Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue

NOW let us see concerning the Eucharist, which they allow for a Sacrament, how they handle the matter to the disgracing and defacing of the same also. They take away the operation and efficacy of Christ's blessing pronounced upon the bread and wine, making it only a thanksgiving to God: and to this purpose they translate more gladly, thanks-giving then, blessing▪ as Mat. 26. the Greek words being two, the one signifying properly, to bless: the other, to give thanks: they translate both thus, when he had given thanks. Likewise Marc. 14. in the Bible printed 1562. And when they translate it, blessing, they mean nothing else but giving thanks, as Beza telleth us in his Annotations Mat. 26. ver. 26. We reply and by most manifest Scripture prove unto them, that the former Greek word doeth not signify thanks giving properly, but blessing, and a blessing of creatures to the operation of some great effect in them: as when Christ took the five loaves and two fishes, to multiply them, he blessed them Luc. 9. What say they to this think you? Doth not the Greek word here plainly signify, blessing of creatures? No, (saith Beza) no doubt but here also it signifieth giving thanks. Howe Beza? he addeth, Not as though Christ had given thanks to the bread, for that were too absurd: but we must mollify this interpretation thus, that he gave thanks to God the father for the loaves and the fishes. Is not this a notable exposition of these words, benedixit eis?

MART. 2. We ask him in the like cases, when God blessed Adam and Eve, Gen. 1. & 9. Noah and his children, saying, Increase and multiply: when he blessed the children of Israel, and they multiplied exceedingly, when he blessed the latter things of Job more than the first, Job. 42. Was this also a giving of thanks, and not an effectual blessing upon these creatures? What will they say, or what difference will they make? As God blessed here, so he was God and man that blessed the loaves and fishes there. If they will say he did it as man, and therefore it was a giving of thanks to God his father: to omit that he blessed them as he multiplied them, that is, rather according to his divine nature than human: we ask them, when he blessed as man, was it always giving of thanks? he blessed the little children, he blessed his disciples, when he ascended: was this giving thanks for them, as Beza expoundeth his blessing of the loaves and fishes? When we bless the table or the meat upon the table, When S. Paul saith, 1. Timoth. 4. all meat is lawful that is sanctified by the word and by prayer: is all this nothing but giving thanks? So saith Beza in express words.

MART. 3 We go forward, and prove the contrary yet more manifestly, in the very matter of the blessed Sacrament, for the which they multiply all the foresaid absurdities. We tell them that Saint Paul saith thus, The chalice of blessing, which we bless, is it not, &c. howe could he speak more plainly, that the chalice or cup (meaning that in the cup) is blessed? Which S. Cyprian de Coen. Dom. explicateth thus, Calix solenni benedictione sacratus, The Chalice consecrated by solemn blessing. Oecumenius thus▪ The Chalice which blessing we prepare. that is, which we bless and so prepare, for so it must signify, and not as Beza would have it, which with thanks giving we prepare. and that I prove by his own words immediately before, where he saith that the Greek word being used of the Apostle transitiuely, that is, with a case following, cannot signify giving thanks. Howe then can it so signify in Oecumenius words, who doeth interpret the Apostles meaning by the Apostles own words and phrase? yea (that you may note a notorious contradiction) how doeth Beza then in the place of Luke before alleged (where the same Greek word is a plain transitiue as in this place) expound is of giving thanks for the bread and fishes? A liar (they say) must be mindful, to make his tale agree in every point. He that before forced the word in every sentence to be nothing else but thanks giving▪ even when it was a plain transitiue, now confesseth that he never read it in that signification, when it is a transitiue. and so we have that the blessing of the cup or of the bread, is not giving thanks as they either translate, or interpret it.

MART. 4 And surely in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this is most evident, that it signifieth in this case the blessing & consecration of the creature or element: in so much that S. Basil & S. Chrysostom in their Liturgies or Masses say thus by the same Greek word: Bless o Lord the sacred bread. & Bless o Lord the sacred cup. & why or to what effect? It followeth, changing it by the holy spirit. Where is signified the transmutation and consecration thereof into the body and blood. But in the other word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there may be some question, because it signifieth properly to give thanks, & therefore may seem to be referred to God only, and not to the element, and, creature. But this also we find contrary in the Greek fathers, who use this word also transitiuely, saying, panem & calicem eucharistisatos, or, panem in quo gratiae actae sunt. that is the bread and the cup made the Eucharist: the bread over which thanks are given: that is, which by the word of prayer, and thanks-giving is made a consecrated meat, the flesh and blood of Christ, as S. Justin in fine 2. Apologo, and Saint Irenaeus, lib. 4. 34 in the same places, expound it. Whereas it may also signify that, for which thanks are given in that most solemn sacrifice of the Eucharist, as S. Deny • in one place seemeth to take it. Eccl. Hier. c. 3. in fine. Who in the self same chapter, speaketh of the consecration thereof, most evidently.

MART. 5. Whereby we have to note, that the Heretics in urging the word, Eucharist, as mere thanks-giving, thereby to take away blessing, and consecration, of the elements of bread and wine, do unlearnedly, and deceitfully. because all the fathers make mention of both: Saint Paul also calleth it, blessing of the chalice, which the Evangelists call, giving of thanks. Whose words Theophylacte explicateth thus. THE CHALICE OF BLESSING, that is, of the Eucharist. For holding it in our hands, we bless it, and give thanks to him that shed his blood for us. See here both blessing, and Eucharist, blessing the chalice, and thanks-giving to Christ. Saint James, and the Greek fathers in their Liturgies, put both words in the consecration of eche element, saying thus, give thanks, sanctifying, breaking: and, giving thanks, blessing, sanctifying: and, taking the cup, giving thanks, sanctifying, blessing, filling it with the holy Ghost, he gave it to us his Disciples. Saint Chrysostom, who in many places of his works speaketh much of thanks-giving in these holy mysteries, doth he not as often speak of the blessing, consecration, yea, and the transmutation thereof, and that with what words, and by what power it is done? Doth not Saint Augustine say of the same, benedicitur, & sanctificatur, it is blessed, and sanctified, who often speaketh of the solemn giving of thanks in the sacrifice of the Church? Doth not the Church at this day, use the very same terms, as in Saint Augustine's time, Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro, Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. and, Vere dignum & iustum est, semper & vbique tibi gratias agere, &c. It is very meet and right, always, and in all places, to give thee thanks: Which the Greek Church also in their Liturgies express most abundantly? yet doth there follow blessing, and consecration, and whatsoever Saint Ambrose describeth to be done in this holy sacrifice, touching this point, writing thereof moste excellently in his book, de ijs qui initiantur mysterijs, c 9.

MART. 6. Of all which, this is the conclusion, that the Eucharist is a solemn name, taken of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so called, because this sacrament and sacrifice, is blessed, and consecrated with prayer, & thanks-giving, as S. Justin speaketh, and because in this sacrifice, so blessed and consecrated into the body and blood of Christ, him we offer up a most acceptable oblation of thanks-giving, and a memory of all God's marvelous benefits toward us. In this sense, the fathers, and the holy Church, speak of the Eucharist, including all the rest, to wit, sacrament, sacrifice, blessing, & consecration, without which thi • were no more to be called Eucharist, than any other common giving of thanks, as S. Irenaeus doth plainly signify, when he declareth, that being before bread, & receiving the invocation of God over it, now is no more common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, the earthly, & the heavenly. So that it is made the Eucharist by circumstance of solemn words, and ceremonies, and therefore is not a mere giving of thanks: and further we learn, that S. Iustines, and S. Irenaus words before alleged, Panis & calix Eucaristisatus, signify, the bread and chalice made the Eucharist: and consequently we learn, that the a 〈…〉 e thereof, is, by thanks-giving to make the Eucharist. a 〈…〉 • ecause the other word of blessing, and this of thanks-giving, are used indifferently, one for another, in Christ's action, about this Sacrament, we learn undoubtedly, that when it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the meaning is, blessing, and giving thanks, he made the Eucharist of his body and blood, that is the Sacrament and Sacrifice of a singular thanks-giving, which (as S. Augustine often is wont to say) the faithful only do know and understand in the sacrifice of the Church: and because the faithful only understand, therefore the Protestants and Calvinists are so ignorant in this mystery, that to take away all the dignity thereof, they bend both their expositions and translations.

MART. 7. After they have turned blessing or consecration into bare thanks giving, which is one step toward the denying of the real presence, they come nearer, and so include Christ in heaven, that he cannot be withal upon the alter, translating thus, Whome heaven must contain, until the times that all things be restored, Acts. 3. v. 21. and yet Beza worse, and he that allege • h him, M. Whitaker's: who must be contained in heaven. Which is so far from the Greek, that, not only Illyricus the Lutheran, but Calvin himself doth not like it. Beza protesteth, that he so translateth of purpose, to keep Christ's presence from the altar: and we marvel the less, because we are well acquainted with many the like his impudent Protestations. M. Whitak. only we do marvel at, that he should be either so deceived by another man's translation, or himself be so overseen in the Greek word, that he knoweth not a mere deponent, and only deponent, from a passive.

MART. 8. This doth not become him that objecteth ignorance of the Greek to another man, and that after he had well tried by public conference, that he was not ignorant: and so objecteth it, as though • he knew not three words in that tongue, whereas he had heard him read and interpreate Saint Basil, not the easiest of the Greek Doctors. This is palpable impudency, and a face that cannot blush, and full of malice against the saints of God, who, if they knew not a word in the Greek tongue, were never the worse, nor the less learned, but among fools and children, that esteem learning by such trifles, which Grammarians know far better than great Divines. For, were not he awise man that would prefer one Maiser Humfrey, Master Fulke▪ Master Whitaker's, or some of us poor men, because we have a little smack in the three tongues, before Saint Chrysostom, Saint Basil, Saint Augustine, saint Gregory, or saint Thomas, that understood well, none but one? howbeeit, if they esteem learning by knowledge of the tongues, they will not (I trow) compare with Catholics, either of former time, or of these latter age, specially since their new Gospel began: and if they will compare with us herein for their simple credit, we may perhaps give them occasion ere it be long, to muster their men all at once, if they dare show their face before our campe of excellent Hebricians, Grecians, Latinistes, of absolute linguistes in the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabike, &c. whom they must needs confess to have been, and to be, even at this day, their Masters and teachers.

