Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue

FULK. 15. If of three translations, we prefer that which is the best, what sign of corruption is this? If any fault have either of ignorance, or negligence escaped in one, which is corrected in another, and we prefer that which is corrected, before that which is faulty, what corruption cā be judged in either? Not every fault is a willful corruption, & much less an heretical corruptiō. The example that you quote out of your 3. chapiter concerning the translation of Idolum, is no flying from our translation to another, but a confuting of Howlets cavil against our Church service: because this word is therein red translated an image. 1. John. 5. whereas in that Bible, which by authority is to be red in the church service, the word in the text is idols, & not images▪ & yet will we justify the other to be good & true, which readeth, Babes, keep yourselves from images, as your vulgare Latin text is à simulachris, wherein you fly from your own authentical text to the Greek, which except you think it make for your purpose, you are not ashamed to count falsified and corrupted.

FULK. 16. Who would be so mad, but blind malice, to think they would disgrace or suppres the things, or names of Catholic Church, whereof they acknowledge thenselves menbers: of grace by which they confess they are saved: of hymns, which they use to the praise of God: of justifications, when they profess they are of thē selves unjust: of Sacraments & mysteries, by which the benefits of Christ are sealed up unto them: of altar, when they believe that Jesus Christ is our altar: of Priests, when they hold that all good Christians are Priests: of devotions, when they dispute that ignorance is not the mother of true devotion, but knowledge, of excommunication, which they practice daily. As for the names and things of procession, shrines, images, traditions, beside the holy Scriptures in religiō, they have just cause to abhor. Neither do they use the one sort of terms, without probable ground out of the original text: nor avoid the other, but upon some good special cause: as in the several places (when we are charged with them) shall appear.

FULK. 17. I answer we strain no words, to signify otherwise, than the nature and use of them will afford us, neither do we spare to express that, which hath a show against us, if the property, or usual signification of the word, with the circumstance of the place, do so require it.

FULK. 18. To the general charge, I answer generally, we do not as you slander us. Nor Beza whom you shamefully bely, to urge the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1. Cor. 7. v. 1. not to signify a wife against virginity, and chastity of Priests. For clean contrariwise, he reproveth Erasmus restraining it to a wife, which the Apostle saith generally: it is good for a man not to touch a woman, which doth not only contain a commendation of virginity in them that be unmarried, but also of continency in them that be married. And as for the virginity or chastity of Priests, he speaketh not one word of it, in that place, no more than the Apostle doth. Now touching the other place, that you quote. 1. Cor. 9. v. 5. Beza doth truly translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a sister to wife, because the word sister, is first placed, which comprehendeth a woman, and therefore the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 following, must needs explicate, what woman he meaneth, namely a wife. For it were absurd to say, a sister a woman. Therefore the vulgar Latin Interpreter, perverteth the words, & saith: Mulierem sororem. It is true, that many of the ancient fathers, as too much addict to the singleness of the Clergy, though they did not altogether condemn marriage in them, as the Papists do: did expound the sister whereof S. Paul speaketh, of certain rich matrones, which followed the Apostles, whithersoever they went & ministered to them of their substance, as we read that many did to our Savior Christ. Math. 27. v. 55. Luc. 8. v. 3. But that exposition cannot stand, nor agree with this text for many causes. First the placing of the words, which I have before spoken of. Secondly this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were needeles, except it should signify a wife: for the word sister signifieth both a woman, & a faithful woman, and otherwise it was not to be doubted, least the Apostle would lead a heathen woman with him. Thirdly the Apostle speaketh of one womā, & not many, whereas there were many that followed our Savior Christ, whereas one alone to follow the Apostle, might breed occasion of ill suspicion, and offense, which many could not so easily. Fourthly, those that are mentioned in the Gospel, our Savior Christ did not lead about, but they did voluntarily follow him: but the Apostle here saith, that he had authority, as the rest of the Apostles, to lead about a woman, which argueth the right, that an husband hath over his wife, or of a master over his maid. Fifthly, it is not all one, if women could travel out of Galilie to Jerusalem, which was nothing near an hundred miles; that women could follow the Apostles into all partes of the world. Sixthly, if the cause why such women are supposed to have followed the Apostles, was to minister to them of their substance, the leading them about, was not burdenous to the Church, but helpeful: but the Apostle testifieth, that he forbare to use this liberty, because he would not be burdenous to the Church of Corinth, or to any of them. Seventhly, seeing it is certain that Peter had a wife, and the rest of the Apostles are by antiquity reputed to have been all married: It is not credible that Peter, or any of the rest, would leave the company of their own wives, & lead strange women about with them. As for the objection that you make in your note upon the text, to what ende should he talk of burdening the Corinthians with finding his wife, when he himself clearly saith, that he was single? I answer, Although I think he was single, yet is it not so clear as you make it, for Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh he had a wife, which he left at Philippi, by mutual consent. But albeit he were single, it was lawful for him to have married, and Barnabas also, as well as all the rest of the Apostles. Again, to what end should he talk of burdening the Church with a woman, which was not his wife, when such women as you say ministered to the Apostles of their goods? Whereby it should follow that none of the Apostles burdened the Churches where they preached with their own finding, which is clean contrary to the Apostles words and meaning. Wherefore the translation of Beza, and of our Church, is most true, and free from all corruption.

FULK. 19. Here again is nothing but a general charge of disagreeing about translations, of Puritans, & Calvinists, Lutherans & Zwinglians, and of all Sectaries reproving one an others translation, with as general a demonstration. See the books written one against another, which would ask longer time, than is needful to answer such a vain cavil; when it is always sufficient to deny, that which is affirmed without certain proof.

FULK. 20. It is a very impudent slander. The Geneva Bibles do not profess to translate out of Beza's Latin translation, but out of the Hebrew & Greek, & if they agree not always with Beza▪ what is that to the purpose, if they agree with the truth of the original text? Beza often times followeth the purer phrase of the Latin tongue, which they neither would, nor might follow in the English. If in dissenting from Beza, or Beza from them, they or he dissent from the truth, it is of human frailty, & not of heretical willfulness. The places being examined, shall discover your vanity.

FULK. 21. We never leave the Greek to follow your vulgar translation, as in the places by you quoted, I will prove manifestly: but I have already proved, that you leave the Latin, and appeal to the Greek, in translating Simulachra, Idols, both Col. 3. & 1. John. 5.

FULK. 22. To avoid the word altogether, and yet sometime to translate it, I see not how they can stand together, for he that doth sometimes translate it, doth not altogether avoid it. But you will say, they do altogether avoid it in all such places, where they do not translate it. That is altogether false; for the Geneva translation Luc. 1. telleth you that the Greek word signifieth justifications, and yieldeth a reason why it doth in that place otherwise translate it: and if to translate the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 otherwise than iustificatiō, must needs show an heretical meaning, then must you needs say▪ that your vulgar Latin translater had an heretical meaning, for in the second place by you quoted, namely Rom. 2. v. 26. he tran • lateth it Iustitias, likewise Ro. 1. v. 32. Iustitiam, so likewise Rom. 5. v. 18. And if it be an heretical commentary, to say, that good works are a testimony of a lively faith, you will also condemn the Apostles of heresy, which teach it to be impossible to please God without faith, Heb. 11. and that whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, Rom. 14. If there be any good works that are not testimonies of a lively faith. But it is sufficient for you, to call what you will heresy, and heretical falsification, and corruption, for your disciples are bound to believe you, though you say the Gospel be heresy, and the Apostles themselves heretics. Gregory Martin calleth this an heretical commentary, what need you seek other proof?

FULK. 23. The Verse by you quoted Rom. 5. v. 18. is a manifest eclipsis or defective speech, to make any sense, whereof, there must needs be added a Nominatiue case, and a Verbe. Now by what other Nominatiue case, and Verbe, may the sense be supplied, but by that which the Apostle him self giveth before? Verse. 15. Unto which all that followeth must be referred for explication. Where he saith, as you yourselves translate it: If by the offense of one many died: much more the grace of God & the gift in the grace of one man Jesus Christ hath abounded vpō many. Seeing therefore that defective speech must be supplied for understanding in this probation, what is so apt as that which the Apostle himself hath expressed before in the proposition? Although you in your translatiō are not disposed to supply it, because you had rather the text should be obscure, & wondered at, than that it should be plain & easy, or able to be understood: albeit in other places you stick not to add such words as be necessary for explication of the text, as every translater must do, if he will have any sense to be understood in his translation. For that defective speech which in some tongue is well understood, in some other is altogether void of sense, and must be explicated by addition of that, which is necessarily or probably to be understood. So you translate Math. 8. Quid nobis. What is between us? Mark. 2. Post dies, after some days, Accumberet, he satte at meat and many such like. But where you charge our translation to say, the benefit (only) aboūded toward all men, not that justice came on all: you do shamefully add to our translation, for the word only is of your own slanderous addition, and the rest is your malicious colection. For we mean not to extenuate the benefit of Christ's redemption, but by all means to set it forth to the uttermost: as the word (abounded) doth show, if you do not blemish the light of it, by your blockish addition of this word (only). And that we are truly made just by Christ, and yet by imputation, as we are truly made sinners by Adam, and yet partly by imputation, as we are actually by corruptiō, we do at all times and in all places most willingly confess, for the justice of Christ which is imputed unto us by faith, is no false or fantastical justice, as you do no less blasphemously, than phantastically affirm: but a true and effectual justice, by which we are so truly made just▪ that we shall receive for it the crown of justice, which is eternal life, as the Apostle proveth at large, Rom. 4. and 5. whom none but an hellhound will bark against, that he defendeth imputative and fantastical justice.

FULK. 24. In the question of justification by faith only, where S. James saith no: we say, no also, neither can it be proved that we add this word only to the text in any translation of ours. If Luther did in his translation add the word only to the text, it cannot be excused of wrong translation in word, although the sense might well bear it. But seeing Luther doth him self confess it, he may be excused of frawde, though not of lack of judgment. But why should our translation be charged with Luther's corruption? Because our English Protestants honor him as their father. A very lewd slander: for we call no man father upon earth, though you do call the Pope your father, albeit in another sense Luther was a reverend father of the Church for his time. But as touching the doctrine of only faith justifying, it hath more patrons of the fathers of the ancient, primitive Church, than Martin can bear their books, though he would break his back, who in the same plain words do affirm it as Luther doth, that only faith doth justify. And the Apostle which saith that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, speaketh more plainly for justification by faith only, (as we do teach it), than if he had said a man is justified by faith only. Which text of Rom. 3. and many other, are as express scripture to prove that we teach and believe, as that S. James saith against justification by faith only, where he speaketh of another faith, and of another justification, than S. Paul speaketh of, and we understand, when we hold that a man is justified by faith only, or without works of the law, which is all one.

FULK. 25. Yes, but if it cannot be proved that so they translate, then is this an impudent slander, as all the rest are, and so it will prove when it cometh to be tried.

