Act. 9. Seeing they concern no controversy, might have been contained in the section next before, especially seeing you confess he saith he durst not, and that he had a conscience upon conjecture to change anything. But in the 3. of Luk. verse. 36. He maketh no conscience at all to leave out the words, Qui fuit Cainan, saying in his annotations, that he doubted not to put it out by authority of Moses, Gen. 11. A sore charge to diminish any part of the holy Scripture. But if he have only corrected an error of the scribe, which by all likelihood took vpō him to add unto S. Luke out of the Greek text of the 70▪ that which is not in the Hebrew, verily, I see not what offense he hath committed. For first he can mean no fraud in cōcealing those words, whereof he doth admonish the reader, and of the cause of his leaving them out. Secondly▪ he winneth no advantage against his adversaries, or to his own cause, by omitting to say, that Sala was the son of Cainan, whom Moses affirmeth to be the son of Arphaxad. And seeing Moses Gen. 11. hath no such Cainan the son of Arphaxad, it is not like that S. Luke, who borrowed that parte of his genealogy out of Moses, would add anything which Moses had omitted. But you say that Beza to maintain the Hebrew verity of the Old Testament, eareth not what become of the Greke in the New Testament. You should have made your antitheton more full (wherein it seemeth you pleased yourself not a little) if you had said that Beza to maintain the Hebrew verity of the old Testament, careth not what becometh of the Greek corruption in the new Testament: and so you should have spoken both more eloquently, and more truly. But at other times (you say) against the vulgar Latin text, they call the Greek, text the Greek verity, and the pure fountain, and that whereby all translations must be tried. We say in deed that by the Greek text of the new Testament, all translations of the new Testament must be tried, but we mean not by every corruption that is in any Greek copy of the new Testament, and much less that the Hebrew text of the old Testament, should be reformed after the Greek of the new, where it is uncorrupted: and least of all where any copy is guilty of a manifest error as in this place now in question.

FULK. 19. If you had read Beza his works as diligently to learn the truth out of them, as you have pried here & there busily howe to espy some fault or error in them, you should easily have found, that he hath other ways to reconcile both the Testaments, & the difference that seemeth to be in the allegations, than by striking out of the Greek in the new, all that agreeth not with the Hebrew of the old Testament. And therefore vainly you bid him alter so many words as are cited in the New Testament out of the old, which are not in the Hebrew, and strike out of Matth. 13. v 14. 15. and Act. 28. v. 26. 27. the words of our Savior▪ and S. Paul, cited out of Isaiah, because they are otherwise in the Hebrew. Beza knoweth that Christ and his Apostles always keep the sense of the Hebrew verity, although they do not always rehearse the very words. But whereas you bid him out of Gal. 3. 13. strike out these words ( upon a tree ) because in the Hebrew it is only thus: Cursed is he that is hanged. You show either gross ignorance or intolerable frowardness▪ for these words ( upon a tree ) are in that verse, & in the next before. For thus the Hebrew text is. 22. When there shall be in any person a sin to be adjudged to death, & he shall be delivered to death, if thou shalt hang him vpō a tree: 23. Let not his carcase tarie all night upon that tree, but in any case thou shalt bury him the same day, for accursed to God is he that is hanged. The word ( tree ) being twice named before, who would be so mad to say, that S. Paul hath added it beside the Hebrew text. Likewise where you bid us strike out of the Hebrew. Psal. 21. that which concerneth our redemption on the cross. They have pierced my hands and my feet, because in the Hebrew there is no such thing: you say most untruly, for there is nothing else in the Hebrew, no not in the common readings, as Johannes Isaac a Popish Jew will teache you, who hath confuted the cavils of Lindanus against the Hebrew text, of whom you borrowed this exam le, where if you had not been blind with malice, you might have seen that Saint Jerome did read without controversy, Fix • runt, they have pierced, as also that the most ancient copy of the Hebrew Psalms, supposed to have pertained to Saint Augustine of Cāterburie, hath Charu they have pierced, though you had been ignorant what is written concerning this word in the Masoreth and what Isaac also writeth of that word, as it is commonly red, that it cannot signify, as you fantasie sicut leo: like a lion. And therefore the Chaldee, paraphrast turneth it, As a lion, they pierced my hands and my feet. But of this matter more hereafter, as occasion shall be given. As for the Apostle, Ephes. 4. saying that Christ gave gifts, whereas of David it is said, he received gifts, speaketh nothing contrary to the Hebrew: but showeth wherefore Christ hath received gifts: namely to bestow upon his church. Except you will say that Christ gave of his own and received none: and so the Apostle doth show the excellency of the truth, above the figure: Christ above David. Likewise, where the Psalmist saith in the Hebrew: Thou hast opened mine ears, the Apostle doth rightly collect, that Christ had a body, which in his obedience was to be offered unto the father. Last of all you would have five souls cut from 75. in Saint Stephens Sermon, because it is not in the Hebrew: but you are deceived. For Saint Stephen gathereth the whole number of them that are named in the forty sixth chapter of Genesis. Namely, the two sons of Judah, that were dead, and Iacobes four wives, to show howe great his family was at the uttermost, before he went down into Egypt, and howe greatly God did multiply him afterward. What is there in any of these examples like to Qui fuit Cainan, about which you make so much a do?

FULK. 20. Who alloweth, or who can abide chopping and changing, or hacking and hewing the sacred text of holy Scriptures? As for the perplexities whereunto you fain that willful heresy and arrogancy hath driven us, is of your weaving, for God be praised we can well enough with good conscience & sound knowledge, that may abide the judgment of all the learned in the world, defend both the Hebrew text of the old Testament, and the Greek text of the new. Not of purpose to discredit the vulgar Latin translation, and the expositions of the fathers: but to fetch the truth, upon which the hope of our salvation is grounded, out of the first fountains and springs, rather than out of any streams that are derived from them. And this we do agreeable to the ancient fathers judgments. For who knoweth not what fruitful pains S. Jerome took in translating the Scripture out of the original tongue, neither would he be dissuaded by S. Augustine, who although he misliked that enterprise, at the first, yet afterward he highly commended the necessity of the Greek & Hebrew tongues for Latin men, to find out the certain truth of the text in the infinite variety of the Latin interpretations:

This is S. Augustine's sound judgment, of the knowledge of tongues, and diversity of interpretations, for the better understanding of the Scriptures. But let us see what be the absurdities, that you gather of our defending the original texts of both the tongues. First, we must needs reject the Greek of the old Testament, called septuaginta, as false, because it differeth frō the Hebrew. Where it is not only different in words, but also contrary in sense, Why should we not? but if it retain the sense and substance, although it express not the same words, we need not reject it. S. Jerome, who was required by Paula, and Eustochium, to expound the Prophets, not only according to the truth of the Hebrew, but also after the translation of the Septuaginta, whereof he diverse times complaineth: upon the first of Nahum, saith expressly, that it was against his conscience always, to follow the same. But upon rejection of that translation (say you) it followeth that wheresoever those places, so disagreeing from the Hebrew are cited by Christ, or the Evangelists and Apostles, there also they must be rejected, because they disagree from the Hebrew, and so the Greek text of the new Testament is not true, and consequentlye the words of our Savior, and writings of his Apostles speaking according to the Septuaginta, must at lease be reformed. It is an old saying, and a true, that one inconvenience being granted, many do follow, and so you may heap up an hundred after this manner. But for answer I say, that neither our Savior, nor his Apostles, citing any place out of the old Testament, do bring anything disagreeing in sense, and substance of matter (the purpose for which they allege it considered) from the truth of the Hebrew text. Therefore there is no need that the 70. in those places should be rejected. Althogh our Savior Christ speaking in the Syrian tongue, is not to be thoght ever to have cited the text of the 70. which is in Greek. And his Apostles and Evangelists using that text, regard the substance of the sentence, & not the form of words. For many times they cite not the very words of the Greek 70. neither: & S. Jerome in Catalogo script: Eccles. which is set as a Preface to S. Matthews Gospel, telleth you expressly, that in the Hebrew example of S. Matthew which he had, wheresoever the Evangelist S. Matthew either in his own person, or in the person of our Lord and Savior, useth the testimonies of the old Testament, he followeth not the authority of the 70. translators, but the Hebrew: of which these are two places: Out of Egypt have I called my son. And he shall be called a Nazarite. See you not what a perilous perplexity we are are in by defending both the Hebrew text of the old Testament, and the Geeke of the Newe, when neither are contrary to the other?