MART. 9. But to return to you M. Whitaker's, greater is your fault in divinity, than in the tongues, when you make your argument against the real presence out of this place, as out of the Scripture and S. Peter, whereas they are Beza's words, and not S. Peters. Again, whether you take Beza's words, or S. Peters, your argument faileth very much, when you conclude that Christ's natural body is not in the Sacrament, because it is placed and contained in heaven. For S. Chrysostom telleth you, that Christ ascending into heaven, both left us his flesh, and yet ascending hath the same. And again, O miracle, saith he? He that sitteth above with the Father, in the same moment of time is handled with the hands of all. This is the faith of the ancient fathers, M. Whitaker's, and this is the Catholic faith, and this is (I trow) another manner of faith and far greater, thus to believe the presence of Christ in both places at once, because he is omnipotent and hath said • the word: than your faith (whereof you boast so much) which believeth no further than that he is ascended, and that therefore he cannot be present upon the altar, nor dispose of his body as he list.

MART. 10. Again it is a very famous place for the real presence of the blood (which we have handled at large else where, but here also must be briefly touched) when our Savior saith, Luc. 22. This is the Chalice the New Testament in my blood, which (Chalice) is shed for you. For so (which) must needs be referred according to the Greek. In which speech, Chalice must needs be taken for that in the chalice, and that in the chalice must needs be the blood of Christ, and not wine, because his blood only was shed for v • . And so • e do plain • lie prove the real presence, according a • S. Chrysostom also said, Hoc quod est in calice, illud est quod ••• xit delatere. That which is in the Chalice, is the same that gushed out of his side. All which moste necessary deduction Beza would defeat, by saying the Greek is corrupted in all the copies that are extant in the world, and by translating thus clean otherwise than the Greek will bear, This •• ppe is the new Testament in my blood, which (blood) is shed for you.

MART. 11. But what pertaineth this to the English heretics, who translate, which is shed, so indifferently that it may signify, which cup, or, which blood is shed? Thus far it pertaineth, because they do not only defend this translation by all means, but they tell us plainly namely Fulke, that they refer (which) to the word blood, and not to the word cup, • uē as Beza doth, asking us what Grammarian would refer it otherwise. In which question he showeth himself a very simple Grāmarian in the Greek, or a mad Heretike, that either knoweth not, or will not know, that in the Greek it cannot be so referred, and consequently neither in Latin nor English, which in true translation must follow the Greek. But of these and other their foul and manifold shif • es to avoid this place, I have spoken in another place of this book.

MART. 12. Only M. Whitaker's (to say truly) hath brought somewhat to the purpose, to wit, that S. Basil readeth the Greek as they translate. But he doth well to make light of it, because it is evident that S. Basil cited not the text of the Evangelist, but the sense, which Beza noteth to be the custom of the ancient fathers, telling us withal that therefore the reading of the fathers, is no certain rule to reform or alter the words of Scripture according to the same: and it is very like that if Beza or Fulke his advocate had thought S. Basils reading of any importance, they would have used it long since, rather than so many other shifts and so absurd, as they do: unless we may think they knew it not, and therefore could not use it. But for S. Basel, according to the sense he citeth it very truly: for, whether we say, the Cup that is shed, or, the blood that is shed, both signifieth the blood of Christ shed for us, as S. Basil citeth it. The difference is, that referring it to the cup, as S. Luke hath it, it signifieth the blood both present in the cup, and also then shed in a Sacrament at the last supper: but referring it to the word blood, as S. Basil doth, and as they translate, it may signify the blood shed on the cross also, yea (as these trāslatours mean and would have it) only that on the Cross, not considering that the Greek word is the present tense, and therefore rather signifieth the present shedding of his blood then in mystical sacrifice, than the other visible shedding thereof, which was to come in the future tense. Lastly, they translate S. Luke's Gospel, and not S. Basil: and therefore not following S. Luke, they are false translators, how soever S. Basil readeth.

MART. 13. As this falsehood is both against Sacrament and Sacrifice, so against the Sacrifice also of the altar it is, that they control S. Jerome's translation, in the old Testament, concerning the sacrifice of Melchizedek, Who brought forth bread and wine: Gen. 14. v. 18. that is, offered, or sacrificed bread and wine: which we prove to be the true sense and interpretation (and that this bringing forth of bread and wine, was sacrificing thereof) not only by all the fathers expositions, that write of Melchisedeks priesthood, (Cypr. epist. 63. Epiph. haer. 55. & 79. Hiero. in Mat. 26. & in epist. ad Euagrium.) and by the Hebrew word, which is a word of sacrifice, Iud. 6. v. 18. and by the greatest Rabbin's, and Hebricians, that a ri •• thereof, but we prove it also by these words of the very text it self, He brought forth bread, and wine, for he was the Priest of God most high. Which reason immediately following, Because he was God's Priest, proveth evidently, that he brought it not forth in cōmō manner, as any other mā might have done, but as God's Priest, whose office is to offer sacrifice. This consequence is so plain, that for avoiding thereof▪ the adversaries will not have it translated in any wise. For he was the Prieste, as though the Scripture gave a reason, why he brought forth bread, and wine: but, and he was a Priest, &c. Wrangling about the signification of the Hebrew conjunction.

MART. 14. Wherein the reader may see their exceeding partiality and willfulness. For, besides infinite like places of Scripture, whereby we do easily show that this Hebrew particle is used to give a reason or cause of a thing, themselves also in another place prove it for us, and that by the authority of Theophylact, and allegation of examples out of the Scripture, and translate accordingly thus: Blessed art thou among women▪ because the fruit of thy womb is blessed. Let them give us a reason, why the said conjunction is here by their translation, quia, or, enim, where it was never so translated before, and it must not be in any case in the other place of Genesis, where it hath been so translated, and generally received, even in the Primitive Church. In other places of Scripture also, which Theophylact alledgeth, and many moe may be alleged, they confess, and like very well it should so signify: only in the place of Genesi • , they cannot abide any such sense, or translation thereof: but▪ He brought forth bread, and wine, and he was the Priest, &c. not, because he was the Priest: What is the cause of this their dealing? None other undoubtedly (and in all these cases, I knock at their consciences) but that here they would avoid the necessary sequel of Melchisedecks sacrifice, upon such translation, which typical sacrifice of bread & wine if it should be granted, then would follow also a sacrifice of the new Testament, made of bread and wine, answering to the same, and so we should have the sacrifice of the altar, and their bare communion should be excluded.

MART. 15. For which purpose also their partial translation about altare and table, is notorious. For, the name of altare (as they know very well) both in the Hebrew and Greek, and by the custom of all people's▪ both Jews and Pagans, implying and importing sacrifice, therefore we, in respect of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, say. altar, rather than, table, as all the ancient fathers (Chrys. ho. 53. ad po. Antioch. and ho. 20. in 2. Cor. and in Demonst. {quod} Christus sit Deus, to. 5. Nazianz. de Gorgonia sorore. Basil. in Liturg. Socrat. li. 1. Hist. c. 20. & 25. Theodoret. hist. li. 4. c. 20. Theophyl. in 23. Mat. Cypr. epist. 63. Optat. cont. Parm. Aug. ep. 86. & li. 9. Confess. c. 11. & 13. & alibi saepe) are wont to speak and write, (namely when S. Jerome calleth the bodies or bones of S. Peter and Paul the altars of Christ, because of this sacrifice offercd over and upon the same) though in respect of eating and drinking the body and blood, it is also called a table: so that with us it is both an altar and a table, whether it be of wood or of stone. But the Protestants, because they make it only a communion of bread and wine, or a supper, and no sacrifice, therefore they call it table only, and abhor from the word, altar, as Papistical. For the which purpose, in their first translation (Bible an. 1562.) when altares were then in digging down throughout England, they translated with no less malice, than they threw them down, putting the word, temple, in steed of altare: which is so gross a corruption, that a man would have thought it had been done by oversight, and not of purpose, if they had not done it thrice immediately within two Chapiters, 1. Cor. 9. and 10. saying: Know you not, that they which wait of the TEMPLE, are partakers of the TEMPLE? and, Are not they which eat of the sacrifice, partakers of the TEMPLE? in all which places the Apostles word in Greek, is, altare, and not, temple. and see here their notorious peevishness, where the Apostle saith, temple, there the same translation saith, sacrifice: where the Apostle saith, altar, there it saith, temple.

MART. 16. Thus we see howe they suppress the name of altare, where it should be: now let us see howe they put in their translation, where it should not be▪ this also they do thrice in one chapiter, and that for to save the honor of their communion table, namely, in the story of Bel, where we have it thrice called the table of that idol, under which Bels Priests had made a privy entrance, and, that the king looked upon the table, and, that they did eat up such things as were upon the table: these wicked translators fearing, least the name of Bels table might redounde to the dishonor of their communion table, translate it, altare, in all these places. Wherein I cannot but pity their folly, and wonder exceedingly howe they could imagine it any disgrace, either for table or altare, if the idols also had their tables and altares, whereas S. Paul so plainly nameth both together, The table of our Lord, and the table of Devils. If the table of Devils, why not the table of Bel? if that be no disgrace to the table of our Lord, why are you afraid of Bels table, lease it should disgrace yours? Or if you had no such fear, then you must tell us some other good reason of your unreasonable translation in this place, why you translate, altare, for table, that is, chalk for cheese.