FULK. 26. I know not what German heretics those be which maintain that heresy, that all our works be they never so good are sin, except they be the Libertines with whom we have nothing to do. For we never say, that good works are sin, for that were all one to say that good were evil. But that all our good works are short of that perfection, which the law of God requireth, we do humbly confess against our selves. Or else, whatsoever seemeth to be a good work, and is done of mē void of true faith, is sin. For these assertions we have the scripture to warrant us. And if to prove the later any man hath translated those words of David in the 51. Psalm, Lecha, Lebadecha, Tibi solum, or tantūmodo tibi peccaui, &c. To the only or altogether to thee I have sinned, in respect of his natural corruption which he doth express in the next verse, he hath not departed one whitte from the Hebrew words, nor from the sense which the words may very well bear, which he that denieth, rather showeth him self ignorant in the Hebrew tongue, than he that so translateth. For what doth Lebad signify, but Solum or Tantum and therefore it may as well be translated Solum tibi, as Soli • ibi. And the Apostle Rom. 3. proving by the later end of that verse, all men to be unjust, that God only may be true, and every man a liar, as it is written that thou mayest be justified in thy words &c. fauoreth that interpretation of Bucer, or who soever it is beside. But if Beza translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when we were yet of no strength, as the Geneva English Bible doth also interpret it, whereas every young Grecian knoweth that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether without strength: is not this of purpose to take away man's free will altogether? Chapter tenth, Number. 13. Nay it is to show as the Apostles purpose is, that we have no strength to fulfill the law of God without the grace of Christ, even as Christ him self saith, without me you can do nothing, John. 15. v. 5. But every young Grecian (say you) knoweth that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether with out strength. And is there then any old Grecian that will prove, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 always signifieth him that is weak, but not void of strength? Doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 always signify him that hath some strength? Certain it is that the Apostle speaketh here, of those that were void of strength, for the same he calleth in the same verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ungodly, or void of religion, for whom Christ died. Howe say you then, had ungodly persons any strength to be saved, except Christ had died for them? Therefore he that in this place translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , weak, feeble, infirm▪ must needs understand men so weak, feeble, and infirm, as they have no strength. For how might it else be truly said, what hast thou, which thou hast not received? 1. Cor. 4. v. 7. Yes, say you, we have some piece of freewill at least, some strength to clime to heaven, even without the grace of God, without the death & redemption of Christ. If you say no, why cavil you at Beza's translation and ours? The Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as great a Grecian as you would make yourself, signifieth weak or infirm, sometime that which yet hath some strength, sometime that which hath no strength at all, as I will give you a plain example out of S. Paul. 1. Cor. 15. v. 43. The dead body is sown 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in weakness: it riseth again in power. Doth not weakness here signify privation of all strength? It is marvel, but you will say a dead body is not altogether void of strength. Beza telleth you out of S. Paul, Rom. 8. v. 6. That the wisdom of the flesh without Christ is death, it is enmity against God, it is neither subject unto the law of God▪ neither can it be, where is the strength of free will that you complain to be taken away by our translation? Beza doth also tell you, that S. Paul calleth all the ceremonies of the law 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; as they are separated from the spirit of Christ, the weak and beggarly elements, Gala • . 4. Are they not void of strength, & riches which are void of Christ's grace and spirit? But your purpose was only to quarrel, and seek a knot in a rush, & therefore you regarded not what Beza hath written, to justify his translation.

FULK. 27. The Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the grace of God which is with me. A mean Graecian will rather understand the verb substantive, than the participle, as you do, and then must needs again understand the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hath labored. For thus the sense must be, if your participle be understood, I have labored more than they all, yet not I but the grace of God which labored with me hath labored. Who would commit such a vain tautology. The sense is therefore plain, which the Apostles words do yield in the judgment of better Grecians than ever G. Martin was, or will be. I have not labored more than the rest of the Apostles, of mine own strength or will, but the grace of God which is in me, or with me, hath given me greater strength & ability to travel in the Gospel than to them. But you are afraid least it should be thought, that the Apostle had done nothing, like unto a block, forced only: a blockish fear, & a forced collection. For when the Apostle first saith, he hath labored & after denieth & saith, I have not labored: what sensible man will not gather, that in the former, he labored as a man endued with life, sense, and reason, and in the later, that he labored not by his own strength or virtue, but by the grace of God▪ to which he attributeth all that he is in such respect? By the grace of God I am that I am (saith he) which manifestly excludeth natural free will, to that which is good & appertaining to the glory of God. For which cause he denieth that he labored more than the rest, not I but the grace of God▪ which was present with me.

FULK. 28. I grant this to be done willingly, against free will, but yet no false nor corrupt translation. For in the participle Robets, which signifieth lying, is a manifest Enallage or change of the gender to declare that in Chataoth, which word being of the feminine gender, signifieth sin, is to be understood Auon, or some such word as signifieth the punishment of sin, which may agree with the participle in the masculine gender, that the antithesis may be perfect. If thou doest well, shall there not be reward or remission, if thou doest evil, the punishment of thy sin is at hand. But that the later end of the verse cannot be referred to sin, but unto Cain, not only the Grammar, but also the plain words, and sense of the place doth convince. For that which is said of the appetite, must have the same sense, which the same words have before, of the appetite of Eve towards her husband Adam, that in respect of the law of nature, and her infirmity, she should desire to be under his government, & that he should have dominion over her. So Abel the younger brother should be affected toward his elder brother Cain, to whom by the law of nature he was loving and subject, and therefore no cause, why Cain should envy him as he did. Otherwise it were a strange meaning, that sin which is an insensible thing, should have an appetite or desire toward Cain, who rather had an appetite to sin, than sin to him. But you are so greedy of the later parte, that you consider not the former. I know what the Iewisne Rabbin's favorers of Hethenish free will, absurdly do imagine to salve the matter, but that which I have said may satisfy godly Christian▪.

FVLKE. 29. If Beza, Calvin, & the English translations be deceived about the use of the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it proveth not that they are deceived in the translation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the matter in question. They have other reasons to defend it, than the use of the preposition, although you slander Calvin, in saying he affirmeth, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not used for propter. For he saith no more, but that the preposition is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or some such like, that may design a cause quae causam designet, that is, that certainly may point out a cause, & cannot otherwise be taken. Likewise Beza saith, Atqui non facile mihi persuaserim, proferri posse vllum exemplum in quo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ita usurp • ur. But I cannot easily persuade myself, that any example may be brought forth, in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so used, that is, for propter, or secundum, for which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were more proper and usual. Now if Illyricus have helped you with a few examples where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so taken, what say Beza or Calvin against it, but that it doth not usually and certainly signify so. Their judgment upon the place remaineth still grounded upon other arguments, although that reason of the acception of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be not so strong, as if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had never been so taken. But as for the blasphemy, you say, they conclude upon that place, will redound upon your own neck, for their exposition is honorable and glorious to God the father, and Christ his son, and to the Holy Ghost, by whom that Epistle was indicted, to the confusion of your Popish blasphemies, of the sacrifice propitiatory offered in the Mass.

FULK. 30. Beza in the same place, doth bring many examples to prove, that the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signify a great fear, and so is to be taken Heb. 5. But it is an impudent lie to say, he doth contend, that it never signifieth reverence, or piety: and therefore that he saith it signifieth piety in another place, is nothing contrary to that he spake in this place, for the word signifieth both, as no man that will profess any knowledge in the Greek tongue can deny.

FULK. 31. Beza doth in deed translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 prouidentia, but he expoundeth himself in his annotation. id est, aeterna cognition, for what heretical conclusion he should so do, you do not express, neither can I imagine. To your other quarrels, of soul, and carcass, hell and grave, I have said enough in answer to your preface, Sect. 46. & 47.

FULK. 32. Nay rather all learned Hebriciās know that Sheol is more proper for the grave, than for hell, and that the Hebrews have no word proper for hell, as we take hell, for the place of punishment of the ungodly, but either they use figuratively Sheol, or more certainly Topheth, or Gehinnom. For Sheol is in no place so necessarily to be taken for hell, but that it may also be taken for the grave. That Keber signifieth the grave, it is no proof that Sheol doth not signify the same, & therefore you show yourself to be too young an Hebrician, to carpe at Beza's estimation in the knowledge of the tongue.

FVLKE. 33. I have said before, there is no place in the Old Testament, where Sheol must needs signify, that hell, in which are the damned, but the place may be reasonably and truly translated the grave: although, as in diverse places, by death is meant eternal death, so by grave is meant hell, or damnation. Concerning the questions of Limbus, Purgatory, and the descending of Christ into hell, they are nothing like: for the last is an article of our faith, which we do constantly believe in the true understanding thereof, but the other are fables and inventions of men, which have no ground, in the Scripture, but only a vain surmise, built upon a wrong interpretation of the words of the Scripture, as in the peculiar places shall be plainly declared.

FULK. 34. Wonderfullye I promise you, for he translateth the word for all this doloribus, and saith. Nihil tamen ausus sum mutare ex coniectura. Yet I durst change nothing upon conjecture. Annotat. in Act. 2. v. 24. You say he would change the natures of words. Nothing so, but if the word might bear that signification, he thinketh it more agreeable to the Hebrew phrase, which the Evangelist doth often follow. Is not this a great matter to make an evident mark of corruption?

FULK. 35. But if all these be proved to be vain cavils, and frivolous quarrels, as in the chap. 5. numb. 6. and in the numbers following in this chapter it shall be playnelye declared, then I hope all men of mean capacity and indifferent judgment will confess, that ignorance hath deceived you, malice hath blinded you, hatred of the truth hath overthrown you, the father of lies and sclaunders hath possessed you.

FULK. 36. Beza translateth quem oportet caelo capi. Act. 3. v. 21. You say, Heaven must receive Christ. Beza saith, Christ must be received of heaven. Call you this turning of actiues into passiues, and passiues into actiues? Or will you deny us the resolution of passiues into actiues, or actiues into passiues? What difference is there in sense, between these propositions? Your purse containeth money, and money is contained in your purse. The Church must receive all Christians, or all Christians must be received of the Church. But Calvin, you say, misliketh this translation, and the Geneva Bible is afraid to follow it. Yet neither of them both misliketh this sense, nor can, for it is all one with that which you translate, whom heaven must receive. Calvin only saith, the Greek is ambiguous, whether heaven must receive Christ, or Christ must receive heaven. But when you grant that heaven must receive Christ, you cannot deny for shame of the world, but Christ must be received of heaven: wherefore you understand neither Calvin, nor Illyricus, who speak of the other sense, that Christ must receive heaven. And Master Whitaker, not of Beza's translation, but of the text, and even of your own translation, may prove, that Christ's natural body is contained in heaven. And as for your appeal to the greatest Grecians, and the Greek schools, both of Oxford and Cambridge, is vain and frivolous, for the least Grammarians that be in any country schools, are able to determine this question, whether these propositions be not all one in sense, and signification. Ego amo te, and Tu amaris à me, I love thee, or thou art loved of me. But it is strange Divinity, that Christ should be contained in heaven. Verily howe strange so ever it seemeth to Gregory Martin, it was not unknown to Gregory Nazianzen, as good a Graecian, and as great a Divine as he is. For in his seconde Sermon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not far from the beginning, he writeth thus of our Savior Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For he must reign until then, and be received or contained of heaven until the times of restitution. Here you see Nazianzen citing this very place of Saint Peter Acts. 3. For the mean verb of active signification, doubteth not freely to use the passive verb in the same sense, that Beza translateth the place, against which you declaim so tragically. And if you think it to be such an heinous offense, to render passively in the same sense, that which is uttered actively in the text, so that no man for his credit would so translate Demosthenes, as Beza doeth Saint Luke: I pray you what regard had you of your credit and estimation? When Matth. the 4. you translate out of Latin, Qui daemonia habebant, such as were possessed: and Luke the seconde, Vt profiterentur, to be enrolled. Belike you have a privilege to do what you list, when other men may not do that which is lawful.

