Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue

FULK. 18. He that by the grave understandeth a place to receive the bodies of the dead, and figuratively death, doth no more confound the words of death, and the grave, then he that by a cup, understandeth a vessel to receive drink properly, and figuratively, that drink which is contained in such a vessel. Therefore that you cite out of Jerome, maketh nothing against us, for he him self, although deceived by the Septuagintes, or rather by the ambiguity of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which they use, in the signification of the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet by Infernus understandeth them that be In inferno, and the dead, as we do by the word grave oftentimes. As for his opinion of the godly souls in happy hell before Christ's death, or his interpretation of any other parte of Scripture, we profess not to follow in our translations, but as near as we can the true significatiō of the words of holy Scripture, with such sense (if anything be doubtful) as the proper circumstances of every place will lead us unto, that we may attain to the meaning of the holy Ghost.

FULK. 19. The difference of Mors & Infernus which Jerome maketh, cannot always stand, as I have shown of the hoary heads of Jacob, Joab, and Shimei, which none but mad men will say, to have descended into a receptacle of souls, beside other places of Scripture, where Sheol must of necessity signify a place for the body. And even those places of the Psalms, that S. Jerome calleth to witness, do make against his error. For where David saith, Psal. 6. In hell who shall confess unto thee? How can it be true of the souls of the faithful being in that holy hell Abraham's bosom? Did not Abraham confess unto God, & acknowledge his mercy? Did not Lazarus the same, did not all the holy souls departed confess God in Abraham's bosom? Were all those blessed souls so unthankfull, that being carried into that place of rest, and comfort, none of them would confess God's benefits? It is plain therefore, to the confusion of your error, that Sheol in that place of David must needs signify the grave, in which no man doth confess, praise, or give thanks unto God, of whom in death there is no remembrance. Therefore he desireth life and restoring of health, that he may praise God in his Church or congregation. Likewise in the Psal. 54. where he prophesieth unto the wicked a sudden death, such as befell to Chore, Dathan, & Abiram, which went down quick into the grave. Not into hell, whether come no bodies of men living, but the souls of men that are dead.

FULK. 20. The very nature of the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is most properly to signify a grave, or receptacle of dead bodies, as all that be learned in that tongue, do know. About the Greek and Latin terms, is not our question, and therefore you deal deceitfully, to handle them all three together. Although neither 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nor Infernus are so proper for hell, but that they may be taken also sometimes for the grave, and so perhaps were meant by the Greek and Latin translators in diverse places. You speak therefore as one void of all shame, to say they are as proper for hell, as panis, for bread. Where you ask what is Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, for hell: you must understand, that if you speak of a proper word, for those invisible places, wherein the souls departed, are either in joy or torments, I answer, there is no proper word for those places▪ either in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. For that which of all these tongues is translated heaven, is the proper word for the sensible skye, in which are the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and by a figure is transferred to signify the place of God's glory, in which he reigneth with the blessed spirits of Angels, and men, above this sensible world. Paradise and Abraham's bosom, who is so childish, not to acknowledge them to be borrowed words, and not proper. So fo • ▪ 〈…〉 of the reprobate souls in the Hebrew tongue T • phe •• or Gehinnom which properly are the names of an abhominable place of Idolatry, are used, & Sheol sometimes figuratively may signify the same. In Greek & Latin G • henna is used for the same, which is borrowed of the Hebrew. Sometimes also the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek is taken for the place of the damned, and the kingdom of darkness. The Latin word Infernus is any low place. Wherefore I cannot marvel sufficiently at your impudency, which affirm these three words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and Infernus, to be as proper for our English word hell, as Panis is for bread. That there be other words beside these in all the three tongues to signify a grave, I marvel to what purpose you tell us, except you would have ignorant folk suppose, that there cannot be two Hebrew, Greek, or Latin words for one thing.

FULK. 21. We note well your foolish subtlety, that will have us to show you one place, where it is oertaine and agreed among all, that, sheol must needs signify grave I am persuaded that you and such as you are, that have sold yourselves to Antichrist, to maintain his heresies with all impudency, will agree to nothing that shall be brought, though it be never so plain and certain, that it must needs so signify. I have already shown you three places, where the hoary head is said to go down into sheol, that is into the grave For whether should the hoary head go but into the grave? Nothing can be more plain to him that will agree to truth, that sheol in all such places is taken for the grave. But to omit those places, because I have spoken of them all ready: what say you to that place, Numb. 16? where the earth opened her mouth, & swallowed up the rebels with their tents, and all there substance of cattaile, and whatsoever they had: where the text saith. They went down, and all that they had alive sheolah into the pit or grave. God made a great grave or hole in the earth, to receive them all. Where no man will say that evther the bodies of these men or their substance of Tentes, cattaile, and stuff went into hell, as it is sure their souls went into torment. And if authority do way more with you than good reason, hear what S. Augustine writeth upon the same text▪

S. Augustine here doth not only understand this place of the grave or receptacle of bodies: but also showeth that the Latin word inferi or infernus, doth not always signify hell, as you made it of late, as proper for hell, as Panis for bread. But because you shall not complain of the singularity of this example, although you require but one, I will add out of the Psalm 141. where the Prophet saith, our bones are scattered at the very brink or mouth of sheol the grave. Howe can you understand him to speak of hell? For the grave and not hell is a place for dead men's bones: as he speaketh of the faithful, by the wicked compted as good as dead & rotten, consumed to the bones. By these and many other examples, it is manifest, that the proper signification of sheol in English, is a grave and not hell.

FULK. 22. Beza doth not abuse his reader, to tell him that sheol is derived of a verb that signifieth craving, or asking: but you do dishonestly abuse Beza, as you do every man, when you take in hand, to affirm that he standeth only upon the etymology of sheol, to prove that it signifieth the grave.

FULK. 23. Beza saith that the word Sheol properly signifieth nothing but the grave, nevertheless he saith, it is taken figuratively, for tribulation, which is near to extreme destruction, yea and sometime for the bottomless pit of hell.

FULK. 24. The best of the Hebrews, that either interpreted Scriptures, or made Dictionaries, Jews, or Christians, do acknowledge that sheol doth properly signify the grave. That the Septuaginta do always translate it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it proveth not that it always signifieth hell, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth not always hell, as in the place of Numb. 16. As for the turning of Latin into Hebrew, is not our controversy, but of translating Hebrew into English, sheol may signify the grave, the hole, the pit, as F •• ea, though it be not all one with the Latin word Sepulchrum. And yet Rabbi Solomon whom you boldly cite in the 27. Section, saith plainly that the true and proper interpretation of Sheol is Keber, which you say, is as proper for grave, as Lac is for milk.

FULK. 25. Beza speaketh of the holy men of God, which did write the Scriptures, and so use that word Sheol, as it cannot be taken to signify anything properly, but the grave or pit. And as for the Jewish Rabbīs, what reason is there, why we should not credit them in the interpretatiou of words, of their own tongue, rather than any ancient Christians ignorant of the Hebrew tongue? And although they do sometimes frowardly contend about the significatiō of a word or two, against the truth of the Gospel, that is no sufficient cause why they should be discredited in all words. But beside them. Beza hath also the best Hebritians that have been in this last age, among the Christians, not only Protestants, but Papists also, namely Pagninus, and Masius, in their Dictionaries.

FULK. 26. If we followed the Jews in exposition of the Scriptures against Christ, we were not so much to be pitied, as to be abhorred: but if we be content to learn the propriety of Hebrew words of the learned Rabbinsi, as Jerome was glad to do of his Rabbin, who as it appeareth by his scholar in some places, was not excellently learned, there is no cause why any man should pity us, but them rather, that to cloke their ignorance in the Hebrew tongue, pretend as if it were more unlawful to learn Hebrew of the Hebrew Rabbins, than Latin of Quintilian or Priscian, and Greek of Gaza, Soudas, and such like. That you tell v • of the Romish Rabbins converted from Iudai • me, to Papistry, is not worth a straw. For their argument of Saul's and a witches opinion, that the dead might be raised, proveth nothing in the world, that they were in Hell. And the son of Sirach showeth him self not to be directed by the spirit of God, which affirmeth, Samuel did lift up his voice after his death▪ out of the earth, contrary to the judgment of Catholic Doctors of the Church. For that the Scripture speaketh of Samuel raised by the witche, is meant of a wicked spirit counterfetting the shape and similitude of Samuel. For the souls of the faithful, and holy Prophets, be not at the commandments of witches, but at rest with God, where they cannot be disquieted. As for the authority of those unknown authors, that teach boys to say, Sheol is as proper for hell, as panis for bread, we may esteem it to be of as good credit, as Charons boat, Plutoes palace, and Cerberus three heads, &c.

FULK. 27. Although the Septuaginta do always translate Sheol by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet do they not thereby always understand hell: as it is manifest in all those places, where the Scripture speaketh of a receptacle of dead bodies. But now you will bear us down with Rabbins, Talmudists and Chaldee paraphrases. And first you say that all these, handling that verse of the 49. Psalm. He will deliver my soul from the hand of Sheol, interpret it by Gehinnom, that is, hell. I grant that Rabbi Joseph using the liberty of a Paraphrast, rather than a translator, interpreteth the word by Gehinnom, that signifieth hell fire, and so the sense is true. For God delivered David from eternal damnation. But Rabbi David Chimchi, expounding the same place according to the proper signification of Sheol, saith. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . &c.