MART. 17. And here, by the way, the Reader may note another exceeding folly in them, that think the name of table, maketh against altare and sacrifice, their own translation here condemning them, where they call Bels table, an altare. and Saint Paul, having said to the Corinthians, the table of our Lord, saith to the Hebrews. of the self same, we have an altare. and again, he saith, the table of Devils, which, I am sure, they will not deny to have been a true altar of Idololatrical sacrifice▪ and Malachi. 1. v. 7. in one sentence it is called both altare & table, whereupon the Jews offered their external and true sacrifices▪ and all the fathers, both Greek and Latin, speaking of the sacrifice of the new Testament, call that whereupon it is offered, both altare and table: but the Greeks more often, table, the Latin fathers more often, altare: and why, or in what respects, it is called both this and that, we have before declared, and here might ad the very same out of S. Germanus Arch. B. of Constantinople, in his greek commentaries (called mystica theoria ) on the Liturgies or masses of the Greke fathers▪ but to proceed.

MART. 18. There are also some places less evident, yet such as s • ach of the like heretical humor against the B. Sacrament. In the prophet I • re. c. 11. v. 17. we read thus, according to the Latin and the Greke, Let us cast wood upon his bread, that is, saith S. Jerome, in comment. huius loci, the cross upon the body of our Savior. For it is he that said, I am the bread that descended from heaven. Where the Prophet so long before saying, bread, and meaning his body, alludeth prophetically to his body in the B. Sacrament made of bread, and under the form of bread, and therefore also called bread of the Apostle. So that both in the Prophet and Apostle, his bread and his body is alone, and lease we should think, that the bread only signifieth his body, he saith, Let us put the Cross upon his bread, that is, upon his very natural body, which hung on the Cross. Now for these words of the Prophet, so usual and well known in the Church and all antiquity, how think you do these new Masters translate? in one Bible thus, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof. Another, we will destroy his meat with wood. or as they should have said rather, the wood with his meat. Do you see how properly they agree, whiles they seek novelties, and forsake the ancient usual translation?

MART. 19. They will say, the first Hebrew word cannot be as Saint Jerome translateth, and as it is in the Greek, and as all antiquity readeth: but it must signify, Let us destroy. They say truly, according to the Hebrew word which now is. But is it not evident thereby, that the Hebrew word now is not the same which the Septuaginta translated into Greek • and S. Jerome into Latin? and consequently the Hebrew is altered and corrupted from the original copy which they had: perhaps by the Jews (as some other places) to obscure this prophecy also of Christ's Passion, and their crucifying of him upon the Cross. Such Jewish Rabbin's and new Hebrew words do our new masters gladly follow in the translation of the old Testament, whereas they might easily conceive the old Hebrew word in this place, if they would employ their skill that way, and not only to novelties. For who seeth not that the Greek Interpreters in number 70. and all Hebrews of best skill in their own tongue, S. Jerome also a great Hebrician did not read as now we have in the Hebrew, Nashchîta, but, Nashitha, or, Nashlîcha? Again the Hebrew word that now is, doth so little agree with the words following, that they cannot tell how to translate it, as appeareth by the diversity and difference of their translations thereof before mentioned, and transposing the words in English otherwise than in the Hebrew, neither of both their translations having any commodious sense or understanding.

MART. 20. But yet they will pretend that for the first word at the least, they are not to be blamed, because they follow the Hebrew that now is. Not considering that if this were a good excuse, then might they as well follow the Hebrew that now is Psal. 21. v. 18: and so utterly suppress and take out of the Scripture this notable prophecy, They pierced my hands and my feet: Which yet they do not, neither can they do it for shame, if they will be counted Christians. So that in deed, to follow the Hebrew sometime where it is corrupt, is no sufficient excuse for them, though it may have a pretence of true translation, and we promised in the preface, in such cases not to call it heretical translation.

MART. 21. But concerning the B. Sacrament, let us see once more how truly they follow the Hebrew. The holy Ghost (saith S. Cyprian ep. 63. nu. 2.) by Solomon foreshoweth a type of our Lord's sacrifice, of the immolated host of bread & wine, saying, Wisdom hath killed her hosts, SHE HATH MINGLED HER WINE INTO the cup. Come ye, eat of my bread, and drink the wine that I HAVE MINGLED for you. Speaking of WINE MINGLED (saith this holy doctor) he foreshoweth prophetically the cup of our Lord, MINGLED WITH WATER AND WINE. So doth S. Jerome interpret this mixture or mingling of the wine in the chalice, so doth the author of the commentaries upon this place among S. Jerome's works, so do the other fathers. So that there is great importance in these prophetical words of Solomon. She hath mingled her wine into the cup, and, the wine which I have mingled, as being a manifest prophecy of Christ's mingling water and wine in the Chalice at his last supper, which the Catholic Church observeth at this day, and whereof S. Cyprian writeth the foresaid long epistle.

MART. 22. But the Protestants counting it an idle superstitious ceremony, here also frame their translation accordingly, suppressing altogether this mixture or mingling, and in steed thereof saying, She hath drawn her wine, and, drink the wine that I have drawn: or (as in other of their Bibles) She hath poured out her wine, and, the wine which I have poured out: neither translation agreing either with Greek or Hebrew. Not with the Greek, which doth evidently signify, mingling and mixture, as it is in the Latin, and as all the Greek Church from the Apostles time hath used this word in this very case whereof we now speak, of mingling water and wine in the chalice. S. James, and S. Basil in their Liturgies expressly testifying that Christ did so, as also S. Cyprian in the place alleged. S. Justin in the end of his second Apology, calling it of the same Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is (according to Plutarche) wine mingled with water: likewise S. Ir • neus in his fifth book near the beginning. See the sixth general Council most fully treating hereof and deducing it from the Apostles and ancient fathers, and interpreting this Greek word by any other equivalent, and more plain to signify this mixture.

MART. 23. Thus then the Greek is neither drawing of wine, nor pouring out thereof, as they translate, but mingling. But the Hebrew perhaps signifieth both, or at the least one of the two, either to draw, or to pour out. Gentle Reader, if thou have skill, look the Hebrew Lexicon of Pagnine, esteemed the best: if thou have not skill, ask, and thou shalt understand, that there is no such signification of this word, in all the Bible, but that it signifieth only mixture and mingling. A strange case, that to avoid this mingling of the cup, being a most certain tradition of the Apostles, they have invented two other significations of this Hebrew word, which it never had before.

Martin.

LEt us pass from God's holy Sacraments, to his honorable Saints in heaven, and we shall find that these translations pluck from them also as much honor as they may. In the Psalm 138. where the Catholic Church, and all antiquity readeth thus, Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus, &c. Thy friends O God are become exceeding honorable, their princedome is exceedingly strengthened: which verse is sung and said, in the honor of the holy Apostles, agreeably to that in another Psalm, Constitues cos principes super omnem terram, Thou shalt appoint them Princes over all the earth: what mean they in all their English Bibles to alter it thus: Howe dear are thy counsels (or thoughts) to me O God: O how great is the sum of them? Doth not the Hebrew make more for the old received Latin translation, than for theirs, because the Hebrew word is used more commonly for to signify friends, than cogitations? doth not S. Jerome so translate in his translation of the Psalms according to the Hebrew? doth not the great Rabbi R. Solomon? Doth not the Greek put it out of doubt, which is altogether according to the said ancient Latin translation?

MART. 2. And you my Masters, that translate otherwise, I beseech you, is it in Hebrew, How great is the sum of thē: & not rather word for word most plainly, how are the heads of them strengthened, or their Princedoms, as in the Greek also it is most manifest? Why do you then hunt after novelties, & forsake the trodden path of the ancient, & pass the bounds which our holy forefathers have set and appointed, preferring your own singularities & new devises., even there where you cannot justly pretend either the Hebrew, or Greek? When the Hebrew Lexicon hath given the common interpretation of this place, & then saith, Quidam exponunt, Some expound it otherwise: why had you rather be of that lesser, some that expound otherwise, than of the great society of all ancient interpreters.

MART. 3. But this new fangled singularity of teaching and translating, otherwise than all antiquity hath done, shall better appear in their dealing, about our B. Lady, whose honor they have sought so many ways to diminish, and deface, that the defense and maintenance thereof against the Heretics of our time, is grown to a great book, learnedly written by the great Clerke, and Jesuit, father Canisius, entitled, Mariana.

MART. 4. Concerning our purpose, what was ever more common, and is now more general, and usual, in all Christian Countries, than in the Ave Marie, to say, Gratia plena, full of grace, insomuch, that in the first English Bible, it hath continued so still, and every child in our country, was taught so to say till the Ave Marie was banished altogether, and not suffered to be said, neither in Latin, nor English? What ancient father of the Latin Church, hath not always so red, and expounded? What Church in all the West, hath not ever so sung, and said? Only our new Translators have found a new kind of speech, translating thus: Hail thou that art freely beloved▪ and, Hail thou that art in high favor. Why this, and that, or any other thing, rather than, Hail full of grace? S. John the Baptist was full of the holy Ghost, even from his birth, S. Stephen was full of grace, as the scripture recordeth of them both: why may not then our Lady much more be called full of grace, who (as S. Ambrose saith) only obtained the grace, which no other women deserved, to be replenished with the author of grace?

MART. 5. They will say, the Greek word doth not so signify. Doth it not? I make them selves witnesses of the contrary, and their own translation in other places shall confute them, where they translate another word of the self same nature and form and in all respects like to this, full of sores. If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be full of sores, why is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 full of grace? Let any Grecian of them all, make me a difference in the nature and significancie of these two words. Again, if vlcerosus (as Beza translateth) be full of sores, why is not gratiosa (as Erasmus translateth) full of grace? or why doth Beza marvel, that Erasmus translated, gratiosa, when him self translateth the like word, vlcerosus? All which adjectives in osus (you know) signify fullness, as, periculosus, aerumnosus. Yet what a stir doth Beza keep here in his annotations, to make the Greek word signify, freely beloved?