FULK. 37. This must needs be a famous place, for the real presence of Christ's blood in the sacrament, that never one of the ancient or late writers observed, until within these few years. But let us see what fault Beza hath committed in translation. The last word in the verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he hath so translated, as it must be referred to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying blood, with which in case it doth not agree. That is true: but that he confesseth that all Greek copies without exception have it, as it is commonly red: it is false: only he saith: Omnes tamen vetusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant▪ All our old Greek copies, had it so written. He speaketh only of his own, or such as he had, and not of all without exception, for since he wrote this note, there came to his hands one other ancient copy, both of Greek and Latin, in which this whole verse of the second delivery of the cup, is clean left out. For immediately after these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doth follow, & so in the Latin, Veruntamen ecce manus qui tradet me, &c. Moreover Beza telleth you, that Basil in his Ethics 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . citing this whole text of S. Luke, readeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the dative case, agreeing with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the word next before. By which it is manifest, that in S. Basils time, the reading was otherwise than now it is in most copies. Again, where you say, he confesseth that in true gramatical construction it must needs be said, Quod pro vobis funditur, his words are not so, but that those words, if we look to the construction, cannot be referred to the blood, but to the cup, which in effect is as much as you say: His judgment in deed is of these words, as they are now red, that either it is a manifest Soloecophanes, or else an addition out of the margent into the text. And as for the word Soloecophanes, you understand him that he meaneth a plain soloecisme, & fault in grammar, and so doth M. Whitaker's. Howe you understand him it is not material, but how he is to be understood, in deed. M. Whitaker's whom you call to witness, doth not so understand him, but showeth that if he had called it a plain Soloecisme, he had not charged S. Luke with a worse fault, than Hieronyme chargeth S. Paul. But what reason is there that you or any man should understand Beza, by Soloecophanes, to mean a plain soloecisme? Think you he is so ignorant, that he knoweth not the difference of the one from the other, or so negligent of his terms, that he would confound those, whom he knoweth so much to differ? But Master Fulke (say you) saith that he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancy, and figurative speech, used of moste eloquent auctors: and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needs smyle at his devises, striving to make Saint Luke's speech here, as he construeth the words, an elegancye in the Greek tongue. Thus you write, but if I give not all Grecians, and Latinistes just occasion, before I have done with you, to laugh at your proud ignorance, and to spit at your malicious falsehood, let me never have credit, I say not of a Grecian or learned man, which I desire not, but not so much as of a reasonable creature. Ah sir, and doth M. Fulke say, that this speech of S. Luke is an elegancy in the Greek tongue? I pray you where saith he so? you answer me quickly. Against D. Saunders Rock. pag. 308. I tremble to hear what words you have there to charge me withal. In deed in that page I begin to speak of that matter against Saunder, who chargeth Beza as you do, & moreover affirmeth that Beza should teach, that S. Luke wrore false Greek, because he saith, that here is a manifest Soloecophanes. But that neither you shall quarrel, that I chose some piece of my saying for my purpose, nor any man doubt how honestly you charge me, I will here repeat whatsoever I have written touching that matter, in the place by you quoted.

But the Protestants do not only make them selves Judges of the whole books, but also over the very letter (saith he) of Christ's Gospel, finding fault with the construction of the Evangelists, and bring the text it self in doubt. Example hereof he bringeth: Beza in his annotatiōs upon Luke 22. of the words: This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you. In which text, because the word blood in the Greek, is the dative case, the other word that followeth is the nominative case, Beza supposeth that S. Luke useth a figure called Soloe • ophanes, which is appearance of incongruitie, or else that the last word which is shed for you, might, by error of writers, being first set in the margent out of Matthew and Mark, be removed into the text. Herevpon M. Sander out of all order and measure, • ayleth upon Beza and upon all Protestants. But I pray you good sir, shall the only opinion of Beza, and that but a doub • full opinion, indite all the Protestants in the world of such high treason against the word of God? For what gaineth Beza by this interpretation? For sooth the Greek text is contrary to his Sacramentarie heresy. For thus he should translate it: This cup is the new Testament in my blood, which cup is shed for you. Not the cup of gold or silver (saith he) but the liquor in that cup, which is not wine, because wine was not shed for us, but the blood of Christ. Why then the sense is this. This blood in the cup which is shed for you, is the New Testament in my blood. What sense in the world can these words have? By which it is manifest, that the words which is shed for you, cannot be referred to the cup, but to his blood. For the cup was the New Testament in his blood, which was shed for us, which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the manifest word of God. Neither doth the vulgar Latin translation give any other sense, although M. Sander is not ashamed to say it doth. The vulgar Latin text is this. Hic est calix nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur. What grammarian in construing, would refer qui to calix, and not rather to sanguine. Again Erasmus translateth it evē as Beza. Hoc poculum nouum Testamentum per sanguinem meum qui pro vobis effunditur. Now touching the conjecture of Beza, that those words by error of the scrivener, might be removed from the margent into the text, is a thing that sometime hath happened, as most learned men agree, in the 27. of Matthew, where the name of Jeremiah is placed in the text, for that which is in Zacharias, & yet neither of the Prophets was named by the Evangelist, as in most ancient records it is testified. The like hath been in the first of Mark, where the name of Isaiah is set in some Greek copies, & followed in your vulgar translation, for that which is cited out of Malachi, which name was not set down by the Evangelist, but added by some unskillful writer, & is reproved by other Greek copies. But this place you say is not otherwise found in any old copy, as Beza confesseth: then remaineth the second opinion, that S. Luke in this place, useth Soloecophanes, which is an appearance of incongruitie, & yet no incongruitie. Wherein I cannot marvel more at your malice (M. Sander) than at your ignorance, which put no difference between Soloecisinus & Soloecophanes, but even • s spitefully, as unlearnedly, you affirm that Beza should teach, that S. Luke wrote false Greek, whereas Soloecophanes is a figure used of the most eloquent writers that ever took pen in hand, even Cicero, Demosthenes, Greek and Latin, profane and divine, and even of S. Luke him self in other places, whereof for examples, I refer you to Budaeus upon the word Soloecophanes. The apparance of incongruitie is, that it seemeth, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the nominative case, should agree with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the dative case, whereas in deed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used as a relative for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it is often, and the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which wanteth, is understood, as it is commonly in the Greek tongue, and so the translation must be hoc poculum nouum Testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effunditur, or effusus est. So that this is nothing else, but an impudent and unskillful quarrelling, against Beza, whereas you Papists defend against the manifest institution of the cup, and the practice of the primitive Church, the communion in one kind of bread only. Con • . Const. Sess. 13. 21.

Where find you that I affirm S. Luke's speech here to be an elegancy in the Greek tongue? Yea or Soloecophanes to be nothing else but an elegancy, and figurative speech? A figure in deed I say that it is, but are all figures elegancies, or all figurative speeches, elegancies of speech? Some figures I trow serve to excuse similitudes of faults in speech. But I say Soloecophan • s is used of the most eloquent writers. Very well, doth it thereof follow, that it is always an elegancy. Have not the most eloquent authors, used Hyperbatons, Perissologies, and other figures that are counted faults of speech, and not elegancies, and fine speeches? But all the examples of Budee (you say) to whose commentaries I send you, are of moste sine and figurative phrases. If they be such, they do the better prove, that for which I called him to warrantize, namely, that Soloecophanes is not a Soloecisme, or false Greek, wherewith Sander accuseth Beza to charge S. Luke. But where you utter your foolish pity, in saying, Alas howe unlike they are to that in S. Luke. I think the case is not so clear as you make it, for I suppose those examples that he bringeth of the figure of the whole construction changed after a long Hyperbaton, or Parenthesis, may well be taken for figurative speeches, but not for elegancies and fine figurative phrases: as again those popular sayings which being taken out of the common people's speech, Budaeus saith, the moste eloquent Orators have translated into their finest writings. Peradventure, as Musicians use sometime a discord to set forth the h • rmonye of concordes, so they by hardly avoiding of a Soloecisme, would show the grace of congruity, and elegancy. But of this whole matter let the judgment be with them that are learned and eloquent in both the tongues. It is sufficient for me that he which useth Soloecophanes in Greek committeth not a Soloecisme, or speaketh false Greek, as Saunder termeth it. But where you say, that Master Fulke was foully deceived and took his marks amiss, as it were a counter for gold, to think that Beza and Budee took the word in one sense, you say your pleasure, but you shall well know, that Master Fulke is not so young a babe, to take a counter for gold, as you are a bold bayarde, to pronounce of all men's meaninges what you list. For howe are you able to prove, that Beza by Soloecophanes meaneth a plain Soloecisme? Think you that Beza is so simple a child also, to term copper by the name of gold? If he had meant a Soloecisme could he not have said so? But you must play Procustes parte, for neither my saying, nor Beza his meaning, were large enough for you, to frame your sclaunderous cavil against the truth, and therefore with a loud lie, you must lengthen my saying, and with proud and false presumption, you must stretch out his meaning. These be your arts, this is your eloquence, these are the sinews of youre accusations. What those good searchers in Oxford were, which being masters of Art, could not discern between mass books, and law books, for my parte I never heard, but I think it to be a matter of as good credit as that you report of me and Beza.

FULK. 38. I had rather it should be compted want of judgment in me, so it were by a man of judgment, than to be taken so often with falsification, and lack of truth. For my skill in Greek phrases, although I never professed any, yet I see nothing brought by you, to change mine opinion of Saunders unlearned slander, in railing against Beza, for saying that S. Luke should write false Greek. And if Soloecophanes do differ as much from Soloecismus, as gold doth from copper (as you seem to say) when you write that I take a counter for gold, I might think myself very unlearned in deed, if I did understand Beza speaking of Soloecophanes, as though he spake of Soloecismus. But you demand why Beza saith, that he seeth not why S. Luke should use Soloecophanes, if he meant that it was an elegancy used of the finest authors. Still you thrust in your lie, in every corner: who saith he meant it was an elegancy? Beza saith he seeth no cause why S. Luke should use Soloecophanes, that is, depart from the usual and ordinary construction: and therefore passeth to another conjecture. But you speak me fair to tell you, whether is the better & honester defense, to say that it is an elegancy, and fine phrase, or to say it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margent, the Gospel is here corrupted. First I answer you that Beza affirmeth neither, but rather translateth as Basel did re • d. Secondly, I say there is no dishonesty in either of both conjectures, for this Soloecophanes though it be no elegancy, yet may be defended from Soloecisme, or false Greek. And certain it is that some words have crept out of the margent into the text, as the name of Ieremye in all copies that are extant Math. 27. and, of Isaiah in many: Marc. 1. And yet we say not the Gospel is corrupted, which fowl phrase it seemeth, you have great pleasure in, not withstanding you yourself out of Lindanus, charge all the Greek copies of the epistle to the Corinthians to be corrupted by Marcion the mischievous mouse of Pōtus. You ask further, whether I think Beza such a fool to stand rather upon the later▪ if he might have used the former, and had so meant by Soloecophanes? Nay rather, think you Beza such a fool, that he would mean a plain Soloecisme, and call it only an appearance of Soloecisme? what he rather stood upon, his translation doth best show, which is both with S. Basilles reading, and with the appearance of incongruitie, which is none in deed. Yea what needed any defense at all, say you, if it had been an usual and known elegancy. So well you love a lie when you have made it, that you can never leave it until you have worn it all to naught. Now you have it, not only an elegancy, but an usual and known elegancy. Verily I never said it was an elegancy, as my words are plain to be red of every man, and much less that it was an usual and known elegancy. Only I say it is usual and common in the Greek tongue, that the praepositiue article, is used for the relative, and so much in the next section you yourself do grant me: and as for defense you talk of, I see none needful, except it be for that this phrase here used of S. Luke, is lawful, though it be not so common, as the ordinary construction.