You see therefore that all the Rabbin's be not of your side, no nor Rabbi Solomon Rashi, whom you cite. For upon 37. of Genesis, verse 35. where Jacob saith, he will go down to the grave, mourning, By this saying, it is manifest, that this Rabbi acknowledged the true and proper translation of this word Sheol, was to the grave, although after figurative, and sometimes fond expositions, it was interpreted for hell. Likewise you say, but untruly, of this verse, Psal. 9. v. 18. Let all sinners be turned to Sheol, for there the Chaldee Paraphrast retaineth the word Sheol, and doth not give any other word for it. David Chimchi interpreteth it according to the literal sense, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Let the wicked be turned into the grave, which is so strange with you to be aunswerable to Sheol, although as R. Solomon he saith, it may be understood of their burial in hell. That Sheol in the Proverbs, & Job is joined with abaddō, it hindereth it not to signify the grave, where is the destru ction and consumption of the body. And although in Job Rabbi Levi, and others expound Sheol for a secret place about the center of the earth, which should seem to be hell: yet they say not that this is the proper signification of the word Sheol. For in the 21. of Job. v. 13. the Chaldee Paraphrast for Sheol, interpreteth Kebureta, the grave, and in the 14. verse. 13. beith kebureta, the house of the grave, and 17. v. 12. and 15. the grave. In both which places Rabbi Abraham Peritsol joineth Sheol, and Keber together, both signifying the grave, and in the later verse, he maketh Job to say to his friends 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The bars of lies with which you comfort me into the midst of the pit of the grave shall go down with me when I die. By all which testimonies it is manifest, that Sheol is not the proper for hell, the receptacle of souls, but for grave, the common dwelling house of men's bodies.

But you will press us yet further, with the authority of Rabbi Abraham upon Jonah. 2. In deed in Abraham Ibn Ezra, I read as you say, but this is only his opinion of the figurative sense of that place.

And so do R. Shelomo Rashi, and Rabbi David Chimchi: yea, so doth Saint Paul, more worth than all the Rabbins that ever were, expound it.

FULK. 28. The opinion of the Hebrews being as I have rehearsed out of their own words, see the skill or honesty of Martin, which dare open his mouth against Beza in this matter, and tell us that Sheol may secondarily signify a grave, whereas it doth first and principally so signify, howe soever the Septuaginta do interpret it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth an obscure dark place under the earth, and not hell properly.

FULK. 29. That Pluto of the Poets is feigned to be the God of Hell, it was here of that they imagined Hell to be a place under the earth, which was his palace, as earth was his kingdom: or else what becometh of the triple division of all the world, if Jupiter having heaven, Neptune the Sea, Pluto should not have the earth? who had his name of the riches enclosed in the earth, and was also called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as in Homer Il. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Jupiter and I, and Pluto the third that ruleth over the dead. Whereof it is put in the Genetiue case; after such prepositions as govern an Accusatiue or Datiue, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the house of Pluto is to be understood. I might here cite diverse places out of Nonius the Christian Greek Poet, who seemeth to use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the grave, speaking of the resurrection of Christ, John. 2. & of Lazarus cap. 11. But of the translation of the Greke word is not our questiō, but of the Hebrew word Sheol, which the septuaginta turning into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mean a place generally to receive the dead, which sometimes is the grave of the bodies, sometimes hell of the souls.

FULK. 30. Beza useth no wiliness or craft at all, for he doeth always openly detest the dreams of Limbus and Purgatory, and whatsoever may depend upon them. But let us see what you can gather out of his words.

FULK. 31. I looked for some great matter, when you began to consider so diligently from point to point: but I see we shall have nothing, but this cold collection, that both the profane and Ecclesiastical use of this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is for hell, and not for the grave. That it is used for hell, no man denieth: but that it is used only for hell. Beza saith not, and I have proved that it is not. As also it may be proved by diverse other places out of the Apocriphall writings, namely Sap. 16. v. 13. where it is translated for death by your own Latin translator, being the same verse, that is in the song of Anna 1. Sam. 2. where Sheol is used, and is repeared in that signification Tob. 13. v. 12. Likewise Sap. 2. v. 1. where the ungodly that profess the mortality of the soul say, that none was known to return from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the word can signify nothing but grave. For hell it cannot signify in their speech, that believe no hell, & say plainly that their souls shall vanishe like smoke, or light air. Likewise in Baruch. 2. it is taken for the grave, where he saith the dead which are in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , shall not give honor to God, where it is certain, that by that word is meant the grave, seeing the souls of the righteous that were in Abraham's bosom, did praise God, and moreover, he maketh it plain that he speaketh of the dead bodies, when he saith their spirit is taken out of their bowels.

FULK. 32. I hope they that be wise will believe S. Augustine, rather than you, that the word Inferi, which is the same that Infernus, hath diverse and manifold understandings in the Scripture, as I have declared before sect. 21. But with the Latin word Infornus, we have little to do, which translate not out of Latin, but out of Hebrew or Greek.

FULK. 33. Your conclusion is as good as your premisses, because the Greek and Latin Interpreters had before us translated amiss, which gave occasion to diverse errors, therefore we also knowing the true signification of the word, must have followed them in wrong and doubtful translation, and afterward debated the meaning of the several places. But in the margent, you tell us, that such Catholics as have translated the word Sheol▪ for a grave, have also done amiss. Pardon us M. Martin, we take you for no such learned Hebritian, that you should control Pagninus, Isidorus Clarius, and all other Hebritians of this time upon such slender sleeuelesse reasons, as you have brought hitherto. And you show an intolerable proud stomach, that being a man so little seen in the Hebrew tongue (as you show yourself to be) you should condemn such grave and learned persons of your own side, of rashness, or ignorance. For you make them in the case of chance medley, that have translated sheol a grave. Think you the deputies of the Council of Trent had no more discretion in perusing Isidorus Clarius correctiō of the Bible, than to suffer him to change life & safety into chance medley and manslaughter? you may in time to come if you apply your study, prove learned in that language wherein as yet you are but a smatterer not worthy to be heard against so many, so learned, so famous professors of the Hebrew tongue, Jews, and Christians, Protestants, and Papists, authors of Grammars, Dictionaries, and translations. But in the second of Jonah, it pleaseth you well, that our Geneva Bible translateth this word Hell, out of the belly of hell, &c. but you like not that they should interpret it a metaphorical Hell, or the extremity of affliction, whereinto the Prophet was brought: where you make it no doubt what they would insinuate, you show yourself more bold to affirm, than ready or able to prove.

FULK. 34. They have in other places translated it according to the propriety of the word. & if in this place they had done so likewise, I see not what fault they had committed. Certain it is that the whales belly, did rather resemble a grave, wherein Jonah seemed to be buried, than hell the receptacle of separated souls. It is the office of a translator not so much to regard what other have written upon the place he translateth, be they ancient, be they godly, be they learned, as what sense the interpretation of the words will best bear. Without prejudice therefore of any man's credit, the truth in this case must be sought out.

That you report out of Jerome upon this place, showeth that both the Hebrew word sheol, and the Latin infernus, are not proper & peculiar for hell, as in other places you tell us. That S. Jerome interpreteth the saying of Christ, Math. 12. v. 40. of his being in the heart of the earth, to be meant of his being in hell, which is said to be in the midst of the earth, it is confuted by the words of our Savior Christ, who saith, that he shall be there three days, and three nights, that is, all the time of his death, which is true of his body in the grave, but not of his soul in hell: for both he said he would be that day in Paradise, and you yourselves hold, that he made no tariaunce in hell. Beside that it is a fantastical opinion to limit hell into the midst of the earth, which is rather a place without the sensible world, than any dungeon within the earth.

FULK. 35. That which Jonah spake, was first true of his own person, and then of Christ, as Jonah was in this a resemblance of him. But by this similitude of Christ remaining so many days and nights in the heart of the earth, as Jonah did in the whales belly, it is manifest that he speaketh of his body remaining in the grave, not of his soul tarrying in hell. Wherefore the descending of Christ into Limbus patrum, hath no manner of hold, either of the saying of Christ in the Gospel▪ Math. 12. or of Jonah in his prayer, Ion. 2.

FULK. 36. I grant the translations had been more proper, and agreeable to the Greek word, to have said, which he hath dedicated, or by dedication prepared. But here is no fraud, against any truth or error of yours. For the Apostle speaketh not of the way by which we ascend immediately to heaven, but of the way by which we have free access to God through faith, without the veils and ceremonies of the law, as it is manifest by his exhortation. And whereas you said before, that Christ ascending into heavē, to those whom he had brought out of hell, you must tell us then, where they remained all those forty days that were between his resurrection and ascension, except you will make two ascensions of Christ into heaven, one in soul alone, the other in body & soul: which hath not been heard of in the church before. For that his soul was first received into heaven or Paradise immediately after his death, it proveth not an ascension: seeing the same was common to him, with other saints. Again, seeing the mystery of our redēptiō is divided into the death, & resurrectiō of Christ, and that by his death we are delivered from sins, by his resurrection we are justified: if you will not allow his death to have purchased equal redemption to the fathers of the Old Testament and us, but measure the virtue thereof by the instance of time, in which it was actually performed: you must stay your prisoners from entering into the kingdom of heaven, at least until his resurrectiō. For none can enter into the kingdom of heaven, but justified persons. Seeing therefore that justification dependeth upon his resurrection, you must either grant, that it was communicated to the fathers in their time before his incarnation, or else you must stay them from entering into heaven before they were justified by his resurrection. The place of Micah 2 that you quote▪ is nothing to the purpose of Christ's ascending For there the Prophet threateneth the Israelites with the violence of their enemies the Chaldees, whom God him self would prosper against them, to have the victory, and to drive them into captivity.