MART. 6. But hath it in deed any such signification? tell us you that profess this great skill of the tongues, what syllable is there in this word, that soundeth to that signification? S. Chrysostom, & the Greek Doctors, that should best know the nature of this Greek word, say that it signifieth, to make gracious & acceptable, & beloved, & beautiful, & amiable, & so to be desired, as when the Psalm saith, The king shall desire thy beauty. Beza him self saith, that it is word for word, gratificata, made grateful, & yet he expoundeth it, accepted before God, & translateth it, freely beloved, because he will have no singular grace or goodness, or virtue, resident in our B. Lady, but all by imputation, & acceptation, whereof I have spoken before. S. Athanasius a greek doctor saith, that she had this title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because the holy ghost descended into the Virgin, filling hir with all graces and virtues, and I beseech the reader, to see his words, which are many moe concerning this fullness of grace and all spiritual gifts. S. Jerome, that knew the Greek word as well as the Protestants, readeth, Gratia plena, and findeth no fault with this interpretation. but saith plainly, she was so saluted, full of grace, because she conceived him, in whom all fullness of the deity dwelt corporally.

MART. 7. Now let the English Bezites come with their new term, freely beloved, and control these and all other ancient fathers both Greek and Latin, and teach them a new signification of the Greek word, which the • knew not before. Let John Keltridge one of their great Preachers in London, come and tell us, that the Septuaginta and the best translations in Greek have no such words as we use in the Ave Marie, but that the word which the Septuaginta use, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Who ever heard such a jest, that the preacher of the word of God in London (so he is called in the title of his book) and preacher before the Jesuits and Seminaries in the tower, which is next degree to the disputers there, whose sermons be solemnly printed, & dedicated to one of the Queens Council, who seemeth to be such a Grecian that he confuteth the vulgar Latin translation by the significatiō of the Greek word, and in other places of his book allegeth the Greek text: that this man for all this, referreth us to the Septuaginta either as authors of S. Luke's Gospel, which is too ridiculous: or as trāslators thereof, as though S. Luke had written in Hebrew, yea as though the whole new Testament had been written in Hebrew (for so no doubt he presupposed) and that the Septuaginta had translated it into Greek as they did the old, who were dead three hundred years before S. Luke's Gospel and the New Testament was written.

MART. 8. Al this is such a pitiful jest, as were incredible, if his printed book did not give testimony. Pitiful, I say, because the simple people count such their preachers jolly fellows and great Clearks, because they can talk of the Greek and of the Hebrew text, as this man doth also, concerning the Hebrew letter, Tau, whether it had in old time, the form of a Cross, or no, even as wisely and as skillfully, as he did of the Septuaginta, and the Greek word in S, Luke's Gospel. Whose incredible folly and ignorance in the tongues, perhaps I would never have mentioned (because I think the rest are sorry and ashamed of him) but that he boasteth of that, whereof he hath no skill, and that the people may take him for a very pattern and example of many other like boasters and braggers among them, and that when they hear one talk lustily of the Hebrew and Greek, and cite the text in the said tongues, they may always remember John Keltridge their Preacher, and say to themselves, what if this fellow also be like John Keltridge?

MART. 9. But to proceed: these great Grecians and Hebricians that control all antiquity and the approved ancient Latin translation by scanning the Greek and Hebrew words, that think it a great corruption Gen. 3. to read, Ipsa conteret caput tuum, she shall bruise thy head, because it pertaineth to our Ladies honor, calling it a corruption of the Popish Church, whereas S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Gregory, S. Bernard, and the rest read so, as being the common received text in their time (though there hath been also always the other reading even in the vulgar Latin translation, and therefore it is not any late reformation of these new correctors, as though the Hebrew and Greek text before had been unknown) these controllers I say of the Latin text by the Hebrew, against our Ladies honor, are in another place content to dissemble the Hebrew word, and that also for small devotion to the B. Virgin: namely Jerome 7. and 44. Where the Prophet inveigheth against them that offer sacrifice to the Queen of heaven, this they think is very well, because it may sound in the people's ears against the use of the Catholic Church, which calleth our Lady, Queen of heaven. But they know very well that the Hebrew word doth not signify Queen in any other place of the Scripture, and that the Rabbin's and later Hebricians (whom they gladly follow) deduce it otherwise, to signify rather the whole corps and frame of heaven, consisting of all the beautiful stars and planets, and the Septuaginta call it not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ Queen, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : the host of heaven, c. 7. Hierem: and S. Jerome not only, reginā, but rather, militiam coeli: and when he nameth it reginam, Queen, he saith we must understand it of the moon, to which and to the other stars they did sacrifice & commit idolatry. But the Protestants (against their custom of scanning the Hebrew and the Greek) translate here, Queen of heaven, for no other cause in the world, but to make it sound against her, whom Catholics truly call and worthily honor as Queen of heaven, because her son is king, and she exalted above Angels and all other creatures. See the New Test Annot. Act. 1. v. 14.

MART. 10. Agine, why doth the Geneva new Testament make S. Matthew to say, that He (to wit, Joseph) called his name Jesus? Why not she, as well as he? For in S. Luke the Angel saith to our Lady also, Thou shalt call his name Jesus. S. Matthew then speaking indifferently, and not limiting it to him or her, why do they give this preeminence to Joseph rather than to the B. Virgin? did not both Zechariah and also Elisabeth his wife by revelation give the name of John, to John the Baptist? yea did not Elisabeth the mother first so name him before Zechariah hir husband? much more may we think, that the B. Virgin the natural mother of our Savior, gave him the name of Jesus, than Joseph his putatiue father. specially, if we consider, that the Aungel reu • aled the name first unto hir, saying, that she should so cal him: and the Hebrew word, Isaiah. 7. whereunto the Aungel alludeth, is the foeminine gender, and referred by the great Rabbin's, Rabbi Abraham, and Rabbi David, unto hir, saying expressly in their commentaries, Et vocabit ipsa puella: and the maid hir self shall call. and surely, the usual pointing of the Greek text (for Beza maketh other points of his own) is much more for that purpose. Now, if they will say, that Theophylacte understandeth it of Joseph, true it is, and so it may be understood very well: but if it may be understood, of our Lady also, and rather of hir, than of him, why doth your translation exclude this other interpretation?

MART. 11. Where, by the way I must tell you (and elsewhere perhaps more at large) that it is your common fault, to make someone Doctors interpretation, the text of your translation, and so to exclude all the rest that expound it otherwise, which you know is such a fault in a trāslator, as cā by no means be excused. Secondly, the reader may here observe and learn, that if they shall hereafter defend their translation of any place, by some Doctors exposition, agreeable thereunto, that will not serve nor suffice them, because every Doctor may say his opinion in his commentaries, but that must not be made the tex • e of Scripture, because other Doctors expound it otherwise: and being in it self, and in the original tongue, ambiguous, and indifferent to diverse senses, it may not be restrained or limited by translation, unless there be a mere necessity, when the translation cannot possibly or hardly express the ambiguity and indifferency of the originaltexte.

MART. 12. As (for example) in this controversy concerning Saints, S. Peter speaketh so ambiguously, either, that he will remember them after his death, or they shall remember him, that some of the Greek fathers gathered, and concluded there upon ( Oecum. in Caten. Gagneius in hunc locum ) that the Saints in heaven remember us on earth, and make intercession for us. Which ambiguity both in the Greek, and the Latin, should be also kept and expressed in the English translation, and we have endeavored as near as we could possibly so to make it, because of the diverse interpretations of the ancient fathers. But it may seem perhaps to the reader, that the said ambiguity cannot be kept in our English tongue, and that our own translation also can have but one sense. If it be so, and if there be a necessity of one sense, then (as I said) the translator in that respect is excused. But let the good reader consider also, that the Calvinists in restraining the sense of this place, follow not necessity, but their heresy, that Saints pray not for us. Which is evident by this, that they restrain it in their Latin translations also, where there is no necessity at all, but it might be as ambiguous and indifferent, as in greek, if it pleased them: yea, when they print the Greek Testament only, without any translation, yet here they put the Latin in the margent, according as they will have it read, and as though it might be read no otherwise, than they prescribe.

Martin.

IN this restraining of the Scripture to the sense of someone Doctor, there is a famous example in the epistle to the Hebrnes, where the Apostle saith, either Jacob adored the top of Joseph's scepter, as many read and expound: or else, that he adored toward the top of his scepter, as other read and interpreate: and beside these, there is no other interpretation of this place in all antiquity, but in S. Augustine only, as Beza confesseth: yet are they so bold to make his exposition only, and his commentary peculiar to him alone, the text of the scripture in their translation, saying: Jacob leaning on the ende of his staff, worshipped God, and so excluding all other senses, and expositions of all the other Fathers, excluding, and condemning their own former translations, adding two words more, than are in the Greek text, leaning, God: forcing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signify 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which may be, but is as rare, as virgae eius, for virgae suae: turning the other words clean out of their order and place, and form of construction, which they must needs have correspondent, and aunswereable to the Hebrew text, from whence they were translated: which Hebrew words themselves translate in this order, He worshipped toward the beds head. If he worshipped toward the beds head, according to the Hebrew: then did he worship toward the top of his scepter, according to the Greek: the difference of both being only in these words, scepter, and bed, (because the Hebrew is ambiguous to both) and not in the order or construction of the sentence.