FULK. 39. First I take that you grant me, that it is a common thing in the Greek tongue, that the article praepositiue is taken for the subiunctiue, and the Verbe substātiue may be understood, where it is not expressed: which if you would not have granted, might have been extorted from you by confession of all Grecians, and Greek writers. Secondly where you teach me a general rule, to add to the former concession, that the said relative must always be referred to the antecedent of the same case, as in the example you bring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , you shall pardon me to learn of you. I take you for no such▪ Aristarchus, that you have power to make new rules in the Greek Grammar, and such as shall control not only Homer, but all good authors that ever did write in that language, of Soloecisme and incongruitie. For if the relative must always be referred to the antecedent of the same case, to agree with it in case, or else it is false Greek, I will abide by it, there is no Greek auctor whose works are extant, but he hath committed Soloecisme. The examples that hereof might be brought out of every several writer, if they were heaped together, would make a book as big as Ilias. But in this so clear a case, to cite any examples, I see not to what purpose it should be, unless it were to make little children that learn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Grammar schools, to be witnesses of your intolerable arrogancy, and incredible ignorance. One example I will bring you out of S. Mark, not unlike this of S. Luke, but that the Verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is expressed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and they bring him to the place Golgotha, which is being interpreted the place of sculles. This example is more than sufficient, for so plain a matter. For although it be an elegancy for the relative to agree in case with the Antecedent sometimes, yet to make a perpetual rule thereof it proceedeth of too much rashness, want of knowledge and consideration. But I shall never be able to bring one example like to this of S. Luke, where the relative not agreeing in case with the Antecedent, the Participle may be resolved by the verb Substantiue that is not expressed: and I willfully abuse what so ever knowledge I have of the Greek tongue, to deceive the ignorant, or else I have no skill at all, to speak so barbarously, and rustically of Greek elegancies, and I know in my conscience, it is as great a Soloecisme in Greek, and no more elegancy than to say in Latin In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the school deserveth whipping: and I know not what beside. But touching the similitude of the Soloecismes, if you had made your example a like, that is put in the relative in the Latin, as it is in the Greek, In meo sanguine qui fusus pro vobis, there is no more Soloecisme in the one, than in the other. But all this while I bring no example, and you urge an example, yea so extremelye, that you say confidently, I shall never be able to bring one: but what if I bring two or three? who then abuseth his knowledge in the Greek? who hath no skil at all? who deserveth whipping? Have you so red all authors, and bear them, and all their phrases so well in mind, that you dare before all the world auouche, that I shall never be able to bring one example? But to let all the world see your vanity, I will begin with Theognis, who in the 863. of his Elegiake sentences writeth thus:

See you here the relative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being the nominative case not agreeing with his antecedent, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the accusative case, but coming before the Verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is included in the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is included in the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; What can you here say? will you cavil at the subiunctiue article, then read a few verses after, and see whether this Poet useth not as indifferently the prepositiue article as the subiunctiue, for the relative.

And within two verses,

speaking of the same Wine.

Also Theocritus in 25. Eidyll.

And in the 24. Edyll.

From Theocritus let us pass to Hesiodus, out of whom it were over tedious to cite, how often he useth the article prepositiue for the relative, and not agreeing in case with the antecedent: but an example or two shall serve, where the verb substantive is understood, and not expressed, nor any other verb to govern the relative, yet not agreeing in case with the Antecedent.

Again in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Here me thinks, I hear you grudge against poetrie, and poetical license, as doubtless you would quarrel against profane authorities, if I should bring you any like examples out of Prosaicall writers.

We must see therefore, whether we are not able to bring examples of the like phrase, out of the holy Scriptures. First that Soloecophanes is found in S. Luke I will refer you to the first cap. of his Gospel, v. 74. and cap. 6. v. 4. Likewise Acts 27. v. 3. and act. 13. v. 6. But for the like Soloecophanes to this in question Luc. 22. I will send you first to S. Paul, Col. 1. v. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In this verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , must needs be the accusative case, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, by apposition, then is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for all the world, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the nominative case, signifying Quod absconditum fuit, which the later part of the verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doth most plainly declare. For what else should be the nominative case to the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and even so your vulgar Latin text hath it translated: vt impleam verbum Dei, mysterium quod absconditum fuit à saeculis & generationibus, nunc autem manifestatum est sanctis eius. But because this is not so evident, for that the nominative case & the accusative of the neuter gender be of one termination, I will bring you yet more plain examples out of the revelation of S. John, cap. 1. v. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Grace to you and peace from him, or from God, (as some copies have) which is, and which was, & which is to come. Would not your grammar say it is a plain Soloecisme, because he saith not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , what have you here to quarrel? Is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the same phrase that is in Luke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Well, let us go a little further, to the next verse of the same chapter, where we read thus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And from Jesus Christ which is a faithful witness, the first borne from the dead, and Prince over the kings of the earth. The more usual construction would require, that he should have said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But that hevseth the same Soloecophanes, which S. Luke doth. ca. 22. (If the reading be not altered) where the article prepositiue is put in the place of the subiunctiue, and agreeth not in case with the antecedent, as often it doth, but being the nominative case, cometh before the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is not expressed, but must needs be understood: as even your vulgar translator doth acknowledge, rendering it in both verses thus: ab eo qui est, & qui erat, & qui ven • urus est, and à Jesus Christo qui est testis fidelis, &c. These examples I doubt not, but they are sufficient to satisfy any reasonable man, to show, that I have not invented a new construction that never was heard of, to save Beza's credit, and whereof I am able to give not so much as one example. But that I may overthrow M. Martines vain insultation, with a whole cloud of examples, I will yet add one or two more. In the same revelation, ca. 8. v. 9. Thus we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and there died the third of all creatures which are in the sea, which had lives. Your vulgar Latin text turneth it thus. Et mortua est • ertia pars creaturae, eorum quae habebant animas in mari. And there died the third parte of the creatures, of those things which had life in the sea. In which translation, although the order of the words which Saint John useth, is somewhat inverted: yet the sense remaineth the same, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is translated, quae habebant, which agreeth not with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in case, as every child that can declyne a Greek noun, doth know: where otherwise the moste common construction were to have said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Therefore the phrase and construction is the same, which is Luke 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . What can fine M. Gregory, which carpeth at my skill, that speak so barbarously, and rustically of Greek elegancies, what can Master Gregory Martin I say, the great linguist of the Seminary of Reims, allege, why these phrases are not alike? or rather changinge the words, in figure the very same? And if he have anything to cavil against this example, as I see not what he can have, yet have I another out of the same book, cap. 3. v. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the cittye of my God, the new Jerusalem, which descendeth out of heaven from my God. The vulgar Latin translation differeth not from this, which saith: Et scribam super eum nomen dei mei, & nomen ciuitatis dei mei, nouae Jerusalem, quae descendit de coelo à deo meo. Here the antecedent is of the genitive case, the relative of the nominative, which cometh before the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , understood in the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as in Luc. 22. it is in the participle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . By these examples, in seeking whereof, I promise you, I spent no great time, you may learn to be wiser hereafter, & not to condemn all men, beside yourself, out of your readers chair at Reims, of ignorance, unskillfulness, barbarusnes, rusticity, yea willfulness & madness, where you yourself deserve a much sharper censure, through your immoderate insultation, the matter thereof being both more false and forged, than we might justly have borne, if we had been overtaken with a little grammatical ignorance. By these examples I trust you see, or if you will needs be blind, all the young Grecians in England, may see, that as in the Latin translation, you confess the relative standeth more likely to be referred to the word Sanguine, than to the word Calix, so in the Greek, there is no help to remove it from the next manifest & necessary antecedent, to a word further of, with which the signification of the participle cannot agree. For who would say that a cup is shed for us? And though you make a metonymye of the cup, for that which is in the cup, what is that I pray you? Not wine you will say, I am sure, but the blood of Christ. If you so resolve it, then followeth that vain nugation which I have noted against Saunder This blood in the cup, which blood is shed for you, is the New Testament in my blood. Is that blood in the cup diverse from that blood in which the New Testament is confirmed? If it be the same, how often was • t shed? If it were shed in the cup, how holdeth your unbloody sacrifice? Or howe can you say that it was shed in the cup, where, by your rule of concomitans, it is not separated from the body, as it was in his passion? If it were not separated, as certainly his blood was not separated from his body, in the supper, howe can that which was in the cup, be his blood that was shed for us? for the word of shedding signifieth separation. Wherefore it cannot be referred to that in the cup, but to his blood which was shed on the cross for us, so that there is a manifest enallage, or change of the temps. The present being put for the future, as it is manifest by the other Evangelists, where the word of shedding, can be referred to nothing else, but to his blood shed upon the cross. wherefor the Greek text can here resolve you of no ambiguity, as in the place you cite, act. 14. Neither was there ever any ancient writer that stumbled upon this ambiguity, but all with one consent refer the word of shedding to his blood, and not to the cup, or the content thereof, so many as speak of it.

FULK. 40. This is nothing but general railing, & impudent slandering, as in the particular sections before is proved. For we neither devise that the text is corrupted, to alter anything of the text, no not where it is undoubtedly corrupted, as in the name of Jeremiah. Math. 27. Neither devise we a Soloecisme, when we admonish that there is a Soloecophanes, which of no Papist that ever I heard of was before observed. Neither make we a Soloecisme to be an elegancy when we say against them that confound a Soloecisme with Soloecophanes, that Soloecophanes is a figure used sometimes of most eloquent writers, neither is it straight way a virtue or elegancy of speech what so ever eloquent writers sometimes have used: wherefore we translate nothing of our own devise, but we translate the word of God without any willful corruption.

FULK. 41. If Hebrew words be ambiguous, we take that sense which agreeth with other places that are plain, and without all ambiguity, and this is no partiality, but wisdom and love of the truth: not to ground any new doctrine upon such places only, where the Hebrew word is ambiguous, and may have diverse significations. As you do the redemption of sins by almesse, upon that place of Daniel. 4. Where you confess that the Hebrew word is ambiguous, & are not able to bring any one plain text for it, where the words are not ambiguous. But we ground our refusal upon a hundred plain texts, that acribe the whole glory of our ransom & redemption frō sins, to the only mercy of God. But as well this text, as the other two, that you cite in the chapters by you quoted, shall be thoroughly diseussed, to see if you can have any aduaūtage at our translators of the same. But on the contrary side (you say) that at another time we follow the determination of the Greek for another advantage, as in that text, Psalm. 89. Adore his foot stool. because he is holy, whereas in the Hebrew it may be as in your Latin, because it is holy I answer, that we follow not the determination of the Greek, as moved by the only authority thereof, for any advantage, but because we learn our interpretation out of the very Psalm it self. For whereas the Prophet in the 5. verse hath said. Exalt • e the Lord our God, and worship at the foot stool of his feet, for he is holy: in the last verse of the same, he repeateth again the like exhortation. Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship him in his holy hill, for the Lord our God is holy. In this verse for his foot stool he placeth the holy hill, which expresseth where his foot stool was, namely the holy A • ke, and for Cadhosh hu, holy is he, now he saith Cadosh I • houa, holy is the Lord our God, which putteth the other verse out of ambiguity. Wherefore if we take testimony of the Greek, we fly not to the Greek from the Hebrew, but show that the Hebrew may so be understood, having other more certain arguments, than the testimony of the Greek. Again it is utterly false that you say, we fly from both Hebrew and Greek to the Latin, for we never fly from the Hebrew, but acknowledge it as the fountain and spring, from whence we must receive, the infallible truth of God's word, of the old Testament, following the Latin or Greek so far, as they follow the truth of the Hebrew text, and no farther. As for the saying of S. Augustine to Faust • s the Manichee. (You are the rule of truth,) doth moste aptly agree to you Papists and to your Pope: for you will not aforde unto the Scriptures them selves, any authority or certainty of truth, but upon your approbation and interpretation. Wherefore not only that which he saith to Faustus the Manichee, agreeth aptly to you: what so ever is for you is true, what so ever is against you, is not true: but that also which he reporteth, Tyconius the Donatist said of his sect ( Quod volumus sanctum est, what so ever we will is holy) you yourselves take upon you. For no doctrine is good nor holy, though it be proved never so plainly out of the holy Scripture, except it be allowed by you for catholic and holy.