FULK. 37. Your first quarrel against the truest translation of that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heb. 5. is that it saith in that which he feared, whereas the Greek is from fear or out of fear: which afterward you confess though distant in word, yet to be agreeable in sense. The second, that in the margent, our translation is against Christ's descending into hell. How so I pray you? do you according to your translation expound that word of Christ's descending into hell? no verily. But we do expound it of his descending into hell, therefore our translation is to prove Christ's descending into hell: and if our exposition were not true, yet even your opinion of Christ's descent were nothing hindered thereby: you will say, that by our expositiō, we exclude his descent after his death: we do in deed in such sort as your error teacheth, altogether without the Scripture. For if there had been an history of Christ's going into hell, & delivering the Patriarchs and others the faithful from thence, all the Evangelists would not have omitted so notable a matter, and that also an article of our belief.

FULK. 38. If we have in the later reformed an error escaped in the former, what skilleth it, by whom we were admonished, so to correct it? But Beza you say affirmeth, that Calvin was the first that ever found out this interpretatiō. It appeareth you were never well beaten for lying, it is such a common fault with you. Beza speaking of the interpreters of this age, saith that Calvin (as he thinketh) was the first that shown the true & natural interpretatiō of this place. He saith not, the first that ever found it. Yea clean contrary wise he saith, Denique vt non dubium sit, &c. Finally that it should not be doubtful, but that some of the ancient fathers also have interpreted this place even so, Nazianzenus Conc. de fil. 2. doth plainly number 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this fear among the infirmities of Christ's manhood. As for that which you call a blasphemy, is a holy and comfortable true doctrine, that Christ for the redemption of our souls, suffered the wrath of God in his soul, as those tears, and that strong cry declareth, in which he complained according to the sense of his humanity, that he was forsaken of God.

FULK. 39. How know you, that all antiquity hath so red? if we had the commentaries of many of the ancient fathers upon this text, we might perhaps prove unto you, that they read otherwise. Nazianzenus as I shown before among Christ's infirmities, reckoneth this fear. Primasius although he expoundeth it of reverence, yet alledgeth out of Cassiodorus that the word is taken sometime for love, sometimes for fear. Theodoretus also interpreteth this place of Christ's fear, according to his human nature, showing that he feared death, which S. Paul feared not, both to show him self a man, and to have experience of all our infirmities without sin. But where you say, that Calvin maketh him to fear damnation, and the eternal pains of hell, it is false. Calvin saith plainly, his fear came not of distrust, but of the sense of his human nature, forbearing the judgment of God, which without vehement endeavor, could not be overcome. Therefore was the astonishment, the tears, the strong cry, the drops of blood, the Angel needful to comfort him, the last extreme conflict, in which he cried, my God my God why hast thou forsaken me. As for the signification of the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 although it be so often taken for piety and religion, yet it is also taken for fear. As Acts 23. Where S Luke saith the Tribune was greatly afraid, least Paul should have been rente in pieces, between the Pharizees and Sadducees, he useth this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for being afraid, which was of no piety or religious fear in him, that was a Pagan, but a natural and civil fear, least a prisoner being a Roman, of whom he had charge, should be violently murdered amongst them.

FULK. 40. You have great leisure thus to trifle, or rather intolerable malice thus to cavil. Beza in the place by you cited, speaketh of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when it is taken for religion, for then it is rather joined with reverence, than with astonishment.

FULK. 41. Any reasonable man reading the note upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , religious, used by S. Luke of Simeon, will understand Beza to speak of the signification of that word, as it is taken in that place, for he speaketh against the barbarous word Timoratus, used by the vulgar Interpreter, which signifieth, if it have any signification, one made afraid, rather than fearing God, with love and reverence. But where you say, we shall hardly give an instance, where the word signifieth that fear of astonishment, which they translate, if you would have taken pains to read Beza's annotations yourself, upon this text in question, you should have found, that he bringeth many instances out of Aristotle, Sophocles, Plutarch, Nazianzen, and S. Luke, Act. 23. If you had remembered what S Mark writeth of our Savior Christ, Mar. 14. v. 33. it should not have been so strange a matter unto you, to hear that our Savior Christ with great astonishment, and terror of mind, was afraid of death, where he useth the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : which was not for bodilye pain or bodily death. (which not only thousands of holy Martyrs have joyfully embraced, but infinite wicked persons have contemned) but for the feeling of God's wrath, which was infinitely more heavy upon his soul, than any torments were upon his body.

FULK. 42. When Beza hath shown his skill in the Greek tongue, not only in his translation, and annotations, but also in diverse Greek Epigrams, which he hath set forth, who but one stark mad with malice, & blind with conceit of his own slender skil, would doubt whether Beza had any skill at all in the Greek tongue. As for that he saith of the signification of the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ he speaketh in respect of the property of the Greek tongue, for yet you bring no examples, but Hebraisms out of the Scripture, for that signification of the preposition.

FULK. 43. And we by the same authority, send you to Beza's answer, in his last edition of his annotations. And yet the Reader must know that Beza did not simply deny, that the preposition might have such sense. But he said, Non facile mihi persuaserim, I cannot easily persuade myself, that any example can be brought, wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so used. And in all these examples that you have brought, it signifieth rather prae, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , than propter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as your vulgar translator observeth the difference, 2. Mac. 5. verse 27. translating prae superbia, and propter elationem mentis. But Beza requireth an example of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , taken for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that may answer to the vulgar Latin, pro reuerentia. For who would translate in Saint Matthew, 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , pro gaudio, propter gaudium, or secundum gaudium, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , pro dolore, and so of the rest, but of these, let Beza him self give account. As for these tedious grammatications, which you confess to have been fitter to be handled in Latin, it seemeth you uttered in English, for that of many ignorant, you might be thought to bring some great learning out of the Hebrew and Greek tongues against us, whereas the learned, if you had written in Latin, of other nations, as well as ours, might have been witnesses of your fond trifling, and quarrelling against our translations. As for the necessary cause you pretend, that the unlearned may ask them that have skyll in Greek, is very ridiculous. For neither can they have at hand always such as be able to resolve them, neither if they be of your faction▪ will they ask any indifferent man's iugement, but only such as will avouch before the ignorant, that all which you write, is good and perfect.

FULK. 44. How fain would you obscure the light of that excellent testimony, even contrary to your own vulgar Latin translation? that you might not have such a faithful witness against your Limbus patrum? You require a reason, why we keep not the Greek pointes, Apoc. 13. I answer, we keep those pointes, which the most ancient written copies have, which the Complutensis Edi • i • hath, and which the best Greek printes now have. If you would know a reason why we follow not them that point otherwise▪ I answer you, the composition of the words, is against that pointing. For except Saint John had meant that the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world, he would not have placed those words, from the beginning of the world, next to those words, the Lamb which is slain, but next the word written. And therefore Aretus that could not understand howe the lamb was slain from the beginning of the world is forced to imagine Hyperbaton in this text, where none needeth, the sense being good and plain without it, as the words do lie.

were not written in God's eternal book of predestination, from the beginning, as it is said Apoc. 17. v. 8. Yet is that no reason, why this also should not be true, that the lamb was slain since the beginning of the world, seeing without violence you cannot distract 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from the lamb slain whom it doth immediately follow.

FULK. 45 We say that wrong pointing may greatly alter the sense, but good composition and placing of words in a sentence is a good rule to direct pointing, where it is either lacking, or falsely signed. We refuse • ot the testimony of the vulgar Latin, where it agreeth with the truth of the Greek or Hebrew, yea before God & our consciences, we reverence it, as a monument of some antiquity, from which we neither do, nor are willing to dissent, except the same dissent from the original text. Otherwise the truth of this assertion, that Christ was slain from the beginning of the world, hath not only testimony of the ancient fathers, but also may be confirmed out of the Scripture. For by the obedience of Christ Saint Paul Rom. 5. teacheth that many are justified, meaning all the elect of God, who except Christ's death had been effectual to them, before he suffered actually on the cross, must have gone, not into Limb • patrum, but into hell Diabolorum, which is the place appointed for all them that are not justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption of Christ Jesus, whom God before hath set forth, to be a propitiatory in his blood, Rom. 3. v. 24. &c. The title of this chapter threateneth a discovery of heretical translations against Purgatory especially: but in the whole discourse thereof, which is shameful long one, containing 45. sections, there is not one place noted against Purgatory, Amphora coepit institui, curren • e rota cur vrceus exit?

Martin.