FULK. 21. No whit of that doth follow by striking out qui fuit Cainan. Because it is not found in Moses, & therefore we have nothing to do to justify your vain consequence grounded upon an absurdity of your own devising. But we must tell you whether we will discredit the New Testament, because of the Septuaginta? no not for a thousand millions of Septuagintaes, nor for all the world will we credit the Septuaginta, against the truth of the Old Testament. But whatsoever is cited out of the 70. in the new, is not contrary to the Hebrew in the old, and therefore the way of reconciliation is easily found, without discrediting both, or either of both in those places. And in this place, which is a mere corruption, borrowed out of the corruption of the Septuagintaes, or a Iudaical additiō Gen. 11. I think there is no better way of reconciling than to strike it clean out, as Beza hath done, which generation neither is in the Hebrew verity, nor in your own vulgar Latin translation, either Gen. 11. or 1. Par. 1. Beside that it maketh a foul error in the computation of time, adding no less than 230. years between Arphaxad and Sala, more than the Hebrew verity, or the vulgar Latin agreeing therewith, doth number. And therefore he was more presumptuous, that out of the corrupt and false text of the Septuaginta, added the same unto the Genealogy in S. Luke, than Beza, which by the authority of Moses removed the same. If you will still persist to defend the authority of the Septuaginta, against the Hebrew verity, which like an Atheist you deride, at leastwise defend your own vulgar Latin translation of the Old Testament, and deliver yourself out of that perplexity, in which you would place us, between the Hebrew of the old, and the Greek of the New Testament. Seeing no less doubts entangleth you between the Latin of the new, and the Latin of the old, differing altogether a like, as the Greek and the Hebrew do.

FULK. 22. Here of pity you will show unto us a piece of learning, how the Fathers reconcile the said Hebrew and Greek, without violence to the text, as they do always, or else leave the matter to God.

First S. Augustine De ciuitate, lib. 18. cap. 43. de doctr. chr. lib. 2. cap. 15. of their agreement, notwithstanding they were separated into several celles, gathereth, that those Septuaginta were inspired with the same prophetical spirit of interpreting, that the Prophets were in foreshowing. But this doth S. Jerome utterly deny, and derideth the ground of this imagination, those 72. celles at Alexandria, as a fable and a lie. That S. Ambrose saith, we have found that many things are not idly added of the 70. Greek interpreters: We confess as much, where their addition serveth for explication of that which is contavned in the Hebrew, and so meaneth Ambrose: not that they had authority to add anything, which Moses had omitted. And we acknowledge with S. Jerome, that their may be many reasons given for the difference of the one, frō the other: But concerning this place of S. Luke now in question, you say he giveth a reason thereof, both for the 70. & for the Evangelist that followed thē, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controlling them by the authority of Moses. And for this you quote Comment. in 28. Esa. and in question. Hebrai. in neither of which places is any mention of this place, much less any reason given to reconcile it, or the Septuaginta with the Hebrew. It seemeth you red not the books yourself, but trusted to much some man's collectiō, which you understood not. In the Preface to the Hebrew questions, Hieronime excuseth him self against envious persons, that barked against him as though he did nothing but reprove the errors of the 70. saying.

Thus much Jerome in that place: but neither in his questions upon Genesis, nor 1. Paralip. the proper places for this text, is their any mention of this place of Luke, Qui fuit Cainan. In the place cited by you upon the 28. of Isaiah, he saith, Legimus in Apostolo, &c. We read in the Apostle. In other You see that Jerome saith nothing particularly, & that which he saith generally, concerneth this place nothing at all. And very like it is, that this corruption was not crept into S. Luke's text in his time, especially seeing neither S. Ambrose in his commentary upon S. Luke, once toucheth this controversy, as he doth all other questions about that Genealogy. Where you say S. Jerome was a great patron of the Hebrew, not without cause, being at that time perhaps the Hebrew verity in deed. It is without perhaps, or peradventure, that not one jot, or prick of the law of God can perish, by the testimony of our Savior Christ, Math. 5. And if you will believe Arias Montanus, an excellent learned Papist, he will tell you as much, out of the same text doubtless, in his Preface unto the great Bible by him set out, with diligent observation of all the Accents & Hebrew points, which Christ (saith he) will never suffer to perish. And if the Hebrew verity were in Hieronyms time (as doubtless it was) whether he had a perfect copy thereof, or no, the same Arias Montanus testifieth, if you dare credit him, being one of your sect, for opinion, though in sincerity of mind, and love of the truth, which I pray to God to reveal unto him, I think him far better than a number of you: he (I say) affirmeth in the same Preface, against the objection that is made of the Jews corruption of the Hebrew books: Thus far Arias Montanus, whose judgment if you say you are not bound to follow, yet I suppose you can yield no sufficient reason, why you should not credit his testimony, concerning the certainty of the Hebrew verity, remaining to this day, and which shall remain to the worlds ende, although all the smatterers among you, would brast for spite against it. Concerning the opinion of them, which think that Moses might leave out Cainan, in the genealogy of Sem, by the same spirit that Matthew left out three kings in the genealogy of our Savior. I answer, if it be lawful so to imagine, we may without study answer all controversies, although the same reason is not of Moses compiling a certain account of the time, from the flood to the calling of Abraham, and of Matthew, showing by the legal descent, which every man might take out of the books of Kings and Chronicles, that Christ was the son of David, and therefore he was not bound to the number of successors, seeing for memory, it was his purpose to recite but thrice fourteen generations. That Beda maruaileth at the doubt, which he could not dissolve, his modesty is to be commended, rather than his knowledge. Nevertheless, the same Beda, in his preface unto his retractation upon the Acts of the Apostles, speaking of such difference, as he found in the Greek text of the Acts, from the Latin, he saith: This place showeth that in Bedes time, there were more Latin translations than one, & that the vulgar Latin was not of such authority, but that it might be corrected by the Greek, with the consent of other ancient Latin translations. Likewise upon the text in question, Lib. 1. in Luc. cap. 3. he confesseth that the name & generation of Cainan, according to the Hebrew verity, is found neither in Genesis, nor in the Chronicles: saying that S. Luke took this generation from the edition of the Septuaginta. But whether is the truer, or whether both can be true, he leaveth it to the knowledge of God. Noting that whereas according to the Hebrew verity, from the flood to the birth of Abrahā, there were but 292. years, the 70. make 1077. so that the difference is no less than of 785. years. But to favor this fact of Beza, in putting out the name of Cainan, there is an ancient copy of the Gospels & Acts in Greek and Latin, of as great antiquity by all likelihood, as any copy this day extant in Christendom, sent unto the University of Cambridge this last year, by Beza him self, there to be kept in the common library, in which copy, this generation of Cainan, both in the Greek, & in the Latin, is clean left out, even as Beza hath done in his translation. So that he hath not only the authority of Moses, which of it self is sufficient, but also the testimony of this most ancient book, both for the Greek & for the Latin, to approve his fact in putting out Qui fuit Cainan. What your vulgar latin translation hath left out in the later ende of the Lord's prayer in S. Matthew, and in the beginning and midst in S. Luke, whereby that heavenly prayer is made imperfect, not comprehending all things that a Christian man ought to pray for, beside many other like omissions, whether of purpose, or of negligence, and injury of time, yet still by you defended, I spare to speak of in this place.