FULK. 42. That the Hebrew particle Vau, is sometimes to be taken for a casual conjunction, & signifieth, because: no man denieth: but that it must be taken so. Gen. 14. because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken so. Luc. 1. 42. what reason is this? But all the fathers (say you) expound Melchizedek's bringing forth of bread and wine, to be a sacrifice. I grant that many do, but not all: yet do not they ground upon the conjunction causal, for Cyprian Lib. 2. Epist. 3. ad Caecilium readeth thus, Fuit autem sacerdos, and he was a Priest. So doth Jerome Epist. ad Euagrium, expounding the very Hebrew text, say, Et Melchizedek rex Salem protulit panem & vinum, erat autem sacerdos dei excelsi. The word protulit also hath Ambrose, de mysterijs initiand. Augustine upon the title of the 33. Psalm. Cyprian in the epistle before named, and the vulgar Latin hath proferens. Jerome Ep. ad Euagrium, showeth that the best learned of the Hebrews judgment was, that Melchizedek Victori Abraham • buiam processerit, & in refectionem, tam ipsius, quam pugnatorum ipsius, panes vinumque protulerit. Melchizedek came forth to meet Abraham the conqueror, and for refection, as well of him, as of his warriors, brought forth bread and wine. And after many interpretations of the Greek writers which he rehearseth, in the ende he will determine nothing of his own judgment. The author of Scholastica historia, Cap. 64. agreeth with the interpretation of the Hebrews. At vero Melchizedek rex Salem obtulit ei panem & vinum: quod (quasi exponens) Josephus ait: ministrauit exercitui xenia, & multam abundantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit, & super epulas benedixit Deum, qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos. Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi. But Melchizedek king of Salem, offered unto him bread and wine, which Josephus (as it were expounding of it) saith:

FULK. 43. The former word being a participle, is best translated by a participle freely beloved: for the other, if we had a participle in English to say, sored or botched, we would use it, but for lack of a participle, we are constrained to use the noun, full of sores. I may likewise ask you, whether you would translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 full of gold, or gilded? And so of all other verbs of that form, where there is in English a participle: why ought not likewise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be translated by the participle?

FULK. 44. Although the sense were not greatly different, yet the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 following in the later parte of the verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. but fornicators and adulterers God will judge, showeth that the former parte of the verse, is an affirmation, rather than an exhortation. Again the purpose of the Apostle is plain, to dissuade them from whoredom and adultery, & not only to exhort married men to use marriage temperately, but for avoiding of whoredom and adultery, which God will punish, to show the remedy that God hath provided for man's infirmity, to be honorable and void of filthiness.

FULK. 45. We think you not more suspicious, than malicious. From his fear, may well (for explications sake) be translated, from that which he feared, Heb. 5. v. 7. even as hope is sometime taken, for that which we hope for, as Col. 1. v. 5. Tit. 2. v. 13. So may repentance in Beza Act. 26. v. 20. signify them that repent, as circumcision often signifieth them that are circumcised, neither is there any change of the sense, to say the fruits worthy of repentance, or the fruits worthy of them that repent, or amend their life. And I pray you what doth tradition, 2. Thess. 2. & 3. signify, but the doctrine delivered? Doth not the Apostle declare, what his tradition was, when he delivereth this doctrine, that if any man will not work, let him not eat. 2. Thess. 3. v. 10. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as it is used, Act. 19. v. 24. signifieth neither temples nor shrines, but certain idolatrous coins, on which was stamped the figure of Dianaes temple, more like to your Popish shrines, than to the temple of God. Where idols are translated devotions, I know not, except you mean, Act. 17. v. 23. where the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which your vulgar Latin translator, 2. Thess. 2. calleth quod colitur, that which is devoutly worshipped, & so the word signifieth whatsoever is religiously worshipped or adored, and not idols as you say, nor simulachra, images, as your translator calleth them, Act. 17. For it is derived of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth to adore, to worship, to honor devoutly, or religiously. Every human creature, signifieth in that place, 1. Pet. 2. every magistrate, of what creation or ordination soever he be, and so is meant by that translation (all ordinances of men) not all laws of men, which yet were not impious, if you add the restraint, for the Lord, for whom nothing can be, that is against his law. The rest of your quarrels be all answered before.

FULK. 46. These speeches are not strange in God's Church, howe soever they sound in your ears. So many of them as translate for Sheol, the grave, have their answers sect. 32. and chap. 7. which is appointed for that question. The covetous man a worshipper of images sect. 5. of this chapter, and chap. 3. numb. 12. The laying •• of hands of the Eldership, is warranted by the signification of the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth a company of Elders, as it is translated by your own vulgar Latin interpreter. Luk 22. verse. 66. Seniore • plebis. The Elders of the people, and Act. 22. v. 5. he calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Omnes maiores natu. And for a consistory of Elders, is the word Presbyterium used in Latin by Cyprian lib. 3. epist. 11. and lib. 2. epist. 8. 10. Of hail freely beloved we spake lately, sect. 43. Of the text Gen. 4. v. 7. sin lieth at the door, &c. sect. 28. and chap. 10. sect. 9. of Dan. 4. break, for redeem thy sins. sect. 41.

If Calvin Tit. 3. did wrongly interpret, that which is spoken of water, to be meant of the holy Ghost, what is that to our translation? But certain it is, that Calvin never meant to take away, the necessity of material water from the sacrament of baptism, although he taught that the want of the external sacrament, where it cannot be had, doth not deprive gods elect from eternal salvation: neither hath Beza any other meaning in his annotation.

FULK. 47. It is a small sign, that multitude of matter is cause of your length, when you repeat one matter in so many sections, your similitude of a man wading in foul and miry places, doth well agree unto you, for you have been all this while wading in the puddle of youre slanders, misprisions, and false and false accusations, in which you have so berayed yourself, as you shall not easily purge yourself from the mire of them. But because you say the greatest demonstration, that we are willful corrupters, is behind, though it be tedious for us to rake in such a gogmyre of your forgeries, and false accusations, yet we will take courage, and consider what main demonstration you can make, to prove us in our English translations to be willful corrupters.

FVLKE. 48. I think there is no man doubteth, but they translated the Scripture, with purpose to maintain their opinions, but whether they have wittingly, and willfully translated falsely, to maintain any errors, or heretical opinions, that is the matter in question, and which hath need of your greatest demonstration, to make it apparent. That Luther might rightly interpret the place Rom. 3. of only faith justifying, by the excluding of works, I have before acknowledged, & Illyricus doth rightly defend it. But that he did put in the word (only) in his translation, which is not in the original, I will not take upon me to excuse, seeing the truth of that doctrine is manifest, without that addition: and Luther him self in his later editions, hath reformed it. Again, what fault soever other men have committed in their translation, we are unjustly charged therewith, except we follow the same in ours. That we profess to follow Beza by the very name of our Geneva Bibles, it is a very ridiculous argument. For our Bibles are so commonly called, because they were translated, and first printed at Geneva, not by Beza, who at that time, had scarce finished his translation of the new Testament, and never dealt with translating of the old, so far as we know, but by certain godly, and learned English men, which lived there in Queen Mary's time, to enjoy the liberty of a good conscience, which they could not have in their own Country.

FULK. 49. Of purpose against the heresy of satisfaction, Beza will not translate the Greek word, as the vulgar Latin translator doth, but yet as the Greek word ought to be translated. Erasmus finding the vulgar Latin insufficient, hath added Vitae prioris, that is, repent ye of your former life. Neither doth Beza find fault with the English word repent, but with the Latin Agite paenitentiam, when you translate it, do penance, meaning thereby, pain or satisfaction for sins passed, to be a necessary parte of true repentance, which is not contained in the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth changing of the mind, that is, not only a sorrow for the sin past, but also a purpose of amendment, which is best expressed by the Latin word Resipiscere, which is always taken in the good parte as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in the Scripture, where as the Latin words paenitere and Paenitentia, are used in Latin, of sorrow or repentance that is too late. As paenitere and paenitentia may be said of Judas grief of mind, which caused him to hang him self, but not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or resipiscere and resipisscentia: and therefore the Holye Ghoste speaking of his sorrow, useth another word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And this is the cause, why Beza refused the word Paenitentia, having a Latin word that more properly doeth express the Greek word, as we might lawefullye do in English, if we had another English word proper to that repentance, which is always joined with faith, and purpose of amendmente, for want whereof, we are constrained to use the words repent and repentance, which may be taken in good parte, or in evil. For we say, repentance too late, and Judas repented too late, but there is no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that can be called too late. But where you say that resipiscere, and resipiscentia, is nothing but amendment of life, and that repentance in our heresy, is nothing else but a mere amendment of former life: you speak untruly: for those words do signify not only amendment of life, but also sorrow for the sins past, although without recompense or satisfactiō, which you call penance, for the sins before committed: for we know no recompense or satisfactiō made to God for our sins, but the death of Christ, who is the propitiation for our sins. 1. John. 1. Neither hath your blasphemous satisfaction any ground in the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : but only a foolish color by the Latin translation Agite poenitentiam, which, it is like your Latin interpreter did never dream of, and therefore he useth the word Resipiscere. 2. Tim. 2. Of them to whom God should give 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, Et resipiscant, and so they may repent, or as you translate it, recover themselves from the snare of the Devil. Seyng therefore, repentance is the gift of God, it is no recompense or satisfaction made by us to God, to answer his justice: but an earnest and true grief of mind for our transgression of God's law, and offending against his majesty, with a certain purpose and determination of amendment, so near as God shall give us grace. Hitherto therefore we have no demonstration of any willful corruption, but a declaration of the cause that moved Beza, to use a more exact translation, and such as cometh nearer to the original word, than that which the vulgar translation hath used, upon which, occasion of a great blasphemy hath been taken, and is yet maintained.

