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. 54 These examples proue nothing lesse. For to runne ouer them all briefly, the first two, we translate verbatim, A man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the law, and, repent, and, repētance, we say for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. What make these for Poperie? If Luc 1. v. 6.

we should call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, iustifications, what should Po∣perie gaine, but a vaine cauill? when you your selues cō∣fesse, that those iustifications are often vsed for com∣mandements? Act. 2. v. 27. all our English translations are as you would haue them. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption, by which verse no descent into Limbus, but the resurre∣ction from death can be proued. If wee translate as you do Act. 3. v. 21. whome heauen must receaue, wee will easily conuince that Christe muste be receaued of hea∣uen. In the laste example the question is not, howe the worde is to be translated, but by what worde the want of the texte is to be supplied, whiche wee supplie not with wordes of our owne, but with the Apostles owne wordes.

Haue you not gayned greatly by translating verba∣tim, exactly, and according to the proper vse and sig∣nification of the wordes? I lyke well that euery in∣different Reader may iudge by these examples, of Be∣zaes purpose in other places of his translation. But you haue two other wayes, to make certaine proofe of their wilfulnesse: The firste is, when the translation is framed according to their hereticall commentarie. A reasonable man would thinke rather, that the commen∣tarie were framed according to the texte, than the texte to the commentarie. But to iustifie the truth of those translations, for the firste texte you quote, it is hand∣led sect: 26. of this chapter, and so consequently Cap. 7. The seconde is answered sect: 46. the other two con∣cerning tradition sect. 23. of the preface, and in the cha∣piter following. The second waye of proofe is, when they will auouch their translations out of prophane wri∣ters. I thinke there is no better waye, to know the pro∣per, or diuerse signification of wordes, than out of aun∣cient writers, though they be neuer so prophane who v∣sed the wordes most indifferently, in respect of our con∣trouersies, of which they were altogither ignorant. As

for the ecclesiasticall vse of wordes in the Scripture, and the Fathers, which Beza (you say) doth for the most part reiect, it is vntrue: except there be good and sufficient cause, why he should so do, warranted by the Scripture it selfe, or necessarie circumstances of the places, which he doth translate. For if the Scripture haue vsed a worde in one signification sometimes, it is not necessarie that it should alwaies vse it in the same signification, when it is proued by auncient writers that the worde hath other significations, more proper to the place, and agreeable to the rule of fayth, which perhaps the vsuall significa∣tion is not. As for example, the Scripture vseth very often this worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a boy, or seruaunt: but when the same worde is applied to our Sauiour Christ, in the prayer of the Apostles, Act. 4. 27. Who woulde not rather translate it childe, or sonne, as the worde doth sometime, but more seldome signifie? Howe the Fathers of the Churche haue vsed wordes, it is no rule for translators of the Scripture to followe, who often∣times vsed wordes, as the people did then take them, and not as they signified in the Apostles tyme. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a publicke testification of repentaunce, which wee call penaunce: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for imposition of handes, and suche like, in whiche sense these wordes were ne∣uer vsed before the Apostles times, and therefore it is not lyke, that they woulde beginne a newe vse of them, without some manifest explication of their meaning, without the whiche no man could haue vnderstoode them: as they haue done in the vse of these wordes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and such like. It is not a faulte therefore, prudently to seeke euen out of prophane writers, what is the proper signification of wordes, and howe many significations a woorde may haue, and reuerently to iudge, which is moste apte for the place to be translated, and moste agreeable with the holy ghostes meaning in that texte: and not alwaies to bee tyed to the vsuall signification of wordes,

as they are sometimes taken in Scripture, and much lesse as they are vsed of the auncient Fathers.