FULK. 23. You shall never be able to prove by any trāslatiō of ours (though perhaps in some we may err,) that we have any purpose, either to falsify the truth, or to change the text though it were possible for us. In translating we have dealt with a good conscience, albeit not always peradventure, we have attained to the full truth, which in translating out of one tongue into another, is a very hard point thoroughly to observe. Your example of ordinances translated, for that which in the Greek is justifications and tradition, when you show where, and by whom it is so translated, you shall receive an answer. In the mean time, (I say) a translator that hath regard to interpret for the ignorant people's instruction, may sometimes depart from the etymology, or common signification or precise turning of word for word, and that for diverse causes. You yourselves translate not Ecclesia, always the Church, but sometimes the assembly, nor Seniores, Elders, but Seniors, or ancients. Neither would you translate Presbyter, always a priest, if you translated the old Testament. In the story of Susanna, you would not call them Priests, that laid wait for her honesty and life: yet in your vulgar Latin, they are called Priests. So are they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, in the New Testament, which you turn sometimes Priests, sometimes ancients, and sometimes Seniors.

FULK. 24. By false translations willfully and of purpose to falsify the truth of God's word is as gross & as abhominable treachery, as to corrupt the very text, although I think S. Paul speaking of the couertures, or cloaks of dishonesty, and adultering of the word of God 2. Cor. 4. meaneth a further cunning, than false translations. That those whom you call heretics find fault with one an others translations, they do none otherwise, than you Popish heretics. Do not you Gregory Martin, in the 7. chapter and 33. section of this book find fault with all the Catholics as you term them, that translate Sheol, Sepulchrum, a sepulcher, and not always hell? If Bucer, or Zwinglius do justly observe any error in Luther, or Luther in Munster, or Beza in Castalio the Anabaptist, or Calvin in Seruetus the horrible heretic, yea and if froward & schismatical Illyricus can discover any error committed by Calvin, and Beza: the truth leeseth nothing, when the errors of men are found out by what means soever. That you speak of the Puritans, controlling the grosser Calvinists of our country, I know not what you mean, neither do I think you can justify your words, for translation of the Scriptures. Where you say, the later translations of the self same heretics control the former exceedingly, not only of ouersightes, but of willful falsifications, it is a willful and impudent slander: yet you blush not to say, it is notorious. Howe I pray you? You answer in the later editions of Luther and Beza, and in our English Bibles set forth in diverse years, from Tyndale their first translator. That Luther, Beza, and the later translators of the English Bibles have corrected some small faults that have escaped in their former editions, it may be granted. But do Luther, and Beza therefore accuse them selves, or the later English translators the former, of willful falsifications? I think those brute beasts, to whom Ambrose ascribeth the art of making syllogisms (if they could speak) would not conclude thus brutishly. Certain it is that Balaam's asse did reason substantially. But much more you say the English translators of Beza's new Testament, do control him and his translation, being sometimes afraid and ashamed to express his false translations. If it be so, they are more modest than you, which seem to be afraid, or ashamed of nothing so much, as least you might seem to fail in vnshamefastnesse. But to the purpose. If they think Beza (as all men may err) hath somewhat trodden awrye, is it a fault to avoid his step, or a proud controlling or accusing him of falsification? Nevertheless wherein soever Luther, Beza, or the English translators, have reformed any of their former ouersightes, the matter is not so great, that it can make an heresy. Yea, if you were of Saint Augustine's judgment you would acknowledge that the multitude and diversity of translations, is for the benefit of them that be ignorant in the tongues, yea & of them also, that be learned in them oftentimes, that of diverse men's translations, they may judge which is the aptest.

FULK. 25. We are much beholding to you, that you will not rip up old faults abroad, nor at home: and leave Luther's Dutch translation with a 1400. heretical corruptions in the New Testament only, with Calvin's & Beza's French corruptions noted by Vigor, and the rest. Also Tyndals & his companions corruptions in their first English Bible, in whose translation of the New Testament Bishop Tonstal professed openly in a sermon that he found no less than 2000. corruptions. This you know he protested with the same tongue, with which he forswear the Pope, & sware to the kings supremacy, and with which he preached a solemn sermō, which is in print before the King, against the Popes usurped tyranny, pride, false doctrine, covetousness, cruelty, treason, perverting of Scriptures, as in the same Sermon more at large it appeareth: and therefor we need not Lindanus writing to testify of his credit. But thanks be to God that when you have scraped all that unto you seemed to have any show of corruption, you cannot find 200. faults in the translation of the whole Bible, nor in three several translations of the same, which pointes you are fain to dilate, with such vain tautologies, and repetitions, that all learned men are ashamed of your tedious writing and yet to make your book to be of some tolerable length, you had no better shift, than to note a sort of Beza's corruptions in his Latin Testament. Who if you would write against him in Latin, anything worth the noting, would thank you for your pains. and reform his errors, but if you brought nothing but cavils, would so shake you up, as you should have small joy of your insolent invective: but you provided well for that, by writing against a Frenchman, in English. And as for the number of errors, or coruptions that you would have the ignorant believe to be in our English translations, you think is so great, as must needs make the simple abhor it. But look homeward a little unto your authentical vulgar Latin translation, howe many faults be in that, which your Tridentine Council hath authorised. And here I will not charge it with the adversaries thereof, as you do ours; but with great friends of it, and your doctrine. Lindanus Bishoppe of Ruremonde, and Isidorus Clarius Monk of Casine, and Bishoppe Fulginatensis, of which the former writeth a whole book, discussing howe he would have the errors, vices, corruptions, additions, detractions, mutations, vncertaynties, obscurities, pollutions, barbarismes, and soelecismes of the vulgar Latin translation corrected and reformed: bringing many examples of every kind, in several chapters and sections. The other Isidorus Clarius giving a reason of his purpose in castigation of the said vulgar Latin translation, confesseth that it was full of errors, almost innumerable, which if he should have reformed all according to the Hebrew verity, he could not have set forth the vulgar edition, as his purpose was. Therefore in many places he retayneth the accustomed tanslation, but in his annotations admonisheth the reader, howe it is in the Hebrew. And notwithstanding this moderation, he acknowledgeth that about 8000. places are by him so noted & corrected. This Epistle the Deputies of the Council of Trent could not abide, and therefore in the later edition of this Bible, set forth with observation of their censure 1569. it is clean left out, as also a godly collection of the same Isidorus, of places of Scripture, exhorting to the study of holy Scripture, and a like sound confession of those things which the Scriptures teach, &c.

FULK. 26. You should rather omit them as untrue, for albeit it cannot be denied, but some faults may escape the most faithful and diligent translator, yet so many heretical corruptions, either in the Dutch, or English are incredible, and turn rather to the discredit of the accuser in all wise men's judgment, than to the parties so charged. In like manner as Surius noteth no less than 11000. lies in Sleidan, more to his own reproach, than to the defacing of Sleidans credit. You profess wisely therefore, not to count the number, but to esteem the weight and importance of such faults as you thought good to note: if there were as great faithfulness in your performance, as there is wisdom in your profession. But now to your nine aduertisements to the Reader.

FULK. 27. I think their is no wise reader would loke for the deciding of so many controversies in so small a book, & he that shall seek them in your Annotations, shall find even as little to the purpose, except he will take your determinatiō without proof for a sufficient decisiō. As for the doctors you quote without judgment, fraudulently, falsely, truncately, and otherwise abusively, have all or the most been answered long ago. And if need shall be, with little labor may be answered again.

FULK. 28. That showeth your malice, rather than either wisdom or honesty. For if we our selves in our later translations, have corrected some small and few errors, that have overslipped us in our former translations, we have shown our sincerity and care of setting out the truth by all means. And where you say, it is no good defense, the reader being deceived by any one, because commonly he readeth but one. I answer you, first there is not in the worst translation any fault escaped, that may of it self lead him into a damnable error. Secondly, he hath the word of God expounded, by catechizing, sermons, & lectures, in which he may learn the substance of Christian religion. Thirdly, he hath at hand everywhere learned Divines, unto whose counsel he may resort, if he be offended with anything that he readeth in his Bible, soūding contrary to the publicly received doctrine of the Church. In that you say the one of our translations condemneth the other, it had been sufficient to have said, reproveth: which is only, where there is a manifest error in the one: for otherwise the diversities of trāslations (as S. Augustine teacheth you) may much profit the simple readers: & they that be diligent studēts of the Scriptures in the English tongue, will not satisfy them selves with every translation, but will seek for the best approved.