FULK. 50. Concerning the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which Beza translateth Constitutionibus, constitutions, and you confess that in Scripture it doth very often signify the commandments. He saith first, that as the whole Law of God is divided into three partes, Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial, so the Hebrews have three several words, to express the several precepts of those laws. For the Hebrew word which signifieth the Ceremonial precepts, the Greeks use to translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So the sense is, that Zechariah, and Elisabeth were just, walking in all the Moral commandments, and observing the holy rites, and ceremonies, as much as concerned them: but the third word, which signifieth Judgments, S. Luke doth not add, because the exercise of Judicial cases, did not belong unto them, being private persons. After this he saith, that the Greek Interpreters of the Bible, transferred this word, unto the whole law of God, and especially to the holy ceremonies: so verily, exceedingly commending the law, that it is a certain rule of all justice. And therefore men are wont, commonly in respect of the word, to turn it, Iustifications. And this word in this place, Beza in deed confesseth, that he refused to use, for avoiding of cavillations against justification by faith, seeing he hath none other word, neither would he for offense, seek any new word, to express justification by faith, whereas the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this text, Luc. 1. verse 6. signifieth not that, by which they were made just, but the commandments or precepts of God, by walking in which, they were declared to be just. For by the works of the law (such as Saint Luke here speaketh of) no flesh shall be justified before God. Therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place, must have another sense, than justifications, namely, commandments, as you say it is often taken, or constitutions, as Beza calleth them, which before God and the world, are not of such difference, that you should charge him with willful corruption, for translating that word constitutions, which you confess, signifieth very often, commandments. Wherefore here appeareth no heretical purpose, except you will say, that justification by faith, which S. Paul so often, so diligently, and so purposedly doth teach, is an heresy.

FULK. 51. Beza showeth, that because the doubtful interpretation of the Hebrew word Sheol into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which doth not properly signify hell, but a dark place, such as the pit is, wherein the dead are put, and of the Poets is taken for hell, had bred such monsters, as Limbus patrum, Purgatory, and Christ's descending into them: therefore he did plainly translate that verse, as it is meant. of the raising up of Christ's body out of the grave, which if he had translated out of Hebrew, as he did out of Greek, had not been offensive, nor untrue, as I have shown in answer to your Preface, sect. 46. and of this chapter, sect. 32. But seeing Beza him self, hath altered that translation, and it was never followed of our English translators, what demonstration is this, that we are willful corrupters of the holy Scriptures?

FULK. 52. True it is, that he meant concerning the manner of Christ's presence in the blessed sacrament, and that so he translated, to exclude the carnal manner of presence, which the Papists have invented: but all this while the translation is true, and warranted by Gregory Nazianzen, as I have shown before, sect. 36. of this chapter. For he that saith, Heaven must receive Christ, (as you do) cannot deny, except he be mad, but that Christ must be received of heaven. So that Beza doth none otherwise translate, than you do, Qui daemonia habebant, which is actively thus to be translated, those who had devils, and you say, which were possessed of devils, that is, were had of devils. That the Lutherans find fault with Beza's translation, it proveth it not to be false, he hath justified it sufficiently in his answer to Selneccerus, and the Divines of Iena. Neither doth Calvin (as you say untruly) think it a forced translation, but not weighing the sentence sufficiently, supposeth that the words are placed ambiguously, for that it seemeth to be doubtful, whether we should save, that heaven must receive Christ, or that Christ must receive heaven. But if it be once granted (as it is of you) that heaven must receive Christ, there is neither Calvin, nor Illyricus, nor any man that beareth the face, but of a young Grammarian, yea of a reasonable man, which can deny, that conversion by the passive: Christ must be received of heaven. Therefore if you had any respect of your credit, with men of understanding, you would not for shame, rehearse this quarrel so often, which hath not so much as any color or show of reason to maintain it, but that you abuse the names of Illyricus and Calvin, as mislykinge it, whose arguments by no means will serve your turn, because that which is denied by them, or doubtful to them, is plain and confessed by you.

FULK. 53. A manifest ecclipsis, or want of words, being in that verse, for which Erasmus hath put propagatum est, which word is ambiguous, and may give occasion of error, for men to think, that the righteousness of Christ cometh by propagation, as the guiltiness of Adam doth: Beza thought good to supply the lack, rather by such words as are warranted by the text, verse 12. 15. and 16. and can give no occasion of error. And therefore, thus he rendereth that verse, Nempe igitur, sicut per vnam offensam reatus venit in omnes homines ad condemnationem: ita per vnam iustificationem, beneficium redimdauit in omnes homines ad iustificationem vitae. Now therefore, as by one offense guiltiness came upon all men unto condemnation: so by one justification, the benefit abounded toward all men unto justification of life. In this verse these words, guiltiness came, and, the benefit abounded, are added for explication sake, and are taken out of the verses going before, in which the Apostle speaketh of the same matter. Therefore Beza to avoid occasion of the heresy of the Papists, of justice inherent, among other causes which he rehearseth, refuseth that word, by which Erasmus supplied the text, and useth such words for that purpose, as the Apostle himself in the verses precedent doth offer, for this necessary supplye: which seeing it must be made, that there may be a sense and understanding: who can mislike that it should be made, by the Apostles own words? or who cā suppose that the Apostle would leave any other words to be understood, than such as he him self had before expressed? And as for the heresy of inherent justice, can have no hold in this verse, except some such word be added for supply, as the Apostle never used in this case. That Christ's justice doth make us as truly just, as Adams sin made us truly sinners, there is no question, but by what means we are made just, we say as the Scripture teacheth us to speak, that justice is imputed to us through faith, Rom. 4. The Papists say it is a quality inherent within us, for which words and matter, they have no warrant in the holy Scripture.

FULK. 54 These examples prove nothing less. For to run over them all briefly, the first two, we translate verbatim, A man is justified by faith, without the works of the law, and, repent, and, reap̄tance, we say for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . What make these for Popery? If Luc 1. v. 6. we should call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , justifications, what should Popery gain, but a vain cavil? when you yourselves confess, that those justifications are often used for commandments? Act. 2. v. 27. all our English translations are as you would have them. Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption, by which verse no descent into Limbus, but the resurrection from death can be proved. If we translate as you do Act. 3. v. 21. whom heaven must receive, we will easily convince that Christ must be received of heaven. In the last example the question is not, howe the word is to be translated, but by what word the want of the text is to be supplied, which we supply not with words of our own, but with the Apostles own words.

Have you not gained greatly by translating verbatim, exactly, and according to the proper use and signification of the words? I like well that every indifferent Reader may judge by these examples, of Beza's purpose in other places of his translation. But you have two other ways, to make certain proof of their willfulness: The first is, when the translation is framed according to their heretical commentary. A reasonable man would think rather, that the commentary were framed according to the text, than the text to the commentary. But to justify the truth of those translations, for the first text you quote, it is handled sect: 26. of this chapter, and so consequently Cap. 7. The seconde is answered sect: 46. the other two concerning tradition sect. 23. of the preface, and in the chapiter following. The second way of proof is, when they will avouch their translations out of profane writers. I think there is no better way, to know the proper, or diverse signification of words, than out of ancient writers, though they be never so profane who used the words most indifferently, in respect of our controversies, of which they were altogether ignorant. As for the ecclesiastical use of words in the Scripture, and the Fathers, which Beza (you say) doth for the most part reject, it is untrue: except there be good and sufficient cause, why he should so do, warranted by the Scripture it self, or necessary circumstances of the places, which he doth translate. For if the Scripture have used a word in one signification sometimes, it is not necessary that it should always use it in the same signification, when it is proved by ancient writers that the word hath other significations, more proper to the place, and agreeable to the rule of faith, which perhaps the usual signification is not. As for example, the Scripture useth very often this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a boy, or servant: but when the same word is applied to our Savior Christ, in the prayer of the Apostles, Act. 4. 27. Who would not rather translate it child, or son, as the word doth sometime, but more seldom signify? Howe the Fathers of the Church have used words, it is no rule for translators of the Scripture to follow, who oftentimes used words, as the people did then take them, and not as they signified in the Apostles time. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a public testification of repentance, which we call penance: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for imposition of hands, and such like, in which sense these words were never used before the Apostles times, and therefore it is not like, that they would begin a new use of them, without some manifest explication of their meaning, without the which no man could have understood them: as they have done in the use of these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and such like. It is not a fault therefore, prudently to seek even out of profane writers, what is the proper signification of words, and howe many significations a word may have, and reverently to judge, which is moste apt for the place to be translated, and moste agreeable with the holy ghostes meaning in that text: and not always to be tied to the usual signification of words, as they are sometimes taken in Scripture, and much less as they are used of the ancient Fathers.

FULK. 55. No wise man doubteth, but they could both speak very gravely and avoid most religiously all voluntary, & willful translations of scripture, that might tend to maintain any error. And the rather they will be persuaded, that Beza hath avoided that lewd kind of translatiō, for which he reproveth Castaleo, when they shall see, that you so malicious an enemy unto him, having spent all your invention to seek holes in his translation, can find nothing but such childish cavils, as when they be discovered, men will marvel that you were not ashamed to move them.

FULK. 56. The more particularly you examine our translations, the freer, I hope, they shall be found from falsehood, & willful corruption. And the more at large you argue the case, and press us to answer, the more you shall make the case to appear worse on your side, and the truth clearer on our parte. And as God is witness of our conscience and sincerity in setting forth his word, without adulteration, or corruptiō, so I appeal to the consciences of all indifferent readers, whether hitherto you have gotten any advantage against us in this whole chapter, which yet you profess to be the abridgement, and sum of your whole treatise.

Martin.

THis is a matter of such importance, that if they should grant any traditions of the Apostles, and not pretend the written word only: they know that by such traditions mentioned in all antiquity, their religion were wholly defaced and overthrown. For remedy whereof, and for the defacing of all such traditions, they bend their translations against them in this wonderful manner. Wheresoever the holy Scripture speaketh against certain traditions of the Jews, partly frivolous, partly repugnant to the law of God, there all the English translations follow the Greek exactly, never omitting this word, tradition. Contrariwise, wheresoever the holy Scripture speaketh in the commendation of Traditions, to wit, such traditions a • the Apostles delivered to the Church, there all their said translations agree, not to follow the Greek, which is still the self same word, but for, traditions, they translate, ordinances, or instructions. Why so and to what purpose? we appeal to the worm of their conscience, which continually accuseth them of an heretical meaning, whether, by urging the word, traditions, wheresoever they are discommended, and by suppressing the word, wheresoever they are commended, their purpose and intent be not, to signify to the Reader, that all traditions▪ are naught, and none good, all reproueable, none allowable.

MART. 2. For example Matt. 15. Thus they translate, Why do thy disciples transgress the TRADITION of the Elders? And again, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your TRADITION? And again. Thus have you made the commandment of God of no effect by your TRADITION: Here (I warrant you) all the bells sound tradition, and the word is never omitted, and it is very well and honesty translated, for so the Greek word doth properly signify. But now on the other side, concerning good traditions, let us see their dealing. The Apostle by the self same word both in Greek and Latin, saith thus: Therefore, brethren, stand and hold fast the TRADITIONS which you have learned either by word, or by our Epistle. And again, Withdraw yourselves from every brother walking inordinately, and not according to the TRADITION which they have received of us. And again (according to the Greek which they profess to follow:) I praise you brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me, and as I have delivered unto you, you keep my TRADITIONS.