MART. 2. To make it more plain, when the Prophet David saith, Adorabo ad templum sanctum tuum, Psal. 5. & 137. is not the true translation, and gramatical sequel of the words, thus: I will adore toward thy holy temple? Is it not a common phrase in the Scripture, that the people of God adored toward Jerusalem, toward his holy mount, before the Ark, toward the place where his feet stood? May any man be so bold, by adding and transposing to alter and obscure all such places of holy Scripture, that there may appear no manner of adoration toward or before a creature? and for worshipping or adoring toward the things aforesaid, and the like, may we say, leaning upon those things to worship, or adore God? Were they afraid, lest th • se speeches of holy Scripture might warrant and confirm the Catholic and Christian manner of adoring our Savior Christ, toward the holy Rood, at, or before his image and the crucifix before the altar, and so forth? For had they not feared this, why should they translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , leaning upon, rather than, towards, yea, why in Genesis, towards his beds head, and here not, towards?

MART. 3. And (which is more) when the ancient Greek fathers, Chrys. Oecum. in Collectan. Damase. lib. 1. pro imaginibus, Leont. apud Damasc. put so little force either in this preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (or the other alleged) that they expound all those speeches, as if the prepositions were of phrase only, and not of signification, saying: Jacob adored Joseph's scepter, the people of Israel adored the temple, the Ark, the holy mount, the place where his feet stood, and the like, whereby S. Damascene proveth the adoration of creatures, named Dulia, namely, of the cross, and of sacred images: if I say they make so little force of the prepositions, that they infer not only adoration towards the thing, but adoration of the thing: howe do these goodly translators, of all other words, so strain and rack the little particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to signify, leaning upon, that it shall in no wise signify anything, tending towards adoration?

MART. 4. And if the Greek Doctors suffice not to satisfy these great Grecians herein, tell me, you that have skill in the Hebrew, whether in the foresaid speeches cited out of the Psalms, there be any force in the Hebrew prepositions? surely no more than if we should say in English, without prepositions, Adore ye his holy hill: we will adore the place where his feet stood: Adore ye his footstool: For you know that there is the same preposition also, when it is said, Adore ye our Lord: or, as yourselves translate, worship the Lord: where there can be no force nor signification of the preposition. And therefore in these places also, your translation is corrupt, and willful, when you say thus: We will fall down before his footstool. fall ye down before his footstool, before his holy mount, or worship him upon his holy hill: Where you shun and avoid, first the term of adoration, which the Hebrew and Greek, duly express by terms correspondent in both languages, throughout the Bible and are applied for the moste parte, to signify adoring of creatures. Secondly, you avoid the Greek phrase, which is at the least, to adore towards these holy things, and places: and much more the Hebrew phrase, which is, to adore the very things rehearsed: to adore God's footstool (is the Psalm saith) because it is holy, or, because he is holy, whose footstool it is, as the Greek readeth.

MART. 5. This being most manifest to all that have skill in these tongues, it is evident that you regard neither Hebrew nor Greek, but only your heresy: and that in S. Paul's place aforesaid of adoring Joseph's scepter, you alter it by your own fancy, and not by S. Augustine's authority, whom I am sure you will not admit reading in the Psalm, Adore ye his footstool: and so precisely and religiously reading thus, that he examineth the case, and findeth thereby that the B. Sacrament must be adored, and that no good Christian doth take it, before he adore it. Neither will you admit him when he readeth thus of David, He was carried in his own hands, and interpreteth it mystically of Christ, that he was carried in his own hands, when he gave his body and blood to his Disciples. Yet are S. Augustine's interpretations (how so ever you like or mislike thē) very good, as also that above named of Jacob's leaning vpō his staff, & adoring, may be one good sense or comētarie of that place, but yet a commentary, & one Doctors opiniō, not the sacre text of Scripture, as you would make it by so trāslating.

MART. 6. And if S. Jerome like not the Greke doctors interpretation, in this place of adoring Joseph and his scepter, yet he also saith, that Jacob adored toward Joseph's rod, or toward the beds head, and not, leaning upon his staff he adored, which you make the text of Scripture. And though he think, that in this place is not meant any adoration of Joseph, yet, I am sure, for adoration of holy things, namely, Relics, the holy lande, and all the holy places and monuments of Christ's being and doing upon the earth, you will not be tried by S. Jerome. And again, why S. Paul should say, that by faith he adored, & in respect of things to come, it is not otherwise easy to understand, but that he partly for saw the kingdō of Ephraim, the posterity of Joseph: partly the kingdom of Christ prefigured in Joseph then Prince of Egypt, and so by faith adored his scepter or toward his scepier (which is all one) as the Greek fathers for the most part expound it. But let us hasten towàrd an end.

Martin.

BEcause in the last corruption I spake of adding to the text, though i • be their common and universal fault in every controversy, as is to be seen in every chapiter of this book: yet here I will add certain places, not yet mentioned. As, The rest of the acts of Iehoakim, and his abominations which he did, and CARVED IMAGES THAT WERE LAID TO HIS CHARGE, BEHOLDE THEY ARE WRITTEN, &c, these words, carved images laid to his charge, are more than is either in the Greek, or the Hebrew.

MART. 2. Again, Saul confounded the Jews, proving (by conferring one Scripture with another) that this is very Christ. These words, by conferring one Scripture with another, are added more than is in the Greek text: in favor of their presumptuous opinion, that conference of scriptures is enough for any man to understand them, and so to reject both the commentaries of the Doctors, and exposition of holy Councils, and Catholic Church, it is so much more, I say, than is in the Greek text, and a notorious corruption in their Bible, read daily in their churches, as most authentical. See the rest of their Bibles, and thou shalt find no more, for all those words, but, affirming, or, confirming. and the self same Bible, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, translateth the same Greek word thus, Who shall instruct? And indeed, that is the true and usual signification of the word, both in the old Testament, and in the new▪ as Deut. 4. Thou shalt teach them thy children. And Isaiah 40. Who shall instruct our Lord? The Hebrew word also in both places, signifying no more, but instructing and teaching. And so doth the Apostle cite i • to the Corinthians out of Isaiah, and he useth i • to the Coloss. (c. 2. v. 2. in the same signification, as the Church readeth and expoundeth it, and so consequently, S. Luke in the place whereof we now treat, saith nothing else, but that S. Paul earnestly taught or instructed them, that Jesus is Christ. And yet our new translators without respect of Hebrew, or Greek, have coined a new signification, of conferring one scripture with another. So ignorant they are in the signification of Greke words, or rather, so willfully malicious.

MART. 3. Again, in the first epistle of Saint Peter they translate thus: The word of the Lord endureth ever: and this is the word which by the gospel was preached unto you. where these words, by the Gospel, are added deceitfully, and of il intent, to make the reader think, that there is no other word of God, but the written word, for the common reader hearing this word Gospel, conceiveth nothing else. But indeed all is the gospel, whatsoever the Apostles taught, either by writing, or by tradition and word of mouth, a • S. Paul speaketh, 2. Thess. 2. and S. Peter saith nothing else in the place alleged, but, This is the word which is preached among you, as the Geneva Bibles translate, or more significātly, which is Euangelized among you, as we translate, for, though there be greater significancie in the Greek word, than is expressed by bare preaching or telling a thing, as having a goodly relation, & allusion to the word, Euangeliū▪ Gospel, yet neither do they in any other place, neither can they translate it, to preach by the gospel, but simply, to preach, to tell, to show. as, preaching peace by Jesus Christ, Act. 10. verse 39. so themselves translate it. & Psalm. 95 (or 96. v. 2.) Be telling of his salvation from day today. Which in other places is spoken by other Greek words, that have no signification at all of Gospel, as immediately in the said Psalm, 95 (or 96. v. 3) and Psalm 104. (or 105. v. 1.) and Act. 13. v. 5. and c. 17. v. 23. and Io. 1. v. 3.

MART. 4. All which words signify only to tell, to show, to declare, and are used indifferently for and with the other word which they here only translate, to preach by the Gospel. Whereas in all others places when they will translate it most significantly, they express it by bringing glad tidings: and in some places where it should be expressed most significantly in respect of euangelizing or preaching the Gospel, there they translate it barely, preachers, and preaching. Only S. Peters place aforesaid, must be stretched to signify, The word preached by the Gospel, to insinuate and uphold their heresy of the written Gospel only, or only written word, against Apostolical traditions not written. If this be not their meaning, let them give us a good reason why they translate it so in this one place only.

MART. 5. It is written of Luther that he for the self same heresy, in his first translation into the Germane tongue, left out these words of S. Peter altogether, This is the word which is euangelized or preached to you. Why so? because S. Peter doth here define what is the word of God: saying, that which is preached to you, and not that only which is written▪ which false dealing of Luther is no small presumptiō against the like heretical meaning of our English Protestants, who (I am sure) in this point of controversy of the word written and unwritten, will not deny that they agree with the Lutherans.

MART. 6. Again in the epistle of S. James, they add the word, Scripture, into the text, saying, But the Scripture offereth more grace. Where the Apostle may say as well, and indifferently, The Spirit or holy Ghost giveth more grace, and it is much more probable, and is so expounded of many. Let the good reader see the circumstance of the place, and abhor their saucinesse in the text of holy Scripture.

MART. 7. One addition of theirs I would not speak of, but only to know the reason why they do it, because it is very strange, and I know not what they should mean by it. This I am sure, if they do it for no purpose, they do it very foolishly, and forgetfully, & contrary to themselves. In the Gospel of S. Mark, in the reckoning of the Apostles, they add these words, And the first was Simon, more than is in their Greek text. Which addition they learned of Beza, whose contradictions in this point are worthy nothing. In S. Matthew where these words are, he suspecteth that, first, was added by some Papist, for Peters primacy: here, where the word is not, he avoucheth it to be the true text of the Gospel, and that because Matthew readeth so. There he alleged this reason, why it could not be said, the first, Simon, because there is no consequence nor coherence of second, third, fourth, &c. here he saith, that is no impediment, because there be many examples of such speech, and namely in the said place of S. Matthew. There he saith it is not so, though all Greek copies have it so: here it must needs be so, though it be only found in certain odd Greek copies of Erasmus, which Erasmus him self (as Beza confesseth) allowed not, but thought that these words were added in them out of S. Matthew. What these contradictions mean I know not, and I would learn the reason thereof, of his scholars our English trāslators, who by their Masters authority have made the self same addition in their English translation also.