FULK. 29. A wise advertisement. But this is to be noted, that now you acknowledge them to be all brethren among them selves, and pewfellowes. But when you list, they shall be at deadly feude one against another, and no community or fellowship between them.

FULK. 30. He that considereth your quarrels picked to words of one signification, as Church & Congregation, justice and righteousness, Elder and Priest, Image and Idol, works and deeds, and such like, will not think that you have past over any great matters worth the writing of: but that you would set a vain brag of the case, as though there were much worse matter, than you have wit to conceive. Yet you say confidently, that we as guilty of our own subtleties and meanings, will smile at the places which you have not espied. You are like to those southsayers mentioned in Tully, of whom one said, that he marvelled, if when they met together, one of them did not smile upon another, because they deluded the city, & got themselves much honor with such vain superstitions. So you being newly become, subtle and partial translators, think other men to be like yourselves. But even as the head of your Church once jested with his Cardinal, how great wealth & honor that fable of Christ (so the beast called the Christian religion) had brought them: even so you his lewd limbs, make sport among yourself of the holy word of God, which you have corrupted, somewhat with your blind translations, but much more with your heretical Annotations. So said your great friend Campion, in open audience, that he could make as good sport upon the incarnation of Christ. According to your own affection therefore you judge of us, and not according to the truth, as the day will try, when the secretes of all hearts shall be made manifest.

FULK. 31. When our translation is true, I doubt not but we shall defend the use of some terms, and the avoiding of other some, by as good reason, as you shall defend the like in your translations, especially where you affect new terms unused, or not understood, and avoid common and usual terms of the same signification, as Euangelizing for preaching the Gospel, aduēt of Christ, for the coming of Christ, scandalizing, for offending, scandal, for offense, &c. Which if it be, as you say, always a token of heretical meaning, first pluck yourself by the nose, and then see if we cannot defend our doings.

FULK. 32. He that seeth your margent painted with Greek and Hebrew words, in so many places, may guess whether it were possible for you to have avoided the tediousness of them, when in diverse places the Greek and Hebrew words are set without all need of them, and sometimes where there is no controversy about them: as in the 5. section of this Preface, where you show the corruptions of the Arians and Pelagians, and in the 19 section, where you would show the difference of the New Testament from the old, in citing of testimonies. But the Hebrew word in the Psalm 21. or 22. which you falsely say, signifieth no such thing, as piercing, you set not down, lest your falsehood by them that have skill, might be convinced. And if you had cared as much to find out the truth as to show your skill in both the tongues, you would have written in Latin, especially against Beza, which never wrote in English. And vain it is that you pretend to make the matter common to your dear countrymen, that be unlearned, for the judgment must rest in them that have knowledge in the tongues, albeit you had written in Latin. It is all one therefore to the unlearned, as if you had only said, there are many faults or corruptions, which in a Latin book shall be discovered to the judgment of the learned▪ seeing the ignorant cannot understand your demōstratiōs.

FULK. 33. First this is untrue, for some you have noted in the New Testament, printed 1580. Secondly, it is uncertain, for two of these translations might be printed in one year, and so I think they were. Therefore I know not well which you mean, but I guess that the Bible 1562. is that which was of Doctor Couerdales translation, most used in the Church service in King Edwards time. The Bible 1577. I take to be that, which being reuised by diverse Bishops, was first printed in the large volume, and authorized for the Churches, about ten or twelve years ago. That of 1579. I know not what translation it be, except it be the same that was first printed at Geneva, in the beginning of the Queens Majesty's Rain. And this conjecture as the fittest I can make, I must follow, seeing your note of distinction, is as good, as that fond fellows, that would know his masters horse by the bridle.

But it is a common and known fashion, you say, used of us, that not only in translations, but in other books and writings of ours, we alter and change, add, and put to in our later editions. And who useth not so to do, if by later cogitations, that often are wiser, he find anything meet to be changed? Do not you Papists use the same? Is Bristowes chapter of obedience in his motives, nothing altered from the high treason contained in the first edition? Is nothing added, taken away, or changed in your Jesus Psalter, in any of your editions, or are you yourselves ashamed of the former? Or have your scholars presumed to alter their masters writings? If you may have an evasion in these cases, I trust we are not so pente in, but we may change our own writings without shame of the former, or corruption in the later. As for the example of S. James Epistle, denied (as you say) and faced out for Luther's credit, will serve you for no proof. For so far off is it, that we, or the world do know, that is was moste truly laid to his charge: that now we know of a certainty, that it was a very slander, as false, as it was common: seeing Luther's words of that Epistle, are not absolute, but in comparison, as is confessed by you, and found by some of us to be none otherwise in deed, who have not stood upon one only book or edition, but upon as many as they could come by, both in the Latin, and in the Dutch tongue.

FULK. 34. You were afraid, lest they that understood not Latin, for whose sake you wrote in English this treatise, might take hurt by Beza's translations, and annotations in Latin. And if he him self have espied, and corrected anything of his first edition, that was either faulty or offensive, in his two later editions, with great equity, as though you were the only man that had discovered his errors, you must let all the unlearned in England know, what shameful corruptions, you have observed in Beza's translation, or annotations.

FULK. 35. In the margent, You will not charge us with forsaking the old approved Latin text, though it be an ill sign, and to our evident confusion. S. Augustine, though a mere Latin man, whom you yourself do after confess to have understood but one tongue well, and that was even his mother tongue, learned (as he confesseth) of his nurses, is not so addicted to the Latin translation, but that he would have men to seek to the Hebrew, and Greek fountains, which you like a blasphemous hypocrite deny to be the true, and authentical Scriptures in deed: allowing only the vulgar Latin translation, as though neither the Churches of Greece, Syria, Armenia, Ethiopia, nor any other in the world, which have not the vulgar Latin, had not the true and authentical Scriptures. And though your vulgar Latin hath for many years been of great authority in the Latin Church, from the time when the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek tongues have decayed: yet is it utterly false, that you say that it hath been of great authority with all the fathers of the Latin Church: whereas there is not one that lived within 400. years after Christ, that knew it, but almost everyone followed a several translation. And S. Augustine in the place before cited, telleth you, that there were innumerable translations out of the Greek into the Latin. Again that your vulgar Latin, is full of many errors, and corruptions, I have shown by the confession of Isidorus Clarius, and Lindanus two of your own profession: of which the one took pains by the Hebrew and Greek to correct it, the other shown means how it should be corrected. And where you say that Luther and his followers forsook it for none other cause in the world, but that it is against them, it is utterly untrue. For beside that they have made clear demonstration of many palpable errors therein, (which they that have any forehead amongst you cannot deny.) they have and do daily convince you of horrible heresies, even out of your own corrupt vulgar translation. Finally whosoever shall read what Calvin and Kemnitius hane written against the Council of Trent, for auctorizing that translation, shall plainly see, that they had something else to allege against it, which nothing at all concerneth their opinions, that be contrary to the Popish heresy.