MART. 3. Here we see plain mention of S. Paul's traditions, and consequently of Apostolical traditions, yea and traditions by word of mouth, delivered to the said Churches without writing or Scripture. In all which places look, gentle reader, and seek all their English translations, and thou shalt not once find the word, tradition, but in steed thereof, ordinances, instructions, preachings, institutions, and any word else rather than, tradition. In so much that Beza their master translateth it traditam doctrinam, the doctrine delivered, putting the singular number for the plural, & adding, doctrine of his own. So framing the text of holy Scripture according to his false commentary, or rather putting his commentary in the text, & making it the text of Scripture. Who would think their malice and partiality against traditions were so great, that they should all agree with one consent so duly and exactly in these and these places to conceal the word, which in other places do so gladly use it, the Greek word being all one in all the said places?

MART. 4. Yea they do else where so gladly use this word, tradition, when it may tend to the discredit thereof: that they put the said word in all their English Bibles, with the like full consent as before, when it is not in the Greek at all. As when they translate thus, If ye be dead with Christ from the rudimēts of the world: why as though living in the world, ARE YE LEDD • WITH TRADITIONS? and as another English translation of theirs readeth more heretically, Why are ye burdened with traditions? Tell us sincerely you that profess to have skill in the Greek, and to translate according to the Greek: tell us we beseech you, whether this Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do signify tradition, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be lead or burdened with traditions. You cannot be ignorant that it doth not so signify, but as a little before in the same chapter, and in other places, yourselves translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ordinances▪ decrees: so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , must be (as in the vulgar Latin it is) Quid decernitis? Why do you ordain or decree, or, why are you led with decrees?

MART. 5. Iustifie your translation if you can, either out of Scriptures, fathers, or Lexicon. And make us a good reason why you put the word, traditions, here, where it is not in the Greek: and would not put it in the places before, where you know it is most evidently in the Greek. Yea you must tell us, why you translate for tradition, ordinance, and contrary for ordinance, tradition: so turning ca • te in panne (as they say) at your pleasure, and wresting both the one and the other to one end, that you may make the very name of traditions odious among the people, be they never so authentical, even from the Apostles: which your conscience knoweth, and you shall answer for it at the dreadful day.

MART. 6. Somewhat more excusable it is, but yet proceeding of the same heretical humor, and on your parte (that should exactly follow the Greek) falsely translated, when you translate in S. Peters Epistle thus: You were not redeemed with corruptible things frō your vain conversation received by the tradition of the fathers. Where the Greek is thus rather to be translated, frō your vain conversation delivered by the fathers. But your fingers itched to f •• st in the word, tradition, and for, delivered, to say, received, because it is the phrase of the Catholic Church, that it hath received many things by tradition, which you would here control by likeness of words in this false translation.

MART. 7. But concerning the word tradition, you will say perhaps the sense thereof is included in the Greek word, delivered. We grant. But would you be content, if we should always expressly add, tradition, where it is so included? then should we say 1. Cor. 11. 2. I praise you that as I have delivered you (by tradition,) you keep my precepts or traditions. And again v. 23. For I received of our Lord, which also I delivered unto you (by tradition) &c. And Luc. 1. v. 2. As they (by tradition) delivered unto us, which from the beginning saw &c. and such like, by your example, we should translate in this sort. But we use not this licentious manner in translating holy Scriptures, neither is it a translators parte, but an interpreters, and his that maketh a commentary: neither doth a good cause need other translation than the express text of the Scripture giveth.

MART. 8. And if you will yet say, that our vulgar Latin translation hath here the word, tradition: we grant it hath so, and therefore we also translate accordingly. But you profess to translate the Greek, and not the vulgar Latin, which you in England condemn as Papistical, and say it is the worst of all, though Beza your master pronounce it to be the very best: and will you notwithstanding follow the said vulgar Latin, rather than the Greek, to make traditions odious? Yea such is your partiality one way, and inconstancy another way, that for your heretical purpose you are content to follow the old Latin translation, though it differ from the Greek, and again another time you will not follow it, though it be all one with the Greek most exactly. as in the place before alleged, where the vulgar Latin translation hath nothing of traditions, but, Quid decernitis, as it is in the Greek: you translate, Why are ye burdened with traditions?

MART. 9. So that a blind man may see, you frame your translations to bolster your errors and heresies, without all respect of following sincerely either the Greek or the Latin. But for the Latin no marvel, the Greek at the least, why do you not follow? Is it the Greek that induceth you to say ordinances for traditions, traditions for decrees, ordinances for justifications, Elder for Priest, grave for hell, image for idol? tell us before God, and in your conscience, whether it be, because you will exactly follow the Greek: nay, tell us truly, and shame the devil, whether the Greek words do not sound, and signify most properly that, which you of purpose will not translate, for disaduantaging your heresies? And first let us see concerning the question of Images.

Martin.

I Beseech you, what is the next and readiest, and most proper English of Idolum, idololatra, idololatria? is it not Idol, Idolater, idolatry? are not these plain English words, and well known in our languag • ? Why sought you further for other terms and words, if you had meant faithfully? What needed that circumstance of three words for one, worshipper of images and, worshipping of images? whether (I pray you) is the more natural and convenient speech, either in our English tongue, or for the truth of the thing, to say as the holy Scripture doth, Covetousness is idolatry, & consequently, The covetous man is an idolater: or as you translate, Covetousness is worshipping of Images, and, The covetous man is a worshipper of images?

MART. 2. We say commonly in English, Suche a riche man maketh his money his God: and the Apostle saith in like manner of some, Whose belly is their God, Phil. 3. and generally every creature is our idol, when we esteem it so exceedingly that we make it our God. But whoever heard in English, that our money, or belly, were our images, & that by esteeming of them too much, we become worshippers of images? Among yourselves are there not some even of your Superintendentes, of whom the Apostle speaketh, that make an idol of their money and belly, by covetousness and belly cheer? Yet can we not call you therefore in any true sense, worshippers of images, nether would you abide it. You see then that there is a great difference betwixt idol and image, idolatry & worshipping of images: and even so great difference is there betwixt S. Paul's words and your translation.

MART. 3. Will you see more yet to this purpose? In the English Bible printed the year 1562. you read thus: Howe agreeth the Temple of God with images? Can we be ignorant of Satan's cogitations herein, that it was translated of purpose to delude the simple people & to make them believe that the Apostle speaketh against sacred images in the Churches, which were then in plucking down in England, when this your translation was first published in print? Whereas in very truth you know, that the Apostle here partly interpreteth him self to speak of men, as of God's temples wherein he dwelleth, partly alludeth to Solomon's Temple, which did very well agree with images (for it had the Cherubims, which were the representations of Angels, & the figures of oxen to bear up the lauatory) but with idols it could not agree: and therefore the Apostles words are these, How agreeth the Temple of God with idols?

MART. 4. When Moses by God's appointment erected a brazen serpent, and commanded the people that were stung with serpents, to behold it, & thereby they were healed: this was an image only, and as an image was it erected & kept & used by God's commandment. But when it grew to be an idol (saith S. Augustine) that is, when the people began to adore it as God, then king Hezekiah brake it in pieces to the great commendation of his piety & godly zeal. So when the children of Israel in the absence of Moses made a caife, & said, These are thy God's ô Israel that brought thee out of Egypt, was it but an image which they made? was that so heinous a matter, that God would so have punished them as he did? No they made it an idol also, saying, These are thy gods ô Israel. And therefore the Apostle saith to the Corinthians, Be not idolaters, as some of them. Which also you translate most falsely, Be not worshippers of images, as some of them.

MART. 5. We see then that the Jews had images without sin, but not idols. Again for having idols they were accounted like unto the Gentiles, as the Psalm saith, They learned their works, and served their graven idols. But they were not accounted like unto the Gentiles for having images, which they had in Solomon's Temple, and in the brazen serpent. S. Jerome writeth of the Ammonites and Moabites (who were Gentiles and Idolaters) that coming into the Temple of Hierusalē, & seeing the Angelical images of the Cherubims covering the Propitiatory, they said, Lo, evē as the Gentiles, so Judah also hath idols of their religion. These men did put no difference between their own idols, and the Jews lawful images. And are not you ashamed to be like to these? They accused Solomon's Temple of idols, because they saw there lawful images: you accuse the Churches of God of idolatry, because you see there the sacred images of Christ and his Saints.

MART. 6. But tell us yet I pray you, do the holy Scriptures of either Testament speak of all manner of images, or rather of the idols of the Gentiles? your conscience knoweth that they speak directly against the idols and the idolatry that was among the Pagans and Infidels: from the which as the Jews in the Old Testament, so the first Christians in the New Testament were to be prohibited. But will you have a demonstration that your own conscience condemneth you herein, and that you apply all translation to your heresy? What caused you being otherwise in all places so ready to translate, images: yet Isaiah. 31. and Zachar. 13. to translate, idols, in all your Bibles with full consent? Why in these places specially and so advisedly? No doubt because God saith there, speaking of this time of the New Testament: In that day every man shall cast out his idols of silver and idols of God. And, I will destroy the names of the idols out of the earth, so that they shall no more be had in remembrance. In which places if you had translated, images, you had made the prophecy false, because images have not been destroyed out of the world, but are, and have been in Christian countries with honor and reverence, even since Christ's time. Mary in the idols of the Gentiles we see it verified, which are destroyed in all the world so far as Gentilitie is converted to Christ.

MART. 7. And what were the Pagans idols or their idolatry? S. Paul telleth us, saying: They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, & of birds and beasts, and creeping things, and they served (or worshipped) the creature more than the creator. Doth he charge them for making the image of man or beast? Your selves have hangings and clothes full of such paintings and embroderings of imagirie. Wherewith then are they charged? with giving the glory of God to such creatures, which was to make them idols, and them selves idolaters.

MART. 8. The case being thus, why do you make it two distinct things in S. Paul, calling the Pagans, idolaters: and the Christians doing the same, worshippers of images: and that in one sentence, whereas the Apostle useth but one and the self same Greek word in speaking both of Pagans and Christians? It is a marvelous and willful corruption, and well to be marked, and therefore I will put down the whole sentence, as it is in your English translation. I wrote to you that you should not company with fornicators: and I meant not at all of the fornificators of this world, either of the covetous, or extortioners, either the idolaters &c. but that ye company not together, if any that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or A WORSHIPPER OF IMAGES, or an extortioner. In the first, speaking of Pagans, your translator nameth idolater according to the text, but in the later part speaking of Christians, you translate the very self same Greek word, worshipper of images. Why so? forsooth to make the reader think that S. Paul speaketh here, not only of Pagan idolaters, but also of Catholic Christians that reverently▪ kneel in prayer before the Cross, the holy Rood, the images of our Savior Christ and his Saints: as though the Apostle had commanded such to be avoided.

MART. 9. Where if you have yet the face to deny this your malicious and heretical intent, tell us, why all these other words are translated and repeated alike in both places, covetous, fornicators, extortioners, both Pagans and Christians: and only this word (idolaters) not so, but Pagans, idolaters: and Christians, worshippers of images. At the least you cannot deny but it was of purpose done, to make both seem all one, yea and to signify that the Christians doing the foresaid reverence before sacred images (which you call worshipping of images) are more to be avoided than the Pagan idolaters. Whereas the Apostle speaking of Pagans and Christians that committed one and the self same heinous sin whatsoever, commandeth the Christian in that case to be avoided for his amendment, leaving the Pagan to him self and to God, as having not to do to judge of him.

