A defense of the sincere and true translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong against the manifolde cauils, friuolous quarels, and impudent slaunders of Gregorie Martin, one of the readers of popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes. By William Fvlke D. in Diuinitie, and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge. Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of all such quarrels & cauils, as haue bene of late vttered by diuerse papistes in their English pamphlets, against the writings of the saide William Fvlke.

FVLK. 37. This must needes be a famous place, for the reall presence of Christes bloud in the sacrament, that neuer one of the auncient or late writers obserued, vntill within these fewe yeares. But let vs see what fault Beza hath committed in translation. The last word in the verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he hath so translated, as it must be referred to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying bloud, with which in case it doth not agree. That is true: but that he confesseth that all Greeke copies without exception haue it, as it is commonly redde: it is false: onely he saith: Omnes ta∣men vetusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant▪ All our old Greeke copies, had it so written. He speaketh onely of his owne, or such as he had, and not of all without excep∣tion, for since he wrote this note, there came to his hands

one other auncient copie, both of Greeke and Latine, in which this whole verse of the second deliuerie of the cup, is cleane left out. For immediatly after these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth follow, & so in the Latine, Veruntamen ecce manus qui tradet me, &c. Moreo∣uer Beza telleth you, that Basil in his Ethicks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. citing this whole text of S. Luke, readeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the datiue case, agreeing with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the word next before. By which it is manifest, that in S. Basils time, the reading was otherwise than now it is in most copies. A∣gaine, where you say, he confesseth that in true gramma∣ticall construction it must needes be sayd, Quod pro vobis funditur, his wordes are not so, but that those wordes, if we looke to the construction, can not be referred to the bloud, but to the cuppe, which in effect is as much as you say: His iudgement in deede is of these wordes, as they are now redde, that either it is a manifest Soloecophanes, or else an addition out of the margent into the text. And as for the word Soloecophanes, you vnderstand him that he meaneth a plaine soloecisme, & fault in grammar, and so doth M. Whitakers. Howe you vnderstand him it is not materiall, but how he is to be vnderstood, in deede. M. Whitakers whom you call to witnesse, doth not so vn∣derstand him, but sheweth that if he had called it a plaine Soloecisme, he had not charged S. Luke with a worse fault, than Hieronyme chargeth S. Paule. But what reason is there that you or any man should vnderstand Beza, by Soloecophanes, to meane a plaine soloecisme? Think you he is so ignorant, that he knoweth not the difference of the one from the other, or so negligent of his termes, that he would confound those, whome he knoweth so much to differ? But Maister Fulke (say you) saith that he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancie, and figuratiue speech, vsed of moste eloquent auctors: and it is a world to see, and a Grecian muste needes smyle at his deuises, striuing to make Saint Lukes speeche here, as he construeth the wordes, an elegancye in the Greeke tongue. Thus you write, but

if I giue not all Grecians, and Latinistes iust occasion, before I haue done with you, to laugh at your prowde ignorance, and to spit at your malitious falshood, let me neuer haue credit, I say not of a Grecian or learned man, which I desire not, but not so much as of a reaso∣nable creature. Ah sir, and doth M. Fulke saye, that this speech of S. Luke is an elegancie in the Greeke tongue? I pray you where sayth he so? you answer me quickly. A∣gainst D. Saunders Rocke. pag. 308. I tremble to heare what wordes you haue there to charge me withall. In deede in that page I begin to speake of that matter a∣gainst Saunder, who chargeth Beza as you doe, & moreo∣uer affirmeth that Beza should teach, that S. Luke wrore false Greeke, because he sayth, that here is a manifest So∣loecophanes. But that neither you shall quarrell, that I chose some peece of my saying for my purpose, nor any man doubt how honestly you charge me, I will here re∣peate whatsoeuer I haue written touching that matter, in the place by you quoted.

But the Protestants doe not onely make them selues Iudges of the whole bookes, but also ouer the very letter (sayth he) of Christes Gospell, finding fault with the construction of the E∣uangelists, and bring the text it selfe in doubt. Example hereof he bringeth: Beza in his annotatiōs vpon Luke 22. of the words: This cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you. In which text, because the word bloud in the Greeke, is the datiue case, the other word that followeth is the nominatiue case, Beza supposeth that S. Luke vseth a figure called Soloe∣••ophanes, which is appearaunce of incongruitie, or else that the last word which is shed for you, might, by error of writers, be∣ing first set in the margent out of Mathew and Marke, be re∣moued into the text. Herevpon M. Sander out of all order and measure, ••ayleth vpon Beza and vpon all Protestants. But I pray you good sir, shall the onely opinion of Beza, and that but a doub••full opinion, indite all the Protestants in the world of such high treason against the word of God? For what gaineth Beza by this interpretation? For sooth the Greeke text is contrary to