ABout the article of justification, as it hath many branches, and their errors therein be manifold, so are their English translations accordingly many ways false and heretical. First, against justification by good works and by keeping the commandments, they suppress the very name of justification in all such places where the word signifieth the commandments or the Law of God, which is both in the old and new Testament most common and usual, namely in the books of Moses, in the Psalm 118. that beginneth thus, Beati immaculati: in the Psalm 147. ver. 19. 1. Mach. 1. ver. 51. and cap. 2. v. 21. Luke. 1. v. 6. Rom. 2. v. 26. In all which places and the like, where the Greek signifieth iustices and justifications most exactly, according as our vulgar latin trāslateth, iustitias & iustificationes: there the English translations say jointly & with one consent, ordinances, or, statutes. For example, Rom. 2. If the uncircumcision keep the ORDINANCES of the law, shall it not be counted for circumcision? And Luc. 1, 6. They were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ORDINANCES of the Lord, blameless. Why translate you it ordinances, and avoid the term, justifications? is it because you would follow the Greek? I beseech you is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , just, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be justified, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , justifications or iustices? In the Old Testament you might perhaps pretend, that you follow the Hebrew word, and therefore there you translate, statutes, or ordinances. But even there also, are not the seventy Greek interpreters sufficient to teache you the signification of the Hebrew word: who always interpret it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in English, justifications?

MART. 2. But be it, that you may control them in the Hebrew, which none but fools will grant unto you: in the new Testament, what pretense have you? do you there also translate the Hebrew word, or rather the Greek? the Greek undoubtedly you should translate. What reason then can you have, why you do not? none other surely, than that which Beza giveth for him self▪ saying, that he rejected the word, justifications, (notwithstanding it expressed the Greek, word for word, notwithstanding the seventy Greek Interpreters, used it to signify the whole law, and in Latin it be commonly translated, iustificationes, ) notwithstanding all this, for this only cause (saith he) did I reject it, to avoid the cavillations that might be made by this word, against justification by faith. As if he should say, This word truly translated, according to the Greek, might minister great occasion to prove by so many places of scripture, that man's justification is not by faith only, but also by keeping the law, and observing the commandments, which therefore are called according to the Greek and Latin, justifications, because they concur to justification, and make a man just, as by S. Luke's words also is well signified, which have this allusion, that they were both just, because they walked in all the justifications of our Lord. Which they of purpose suppress by other words.

MART. 3. And hereof also it riseth, that when he cannot possibly avoid the word in his translation (as Apoc. 19. 8. Bissinum enim iustificationes sunt sanctorum, The silk is the justifications of Saints: ) there he helpeth the matter with this commentary, That justifications, are those good works which be the testimonies of a lively faith. But our English translators have another way to avoid the word even in their translation. For they say here, the righteöusnes of Saints: because they could not say, ordinances of Saints: and they would not say, justifications of Saints: knowing very well (by Beza's own commentary) that this word includeth the good works of saints: which works if they should in translating call their justifications, it would go sore against justification by only faith. Therefore do they translate in steed thereof, ordinances, and, statutes, where they can, which are terms furthest of from justification: and where they cannot, there they say, righteousness, making it also the plural number, whereas the more proper Greek word for righteousness is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Dan. 6, 22.) which there some of them translate vngiltinesse: because they will not translate exactly, if you would hire them.

MART. 4. And therefore as for, justice, and, justifications, they say righteousness: so for, just, they translate, righteous. and by this means, Joseph was a righteous mā, rather than a just man: and Zechariah and Elisabeth were both righteous before God, rather than just: because when a man is called just, it soundeth that he is so in deed, and not by imputation only: as a wise man, is understood to be wise in deed, and not only so imputed. Therefore do they more gladly and more often say, righteous men, rather than, just men, & when they do say, just men, as sometime they do least they might s • eme willful inexcusably: there they understand, just by imputation, & not in deed, as is to be seen in Beza's Annotations upon the Epistle to the Romans. Note also that they put the word, just, when faith is joined withal, as Rom. 1. The just shall live by faith, to signify that justification is by faith. But if works be joined withal, and keeping the commandments, as in the place alleged Luc. 1. there they say, righteous, to suppress justification by works.

MART. 5 And certain it is, if there were no sinister meaning, they would in no place avoid to say, just, justice, justification, where both the Greek and Latin are so, word for word, as for example. 2. Tim. 48. In all their Bibles▪ Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of RIGHTEOVSNES, which the Lord the RIGHTEOVS judge shall GIVE me at that day. And again 2. Thess. 1. Rejoice in tribulation which is a token of the RIGHTEOVS IVDGEMENT of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God for which ye suffer. For it is a RIGHTEOVS THING with God, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you: and to you that are troubled, rest with us, in the revelation of our Lord JESUS from heaven. And again Heb 6. 10. God is not VNRIGHTEOVS to forget your good work and labor, &c. These are very pregnant places to discover their false purpose in concealing the word, justice, in all their Bibles. For if they will say, that justice is not an usual English word in this sense, and therefore they say, righteousness: yes I trow, just, and unjust, are usual and well known. Why thē would they not say at the least, in the places alleged, God the IVST judge, A token of the IVST IVDGEMENT of God, It is a IVST thing with God, God is not VNIVST to forget &c? Why is it not at the least in one of their English Bibles, • eeing so both in Greek and Latin?

MART. 6. Understand gentle Reader, and mark well, that if S. Paul's words were truly translated thus, A crown of IVSTICE is laid up for me▪ which our Lord the IVST judge will RENDER unto me at that day, and so in the other places: it would infer, that men are justly crowned in heaven for their good works upon earth, and that i • is God's justice so to do, and that he will do so because he is a just judge, and because he will show his IVST IVDGEMENT, and he will not forget so to do, because he is not unjust: as the ancient fathers (namely the Greek doctors S. Chrysostom, Theodorete, and Oecumenius upon these places) do interpret and expound. In so much that Oecumenius saith thus upon the foresaid place to the Thessalonians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. See here, that to suffer for Christ procureth the kingdom of heavē according to IVST IVDGEMENT, and not according to grace. Which least the Adversary might take in the worse parte, as though it were only God's justice or just judgment, and not his favor or grace also. S. Augustine excellently declareth how it is both the one and the other: to wit, his grace and favor and mercy, in waking us by his grace to live and believe well, and so to be worthy of heaven: his justice and just judgment, to render and repaye for those works which him self wrought in us, life everlasting. Which he expresseth thus: How should he render or repay as a just judge, unless he had given it as a merciful father? Where S. Augustine urgeth the words of repaying as due, and of being A IVST IVDGE therefore. Both which the said translators corrupt, not only▪ saying, righteous judge, for, just judge: but, that he will give a crown, which is of a thing not due, for that which is in the Greek, He will render or repay: which is of a thing due and deserved, and hath relation to works going before, for the which the crown is repaied. He said not (saith Theophylacte upon this place) he will give, but, he will render or repay, as a certain de • te. For he being just, will define and limit the reward according to the labors. The crown therefore is due debt, because of the judges justice. So saith he.

MART. 7. Which speeches being moste true as being the express words of holy Scripture, yet we know howe odiously the Adversaries may and do misconster them to the ignorant, as though we challenged heaven by our own works, and as though we made God bound to us. Which we do not, God forbid. But because he hath prepared good works for us (as the Apostle saith) to walk in them, and doth by his grace cause us to do them, and hath promised life everlasting for them, and telleth us in all his holy Scriptures, that to do them is the way to heaven▪ therefore not presuming upon our own works as our own or as of our selves, but upon the good works wrought through God's grace by us his seely instruments, we have great confidence (as the Apostle speaketh) and are assured that these works proceeding of his grace, be so acceptable to him; that they are esteemed and be worthy and meritorious of the kingdom of heaven. Against which truth, let us see further, their heretical corruptions.

Martin.

WHen they translate (Rom. 8. 18.) thus, I am certainly persuaded, that the afflictions of this time, ARE NOT WORTHIE OF THE GLORIE which shall be shown upon us: do they not mean to signify to the Reader, & must it not needs so sound in his ears, that the tribulations of this life, be they never so great, though suffered for Christ, yet do not merit nor deserve the heavenly glory? but in the Greek it is far otherwise. I will not stand upon their first words, I am certainly persuaded, which is a far greater asseveration, than the Apostle useth, and I marvel how they could so translate that Greek word, but that they were disposed, not only to translate the Apostles words falsely against meritorious works, but also to avouch and affirm the same lustily, with much more vehemency of words, than the Apostle speaketh. Well, let us pardon them this fault, and examine the words following. Where the Greek saith not, as they translate with full consent in all their English Bibles, The afflictions are not worthy of the glory, &c. but thus, The afflictions of this time, are not equal, correspondent, or comparable to the glory to come. because the afflictions are short, the glory is eternal: the afflictions small and few, in comparison, the glory great and abundant above measure.

MART. 2. This is the Greek phrase and the Apostles meaning, which we need not greatly to prove, because their own Doctors Calvin, and Beza, do so interpret it, and therefore wonder it were, that the Geneva English Bibles also should forsake their masters, and follow the error of the other English Bibles, but that they thought the more voices the better. In the mean time, the people s • eth no other translation, and thinketh it is the Apostles very words. But Beza himself • elleth them the contrary, translating thus: Statuo minime esse paria quae praesenti tempore perpetimur, futurae gloriae nobis reuelandae, that is, I am of this opinion, that the things which we suffer in this present time, are not equal to the glory that shall be revealed to us. And in his commentary, thus, S. Paul's discourse and matter handled in this place, declare, that he speaketh not of the valure or price of the afflictions which we suffer for Christ, but rather by comparing their quality, and quantity, with life everlasting, he gathereth that we shall be infinitely more happy with Christ, than we are miserable here. Therefore did he use the ▪ Greek word rightly, and properly, which the Grammarians say is spoken of such things, as being poised or weighed, are found of one weight. Thus far Beza.