FULK. 36. If their be no greater argument, as you confess there can be none, that their avoiding of this vulgar Latin is willful and heretical, than this, that Luther defended his marriage being a votary, by that text of 1. Corinth. 9. wherein the Apostle challengeth power to lead about with him a sister to wife, which your text hath Mulierem sororem a woman a sister. And that to prove that faith only justifieth and good works are not necessary to salvation, he left out of the text of S. Peter good works, by which the Apostle exhorteth us to make sure unto our selves our vocatiō, & election: there is none argument at all of willful, needless, or heretical a • oyding. For although the marriage of ecclesiastical ministers generally is proved by that Scripture: yet the marriage of votaries specially, is nothing confirmed. And for the marriage of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, your own translation of 1. Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. both Latin and English will warrant them to be the husbands of one wife, so that every child may see, that he needed not for that purpose, to corrupt the text, 1. Cor. 9. And as for the other texts, 2. Pet. 1. although this word, (by good works,) is not expressed in the moste Greek copies, yet the whole circumstance of the place giveth it necessarily to be understood, and yet it maketh nothing against justification by faith only. For our election which is most certain & immutable in God's determinatiō, is made certainly known unto us by good works, the fruits of justifying faith, even as the effects do necessarily prove the cause gone before. And so doth Thomas Matthews Bible note: likewise the Bishops Bible, and the Geneva Bible, for so I had rather call them, than by the years in which they were once printed, which have been often printed, and perhaps all in someone year. Couerdales Bible also addeth these words by good works, which is red in some Greek copies. So true it is that you say, we leave it out, because we hold the self same heresy: As likewise that you slander us to hold, that good works are not necessary to salvation, whereas we believe that good works are as necessary to salvation, as faith, in all them that are justified by faith only. But because you are not able to withstand the truth which we believe, you fain odious Monsters, as Dragons, Centaures, Hydraes to fight withal before the people, that you might get the praise of glorious conquerors: like S. George on horseback, that in a pageant vanquisheth an hideous dragon made of paper or painted clothes.

FULK. 37. You were afraid belike to be overmatched in railing, and therefore you thought to bear us down at once, with a whole flood of reproachful slanders, and that you utter even with the same face, with which you affirm, that all antiquity with one consent allowed and embraced your vulgar Latin text: for what else you should mean I cannot conjecture, seeing you say afterward you will not charge us for altering the ancient approved Latin translation. What say you Martin? doth all antiquity with one consent allow and embrace your vulgar Latin translation? What is the cause then that the most of all antiquity of the Latin Church used not your vulgar Latin text? or dare you join issue with me, that all the Latin doctors for 400 years after Christ, used none other Latin translation but that? or that they all knew your vulgar Latin translation: you are never able to prove it. The 70. translation in deed was greatly esteemed, and almost generally received in the Greek and Latin Churches, and out of it were innumerable Latin versions, as S. Augustine affirmeth. But your vulgar Latin followeth it not in many places, as it were easy to show, if time and occasion served, and I suppose you will not deny. As for the reasons you bring in the Preface to the new Testament, to prove that we should not follow the Hebrew and Greek that now is, before that ancient approved text, when they come to be considered it shall appear how vain and frivolous they are. But as for the Hebrew and Greek that now is, may easily be proved to be the same that always hath been, neither is their any diversity in sentence, how soever some copies either through negligence of the writer, or by any other occasion do vary from that which is commonly and most generally received in some letters, syllables, or words.

FULK. 38. 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 Antwerpe, by Christopher Plantine 1567. of Hentenius castigation: where the margents almost of every leaf be full of diverse readings obeliskes, 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. 3 v. • 5. where the Hebrew truth teacheth, that the seed of the woman shall break the serpentes 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 later 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 Marie, which is proper to Christ, cannot by the circumstance of the place be aptly referred to any but to Eve.

FULK. 39. We crave no pardon, if it can be proved that we have willfully 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 shown unto them, they acknowledging the fault, they may not be charged with heretical corruption, from which it is certain, their intention was most free.

FULK. 40. Hitherto I hope the indifferent reader will confess, that you have driven us to no iumpes, nor shifts, but only uttered your own malicious and unlearned quarrels. And howe Popish writers have pursued and chased us to extreme refuge, and seely covert of false translation, let it appear by the learned answers of M. Jewel, M. Horne, M. Nowell, M. Bridges, M. Calfhill, and others, that I speak nothing of mine own simple labors, 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 reioyned to him almost two years ago, and yet I hear not of his answer.

FULK. 41. 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 interpretours, or follow Luther, if we be Lutherans: Calvin, if we be Calvinists, &c. Who ever said so, you shameless sclau • derer? 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 disioyning 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 & many other like matters beside, in which you go clearly from the consent of all antiquity for 600. years, as the Bishoppe of Sarum hath made plain demonstration, and you are not able to reply.

FULK. 42. That the Scriptures are plain and easy to be 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 him self doth testify, 2. Tim. 3. and some of the ancient fathers also do bear witness, as Augustine de doct. Christ. lib. 2. Chrysost. in Gen. hom. 13. de verb. Isaiah. Vidi d • minum, &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 ought 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 Toby, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, for Canonical Scripture, it is not (as you say ridiculously) because Luther and Calvin admitteth them not, but because they are contrary to the Canonical Scriptures, and were ne • er 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 shown before.

FULK. 43. 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 them selves, as S. Augustine exhorteth. As for the Greek translation of the Septuaginta, 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 Keltrige, about the Greek Bible of the Septuaginta Interpreters, I might make sport with you, as you do with him: but I acknowledge your Syn • cdoche, 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, • n Hebrew and Chaldee, for in the Chaldee tongue were some partes 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 pointes, 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.

FULK. 44. We say to you first, that you have falsely pointed the Hebrew word in the margin for all the printed books that ever I have seen, as Bomberge both in folio, and quarto, Stephanus, Basil, Plantine, Arias Montanus, Cōplutensis, all place Camets under Caph, where you make Patach. But perhaps your Hebrew is most out of Mūsters Dictionarie, where it is pointed as you make it. But for answer to your question, we say, that their is a double testimony of the Mazzorites to prove, that in the most ancient and best corrected copies, the Hebrew was Caru, they have digged or pierced: this is testified not only by our translators, but also by Johannes Isaac your own Rabbin, against Lindanus a prelate of yours. And this the auctors of the Complutense edition, do acknowledge, for thus they have pointed it Caru, where is nothing but the redundans of Aleph (which is understood in every Camets ) differing from the usual reading and declining of the Verbe Carah, that signifieth to pierce or dignity. Again, where it is red otherwise, if it be rightly pointed, as it is in Arias Montanus Caari, it cannot signify Sicut leo, as a lion, as both the Mazzorites do teach, and Johannes Isaac a Grammarian out of thē by the points, & the note over iod doth plainly demonstrate. For what should shure • h sound in iod? or if you would contend it should be Daghes, to what purpose should it be in iod, if the word should signify as a lion? Therefore howsoever this variety of copies came either by negligence of some writers, or by corruption of the Jews, we have sufficient warrant for the ancient and true reading, which the Greek translator did follow, which also was in S. Jerome's copy, otherwise he would not have translated out of the Hebrew Fixerunt: they have pierced. Therefore Rabbi Joseph, which made the Chaldee • Paraphrase upon the Psalter, labored to express both the copies, as well that which hath plainly (they have pierced,) as that which hath it corruptly, as though it spake of a Lion, and yet cannot rightly be so translated, because the points are imperfect even for that reading. Therefore he hath said Nikethin Heich Cheariah, They have indented and pierced like a lion my hands and my feet▪ as it is in the Venice print of Daniel Bomberg, although Arias Montanus in his Bible, have no more but Nachethin, which he traslateth, biting my hands and my feet. I have played the fool to utter these matters in the mother tongue to ignorant men, that can make no trial of them, but you have not only given me example, but also enforced me with your vnsoluble question (as you thought) by one word somewhat out of frame, to overthrow the whole Hebrew text. But you are to be pardoned, for that you follow your M. Lindanus herein, who hath nothing else in effect to quarrel against the Hebrew text, but this: & therefore he repeteth it in many places, to make greater show of it as you do. In other, places where the Hebrew word hath diverse significations, who shall forbid us to choose that which is most agreeable to the circumstance of the text, and to the analogy or rule of faith?

