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.

MART. 13. Againe they translate in some of their Bi∣bles* 1.1 agaynst free wil, thus, Christ, when we were yet OF NO STRENGTH, died for the vngodly, Rom. 5. v. 6. The* 1.2 Apostles word doth not signifie that we had nostrength, but that we were weake, seeble, infirme. Man was wounded in free will, by the sinne of Adam (as he that in the Gospell went downe from* 1.3 Hierusalem to Iericho, which is a parable of this thing) he was not slayne altogither. But I stande not here, or in any place to dispute the controuèrsie, that is done else where. This onely I say, because* they falsely holde, that free will was altogither loste* 1.4 by Adams sinne, therefore they translate accordingly, When we had no strength. But the Greeke worde is well knowen, both in profane authors, and Ecclesiasticall, and specially in the newe Testament it selfe, throughout, to signifie nothing else, but, weake, feeble, sicke, infirme. Looke me through the newe Te∣stament,* 1.5 wheresoeuer infirmitie, feeblenesse, languishing, and the like are spoken of, there is founde this Greeke worde to ex∣presse it. What Grecian knoweth not (be he but simply ac∣quainted with phrases, and nature of wordes.) what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doe signifie. When the Apostle sayth, Quis

infirmatur, & ego non vror? Who is weake and infirme,* 1.6 and I am not much grieued? shall we translate, who is of no strength, &c. or let them giue vs an instance, where it is certaine that this word must needes signifie, of no strength.* 1.7 Will they pretend the etymologie of the word? a ridiculous and absurd euasion. we aske them of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a worde of the very same signification, which being compounded in like maner as the o∣ther, what doth it signifie? any thing els but infirmitie and feeblenes? Yea it is so farre from signifying, no strength, that the greatest Grecians say, it is not spoken properly of him that for weakenes keepeth his bed, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but of him that is il disposed, and distempered in body. Yet the etymologie is all one with that worde which these men will haue to signifie him that hath no strength. And if they will needes vrge the etymologie, we tell them, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifie, robur, that is, great strength, such as is in the strongest and stoutest champions. and so the etymologie may take place, to signifie a man of no great strength, not, of no strength. But M. Whitaker putteth vs in good* 1.8 hope, they will not stand vpon etymologies.

FVLK. 13. This cauill is fully aunswered, cap. 1. sect. 26. therefore I wili not spende many wordes here about it. The worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we knowe signifieth weake, that is of small strength, and sometimes so weake, that there is no strength. As Gal. 4. where Saint Paule, calleth the ceremonies of Moses lawe, nowe exspired, the weake and beggerly elements, that is voyd of all strength and riches. Likewise the Apostle to the Hebrewes, cap. 7. saith, the commundement of the Aaronicall priesthood is abolished, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it was weake and vn∣profitable without Christ, as vnprofitable is void of pro∣fit, so is weake voyd of strength. S. Paule, 1. Cor. 15. saith, our dead bodie is sowed in weaknes: Is there any strēgth of a dead body? Moreouer Rom. 8. that which was vn∣possible by the law, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by meanes it was weake, is not that voide of strength to saue vs, which hath no possibilitie to doe any thing? These instances may serue to proue, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signifie that which is so weake,

that it hath no strength. Vpon the etymologie alone we stand not, But where you say, that man was wounded in free will, by the sinne of Adam, not slayne altogither, (grounding your assertion vpon a fond & false allegorie of him that fell among theeues, which is no parable of a man in this case, but of man in necessitie to be helped by right of neighbourhood) I praye you, howe came man to be dead altogither in sinnes? Eph. 2. Col. 2. & in ma∣ny other places of the Scripture. Beside, is there any free∣dom of wil to godlines, remaining in them that are al∣togither dead in sinne? But we are not now to handle cō∣trouersies, but translations, as you doe wel admonish vs.

Notes

• * 1.1

  No. Test 1580.
• * 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.3

  Luc. 10.
• * 1.4

  VVhitakers, pag. 18.
• * 1.5

  Multi inter vos infirmi sunt, &c. 1. Cor. 11 v. 30. Cum infirmor, tū petens sum. 2. Cor 12. v. 10. & alibi.
• * 1.6

  2. Cor. 11. 29.
• * 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and à pri∣uatiuum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ••exicon magnum Basileae. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.8

  Pag. 209.