MART. 3. If then a comparison only be signified, why do they not so translate it in English, that it may be taken for a comparison in our English phrase? For they know very well that if a man should say in English, according as they translate, Good works are not worthy of heaven, this man is not worthy of my favor, he is not worthy of such a living, of so great praises: every English man understandeth it thus, that they deserve not heaven, and that such a man deserveth not this or that. Even so must the Reader needs take it in this place, & they must needs have intended that he should so take it. For though the Greek phrase may signify a comparison, being so uttered, yet not the English. And if it might, yet obscurely, and ambiguously: and if it might, yet here they do falsely translate so, because here the Greek phrase is otherwise, and therefore should otherwise be englished▪ For it is not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is, as they translate, worthy of the glory: but, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which cannot be so translated. For if it might, then these Greek phrases were alone, and might be used indifferently. And then I must desire them to turn me this into Greek, He is not worthy of thanks. And if they turn it by the Apostles phrase in this place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to all Grecians they shall be ridiculous. And yet this is as well turned out of English into Greek, as they have turned the other out of Greek into English.

MART. 4. Marie, if they would express a comparison of equality or inequality between thing and thing, then this is the proper Greek phrase thereof, and much more proper for this purpose, than by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and a Genitiue case. Which notwithstanding is often so used in Scriptures by way of comparison, as Prouerb. 3. concerning the praise of wisdom. Where S. Augustine to express the comparison, readeth thus, Omne pretiosum non est illi dignum: and S. Jerome according to the Hebrew thus, Omnia quae desiderantur non valent huic comparari. or, adaequari. and Eccles. 26. we have the very like speech proceeding of the said Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Omnis ponderatio non est digna continentis animae. Which the English Bibles thus, There is no weight to be compared unto a mind that can rule it self. or, with a continent mind.

MART. 5. And if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a genitive case signify a comparison, and them selves so translate it in all their Bibles, should not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Apostles phrase much more be so translated? I appeal to their own consciences. Again, if here in Ecclesiasticus they say not according to the Greek words, There is no weight worthy of a continent mind, because they would by an English phrase express the comparison: is it not more than evident, that when they translate the Apostle by the very same words, Worthie of the glory, &c. they know it cannot, and they mean it should not signify a comparison? I cannot sufficiently express, but only to the learned & skillful reader, their partial and heretical dealing. Briefly, I say, they translate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Not to be compared with a continent mind, being in Greek word for word. Not worthy of a continent mind: and contrariwise they translate in S. Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Not worthy of the glory to come, being in the Greek, Not to be compared to the glory to come. according to the very like Latin phrase by dignus, Eccl. 6. Amico fideli nulla est comparatio, & non est DIGNA ponderatio auri & argenti CONTRA BONITATEM FIDEI, that is, according to their own translation, A faithful friend hath no peer, weight of gold and silver is not to be compared to the goodness of his faith.

MART. 6. Now if they will say, though their translation of Saint Paul's words be not so exact and commodious, yet the sense and meaning is all one (for if these present afflictions be not equal or comparable to the glory to come, then neither are they worthy of it, nor can deserve or merit it) let the Christian Reader mark the difference. First their Beza and Calvin telleth them that the Apostle speaketh of the one, and not of the other. Secondly, the passions and afflictions that Christ our Savior suffered all his life, were not comparable to the eternal glory which he obtained thereby: yet did he thereby deserve and merit eternal glory, not only for him self, but for all the world: yea by the least affliction he suffered, did he deserve all this. Unless you will deny also that he merited and deserved his glory, which your opinion a man might very well gather by some of your false translations, but that you would think us too suspicious, which perhaps we will examine hereafter. Thirdly, the present pleasure of aduoutrie during a man's life, is not comparable to the eternal torments of hell fire: and yet it doth merit and deserve the same. Fourthly, the Apostle by making an incomparable difference of the glory to come with the afflictions of this time, doth (as Saint Chrysostom saith) exhort them the more vehemently and move them to sustain all things the more willingly: but if he said as they translate, The afflictions are not worthy of heaven, you are never the nearer heaven for them, only believe: this had not been to exhort them, but to discourage them. Fifthly, the Apostle when he will else where encourage them to suffer, saith plainly, Our tribulation which presently is for a moment and light, WORKETH above measure exceedingly, an eternal weight of glory in us.

MART. 7. See you not a comparison between short and eternal, light tribulation, and exceeding weighty glory: and yet that one also worketh the other, that is, causeth, purchaseth, and deserveth the other? For, like as the little seed being not comparable to the great tree, yet causeth it and bringeth it forth: so our tribulations and good works otherwise incomparable to eternal glory, by the virtue of God's grace working in us, worketh, purchaseth, and causeth the said glory. For so they know very well the Greek word importeth: though here also they translate it most falsely, prepareth. Bib. an. 1577.

MART. 8. Lastly, for moste manifest evidence, that these present tribulations and other good works are meritorious and worthy of the joys to come, though not comparable to the same: you shall hear the holy Doctors say both in one passage or sentence. S. Cyprian thus: O what manner of day shall come, my brethren, when our Lord shall recoūt the MERITES of everyone, and pay us the reward or stipend of faith and devotion? Ep. 56. here are merits and the reward for the same. It followeth in the said Doctor, What glory shall it be, and how great joy, to be admitted to see God, so to be honored that thou receive the joy of eternal life with Christ thy Lord God, to receive there that which neither eye hath seen, nor ear hath heard, nor hath ascended into the heart of man, for, that we shall receive greater things, than here either we do, or suffer, the Apostle pronounceth, saying, The passions of this time are not condign or comparable to the glory to come. Here we see, that the stipend or reward of the merits aforesaid, are incomparably greater than the said merits.

MART. 9. Likewise S. Augustine: The exceeding goodness of God hath provided this, that the labors should soon be ended, but the rewards of the MERITES should endure without ende: the Apostle testi fying, THE PASSIONS OF THIS TIME ARE NOT COMPARABLE &c. For we shall receive greater bliss, than are the afflictions of all passions whatsoever. Thus we see plainly, that short tribulations are true merits of endless glory, though not comparable to the same: which truth you impugn by your false and heretical translation. But let us see further your dealing in the self same controversy, to make it plainer that you bend your translations against it, more than the text of the Scripture doth permit you.

MART. 10. In the book of wisdom, where there is honorable mention of the merits of Saints and their rewards in heaven, you translate the holy Scripture thus: God hath proved them, and findeth them MEETE FOR HIM SELFE. To omit here that you use the present tense, whereas in the Greek they are preter tenses (God knoweth why, only this we know, that it is no true nor sincere translation) but to wink at smaller faults, why say you here in all your Bibles, that God findeth his Saints and holy servants meet for him self, and not, worthy of him self? See your partiality, and be ashamed.

MART. 11. In the Apostles places before examined, you said negatively, that the afflictions of this time were NOT WORTHIS OF the glory to come, the Greek not bearing that translation: but here, when you should say affirmatively, and that word for word after the Greek, that God found them WORTHIE OF HIM SELFE, there you say, MEETE FOR HIM SELFE, avoiding the term, worthy, because merit is included therein. So that when you will in your translatiō deny merits, then condignae ad, signifieth worthy of: when you should in your translation affirm merits, then Dignus with an ablative case doth not signify, worthy of. No marvel if such willfulness will not see the word merit, or that which is equivalent thereto, in all the Scripture. For when you do see it, & should translate it, you suppress it by another word. But this is a case worthy of examination, whether the Scripture have the word, merit, or the equivalent thereof▪ For we will force them even by their own translations, to confess that it is found there, and that they should translate it accordingly often when they do not, yea, that if we did not see it in the vulgar Latin translation yet they must needs see it and find it in the Greek.

MART. 12. First when they translate the foresaid place thus, The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glory to come: they mean this, deserve not the glory to come, for to that purpose they do so translate it, as hath been declared. Again, when it is said, The workemā is worthy of his hire or wages: What is meant, but that he deserveth his wages? And more plainly Tob. 9. they translate thus: Brother Azarias, if I should give myself to be thy servant, I shall not DESERVE thy providence. And such like. If then in these places, both the Greek and the Latin signify, to be worthy of, or, not to be worthy of▪ to deserve, or, not to deserve: then they must allow us the same signification and virtue of the same words in other like places. Namely Apoc. 5. of our Saviors merits, thus: The lamb that was killed, IS WORTHY to receive power, and riches, &c. What is that to say, but, DESERVETH to receive? For so I trust they will allow us to say of our Savior, that he in deed deserved. Again, of the damned, thus: Thou hast given them blood to drink, for they ARE WORTHY, or, THEY HAVE DESERVED. is it not all one? lastly of the elect, thus: They shall walk with me in white, because they are worthy, Apocal. 3. that is, because they deserve it. And so in the place before by them corrupted, God found them worthy of him: that is, such as deserved to be with him in eternal glory. Thus by their own translation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and dignus, are plainly deduced, worthiness, desert, and merit of saints, out of the Scriptures.