MART. 10. But to this the answer belike will be made, as one of them hath already answered in the like case, that in the English Bible appointed to be read in their Churches, it is otherwise, and even as we would have it corrected: and therefore (saith he) it had been good before we entered into such heinous accusations, to have examined our grounds that they had been true. As though we accuse them not truly of false translation, unless it be false in that one Bible which for the present is red in their Churches: or as though it pertained not to them how their other English Bibles be translated: or as though the people read not all indifferently without prohibition, and may be abused by everyone of them: or as though the Bible which now is read (as we think) in their Churches, have not the like absurd translations. yea more absurd, even in this matter of images, as is before declared: or as though we must first learn what English translation, is read in their Church (which were hard to know, it changeth so oft) before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation: or as though it were not the same Bible that was for many years read in their Churches, and is yet in every man's hands, which hath this absurd translation whereof we have last spoken.

MART. 11. Surely the Bible that we most accuse, not only in this point, but for sundry other most gross faults and heretical translations, spoken of in other places, is that Bible which was auctorised by Cranmer their Archbishop of Canterbury, and red all King Edwards time, in their Churches, and (as it seemeth by the late printing thereof again, anno 1562) a great part of this Queens reign. And certain it is, that it was so long red, in all their Churches, with this venomous and corrupt translation of images, always in steed of idols, that it made the deceived people of their sect, to despise, contemn, & abandon the very sign and image of their salvation, the cross of Christ, the holy rood, or crucifix, representing the manner of his bitter passion and death, the sacred images of the blessed virgin Mary, the mother of God, and of S. John Evangelist, representing their standing by the cross, at the very time of his passion. In so much that now by experience, we see the foul inconvenience thereof, to wit, that all other images and pictures of infamous harlots and heretics, of heathen tyrants and persecutors, are lawful in England at this day, and their houses, parlours, and chambers, are garnished with them▪ only sacredimages, and representations of the holy mystery of our redemption, are esteemed idolatrous, and have been openly defaced in most spiteful manner, and burned, to the great dishonor of our Savior Christ, and his Saints.

MART. 12. And as concerning the Bible, that at this day is red in their Churches, if it be that of the year 1577. it is worse sometime in this matter of images, than the other. For where the other readeth, Covetousness, which is worshipping of idols: there this later (where unto they appeal) readeth thus, Covetousness, which is worshipping of images. and Ephes. 5. it readeth as absurdly as the other, A covetous man which is a worshipper of images. Loe, this is the English Bible, which they refer us unto, as better translated, and as correcting the fault of the former. But because it is evident by these places, that this also is partly worse, and partly as ill as the other, therefore this great confuter of Master John Houlet, fleeth once more, to the Geneva English Bible, saying, Thus we read, and, so we translate: to wit, A covetous person, which is an Idolater. Where shall we have these good fellows, and howe shall we be sure that they will stand to any of their translations? from the first red in their Churches, they flee to that that is now red, and from this again, to the later Geneva English Bibles, neither red in their Churches (as we suppose) nor of greatest authority among them: and we doubt not but they will as fast flee from this, to the former again, when this shall be proved in some places more false and absurd, than the other.

MART. 13. But what matter is it howe they read in their churches, or how they correct their former translations by the later: when the old corruption remaineth still▪ being set of purpose in the top of every door within their churches, in these words: Babes keep yourselves from images? Why remaineth that written so often and so conspicuously in the walls of their churches, which in their Bibles they correst as a fault? their later Bibles say, Keep yourselves from idols: their church walls say, Keep yourselves from images. S. John speaking to the lately converted Gentiles, biddeth them beware of the idols from whence they were converted: they speaking to the old instructed Christians, bid them beware of the sacred image of Christ our Savior, of the holy Crucifix, of the Cross, of every such representation and monument of Christ's passion, and our redemption. And therefore in the very same place where these holy monuments were wont to stand in Catholic times, to wit, in the rood loft, and partition of the Church and chauncell: there now stands these words as confronting and condemning the foresaid holy monuments, Babes keep yourselves from images. Which words whosoever esteemeth as the words of Scripture, and the words of Saint John, spoken against Christ's image, is made a very babe in deed, and sottishly abused by their scribled doors, and false translations, to count that idolatry, which is in deed to no other purpose, than to the great honor of him whose image and picture it is.

MART. 14. But the gay confuter with whom I began, saith for further answer: Admit that in some of our translations it be, Children keep yourselves from images (for so he would have said if is were truly printed) What great crime of corruption is here committed? And when it is said again, this is the crime and fault thereof, that they mean by so translating to make the simple believe that idols and images are all one, which is absurd: he replieth that it is no more absurdity, than in steed of a Greek word, to use a Latin of the same signification. And upon this position he granteth that according to the property of the Greek word a man may say, God made man according to his idol, and that generally, idolū may as truly be translated an image, as Tyrannus a King (which is very true, both being absurd) and here he cited many authors and dictionaries idly, to prove that idolum may signify the same that image.

MART. 15. But I beseech you Sir, if the dictionaries tell you that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may by the original property of the word signify an image, (which no man denieth) do they tell you also that you may commonly and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signification thereof? or do they tell you that image and idol are so all one, that wheresoever you find this word image, you may truly call it, idol? for these are the points that you should defend in your answer. For an example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus, God hath predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of his son. And again, As we have borne the idol of the earthly (Adam:) so let us bear the idol of the heavenly (CHRIST.) And again, We are transformed into the same idol, even as our Lord's spirit. And again, The Law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very idol of the things. And again, Christ who is the idol of the invisible God? Is this (I pray you) a true translation? yea, say you, according to the property of the word: but because the name of idols, in the English tongue, for the great dishonor done to God in worshipping of images, is become odious, no Christiā man would say so.

MART. 16. First note howe foolishly and unadvisedly he speaketh here, because he would confound images and idols, and make them falsely to signify one thing: when he saith, the name of idol, is become odious in the English tongue because of worshipping of Images, He should have said, The dishonor done to God in worshipping Idols, made the name of Idols odious. As in his own example of Tyrant, and king: he meant to tell us that Tyrant sometime was an usual name for every king, and because certain such Tyrants abused their power, therefore the name of Tyrant became odious. For he will not say (I trow) that for the fault of kings, the name of Tyrant became odious. Likewise the Romans took away the name of Mālius for the crime of one Manlius, not for the crime of John at Nokes, or of any other name. The name of Judas is so odious that men now commonly are not so called. Why so? because he that betrayed Christ, was called Judas: not because he was also Iscariote. The very name of Ministers is odious and contemptible. Why? because Ministers are so lewd, wicked, and unlearned, not because some Priests be naught. Even so the name of idol grew to be odious, because of the idols of the Gentiles, not because of holy images. For if the reverence done by Christians to holy images were evil, as it is not, it should in this case have made the name of images odious: and not the name of Idols. But God be thanked, the name of Images is no odious name among Catholic Christians, but only among heretics and Imagebreakers, such as the second general Council of Nice hath condemned therefore with the sentence of Anáthema. No more than the Cross is odious, which to all good Christians is honorable, because our Savior Christ died on a Cross.

MART. 17. But to omit this man's extraordinary & vaduised speeches which be too many and too redious (as when he saith in the same sentence, Howsoever the name Idol is grow̄ odious in the English tongue, as though it were not also odious in the Latin & Greek tongues, but that in Latin & Greek a man might say according to his fond opinion, Fecit hominem ad idolum suum, and so in the other places where is imago) to omit these rash assertions I say, and to return to his other words, where he saith, that though the original property of the words hath that signification, yet no Christian man would say, that God made man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his lawful Prince, a Tyrant. Doth he not here tell us that, which we would have, to wit, that we may not speak or translate, according to the original property of the word, but according to the common usual, and accustomed signification thereof? As we may not translate, Phalaris tyrannus, Phalaris the King, as sometime Tyrannus did signify, and in ancient authors doth signify: but, Phalaris the tyrant, as now this word tyrannus is commonly taken, and understood. Even so we may not now translate, My children, keep you selves from images, as the word may, and doth sometime signify, according to the original property thereof, but we must translate, keep yourselves from idols, according to the common use and signification of the word, in vulgar speech, and in the holy Scriptures. Where the Greek word is so notoriously and usually peculiar to idols, and not unto images: that the holy fathers of the second Nicene Council, (which knew right well the signification of the Greek word, them selves being Grecians) do pronounce Anathema, to all such as interpret those places of the holy scripture, that concern idols, of images, or against sacred images, as now these Calvinists do, not only in their commentaries upon the holy Scriptures, but even in their translations of the text.

MART. 18. This then being so, that words must be translated as their common use and signification requireth, if you ask your old question, what great crime of corruption is committed in translating, keep yourselves from images, the Greek being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; you have answered yourself, that in so translating, idol, and image, are made to signify one thing, which may not be done, no more than Tyrant and King, can be made to signify all one. And how can you say then, that this is no more absurdity, than in steed of a Greek word, to use a Latin of the same signification. Are you not here contrary▪ yourself? Are idol, and image. Tyrant, and King, of one signification? said you not that in the English tongue, idol is grown to another signification, than image, as tyrant is grown to another signification than King? Your false translations therefore, that in so many places make idols, and images, all one, not only forcing the word in the holy Scriptures, but disgracing the sentence thereby, (as Ephes. 5. & Col. 3.) are they not in your own judgment very corrupt: and as your own consciences must confess, of a malicious intent corrupted, to disgrace thereby the Churches holy images, by pretence of the holy Scriptures that speak only of the Pagans idols.

MART. 19. But of the usual, and original signification of words (whereof you take occasion of manifold corruptions) we will speak more anon, if first we touch some other your falsifications against holy images: as, where you affectate to thrust the word Image into the text, when there is no such thing in the Hebrew or Greek, as in that notorious example; 2. Par. 36. (Bib. 1562.) Carued images that were laid to his charge. Again, Rom. 11. To the image of Baal. and Act. 19 The image that came down from Jupiter. Where you are not content to understand image, rather than idol, but also to thrust it into the text, being not in the Greek, as you know very well.

MART. 20. Of this kind of falsification is that which is crept as a leprosy through out all your Bibles, translating, Sculptile and conflatile, graven image, molten image, namely in the first commandment, where you know in the Greek it is idol, and in the Hebrew, such a word as signifieth only a graven thing, not including this word image: and you know that God commanded to make the images of Cherubims, and of oxen in the Temple, and of the brazen serpent in the desert, and therefore your wisdoms might have considered, that he forbadde not all graven images, but such as the Gentiles made and worshipped as God's: and therefore Non facies tibi sculptile, concurreth with those words that go before, Thou shalt have none other gods but me. For so to have an image as to make it a God, is to mke it more than an image: and therefore, when it is an Idol, as were the Idols of the Gentiles, then it is forbid by this commandment. Otherwise, when the Cross stood many years upon the Table in the Queens Chapel, was it against this commandment? or was it idolatry in the Queens Majesty and her Counsellers, that appointed it there, being the supreme head of your Church? Or do the Lutherans your puefellowes, at this day commit idolatry against this commandment, that have in their Churches the crucifix, and the holy Images of the mother of God, and of S. John the Evangelist? Or if the whole story of the Gospel concerning our savior Christ, were drawn in pictures and Images in your Churches, as it is in many of ours, were it (trow you) against this commandment? fie for shame, that you should thus with intolerable impudency and deceit abuse and bewitch the ignorant people, against your own knowledge and conscience. For, wot you not, that God many times expressly forbade the Jews both marriages and other conversation with the Gentiles, least they might fall to worship their idols, as Solomon did, and as the Psalm reporteth of them? This then is the meaning of the commandment, neither to make the idols of the Gentiles, nor any other like unto them, and to that end, as did Jeroboam in Dan and Bethel.