his Sacramentarie heresie. For thus he should translate it: This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud, which cuppe is shed for you. Not the cuppe of gold or siluer (sayth he) but the liquor in that cuppe, which is not wine, because wine was not shed for vs, but the bloud of Christ. Why then the sense is this. This bloud in the cuppe which is shed for you, is the new Testa∣ment in my bloud. What sense in the worlde can these wordes haue? By which it is manifest, that the words which is shed for you, cannot be referred to the cuppe, but to his bloud. For the cuppe was the new Testament in his bloud, which was shed for vs, which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the mani∣fest word of God. Neither doth the vulgar Latine translation giue any other sense, although M. Sander is not ashamed to say it doth. The vulgar Latine text is this. Hic est calix nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur. What grammarian in construing, would referre qui to calix, and not rather to sanguine. Againe Erasmus translateth it euē as Beza. Hoc poculum nouum Testamentum per sangui∣nem meum qui pro vobis effunditur. Nowe touching the coniecture of Beza, that those words by errour of the scriuener, might be remoued from the margent into the text, is a thing that sometime hath happened, as most learned men agree, in the 27. of Mathew, where the name of Ieremie is placed in the text, for that which is in Zachary, & yet neither of the Prophets was na∣med by the Euangelist, as in most auncient records it is testifi∣ed. The like hath bene in the first of Marke, where the name of Esay is set in some Greeke copies, & followed in your vulgar translation, for that which is cited out of Malachie, which name was not set downe by the Euangelist, but added by some vnskil∣full writer, & is reproued by other Greeke copies. But this place you say is not otherwise found in any olde copie, as Beza confes∣seth: then remaineth the second opinion, that S. Luke in this place, vseth Soloecophanes, which is an appearance of incon∣gruitie, & yet no incongruitie. Wherein I can not maruaile more at your malice (M. Sander) than at your ignorance, which put no difference betwene Soloecisinus & Soloecophanes, but euen ••s spitefully, as vnlearnedly, you affirme that Beza should teach,

that S. Luke wrote false Greeke, whereas Soloecophanes is a figure vsed of the most eloquent writers that euer tooke penne in hand, euen Cicero, Demosthenes, Greeke and Latine, pro∣phane and diuine, and euen of S. Luke him selfe in other pla∣ces, whereof for examples, I referre you to Budaeus vpon the worde Soloecophanes. The apparance of incongruitie is, that it seemeth, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the nominatiue case, should agree with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the datiue case, whereas in deede 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is vsed as a relatiue for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is often, and the verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which wanteth, is vnderstoode, as it is commonly in the Greeke tongue, and so the translation must be hoc pocu∣lum nouum Testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effunditur, or effusus est. So that this is nothing else, but an impudent and vnskilfull quarrelling, against Beza, whereas you Papistes defende against the manifest institu∣tion of the cuppe, and the practise of the primitiue Church, the communion in one kinde of bread onely. Con••. Const. Sess. 13. 21.

Where finde you that I affirme S. Lukes speache here to be an elegancie in the Greeke tongue? Yea or Soloecophanes to be nothing else but an elegancie, and fi∣guratiue speach? A figure in deede I say that it is, but are all figures elegancies, or all figuratiue speaches, elegan∣cies of speach? Some figures I trowe serue to excuse si∣militudes of faultes in speach. But I saie Soloecophan••s is vsed of the most eloquent writers. Very well, dothe it thereof followe, that it is alwayes an elegancie. Haue not the most eloquent authors, vsed Hyperbatons, Perisso∣logies, and other figures that are counted faultes of speech, and not elegancies, and fine speeches? But all the exam∣ples of Budee (you saye) to whose commentaries I sende you, are of moste sine and figuratiue phrases. If they be suche, they doe the better proue, that for which I cal∣led him to warrantize, namely, that Soloecophanes is not a Soloecisme, or false Greeke, wherewith Sander accuseth Beza to charge S. Luke. But where you vtter your foolish pitie, in saying, Alas howe vnlike they are

to that in S. Luke. I thinke the case is not so cleare as you make it, for I suppose those examples that he brin∣geth of the figure of the whole construction changed after a long Hyperbaton, or Parenthesis, may well be ta∣ken for figuratiue speeches, but not for elegancies and fine figuratiue phrases: as againe those popular sayings which being taken out of the common peoples speech, Budaeus sayeth, the moste eloquent Oratours haue tran∣slated into their finest writinges. Peraduenture, as Musitians vse sometime a discorde to set forth the h••r∣monye of concordes, so they by hardly auoyding of a Soloecisme, woulde shewe the grace of congruitie, and elegancie. But of this whole matter let the iudge∣ment be with them that are learned and eloquent in both the tongues. It is sufficient for me that he which vseth Soloecophanes in Greeke committeth not a Soloecisme, or speaketh false Greeke, as Saunder ter∣meth it. But where you say, that Maister Fulke was fouly deceyued and tooke his markes amisse, as it were a coun∣ter for golde, to thinke that Beza and Budee tooke the worde in one sense, you saye your pleasure, but you shall well knowe, that Maister Fulke is not so younge a babe, to take a counter for golde, as you are a bolde bayarde, to pronounce of all mens meaninges what you list. For howe are you able to proue, that Be∣za by Soloecophanes meaneth a plaine Soloecisme? Thinke you that Beza is so simple a childe also, to terme copper by the name of golde? If hee had meant a Soloecisme coulde hee not haue sayde so? But you muste playe Procustes parte, for neyther my saying, nor Beza his meaning, were large enough for you, to frame your sclaunderous cauill against the trueth, and therefore with a lowde lye, you muste lengthen my saying, and with prowde and false presumption, you muste stretche out his meaning. These bee your artes, this is your eloquence, these are the sinnewes of youre accusations. What those good searchers

in Oxford were, which being maisters of Art, could not discerne betweene masse bookes, and lawe bookes, for my parte I neuer heard, but I thinke it to be a matter of as good credite as that you report of me and Beza.