MART. 8. There is also another addition of theirs, either proceeding of ignorance, or of the accustomed humor, whē they translate thus: If ye continue stablished in the faith, and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard how it was preached to every creature: or, whereof ye have heard how that it is preached: or, whereof ye have heard, and which hath been preached to every creature, &c. For, all these varieties they have, and none according to the Greek text, which is word for word, as the vulgar Latin Interpretor hath most sincerely translated it, Vnmoueable from the hope of the Gospel, which you have heard, which is, or hath been preached among all creatures, &c. So that the Apostles exhortation is unto the Colossians, that they continue grounded and stable in the faith and Gospel, which they had heard and received of their first Apostles: as in the epistle to the Romans, and to the Galatians, and to the Thessalonians, and to the Hebrews, and to Timothy, and S. John in his first Epistle, c. 2. v. 24. and S. Jude, v. 3. & 20. all use the like exhortations.

MART. 9. But this doth not so well like the Protestants, which* with Hymenaeus, and Alexander, and other old Heretike • , have fallen from their first faith, and therefore they alter the Apostles plain speech, with certain words of their own, and they will not have him say, Be unmovable in the faith and Gospel which you have heard and received: but, whereof you have heard, howe that it is preached: as though he spake not of the Gospel preached to them, but of a Gospel which they had only heard of, that was preached in the world. Certain it is, these words, whereof you have heard, how it was preached, are not so in the Greek: but, which you have heard, which hath been preached. Which is as much to say, as that they should continue constant in the faith and Gospel, which them selves had received▪ and which was then preached, and received, in the whole word. So say we to our deer countrymen, Stande fast in the faith, and be unmovable from the hope of the Gospel, which you heard of your first Apostles, which was, and is preached in all the world. If the Protestants like not this exhortation, they do • according to their translation.

Martin.

THey hold this position, that the Scriptures are not hard to be understood, that so everyone of them may presume to interpret, and expound them. And because S. Peter saith plainly, that S. Paul's Epistles are hard, and other Scriptures also, which the unlearned (saith he) pervert to their own destruction, therefore they labor tooth and nail, to make this subtle difference, that S. Peter saith not, Paul's Epistles are hard, but some things in S. Paul's epistles are hard, (as though that were not all one) & therefore they translate so, that it must needs be understood of the things, & not of the Epistles, pretending the Greek, which yet they know in some copies cannot be referred to the things, but must needs be understood of the Epistles. Wherefore, the Greek copies being indifferent to both, & the thing also in very deed being all one, whether the hardness be in the Epistles, or in the matter, (for when we say the Scripture is hard, we mean specially the matter) it is not only an heretical, but a foolish and peevish spirit, that maketh them so curious and precise in their translations, as here to limit and abridge the sense to the things only, Beza translating, inter quae sunt multa difficilia, and not, in quibus, as it is in the old vulgar translation, most sincere, and indifferent both to Epistles, and things.

MART. 2. An other fashion they have, which cannot proceed of good meaning, that is, when the Greek text is indifferent to two senses, and one is received, read, and expounded of the greater parte of the ancient fathers, and of all the Latin Church, there to follow the other sense, not so generally received and approved, as in Saint James epistle, where the common reading is, Deus intentator malorum est, God is no tempter to evil, they translate, Gad cannot be tempted with evil, which is so impertinent to the Apostles speech there▪ as nothing more. But, why will they not say, God is no tempter to evil, as well as the other? is it because of the Greek word, which is a passive? Let them see their Lexicon, and it will tell them that it is both an active, and passive. so say other learned Grecians, Interpreters of this place. so saith the very circumstance of the words next going before, Let no man say that he is tempted of God. Why so? Because God is not tempted with evil, say they▪ is this a good reason? nothing less. howe then? Because God is no tempter to evil, therefore let no man say, that he is tempted of God.

MART. 3. This reason is so coherent and so necessary in this place, that if the greek word were only a passive (as it is not) yet it might beseme Beza to translate it actively, who hath turned the active into a passive without scrupulousity, as him self confesseth, and is before noted, against the real presence. Much more in this place might he be bold to translate that actively, which is both an active and a passive, specially, having such an example, and so great authority as is all the ancient Latin church til this day. But why would he not? surely, because he would favor his and their heresy, which saith clean contrary to these words of the Apostle, to wit, that God is a tempter to evil. Is that possible to be proved? yea, it is possible and plain. Beza's words be these, Inducit Dominus in tentationē eos quos Satanae arbitrio permittit, aut in quos potius Satanam ipsum indueit, vt cor eorum impleat, vt loquitur Petrus, Act. 5. v. 3. that is, The Lord leadeth into temptation those whom he permitteth to Satan's arbitrement, or into whom rather he leadeth or bringeth in Satan himself to fil their heart as Peter speaketh. Mark that he saith God bringeth Satan into a man, to fill his heart, as Peter said to Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thy heart, to lie unto the holy Ghost? So then, by this man's opinion, God brought Satan into that man's heart, to make him lie unto the holy Ghost, and so led him into temptation, being author and causer of that heinous sin.

MART. 4. Is not this to say, God is a tempter to evil: clean contrary to S. James the Apostle? or could he that is of this opinion, translate the contrary, that God is no tempter to evil? Is not this as much to say, as that God also brought Satan into Judas to fill his heart, and so was author of Judas treason, even as he was of Paul's conversion? Let Beza now, and Master Whitaker's, or any other Heretike of them all, wrest & wring them selves from the absurdity of this opinion, as they endeavor and labor to do exceedingly, because it is most blasphemous: yet shall they never be able to clear and discharge them selves from it, if they will allow and maintain their foresaid exposition of God's leading into temptation. Doth not Beza for the same purpose translate, God's providence for, God's prescience? Which is so false, that the English Bezites in their translation, are ashamed to follow him.

MART. 5. An other exceeding treachery to deceive the Reader, is this: that they use Catholic terms & speeches in such places where they may make them odious, & where they must needs sound odiously in the people's ears. As for example, this term, procession, they put very maliciously & falsely, thus: When the feast of Bacchus was kept, they were constrained to go in the procession of Bacchus. Let the good reader see the Greek Lexicon, if there be anything in this word, like to the Catholic Churches processions: or whether it signify so much as, to go about, as their other Bibles are translated, which meant also heretically, but yet durst not name, processiō.

MART. 6. Again▪ He put down the Priests (of Baal) whom the kings of Judah had founded to burn incense. 4. Reg. 23. verse 5▪ So they translate (the Hebrew being simply to give, make, appoint) because in the Catholic Church, there are foundations of chaunterie Priests, Chapels, diriges, &c. Neither is it sincerely, and without ill meaning, that they say here the Priests of Baal, whom &c. Because the Hebrew word signifieth all those that ministered in the temples of false gods.

MART. 7. Again, Silver shrines for Diana, Act. 19. v. 24. Because of the shrines and tabernacles made to the image of our B. Lady: the Greek word signifying▪ temples, & Beza saith, he cannot see how it may signify shrines.

MART. 8. Again, As I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar, Act. 17. v. 23. So they call the superstition of the Athenians toward their false God's, because of Catholic people's devotions toward the true God, his Church. Altars, Saints, &c. the Greek word signifying the things that are worshipped (as 2. Thess. 2. v. 4. and Sap. 15. v. 17.) not the manner of worshipping.

MART. 9. Again, The Jews had agreed, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be excommunicate, John. 9. v. 22. And Jesus heard that they had excommunicated him, v. 35. to make the Jews doing against thē that confessed Christ, sound like to the Catholic Churches doing against Heretics in excommunicating them, and so to disgrace the Priests power of excommunication: whereas the Jews had no such spiritual excommunication, but (as the Greek must needs only signify) they did, put them out of the Synagogue, & so they should have translated, the Greek word including the very name of Synagogue. But they, as though the Church of Christ and the Synagogue of the Jews were all one, so translate, excommunicating, and putting out of the Synagogue, as all one.

MART. 10. I omit here as spoken before, that they call an Idol, the Queen of heaven, because we call our Lady by that title: so to make both seem like. Also, that they say Bels altar thrife, for Bels table, to disgrace altars: & that for idols, they say images, in despite of the Churches images: that they say tradition du • lie in the ill part, yea sometime when it is not in the Greek, to make traditions odious, and such like. Thus by similitude and like sound of words they b • guile the poor people, not only in their false expositions concerning Iudaical fasts, mea • s, observation of days (as is else where shown) but also in their translations. So doth Calvin's New Testament in french, for Nolite vocari Rabbi, translate, Be not called nostre maistre, or Magister noster: in derision and disgrace of this • ill • and • alling, which is peculiar to Doctors of Diuiniue in the Catholic Universities beyond the seas: even as Wi • l • sse their grand▪ father did upon the same words condemn such degrees in Universities. But their Rabbin's can tell them that Rabbi signifieth▪ Magister, and not, Magister noster. And S. John telleth them so chap. 1. v. 38. and chap. 3. v. 2. and chap. • 0. v. 16. and yet it pleaseth them to translate otherwise and to abuse Christ's own sacred words against Catholic Doctors and schools: not considering that as Christ forbad them to be called Rabbi, so he forbad them the name of father and fathers▪ and yet I • row they will not scoff at this name either in their own fathers, or in themselves so called of their children: though in Religious men, according to their heretical humor, they scoff also at this name, as they do at the other in Doctors.