MART. 13. But to proceed one step further, we prove it also to be in the Scriptures, thus. Them selves translate thus, Heb. 10. 29. Of howe much sorer punishment shall he be worthy, which treadeth under foot the son of God? though one of their Bibles of the year 1562. very falsely and corruptly, leaveth out the words, worthy of, saying thus. How much sorer shall he be punished▪ &c: Fearing no doubt by translating the Greek word sincerely, this consequence that now I shall infer, to wit, If the Greek word here, by their own translation, signify to be worthy of, or, to deserve, being spoken of pains and punishment deserved: then must they grant us the same word so to signify elsewhere in the new Testament, when it is spoken of deserving heaven, and the kingdom of God. as in these places, Luc. 21. Watch therefore▪ all times praying, that you MAY BE WORTHIE to stand before the son of man. and, c. 20. THEY THAT ARE WORTHY to attain to that world, and to the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are married. and, 2. Thess. 1. That you may BE WORTHYE of the kingdom of God, for which also ye suffer.

MART. 14. Thus you should translate in all these places, according to your translation of the former place to the Hebrews: or at the leastwise you should have this sense & meaning, as the old vulgar Latin hath, translating in all these places, counted worthy, but meaning worthy in deed: as when it is said, Abraham was reputed just, it is meant, he was just in deed. If you also have this meaning in your translations, which here follow the vulgar Latin: then we appeal to yourselves, whether, to be counted worthy, and to be worthy, and to deserve, and to merit, be not all one: and so here also Merite is deduced. But if you mean according to your heresy, to signify by translating. counted worthy, that they are not in deed worthy: then your purpose is heretical, and translation false, and repugnant to your translating the same word in other places, as is declared, and now further we will declare.

MART. 15. They whom God doth make worthy, they are truly and in deed worthy: are they not? but by your own translation of the same word in the active voice, God doth make them worthy. Therefore in the passive voice it must also signify to be made, or to be in deed worthy. For example, 2. Thess. 1, 11. You translate thus, we also pray for you, THAT OUR GOD MAY MAKE YOU WORTHY of this calling. According to which translation, why did you not also in the self same chapter, a little before, translate thus: That you MAY BE MADE WORTHY (and so be worthy) of the kingdom of God, for which also you suffer? You know the case is like in both places, and in the Greek Doctors you specially▪ should know (by your ostentation of reading them in Greek) that they according to this use of holy Scripture, very often use also this word, both actively and passively, to make worthy, and, to be made, or, to be worthy. See the Greek Liturgies.

MART. 16. Which Saint Chrysostom, to put all out of doubt, explicateth thus in other words, That he make us worthy of the kingdom of heaven. Ser. 1. de orando Deo. And upon the Epistle to Titus cap. 3. in the same sense passively, God grant we may all BE MADE WORTHY (or be worthy) of the good things promised to thē that love him. And in another place of the said Doctor it must needs signify, to be worthy▪ as when he saith, In Colos. 1. No man liveth such a trade of life, that he is worthy of the kingdom, but all is his gift. For to say thus, No man so liveth that he can be counted worthy of the kingdom of heaven: is false, is against the Protestants own opinion, which say they are counted worthy, that are not. Again, to say, No man so liveth that he can be made worthy: is false, because God can make the worst man worthy. It remaineth then to say, No man so liveth that he is worthy. Which a little before he declareth thus, No man by his own proper merits obtaineth the kingdom of heaven, that is, as his own, and of him self without the grace of God. And yet we must show further out of the Scriptures, that God maketh us worthy, and so we are in deed worthy, and here also we must convince you of false and partial interpretation.

MART. 17. The Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (I pray you) what doth it signify • you must answer that it signifieth not only, meet, but also, worthy. For so Beza reacheth you, and so you translate Mat. 3. 11. & cap. 8. & 1. Cor. 15. 9. I am not worthy, in all three places. And why (I pray you) did you not likewise follow the old Latin interpreter one step further, saying, Giving thanks to God the father THAT HATH MADE VS WORTHIE, but translating rather thus, Which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light. Here was the place where you should have shown your sincerity, & have said that God maketh us worthy of heavenly bliss. Because you know if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be worthy, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to make worthy. But you are like to Beza your Master, who (as though all interpretation of words were at his commandment) saith, here and here and so forth I have followed the old Latin interpreter, translating it, worthy: but in such and such a place (meaning this for one) I choose rather to say, MEETE. But that both he & you should here also have translated, worthy, the Greek fathers shall teache you, if we be not worthy▪ or able to control so mighty Grecians, as you pretend to be when you crowe upon your own dunghill, otherwise in your translations showing small skill, or great malice.

MART. 18. The Greek fathers (I say) interpret the Apostles word here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . that is, hath made us worthy, and given us the grace to be worthy. And S. Basil in orat. Liturg. making both Greek words all one, saith, THOU HAST MADE VS WORTHIE to be ministers of thy holy altar. And anon after, MAKE VS WORTHY for this ministry. And Saint Chrysostom upon the Apostles place. God doeth not only give us society with the Saints, but maketh us also worthy to receive so great dignity. And here is a goodly consideration of the goodness of God toward us, that doeth in deed by his grace make • us worthy of so great things, who otherwise are most unworthy, vile, and abject. Which making of us worthy, is expressed by the said Greek words, more than by the Latin, mereri, because it declareth whence our merit and worthiness proceedeth▪ to wi • , of God. Both which S. Chrysostom expresseth excellently, thus: When he brought in Publicans to the kingdom of heaven, he defamed not the kingdom of heaven, but magnified it also with great honors, showing that there is such a Lord of the kingdom of heaven, which hath made even unworthy persons to be so much better, that they should deserve even the glory of that dignity. And Oecumenius saith, that it is God's glory, TO MAKE HIS SERVANTS WORTHY of such good things: and that it is their glory, TO HAVE BENE MADE WORTHY of such things, in 2. Thess. 1.

MART. 19. Thus we see howe the holy Scripture useth equivalent words to signify, merit, which you suppress as much as you can. So likewise we might tell you of other words and phrases that do plainly import and signify merit. As when it is said Ecclesiastici 16. Every man shall find according to his works. Budee both your Master and ours in the Greek tongue, telleth us that the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (to find) is proprely to receive for that which a man hath given or labored. And to require you with some profane authority, (because you delight much in that kind,) the whole oration of Demosthenes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , will tell you the same. Now, to receive for that which a man hath labored or wrought, what doth it else presuppose, but merit and desert? It is a common phrase of the Scripture, that God will judge and reward or repay according to every man's works. Doth not this include merit and demerit of works? but I wote not howe, nor wherefore, in this case you translate sometime, deeds, for works, saying▪ Who will reward every man according to his deeds. And again, You see then howe that of deeds a man is justified, and not of faith only.

MART. 20. I know you will tell us that you use to say deeds or works indifferently, as also you may say, that you put no difference between just and righteous, meet and worthy, but use both indifferently. To the ignorant this is a fair answer, and shall soon persuade them: but they that see further, must needs suspect you, till you give a good reason of your doing. For, the controversy being of faith and works, of justice and justification by works, of the worthiness or valure of works: why do you not precisely keep these terms pertaining to the controversy, the Greek words being always pregnant in that signification? Why should you once translate the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , deeds, rather than, works. You know it is properly, works, as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , deeds. It were very good in matters of controversy to be precise. Beza maketh it a great fault in the old vulgare Latin translator, that he expresseth one Greek word in Latin diverse ways. You choppe & change significations here and there as you list, and you think you satisfy the reader marvelous well, if sometime you say idol, & not always, images: sometime just, and not always righteous: and if in other places you say works, or if one Bible hath works, where another hath deeds, you think this is very well, and will answer all the matter sufficiently. God and your conscience be judge herein, and let the wise reader consider it depely. The least thing that we demand the reason of, rather than charge you with all, is, why your Church Bible saith in the places before alleged. The righteous judgment of God, which will reward every man according to his deeds. and, man is justified by deeds, and not by faith only. Whereas you know the Greek is more pregnant for us than so, & the matter of controversy would better appear on our side, if you said thus: The IVST judgment of God▪ which will reward every man according to his WORKES, and, Man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

MART. 21. But will you not yet see merit and meritorious works in the Scripture? I marvel your skill in the Greek teacheth you nothing in this point. S. John saith: Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Me thinketh, in these words the equivalent of merit is easily seen of any man that is not willfully blind. But you should see further thā the common sort. For you know that the Greek here signifieth▪ not only that which we work, but that which we work for. At in the Greek phrase of working for a man's living, and as you translats Io. 6. v. 27. LABOVR NOT FOR THE MEATE that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto life everlasting. Such laborers God hired to work in his vineyard, & the workman is worthy of his hire. So that the Apostle in the former words exhorteth to perseverance, that we lose not the reward or pay, for which we work and which by working we merit and deserve.