FULK. 45. S. Hieronym abundantly answereth this cavil, denying that supposed inspiration, and de • iding the fable of their 70. celles, which yet pleased Augustine greatly, yea calling in question, whether any more were translated by them, than the five books of Moses: because Aristaeus, a writer in Ptolomees time, and after him, Josephus, make mention of no more. The same cause therefore that moved S. Jerome to translate out of the Hebrew, moveth us: whose translation, if we had it sound ande perfect, might much further us for the same purpose. Althoughe for the signification of the Hebrew words, we require no more credit, than that which all they that be learned in the Hebrew tongue, must be forced to yield unto us. And seeing your vulgare Latin departeth from the Septuagintaes interpretation, even in the books of Moses, which (if any be theirs) may most rightly be accounted theirs, because it is certain they translated them, although it be not certain whether they translated the rest: with what equity do you require us to credit them, which your own vulgare translation, affirmeth to have translated amiss? as I have shown before in the example of Canans generation. An other example you have in the 4 of Genesis, Nonne si been egeris recipies, &c. If thou shalt do well shalt thou not receive? but if thou shalt do evil, straighteway thy sins shall be present in the doors. The greek text, hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. not if thou haste rightly offered: but thou hast not rightly divided: hast thou sinned? be still. Where your translation cometh much nearer to the Hebrew, as might be shown in very many examples. As for the ancient fathers credit of the Greek Church, and the Latin that followed them, if our judgment alone be not aequiualent unto them, yet let these ancient fathers, Origen, and Jerome, that thought them not sufficient to be followed, and therefore gathered or framed other interpretations, let their judgment, I say, joining with ours, discharge us of this fond and envious accusation.

FULK. 46. You have chosen a text for example, wherein is least color (except it be with the unlearned) of an hundred. For, whereas you ask, whether Nephesh, be no not as proper for soul, as anima, in Latin, & Sheol for Hel, as infernus in Latin? I utterly deny both the one and the other. For nephesh is properly the life, and Sheol, the grave or pit, though it may sometimes be taken for Hel, which is a consequent of the death of the ungodly, as nephesh is taken for person, or ones self, or as it is sometimes, for a dead carcase. Yea, there be that hold, that it is never taken for the reasonable immortal soul of a man, as anima is, specially of Ecclesiastical writers. That Beza translated the Greek of the new Testament after the signification of the Hebrew words, although it was true in sense, yet in mine opinion, it was not proper in words: and therefore he himself hath corrected it in his latter editions, as you confess, he hath not changed his opinion concerning the Hebrew: the reason is, because it is grounded upon manifest texts of Scripture, which he citeth, Levite. 19. verse. 27. & cap. 21. verse. 1. and 11. Num. 5. verse 2. and 9. verse 10. In the first place your own vulgare Latin translation, for la nephesh turneth mortuo. you shall not cut your flesh for one that is dead. In the second place, your vulgare Latin hath, Ne non contaminetur sacerdos in mortibus. and, Ad omnem mortuum non ingredietur omnino. Lette not the Priest be defiled with the deaths of his countrymen. and, The high Priest shall not enter into any dead body at all: where the Hebrew is lenephesh. & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In the third place your vulgare Latin readeth polluius{que} est super mortuo. they shall caste out him that is polluted by touching a dead carcase, where the Hebrew is lanephesh In the first place, your vulgare Latin hath indeed, anima, but in the same sense, that it had before mortuo for the text is of him that is unclean, by touching any dead body, which in Hebrew is nephesh. How say you now, is the Hebrew word as proper for soul, as anima in Latin? except you will say, the Latin word anima doth properly signify, a dead body: hath not Beza good reason to retain his opinion concerning the Hebrew word, when he hath the authority of youre own vulgare translation? You that note such iumps, and shifts in us, whether will you leap to save your honesty? will you say, the Hebrew text is corrupted since your translation was drawn out of it. The seventy interpretours then will cry out against you: for they with one mouth in all these places, for the Hebrew word nephesh, render the usual signification 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , adding in the 21. of Levite. v. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which either you must translate, a dead body, or you shall call it absurdly, a dead soul. Woulde any man think to have found in you, either such gross ignorance, or shameful negligence, or intolerable malice against the truth, that Beza sending you to the places, either you would not, or you could not examine them, or, if you did examine them, that you would notwithstanding thus malitiouslye against youre own knowledge and conscience, rail against him? you make us to say, if a man will strain the word, it may signify not only body, but also carcase. What say you? did Moses strain the word to that signification? You said before, that we were at the iumps and turnings of an hare before the houndes, such mighty hunters you are, and we such fearful hares before you. I am not skillful in the terms of hunting, but in plain English I will speak it, that if all the traitorous wolves and foxes, that be in the kennel at Reims, would do their best, to save your credit in this section, nay in this whole preface, they shall never be able to maintain their own, with any indifferent reader.

FULK. 47. I have shown you before, that in the new Testament, we like better to translate according to the proper and usual signification of the Greke word. But the Hebrew word in the old Testament may be translated according to the circumstance of the place, life, person, self, yea, or dead body, and in some place perhaps carcase. You follow us very near▪ to seek advantage of the English word carcase, which commonly is taken in contempt, & therefore we would not use it, speaking of the body of our Savior Christ, when it was dead. But you hunt yourself out of breath, when you would bring the same contempt to the Latin word Cadauer, which Beza used. For Cadauer signifieth generally a dead body of man or beast, and by your vulgar Latin translator, is used for the dead bodies of sacrifices, of Saints, and holy men, as indifferently, as for carrion of beasts, or carcases of evil men. Namely in Job. 39. v 33. wheresoever the dead body is, thither will the Eagle resort, which similitude our Savior Christ applieth to him self, Math. 24. v. 28. wheresoever the dead body is, thither will the Eagles be gathered, where he compareth him self to the dead body, and the faithful to the Egles.

Now concerning the other Hebrew word, which you say signifieth hell, because the Greek, and vulgar Latin interpretor do so translate it. When just occasion shall be given afterward Cap. 7. I will show that it properly signifieth a grave, pit, or place for dead bodies, and that in this place of the 16. Psalm, it must needs so signify, not only the later part of the verse, expressing in other words that which was said in the former: but also the Apostles proving out of it the resurrection of Christ, do sufficiently declare. If you have no place therefore in the Scriptures, to prove your Limbus patrum, but where the holy Ghost speaketh of the death and burial of the fathers, no marvel though you must strain the Hebrew word, which properly signifieth grave, and the Greek word, which properly signifieth a dark place, and especially the Latin, which signifieth generally a low place: none of all the three words signifying hell, as we commonly understand the word hell, properly and only, but by a figure where mention is made of the death of the ungodly, whose reward is in hell. These be the poor shifts, turninges and windings that you have to wreath in those fables of Limbus patrum, & Purgatory, which the Church of God, from the beginning of the world unto the coming of Christ, never heard of, nor many hundredth years after Christ, until the Mōtanists, or such like hethenish heretics brought in those fantasies.

FULK. 48. We need not appeal to the Greek; for anything you bring out of the vulgar Latin against us. As for that text, 2. Pet. 1. Labor that by good works, &c. I have answered before in the 36. Section. We like well the Latin, or that Greek copy which hath those words by good works, for we must needs understand them, where they are not expressed: and therefore you do impudētly beelie us to say they do not please us.

The same thing in effect saith Beza: that our election, and vocation must be confirmed by the effects of faith, that is by the fruits of justice, &c. therefore in some copies we find it added by good works. So far of is it, that Beza misliketh those words, that he citeth them to prove the perpetual connection of Election, Vocation, Justification, and Sanctification. This is therefore as wicked a slander of us, as it is an untrue affirmation of the vulgar Latin, that it is the text of the fathers, and the whole Church: whereby you show yourself to be a Donatiste, to acknowledge no Church, but where the Latin text is occupied. So that in Greece, Syria, Armenia, Ethiopia, and other partes of the world, where the Latin text is not known, or understood, there Christ hath no Church by your unadvised assertion. That we like best the most common Greek text, I am sure that we do it, by as good reason, if not by better, than you in so great diversities of the Latin text, who like best of that which is most common, and in every man's hands.