MART. 11. Contrarywise as they are diligent to put some words odiously where they should not, so they are as circumspect not to put other words and terms, where they should. In their first Bible (printed again An. 1562.) not once the name of Church: in the same, for charity, love: for altar, temple: for heretic, an author of sects: & for heresy, sect •• because in those beginnings, all these words sounded exce • dingly against, them. The Church they had then forsaken, Christian charity they had broken by schisine, altars they digged down, here sie and heretic they knew in their conscience more like in the people's ears to agree unto them, rather than to the old Catholic faith and professors of the same. Again in all their Bibles indifferently, both former and later, they had rather say righteous, than just: righteousness than justice: gift, than, grace, specially in the sacrament of holy orders: secrete, rather than mystery, specially in matrimony▪ dissension, than, schism: and these words not at all, Priest, (to wit. of the New Testament) Sacrament, Catholic, hymns, cōfessiō, penance justifications, & traditions in the good part: but in steed thereof, Elders, secrete, general, praise • , acknowledging amendment of life, ordinances instructions. And which is, somewhat worse, carcas, for soul, and grave for hell. We may say unto you as Demosthenes, said to Aeschines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . • hat are these? words or wonders? certainly they are wonders, and very wonderful in Catholic men's ears, and whether it be sincere and not heretical dealing, I appeal to the wise and indifferent reader of any sort.

Martin.

NOW leaving matters of controversy, let us talk a little with you familiarly, and learn of you the reason of other pointes in your translation, which to us seem faults, and savor not of that spirit which should be in Christian Catholic translators.

MART. 2. First, you are so profane, that you say, The ballet of ballets of Solomon, so terming that divine book, Canticum canticorū, containing the high mystery of Christ and his Church, as if it were a ballet of leave between Solomon and his concubine, as Castaleo wantonly translateth it. But you say more profanely, thus, we have conceived, we have born in pain, as though we should have brought • oo • ••• wind. I am ashamed to tell the literal commentary of this your translation▪ why might you not have said, we have conceived and as it were traueled to bring forth, and have brought forth the spirit? is there anything in the Hebrew, to hinder you thus far? Why would you say, wind, rather than, spirit: knowing, that the Septuagintain Greek, and the ancient fathers, and S. Jerome himself, who translateth according to the Hebrew, yet for sense of the place, all expound it both according to Hebrew and Greek, of the spirit of God, which is first conceived in us, & beginneth by fear, which the scripture calleth, the beginning of wisdom▪ in so much, that in the Greek there are these goodly words, famous in all antiquity: Through the fear of thee ô lord we conceived, and have travailed with pain, and have brought forth the spirit of thy salvation, which thou hast made upon the earth. Which doth excellently set before our cies, the degrees of a faithful man's increase, and proceeding in the spirit of God, which beginneth by the fear of his judgments, and is a good fear, though servile, and not sufficient. and it may be, that you condemning with Luther this servile fear, as evil and hurtful, mean also some such thing by your trāslatiō. But indeed the place may be under stood of the other fear also, which hath his degrees more or less.

MART. 3. But to say, we have brought forth wind, can admit no such interpretation▪ but even as if a mere Jew should translate or understand it, who hath no sense of God's spirit, so have you excluded the true sense which concerneth the holy Ghost, and not the cold term of wind, and whatsoever naked interpretation thereof. And it is your fashion in all such cases, where the richer sense is of God's holy spirit, there to translate wind, as Psal. 147. v. 1 • . as you number the psalms.

MART. 4. And it is not unlike to this, that you will not translate for the Angels honor that carried Abacu • , He set him into Babylon over the lake by the force of his spirit: but thus, through a mighty wind, so attributing it to the wind, not to the Angels power, and omitting clean the Greek pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , his, which showeth evidently, that it was the Angels spirit, force, and power.

MART. 5. Again, where the Prophets speak most manifestly of Christ, there you translate clean another thing: as Esa. 30. v. 20. When S. Jerome translateth thus, & the church hath always red accordingly▪ Non faciet auolare à te vltra Doctorem tuum: & erunt oculi tui videntes praeceptorem tuum. that is, And (our Lord) shall not cause thy Doctors to fly from thee anymore: and thine eyes shall see thy Master. Which is all one in effect, with that which Christ saith, I will be with you unto the e • de of the word. there you translate thus, Thy rain shall be no more kept back: but thine eyes shall see thy rain. So likewise Joel 2. v. 23. where the holy Church readeth, Rejoice you children of Zion in the Lord your God: because he hath given you the Doctor of justice: there you translate, the rain of righteousness. Doth the Hebrew word force you to this? you Jews thenselves, partly understand it of Esdras, partly of Christ's Divinity. Why are you more profane (I will not say more Iudaical • ) than the Jews themselves? why might not S. Jerome a Christian Doctor and lacking no skill in the Hebrew (as you well know) satisfy you, who maketh no doubt but the Hebrew in these places is; Doctor, Master, Teacher? Who also (in Psal. 84. 7.) translateth thus, With blessings shall the Doctor be arrayed: meaning Christ. Where you with the later Rabbin's, the enemies of Christ, translate, The rain co • ereth the pools. What cold stuff is this in respect of that other translation, so clearly pointing to Christ out Master & doctor?

MART. 6. And again, where S. Jerome translateth, and the Church readeth, and all the fathe • s interpret and expound accordingly, There shall be faith in thy times: to express the marvelous faith that shall be then, in the first Christians specially, even unto death, and in all the rest concerning the hidden mysteries of the new Testament: there you translate, There shall be stability of thy times. The Prophet joineth together there, judgment, justice, faith, wisdom, knowledge, the fear of our Lord: you for a little ambiguity of the Hebrew word, turn faith into stability.

MART. 7. If I should burden you with translating thus also concerning Christ, Cease from the man whose breath in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be esteemed? You would say I did you wrong, because it is so pointed now in the Hebrew. Whereas you know very well by S. Jerome's commentary upon that place, that this is the Jews pointing or reading of the word, against the honor of Christ: the true reading and translation being as he interpreteth it, for he is reputed high▪ and therefore beware of him. Otherwise (as S. Jerome saith) what a consequence were this, or who would commend any man thus, Take heed ye offend not him, who is nothing esteemed? yet that is your translation. Neither doth the Greek help you which (if the accent be truly put) i • thus, because he is reputed for somebody or something▪ as S. Paul speaketh of the chief Apostles, and it is our phrase in the commendation of a man.

MART. 8. The like excuse you would have by alleging the Hebrew vowels, if you were told, that you much obs • ure a notable saying of the prophet concerning Christ, or rather the speech of Christ himself by his prophet, saying: I have spoken by the Prophets, and I have multiplied vision, and in the hand of the Prophets, (that is, by the Prophets) have I been resembled. Which later words do exceedingly express, that all the Prophets spake of Christ: as o • r Savior himself declareth, beginning from Moses and all the Prophets to interpret unto the two disciples, the things that concerned him: & as S. Pet • r saith in these words, Al the prophets from Samuel and that spake after him did tell of these days. This prophecy then being so consonant to these speeches of the • ewe Testament, the Greek also being word for word so, the Hebrew by changing one little prick (which the latter Jews have added at their own pleasure) being fully so as we • eade with the Catholic Church: why pretend you the Jews authority to maintain another less Christian translation, which is thus: I use similitudes by the ministry of the Prophets. as though there were nothing there concerning Christ▪ or the second person peculiarly?

MART. 9. You will also perhaps allege, not only the later Jews, but also some later Catholic men, that so translate the Hebrew. But the difference between them and you, is, that they, with reverence and pre • erment always of S. Hi • roms, and the Churches a ••• ient translation, tell us how it is now in the Hebrew: you, with derogation and disannulling the same altog • there, set down your own, as the only true interpretation according to the Hebrew: a • ouching the Hebrew that now i • , and as now it is printed, to be the only authenti cal truth of the old Testament. Where you can never answer us, howe that in the Ps. 22. As a lion my hand and my feet, (as now it is in the Hebrew) can be the true and old authentical Hebrew, which none of the fathers knew, the ancient Rabbin's condemn as a corruption, yourselves translate it not, but after the old accustomed reading, They have pierced my hands & my feet. Which is a notable prophecy of our Saviors kind and manner of Passion, being crucified on the Cross. Onelye the later Jews, and such Heretics, as think he died upon a gallow • s or gibbes, and not upon the Cross, they like this Hebrew textwel, and stand upon i • , as you do upon all without exception, and yet, when it cometh to certain particulars, you are compelled to forsake it. as in certain other places▪ for example.

MART. 10. Where the Hebrew saith, Achaz king of Israel, 2. Paralip. 28. v. 19. which is not true, you are compelled to translate, Achaz king of Judah, as the truth is, and as it is in the Greek and the vulgar Latin. yet some of your Bibles follow the falsehood of the Hebrew.

MART. 11. Likewise, where the Hebrew saith, Zedekiah his brother, meaning the brother of Joachim, you translate, Zedekiah his fathers brother, as indeed the truth is, according to the Greek, and to the Scripture, 4. Reg. 24. v. 19. and therefore your Bible which followeth the Hebrew here also, translating, his brother, yet in the margen: putteth down a • more true, uncle.

MART. 12. Likewise in another place, the hebrewe is so out of frame, that some of your Bibles say, he begat Azuba of his wife Azuba. and othersome translate, He begat Ierioth of his wife Azuba: the Hebrew being thus: he begat Azu ba his wife and I • rioth, which, neither you, nor any man else can easily tell what to make of. Thus you see howe easy it were (if a man would multiply such examples) to show by your own testimonies the corruption of the Hebrew, and that your selves do not, nor dare not exactly follow it, as of the Greek text of the New Testament also is declared else where.