MART. 22. Again Beza telleth us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth mercedem quae meritis respondet, that is, a reward answereable to the merits. And we find many words in the Scripture like unto this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Which are on God's parte, who is the rewarder▪ and recompenser. And on our parte we have (as the Apostle saith, Hebr. 10. and 4.) great confidence, confidence (saith Photios a notable Greek father) of our works, confidence of our faith, of our temptations, of our patience, &c. Yea we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Scripture, which must needs signify as much as Beza's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 By the one, is said, In keeping thy commandments is great reward. Again▪ You shall receive THE RETRIBVTION of inherimunce. Col. 3. v. 24. And 2. Thessal. 1. v. 6. God's repaying just and reiribution of Hell or Heaven for good and evil deser • es▪ is expressed by the same word. And by the other, is said, I have inclined my heart to keep thy justifications (or commandments) always FOR REWARD.

MART. 23. But all this will not suffice you. For wheresoever you can possibly, you will have an evasion. And therefore in this later place you run to the ambiguity of the Hebrew word, and translate thus: I have applied my heart to fulfill thy statutes always, EVEN VNTO THE ENDE. Alas my masters, are not the Seuentie Greek Interpreters sufficient to determine the ambiguity of this word? is not S. Jerome, in his translation according to the Hebrew? are not all the ancient fathers both Greek and Latin? It is ambiguous (say you) and therefore you take your liberty. You do so in deed, & that like Princes. For in another place, where the Greek hath determined, you follow it with all your heart, saying, fall down before his footstool, because he is holy: whereas the ambiguity of the Hebrew, would have borne you to say, as in the vulgar Latin, because it is holy, and so it maketh for holiness of places, which you cannot abide.

MART. 24. But you use (you say) the ambiguity of the Hebrew. Take heed that your liberty in taking all advantages, against the common and approved interpretation of the whole Church, be not very suspicious. For if it do signify also reward, as (you know) it doth very commonly, and yourself so translate it, (Psal. 18. v. 11.) when you cannot choose: and if the Septuaginta do here so translate it in Greek, and S. Jerome in his Latin translation, according to the Hebrew, & the ancient fathers in their commentaries: what upstart new masters are you that set all these to school again, and teach the world a new translation? If you will say, you follow our own great Hebrician, Sanctes Pagninus. Why did you follow him in his translation, rather than in his Lexicon called The saurus, where he interpreteth it as the whole Church did before him? Why did you follow him (or Benedictus Arias either) in this place, and do not follow them in the self same case, a little before translating that very Hebrew word, which is in this place, propter retributionem, for reward? So that you follow nothing, neither judgment, nor learning, in Hebrew or Greek, but only your own error and heresy, which is, that we may not do well in respect of reward, or, for reward, and therefore because the holy Prophet David said of him self the contrary, that he did bend his whole heart to keep God's commandments for reward, you make him say another thing.

MART. 25. And to this purpose perhaps it is, (for other cause I cannot guess) that you make such a marvelous transposition of words in your translation, (Mat. 19.) saying thus: When the son of man shall sit in the throne of his majesty, ye that have followed me in the regeneration, shall sit also upon twelve scates. Whereas the order of these words both in Greek and Latin, is this: You that have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in his majesty, you also shall sit upon twelve seats. To follow Christ in the regeneration, is not easily understood what it should mean: but to sit with Christ in the regeneration, that is, in the resurrection, upon twelve seats, that is familiar and every man's interpretation, and concerneth she great reward that they shall then have, which here follow Christ, as the Apostles did.

MART. 26. The like transposition of words is in some of your Bibles (Heb. 2. v. 9.) thus. We see JESUS crowned with glory and honor, which was a little inferior to the Angels, through the suffering of death. Whereas both in Greek and Latin, the order of the words is thus: Him that was made a little inferior to Angels, we see JESUS. through the passion of death, crowned with honor and glory. In this later, the Apostle saith, that Christ was crowned for his suffering death, and so by his death merited his glory. But by your translation, he saith that Christ was made inferior to Angels by his suffering death, that is (saith Beza) For to suffer death: and taking it so, that he was made inferior to Angels, that he might die, then the other sense is clean excluded, that for suffering death he was crowned with glory: and this is one place among other, whereby it may very well be gathered that some of you think that Christ him self did not merit his own glory and exaltation. So obstinately are you set against merits and meritorious works. To the which purpose also you take away man's free will, as having no ability to work toward his own salvation.

Martin.

AGAINST free will your corruptions be these John. 1. 12. where it is said, As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God: some of your translations say, he gave them prerogative to be the sons of God. Beza, dignity. Who protesteth that whereas in other places often he translated this Greke word, power and authority, here he refused both, in deed against free will, which he saith the Sophistes would prove out of this place, reprehending Erasmus for following them in his translation. But whereas the Greek word is indifferent to signify dignity, or liberty, he that will translate either of these, restraineth the sense of the holy Ghost and determineth it it to his own fancy. If you may translate, dignity: may not we as well translate it, liberty? Yes surely. For you know it signifieth the one as well as the other both in profane and Divine writers. And you can well call to mind 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whence they are derived, and that the Apostle calleth a man's liberty of his own will, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Now then if potestas in Latin, and power in English, be words also indifferent to signify both dignity and liberty, translate so in the name of God, and leave the text of the Scripture indifferent as we do: and for the sense whether of the two it doth here rather signify, or whether it doth not signify both (as no doubt it doth, & the fathers so expound it) let that be examined otherwise. It is a common fauls with you and intolerable, by your translation to abridge the sense of the holy Ghost to one particular understanding, & to defeat the exposition of so many fathers, that expound it in another sense and signification. As is plain in this example also following.

MART. 2. The Apostle (1. Cor. 15. 10.) saith thus: I labored more aboūdantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of god with me. Which may have this sense, not I, but the grace of God which is with me, as S. Jerome sometime expoundeth it: or this, not I, but the grace of God which labored with me. And by this later is most evidently signified, that the grace of God & the Apostle, both labored together, & not only grace, as though the Apostle had done nothing, like unto a block, forced only: but that the grace of God did so cōcur as the principal agent with all his labors, that his free will wrought withal. Against which truth and most approved interpretation of this place, you translate according to the former sense only, making it the very text, and so excluding all other senses and commentaries, as your Masters Calvin and Beza taught you, who should not have taught you if you were wise, to do that which neither they nor you can justify. They reprehend first the vulgar Latin interpreter for neglecting the Greek article, and secondly them that by occasion thereof, would by this place prove free will. By which their commentary they do plainly declare their intent and purpose in their translation, to be directly against free will.

MART. 3. But concerning the Greek article omitted in translation, if they were but Grammarians in both tongues, they might know that the Greek article many times cannot be expressed in Latin, and that this is one felicity and prerogative of the Greek phrase, above the Latin, to speak more briefly, commodiously, and significantly, by the article. What need we go to Terence, and Homer, as they are w • nt? Is not the Scripture full of such speeches? Jacobus Zebedaei, Jacobus Alphaei, Judas Iacobi, Maria Cleophae, and the like. Are not all these sincerely translated into Latin, though the Greek article be not expressed? Can you express the article, but you must add more than the article, and so add to the text, as you do very boldly in such speeches through out the New Testament, yea you do it when there is no article in the Greek: as Io. 5. 36. and 1. ep. Io. 2, 2. Yea sometime of an heretical purpose: as Eph. 3. By whom we have boldness and entrance with the confidence which is by the faith of him, or, in him, as it is in other your Bibles. You say, confidence which is by faith, as though there were no confidence by works: you know the Greek beareth not that translation, unless there were an article after, confidence, which is not, but you add it to the text heretically. as also Beza doth the like (Rom. 8. 2.) and your Geneva English Testaments after him, for the here sit of imputative justice: as in his annotations he plainly deduceth, saying confidently, I doubt not but a Greek article must be understood, and therefore (for sooth) put into the text also. He doth the same in S. James, 2. v. 20. still debating the case in his annotations why he doth so, and when he hath concluded in his fancy, that this or that is the sense, he putteth it so in the text, and translateth accordingly. No marvel now, if they reprehend the vulgar Latin Interpreter, for not translating the Greek article in the place which we began to treat of, when they find articles lacking in the Greek text it self, and boldly add them for their purpose in their translation. Whereas the vulgar Latin interpretation is in all these places so sincere, that it neither addeth nor diminisheth, nor goeth one io • e from the Greek.

MART. 4. But you will say in the place to the Corinthians, there is a Greek article, & therefore there you do well to express it. I answer first, the article may then be expressed in translation, when there can be but one sense of the same: secondly, that not only it may, but it must be expressed, when we cannot otherwise give the sense of the place. as Mat. 1, 6. Ex ea quae fuit Vriae. Where you see the vulgar interpreter omitteth it not, but knoweth the force and signification thereof very well. Mary in the place of S. Paul which we now speak of, where the sense is doubtful, and the Latin expresseth the Greek sufficiently otherwise, he leaveth it also doubtful and indifferent, not abridging it as you do, saying, the grace of God which is with me: nor as Calvin, gratia quae mihi aderat: nor as Illyricus, gratia quae mihi adest. Which two later are more absurd thā yours, because they omit & neglect altogether the force of the preposition, cum, which you express saying, with me But because you say, which is with me: you mean heretically as they do, to take away the Apostles cooperation and laboring together with the grace of God, by his free will: which is by the article and the preposition most evidently signified.