FULK. 49. In granting Peter to be the first, we need not grant him to be the chief, and if we grant him to be the chief, it followeth not that he is chief in authority. But if that were granted, it is not necessary that he was head of the Church. And albeit that were also granted, the Bishop of Rome could gain nothing by it. But what saith Beza, where the text saith, the first Peter? If we must believe you, he saith, No, we will grant you no such thing, for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favored Peters primacy. I pray you Martin where hath Beza those words? will you never leave this shameful forgery? Beza in the tenth of Matthew doth only ask the question. Quid si hoc vocabulum, &c. what if this word 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 immediately after he answereth, & concludeth that it is no addition, but a natural word of the text, found in all copies, confessed by Theophylact an enemy of the Popes primacy, and defendeth it in the third of Mark, where it is not in the common Greek copies nor in the vulgar Latin, against Erasmus, who finding it in some Greek copies, thought it was untruly added out of Matthew. But Beza saith: Ego vero non dubito quin haec sit germana lectio. But I doubt not but this is the true and right reading of the text: and therefore he translateth Prim • in • Simonem, the first Simon, out of the few copies Erasmus speaketh of. Therefore it is an abhominable slander to charge him with following the common received text where it seemeth to make against you when he contendeth for the truth against the common text, yea and against your own vulgar Latin, to give you that which you make so great account of, that Peter in the Cataloge of the Apostles was first. So greatly he feareth to acknowledge that Peter was called first. And so true it is that you charge him to say. No, we will grant you no such thing, for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favored Peters primacy. I hope your favorers seeing your forgery thus manifestly discovered, will give you less credit in other your shameless slanders, at the leastwise this in equity. I trust all Papists will grant, not to beeleue your report against any man's writing, except they read it though̄selves. Now •• at this word, (the first) argueth no primacy, or superiority, beside those places quoted by Beza, Act. 26. 20. Rom. 1, 8. & 3, 2. You may read 1. Par. v▪ 23 & 24. where the posterity of Levi and Aaron are rehearsed as they were appointed by David in their orders, or courses. Subuel primus, Rohobia primus, sors prima Ioiarib, &c. where least you should think of any headship, or principality, because the Hebrew is sometime 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , you may see, that Subuel is called primus of the sons of Gerson, when there is no more mentioned, & more expressly, Rohobia is called primus of the sons, of Eleazar, of whom it is said, that he had no more sons, & that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth here, the first in order, it appeareth by those generations, where the second, third, or fourth, is named, as in the sons of Hebron, and of Oziel. Also in the sons of Semei, where Iehoth is counted the first, Ziza the second: Iaus and Beria, becaused they increase not in sons, were accounted for one family. In all which, there is no other primacy, than in the first lot of Ioiarib, where the Hebrew word is harishuon, and so follow the rest • n order, unto four and twenty courses. Therefore there is no cause why we should not stand to the Greek text, in that place, neither did Beza ever deny to stand to it.

FULK. 50. Still Beza speaketh, as you inspire into him, while he speaketh through your throat, or quil. The truth is, Beza saith, that either there is a manifest Soloecophanes, that is an appearance of incongruitie, or else those words (which is shed for you) seem to be added out of S. Matthew, or else it is an error of the writers, placing that in the nominative case, which should be in the dative. For in the dative case did Basil read them in his morals, 21. definition.

Neuertheles, all our old books (saith Beza) had it so written, as it is commonly printed in the nominative case. Here are three several disiunctions, yet can you find none, but one proposition that you set down, as though it were purely and absolutely affirmed by Beza. Likewise, where you speak 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 have him seem to be, might fain some copy in his own hands, to salve the matter. But the truth is, that since he wrote this, he found one more ancient copy, both in Greek, and Latin, which now is at Cambridge, where this whole verse is wanting. But of this matter, which somewhat concerneth myself particularly, I shall have better occasion to write in the places by you quoted, cap. 1. num. 37. and cap. 17. num. 11. where I will so justify that which I have written before, touching this place, as I trust all learned and indifferent Readers, shall see how vainly you insult against me, where you bewray grosser ignorance in Greek phrases, than ever I would have suspected in you, being accounted the principal Linguist of the Seminary at Reims.

FULK. 51. That the Thessalonians had some parte of Christian doctrine, delivered by word of mouth, that is, by the Apostles preaching, at such time as he did write unto them, and some part by his Epistles, the text enforceth us to grant, and we never purposed to deny: But that the Church at this day, or ever since the new Testament was written, had any tradition by word of mouth, of any matter necessary to salvation, which was not contained in the old or new Testament, we will never grant, neither shall you ever be able out of this text, or any text in the Bible to prove. Make your Syllogisms, when you dare, and you shall be answered. But we know (you say) that the Greek word signifieth, tradition, as plain as possibly, but here, and in like places, we rather translate it, ordinances, instructions, and what else soever. We know that it signifieth tradition, constitution, instruction, precept, also mancipation, treatise, treason.

For all these the Greek Dictionaries do teach, that it signifieth. Therefore if in any place we have translated it ordinances, or instructions, or institutions, we have not gone from the true signification of the word, neither can you ever prove, that the word signifieth such a doctrine only, as is taught by word of mouth, and is not, or may not be put in writing. But in other places you can tell us, that we translate it duly and truly, tradition, and you will know, why more in one place, than in another, affirming that we are shamed to tell why. For my part, I was never of counsel with any that translated the Scriptures into English, and therefore it is possible, I cannot sufficiently express what reason moved the translators so to vary in the exposition of one and the same word. Yet can I yield sufficient reason, that might lead them so to do, which I think they followed. The Papists do commonly so abuse the name of tradition, which signifieth properly a delivery, or a thing delivered, for such a matter as is delivered only by word of mouth, and so received from hand to hand, that it is never put in writing, but hath his credit without the holy Scriptures of God, as the Jew had their Cabala, and the Scribes & Pharisees had their traditions beside the law of God, and the Valentinian Heretics accused the Scriptures, as insufficient of authority, and ambiguously written, and that the truth could not be found in them by those that knew not the tradition, which was not delivered by writing, but by word of mouth, jump as the Papists do. This abusing of the word, tradition, might be a sufficient cause for the translators, to render the Greek word, where it is taken for such doctrine as is beside the commandment of God, by the name of tradition, as the word is commonly taken. But where the Greek word is taken in the good parte, for that doctrine which is agreeable with the holy Scriptures, they might with good reason avoid it, as you yourself do not always translate tradere, to betray, but sometimes to deliver. So did the translators give these words, ordinances, instructions, institutions, or doctrine delivered, which do generally signify the same that tradition, but have not the prejudice of that partial signification, in which the Papists use it, who wheresoever they find tradition, straight way imagine they have found a sufficient argument, against the perfection and sufficiency of the holy Scripture, and to bring in all riffe raffe, and trishe trashe, of man's doctrine, not only beside, but also contrary to the manifest word of God, contained in his most holy and perfect Scriptures. To the shame of the devil therefore, and of all popish maintainers of traditions vncommaunded by God, this reason may be yielded.

Now to answer you why Ecclesia was first translated congregation, and afterward Church: the reason that moved the first translators (I think) was this: the word Church of the common people, at that time, was used ambiguously, both for the assembly of the faithful, and for the place in which they assembled: for avoiding of which ambiguity, they translated Ecclesia the congregation, and yet in their Creed, and in the notes of their Bibles, in preaching, & writing they used the word Church for the same, the later translators seeing the people better instructed, & able to discern when they read in the Scriptures, the people, from the place of their meeting, used the word Church in their translations, as they did in their preaching. These are weighty matters that we must give accompt of them▪ Why we change not ordinances into traditions, and Elders into Priests, we will answer when we come to the proper places of them. In the mean season we think there is as good cause for us in translating, sometime to avoid the terms of traditions and priest, as for you to avoid the names of Elders calling them ancients, and the wise men sages, as though you had rather speak French, than English as we do. Like as you translate Conside. have a good heart after the french phrase, rather than you would say as we do, be of good comfort.