MART. 13. But it is greater marvel, why you follow not the Hebrew in other places also, where is no corruption. You protest to translate it according to the points or vowels that now it hath, and that you call the Hebrew verity. Tel me then I beseech you, why do you in all your Bibles translate thus, O Virgin, daughter of Zion, he hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn: ô daughter of Jerusalem he hath shaken his head at thee. In the Hebrew, Greek, S. Jerome's translation and commentary, it is clean contrary, The Virgin daughter of Zion, hath despised thee (O Assur:) the daughter of Jerusalem hath shakē her head at thee. All are the foeminine gender, and spoken of Zion literally, and of the Church spiritually triumphing over Assur, and all her enemies: you translate all as of the masculine gender, and apply it to Assur, insulting against Jerusalem, &c. I cannot conceive what this translation meaneth, and I would gladly know the reason, and I would have thought it some gross oversight, but that I find it so in all your English Bibles, and not only in this place of Isaiah, but also in the books of the kings, 4. Reg. 19. where the same words are repeated. And it is no less marvel unto us, that know not the reason of your doings, why you have left out Alleluia nine times in the six last Psalms, being in the Hebrew nine times more than in your translation: specially when you know that it is the ancient and joyful song of the Primitive Church. See the new English Testament, Annot. Apoc. 19.

MART. 14. Again, you translate thus: Many which had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept, &c. Look well to your Hebrew, and you shall find it according both to the Greek and the Latin, thus: Many which had seen the first house in the foundation thereof, (that is, yet standing upon the foundation, not destroyed) and this temple before their eyes, wept. You imagined that it should be meant, they saw Solomon's temple, when it was first founded, which because it was impossible, therefore you translated otherwise than is in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. But yet in some of your Bibles, you should have considered the matter better, and translated accordingly.

MART. 15. And surely why you should translate (4. Reg. 23. v. 13.) On the right hand of mount Oliuete, rather than as it is in the vulgar Latin: and why, Ye abject of the Gentiles, Esa. 45. v. 20. rather than, ye that are saved of the Gentiles: you belike know some reason, we do not, neither by the Hebrew, nor the Greek.

MART. 16. Howbeit in these lesser things (though nothing in the Scripture is to be counted little) you might perhaps more freely have taken your pleasure, in following neither Hebrew, nor Greek: but when it concerneth a matter no less than usury, there by your false translation to give occasion unto the Reader, to be an usurer, is no small fault, either against true religion, or against good manners. This you do most evidently in your most authentical translations, saying thus: Thou shalt not hurt thy brother by usury of money, nor by usury of corn, nor by usury of anything that he may be hurt withal. What is this to say, but that usury is not here forbidden, unless it hurt the party that boroweth, which is so rooted in most men's hearts, that they think such usury very lawful, and daily offend mortally that way. Where Almightye God in this place of holy Scripture, hath not a word of hurting, or not hurting, (as may be seen by the Geneva Bibles,) but saith simply thus: Thou shalt not lend to thy brother to usury, usury of money, usury of meat, usury of anything that is put to usury.

MART. 17. Mark the Hebrew, and the Greek, and see, and be ashamed, that you strain and pervert it, to say for, Non foenerabis fratri tuo, which is word for word in the Greek, and Hebrew, Thou shalt not hurt thy brother by usury. If the Hebrew word in the use of holy Scripture, do signify, to hurt by usury, why do you in the very next words following, in the self same Bibles translate it thus, unto a stranger thou mayst lend upon usury, but not unto thy brother? Why said you not, A stranger thou mayst hurt with usury, but not thy brother? Is it not all one word & phrase, here and before? And if you had so translated it here also, the Ie • es would have thanked you, who by forcing the Hebrew word as you do, think it very good to hurt any stranger, that is, any Christian, by any usury, be it never so great.

MART. 18. What shall I tell you of other faults, which I would gladly account oversights or ignorances, such as we also desire pardon of, bus all are not such, though some be. As, Two thousand, (written at length) to them that keep the fruit thereof. In the Hebrew, and Greek, two hundred. Again, in the same book, c. 1. v. 4. As the fruits of Cedar. in the Hebrew, and Greek, Tabernacles. And, Ask a sign either in the depth or in the height above, for, in the depth of Hell. And, Great works are wrought by him. for, do work in him. as S. Paul useth the same word, 2. Cor. 4. v. 12. And, To make ready an horse. Act. 23. v. 24. in the Greek, beasts, And. If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, without breaking of the law of Moses. Io. 7. v. 23. For, to the end that the law of Moses be not broken. And, The son of man must suffer many things, and be reproved of the elders, Mar. 8. v. 31. For, be rejected. As in the Psalm, The stone which the builders rejected, we say not, reproving of the said stone, which is Christ. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a young scholar, in all your translations, falsely. And, Simon of Canaan or Simon the Canaanite, who is called otherwise, Zealots, that is Zelous, as an interpretation of the Hebrew word, Cananaeus: which I marvel you considered not, specially considering that the Hebrew word for Zelous, and the other for a Canaanite, begin with diverse letters. And, least at any time we should let them slip. For, least we slip or run by, and so be lost.

MART. 19. And as for the first Bible, which was done in hast, and not yet corrected, but is printed still a fresh: that saith, With Herod's servants, as though that were the only sense: that calleth idiotas lay men: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a ship: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , wondering: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are gone out: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , his substance: and, To know the excellent love of the knowledge of Christ. For, the love of Christ that excelleth knowledge. And, of men that turn away the truth. For, that shun the truth and turn away from it. And, Mount Sina is Agar in Arabia. For, Agar is mount Sina, &c.

MART. 20. Let these and the like be small negligences or ignorances, such as you will pardon us also, if you find the like. Neither do we greatly mislike, that you leave those words, Vrim and Thummim, and Chemarim, and Ziims, and Iims, untranslated, because it is not easy to express them in English: and we would have liked as well in certain other words, which you have translated, images, images, and still, images, being as hard to express the true signification of them, as the former. And we hope you will the rather bear with the late Catholic translation of the English Testament, that leaveth also certain words untranslated, not only because they cannot be expressed, but also for reverence and religion (as S. Augustine saith) and greater majesty of the same.

MART. 21. Of one thing we can by no means excuse you, but it must savor vanity, or novelty, or both. As when you affectate new strange words which the people are not acquainted with all, but it is rather Hebrew to them than English: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Demosthenes speaketh, uttering with great countenance and majesty, Against him came up Nabucadnezzar king of Babel, 2. Par. 36. v. 6. for, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon: Saneherib, for Sennacherib: Michaiahs prophecy, for Michaeas: Jehoshaphat's prayer, for Iosaphats: Uzzah slain, for Oza. When Zerubbabel went about to build the Temple, for Zerubbabel: Remember what the Lord did to Miriam, for Marie, Deut. 34. And in your first translation, Elisa for Elisaeus, Pekahia and Pekah for Phaceia and Phacee, Vziahu for Ozias, Thiglath-peleser for Teglath-phalasar, Ahaziahu for Ochozias: Peka the son of Remaliahu, for, Phacee the son of Romelia. And why say you not as well Shelomoh for Solomon, and Coresh for Cyrus, and so alter every word frō the known sound & pronunciatiō thereof? Is this to teach the people, whē you speak Hebrew rather than English? Were it a good. • y hearing (think you) to say for JESUS, Ieshuah, and for MARIE his mother, Miriam: and for Messias, Messiach, and John, Iachannan, and such like monstrous novelties? which you might as well do, and the people would understand you as well, as when our preachers say, Nabucadnezer King of Babel.

MART. 22. When Zwingli your great Patriarke did read in Munsters translation of the old Testament, Iehizkiabu, Iehezchel, Choresh, Darianesch, Beltzezzer, and the like, for, Hezekiah, Ezekiel, Cyrus, Darius, Baltasar: he called them barbarous voices, and vnciuil speeches, and said, the word of God was soiled and depraved by them. Know you not, that proper names alter and change, and are written and sounded in every language diversely? Might not all antiquity, and the general custom, both of reading and hearing the known names of Nebuchadnezzar, and Michaeas, and Ozias, suffice you, but you must needs invent other which the people never heard, rather for vain ostentation, to amaze and astonish them, than to edification and instruction Which is an old heretical fashion, noted by Eusebius, lib 4. c. 10. and by the author of the imperfect commentaries upon S. Matthew, ho. 44. and by S. Augustine, lib. 3. c. 26. contra Cresconium.

MART. 23. What shall I speak of your affectation of the word Iehôua (for so it pleaseth you to accent it) in steed of Dominus, the Lord: whereas the ancient fathers in the very Hebrew text did read and sound it rather Adonai, as appeareth both by S. Jerome's translation, and also his commentaries, and I would know of them the reason, why in the Hebrew Bible, whensoever this word is joined with Adonai, it is to be read Elohim, but only for avoiding Adonai, twice together. This I say we might justly demand of these that take a pride in using this word Iehôua, so often, both in English and Latin, though otherwise we are not superstitious, but as occasion serveth, only in the Hebrew text, we pronounce it and read it Again we might ask them, why they use not as well Elohim in steed of Deus, God: and so of therest, changing all into Hebrew, that they may seem gay fellows, and the people may wonder as their wonderful and mystical divinity.

MART. 24. To conclude, are not your scholars (think you) much bound • unto you, for giving them in steed of God's blessed word and his holy Scriptures, such translations, heretical, Iudaical, profane, false, negligent, fantastical, new, naught, monstrous? God open their eyes to see, and mollify your hearts to repent of all your falsehood and treachery, both that which is manifestly convinced against you and cannot be denied, as also that which may by some show of answer be shifted of in the sight of the ignorant, but in your consciences is as manifest as the other.