MART. 5. And here I appeal to all that have skill in Greek speeches and Phrases, whether the Apostles words in Greek sound not thus: I labored more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God (that labored) with me. Understanding not the participle of Sum, but of the verb going before, as in the like case when our Savior saith, It is not you that speak, but the holy Ghost that speaketh in you. If he had spoken short thus, but the holy Ghost in you, you perhaps would translate as you do here, the holy Ghost WHICH IS IN YOU. But you see the verb going before is rather repeated, Not you speak, but the holy Ghost THAT SPEAKETH IN YOU. Even so, Not I labored, but the grace of God laboring with me, or, WHICH LABOVRED WITH ME. So prayeth the wise man Sap. 9, 10. Sende wisdom out of thy holy heavens, that she may be with me, and labor with me as yourselves translate. Bib. 1577.

MART. 6. And so the Apostle calleth him self and his fellow preachers, God's coadiutors, collabourers, or such as labor and work with God, which also you falsely translate, God's laborers, to take away all cooperation, and in some of your Bibles moste foolishly and peeuishly, as though you had sworn not to translate the Greek, We together are God's laborers. as well might you translate (Ro. 8, 17.) that we together be Christ's heirs: for that, which the Apostle saith coheirs, or joint heirs with him: the phrase and speech (as you know) in Greek being all one. So doth Beza most falsely translate, Vna viuificauit nos per Christum, for that which is plain in the Greek, He hath quickened us together with Christ, Where the English Bezites leave also the Greek, and follow our vulgar Latin translation rather than Beza, who goeth so wide from the Greek, that for shame they dare not follow him. Fie upon such hypocrisy and pretensed honor of God, that you will not speak in the same terms that the holy Scripture speaketh, but rather will teach the holy Ghost how to speak, in not translating as he speaketh. As though these phrases of scripture, men are God's coadiutors, coworkers with his grace, raised with Christ, coheirs with him, compartakers of glory with him, were all spoken to the dishonor of God and Christ, and as though these being the speeches of the holy Ghost him self, needed your reformatiō in your English translations. Otherwise if you mean well, and would say as we say, that what so ever good we do, we do it by God's grace, and yet work the same by our free will together with God's grace as the mover and helper and directer of our will: why do you not translate in the foresaid place of S. Paul accordingly?

MART. 7. You say moreover in some of your Bibles, thus: So lieth it not then in a man's will or running, but in the mercy of God. Whatsoever you mean, you know this translation is very dissolute, and wide from the Apostles words, and not true in sense. for salvation is in willing and running: according to that famous saying of Saint Augustine, He that made thee without thee, will not justify thee without thee: that is, against thy will, or, unless thou be willing. and the Apostle saith, No man is crowned, unless he fight lawfully. and again, So run THAT YOU MAY obtain. and again. The doers of the Law shall be justified. And our Savior, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. We see then, that it is in willing, and running, and doing: but to will, or run, or do, are not of man, but of God's mercy. and so the Apostle speaketh, It is not of the willer, nor runner, but of God that hath mercy. And it is much to be marueled, why you said not, It lieth not in the willer, nor in the runner: which is near to the Apostles words, but so far of, in a man's will and running.

MART. 8. Again, touching continency and the chaste single life you translate thus: All men cannot receive this saying. Mat. 19. v. 11. Now you wot well, that our Savior saith not, All men cannot, but, all men do not receive it: and that therefore, (as S. Augustine saith) because all will not. But when our Savior afterward saith, He that CAN receive it, let him receive it: he addeth another Greek word to express that sense. Whereas by your fond translation he might have said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And again by your translation, you should translate these his later words thus: He that can or is able to receive it, let him be able to receive it. For so you translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before, as though it were all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Do you not see your folly, and fashoode, and boldness, to make the reader believe that our Savior should say, Every man cannot live chaste, it is impossible for them, and therefore no man should vow chastity, because he knoweth not whether he can live so or no?

MART. 9. Again in some of your Bibles (Gen. 4. v. 7.) where God saith plainly, that Cain should receive according as he did well or evil, because sin was subject unto him, and he had the rule and dominion thereof, evidently declaring his free will: you translate it thus, If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door: and also unto thee HIS desire shall be subject, and thou shalt rule over HIM. By which relatives falsely put in the masculine gender, you exclude the true antecedent sin, and refer them to Abel Cain's brother. as though God had said, not that sin should be in his dominion or subject unto him, but his brother Abel. But that this is most false and absurd, we prove many ways. Firste S. Augustine saith directly the contrary: Tu dominaberis illius: nunquid Fratris? absit. cuius igitur nisi peccati? Thou shalt rule (saith he) over what? over thy brother? Not so. over what then but sin? S. Jerome also explicateth this place thus: Because thou haste free will, I warn thee that sin have not dominion over thee, but thou over sin. Moreover, the text it self, if nothing else, is sufficient to convince this absurdity. For where this word, sin, goeth immediately before in the same sentence, and not one word of Abel his brother in that speech of God to Cain, howe is it possible, or what coherence can there be in saying as you translate, Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt have dominion over him, that is, thy brother? But if we say thus, Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt have dominion thereof: it hath this direct and plain sense, If thou doest ill, sin lieth at the door ready to condemn thee, because it is in thee to over rule it.

MART. 10. Now if against the coherence of the text, and exposition of the holy Doctors, and of the whole Church of God▪ you pretend the Hebrew grammar forsooth, as not bearing such construction: not to trouble the common reader that cannot judge of these things, and yet fully to satisfy every man even of common understanding, we request here the Adversaries themselves to tell us▪ truly according to their knowledge & skill, whether the Hebrew construction or point of grammar be not all one in these words, Sin LYETH at the door? and in these, the desire THEREOF shall be subject to thee, and thou shalt rule over IT. If they say (as they must needs) that the Hebrew construction or Syntaxis is all one, then will it follow that the Hebrew beareth the one as well as the other: and therefore when the self same translation of theirs maketh no scruple of Grammar in the former, but translate as we do, Sin lieth at the door: a blind man may see that in the latter words also, the Hebrew is but a foolish pretence, and that the true cause of translating them otherwise, proceedeth of an heretical humor, to obscure and deface this so plain and evident Scripture for man's free will.

MART. 11. And as for the Hebrew grammar in this point, were it not for troubling the Reader, we could tell thē that the word, sin, in Hebrew is not here of the foeminine gender, (as they suppose) but of the masculine. so saith S. Hieror. expressly upon this place, who had as much knowledge in the Hebrew tongue, as all these new Doctors. Ibn Ezra also the great Rabbi, in his Hebrew commentaries upon this text, saith, it is a mere forgery and fiction, to refer the masculine relative otherwise than to the word, sin: which, though elsewhere it be the feminine gender, yet here it is a masculine, according to that rule of the Grammarians, that the doubtful gender must be discerned by the verb, adjective, pronoun, or participle, joined with the same: as the said Hebrew Doctor doth in the word, paradise, Gen. 2. which there by the pronounes he pronounceth to be a feminine, though elsewhere a masculine. Lastly, if the word sin, were here, and always only a feminine, and never a masculine: yet they have little skill in the Hebrew tongue, that think it strange to match masculines and feminines together in very good and gramatical construction. Whereof they may see a whole chapter in Sanctes Pagninus with this title, Foeminea masculeis iuncta. that is, Feminines joined with masculines.

MART. 12. Now for the last refuge, if they will say all this needed not, because in other their Bibles, it is as we would have it: we tell them, they must justify and make good all their translations, because the people readeth all, and is abused by all, and all come forth with privilege, printed by the Queens Printer, &c. If they will not, let them confess the faults, and call them in, and tell us which translation or translations they will stand unto. In the mean time they must be content to hear of all indifferently, as there shall because and occasion to touch them.

MART. 13. Again they translate in some of their Bibles against free will, thus, Christ, when we were yet OF NO STRENGTH, died for the ungodly, Rom. 5. v. 6. The Apostles word doth not signify that we had nostrength, but that we were weak, seeble, infirm. Man was wounded in free will, by the sin of Adam (as he that in the Gospel went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, which is a parable of this thing) he was not slain altogether. But I stand not here, or in any place to dispute the controversy, that is done else where. This only I say, because* they falsely hold, that free will was altogether lost by Adams sin, therefore they translate accordingly, When we had no strength. But the Greek word is well known, both in profane authors, and Ecclesiastical, and specially in the new Testament it self, throughout, to signify nothing else, but, weak, feeble, sick, infirm. Look me through the new Testament, wheresoever infirmity, feebleness, languishing, and the like are spoken of, there is found this Greek word to express it. What Grecian knoweth not (be he but simply acquainted with phrases, and nature of words.) what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , do signify. When the Apostle saith, Quis infirmatur, & ego non vror? Who is weak and infirm, and I am not much grieved? shall we translate, who is of no strength, &c. or let them give us an instance, where it is certain that this word must needs signify, of no strength. Will they pretend the etymology of the word? a ridiculous and absurd evasion. we ask them of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a word of the very same signification, which being compounded in like manner as the other, what doth it signify? anything else but infirmity and feebleness? Yea it is so far from signifying, no strength, that the greatest Grecians say, it is not spoken properly of him that for weakness keepeth his bed, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but of him that is il disposed, and distempered in body. Yet the etymology is all one with that word which these men will have to signify him that hath no strength. And if they will needs urge the etymology, we tell them, that