FULK. 52. I pray you, who translated first the creed into the English tongue, and taught it to the people▪ & for that cause were accounted heretics of the Antichristian Romish rabble? If the name of Church were odious unto them, why did they not suppress that name in the creed, which they taught to young and old, and in steed of Catholic Church, call it the universal congregation or assembly? Well Dauus, these things be not aptely divided according to their times. The first translation of the Bible that was printed in the english tongue, in very many places of the notes, useth the name Church, & most notoriously in the song of Solomon, where before every other verse almost it telleth which is the voice of the Church to Christ her spous • ▪ which no reasonable man would think the translators would have done, if the name of the Church had been odious unto them, or that they thought the Catholic church stood against thē. Look Thomas Matthews Bible, in the Canticles of Solomon, & upon the 16. of S. Matthews Gospel, the 18. verse, the words of Christ to Peter. Therefore your senseless imaginations, show no hatred of the Catholic Church in our translators, but cancred malice, and impudent folly in yourselves.

FULK. 53. By what windings and turnings I pray you are we driven to that miserable refuge of palpable corruptions, and false translations? for hitherto you have shown none, but such as show your own ignorance, or malice. Neither (I hope) you shall be able to show any, though you sweat never so sore at your work. Yes, I ween, this one case only of traditions, for so you seem to say, if it be considered, will discover no less. It is marvel, if for your sake, all the Greek Dictionaries in the world must not be corrected, & taught to say, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cā signify nothing but a tradition, that is not written. But yet you rolle in your accustomed rhetorike, saying, that the antiēt fathers, councils, antiquity, universality, & custom of the whole Church allow traditions, & so do we, so many as be good & agreeable to the holy scriptures, but that there be traditions of matter necessary to saluatiō▪ not contained in the holy scriptures, whē you bring your fathers, Councils, &c. you shall receive an answer to them. That the canonical scripture alloweth any traditions contrary to the doctrine thereof, or to supply any want or imperfection thereof, as though all things required to make the man of God perfect, prepared to all good works, were not contained in the Scriptures, you shall never be able to prove, although for spite against the perfection of the Canonical Scripture, you should braste a sunder, as Judas did, which betrayed the auctor of the Scripture. Finally, what so ever you say out of the Old Testament, without proof or show of proof, it is as easily denied by us, as it is affirmed by you. When you bring but only a shadow of reason, it shall sone be chased away, with the light of truth.

MARTIN.

THOVGH this shall evidently appear thorough out this whole Book in every place that shall be objected unto them: yet because it is an observation of greatest importance in this case & which stigeth thē sore, & toucheth their credit exceedingly, in so much that one of them setting a good face upon the matter, saith confidently, that all the Papists in the world are not able to show one place of Scripture mistranslated willfully of purpose: therefore I will give the reader certain brief observations and evident marks to know willful corruptions, as it were an abridgement and sum of this Treatise.

MARTIN. 2. The first mark and most general is: If they translate elsewhere not amiss, and in places of controversy between them and us, most falsely: it is an evident argument that they do it not of negligence, or ignorance, but of partiality to the matter in controversy. This is to be seen through the whole Bible, where the faults of their translations are altogether, or specially, in those Scriptures that concern the causes inquestion between us. For other small faults, or rather oversights, we will no further note unto them, than to the ende, that they may the more easily pardon us the like, if they find them.

MART. 3. If, as in their opinions and heresies, they forsake the ancient fathers: so, also in their translations, they go from that text and ancient reading of holy Scriptures, which all the fathers used and expounded: is it not plain that their translation followeth the vein and humor of their heresy? And again, if they that so abhor from the ancient expositions of the fathers, yet if it seem to serve for them, stick not to make the exposition of any one Doctor, the very text of holy Scripture: what is this but heretical willfulness? See this 1. chap. num. 43. chap. 10. num. 1. 2. chap. 18. num. 10. 11. and chap 19. num. 1.

MART. 4. Again▪ if they that profess to translate the Hebrew and Greek, and that because it maketh more for them (as they say) and therefore in all conferences and disputations appeal unto it as to the fountain and touchstone, if they (I say) in translating places of controversy, flee from the Hebrew and the Greek, it is a most certain argument of nilfull corruption. This is done many ways, and is to be observed also throughout the whole Bible, and in all this book.

MART. 5. If the Greek be, Idololatria, and Idololatra: and they translate not. Idolatry, and, Idolater: but, worshipping of Images, and, worshipper of Images, and that so absurdly, that they make the Apostle say, Covetousness is worshipping of images: this none would do but fools or mad mē. unless it were of purpose against sacred images. See cha. 3. nu. 1. 2.

MART. 6. If the Apostle say, A pagan idolater, and a Christian idolater, by one and the same Greek word, in one and the same meaning: and they translate, A pagan idolater, and a Christian worshipper of images, by two distinct words and diverse meanings: it must needs be done willfully to the foresaid purpose. See chap. 3. num, 8. 9.

MART. 7. If they translate one and the same Greek word, Tradition, whensoever the Scripture speaketh of evil traditions: and never translate it so, whensoever it speaketh of good and Apostolical traditions: their intention is evident against the authority of Traditions. See chap. 2 numb. 1. 2 3.

MART. 8. Yea if they translate, Tradition, taken in ill parte, where it is not in the Greek: and translate it not so, where it is in the Greek, taken in good parte: it is more evidence of the foresaid wicked intention. See chap. 2. numb. 5. 6.

MARTINE. 9. If they make this a good rule, to translate according to the usual signification, and not the original derivation of words, as Beza, and Master Whitaker's do: and if they translate contrary to this rule, what is it but willful corruption? So they do in translating, Idolum, an Image, Presbyter, an Elder: and the like. See chap. 4. & chap. 6. numb. 6. 7. 8. &c. numb. 13. &c.

MARTINE. 10. If Presbyter, by Ecclesiastical use, be appropriated to signify a Priest, no less than, Episcopus, to signify a Bishoppe, or Diaconus, a Deacon: and if they translate these two later accordingly, and the first never in all the Newe Testament: what can it be but willful corruption in favor of this heresy, That there are no Priests of the Newe Testament? See chap. 6. numb. 12.

MART. 11. If for God's altar, they translate, Temple: & for Bels idololatrical table, they translate, altar: judge whether it be not of purpose against our altars, and in favor of their communion table. See chap. 17. numb. 15. 16.

MART. 12. If at the beginning of their heresy, whē sacred images were broken in pieces, altars digged down, the Catholic Churches authority defaced, the king made supreme head, then their translation was made accordingly, and if afterward when these errors were well established in the realm, and had taken root in the people's hearts, all was altered and changed in their later translations, and now they could not find that in the Greek, which was in the former translation: what was it at the first but willful corruption to serve the time that then was? See chap. 3. 5. chap. 17. numb. 15. chap. 15. num. 22.

MART. 13. If at the first revolt, when none were noted for Heretics and Schismatikes, but themselves, they did not once put the names of Schism or Heresy in the Bible, but in steed thereof, division, and, sect, in so much that for an Heretike, they said, an author of Sectes, what may we judge of it but as of willful corruption? See chap. 4. numb. 3.

MART. 14. If they translate so absurdly at the first, that them selves are driven to change it for shame: it must needs be at the first willful corruption. For example, when it was in the first, Temple, and in the later, Altar: in the first always, Congregation, in the later always, Church: in the first, To the King as chief head, in the later, To the King as having preeminence. So did Beza first translate, carcass, and afterward, soul. Which alteration in all these places is so great, that it could not be negligence at the first or ignorance, but a plain heretical intention. See chap. 17. numb. 15. chap. 5. numb. 4. 5. chap. 15. numb. 22. chap. 7. numb. 2.