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.

CHAP. XI.

Hereticall translation for IMPVTATIVE IVSTICE, against true inhe∣rent iustice.

Martin.

ONE place might suffise, in steede of many, where Beza doth protest, that his adding or alteration of the texte, is, specially a∣gainst the execrable errour of inherent iustice, which (he saith) is to be auoided as nothing more. His false translation, thu•• our English Bezites and Caluinists folowe in their Bibles. Likewise then as by the offense of one▪ the faulte came on all men to condemnation: so by the iustifying of one, the benefite abounded, towarde all men to the iustification of life. Where there are added to the text of the Apostle, sixe wordes: and the same so wilfully and voluntarily, that by the three first, they make the Apostle say, sinne came on all men by Adam, and they were made sinners in deede: by the three later, they make him say, not that iustice or righteousnesse came likewise on all men by Christe, to make them iust in deede, but that the benefite of Christes iustice a∣bounded towards them, as being imputed forsooth vnto them. Whereas, if they woulde needes adde to the texte (whiche yet is intollerable, so muche, and in so doubtfull a case) they shoulde at the least haue made the case equall, as the A∣postle him selfe teacheth them to doe, in the very nexte sen∣tence, saying thus, For as by one mans disobedience ma∣ny were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many also be made righteous. So they translate, rather than, be made iust. For they are the lothest men in the world to say that we are made iust, for feare of iustice inherent in vs, though the Scripture be neuer so plaine. As here wee see the

Apostle maketh the case like, that we are made iust by Christ, as wee were made sinners by Adam.

Fulke.

THis one place is deliuered from your vaine cauillation, Cap. 1. Sect. 23. when the sentence is ecclipticall or defe∣ctiue, they that will translate to haue it vnderstoode, muste needes supply the woordes that are wanting. And where shall they finde what wordes are lac∣king, but in the same place, and in the treatie of the same matter? It appeareth you had rather the texte had no sense, than that it mighte seeme to make against your blasphemie of iustice inherent. As for that fonde quar∣rell of yours, that they be not iust in deede, to whom the iustice of Christe (whiche you like an helhound doe scorne at) is imputed, deserueth no answere. For who is such a blocke, to say or thinke, that those whom God doth iustifie, are not made iuste in deede? Was not A∣braham iust in deede, when God imputed his faith vn∣to iustice? Is not he made riche in deede, which is made rich by an other mans gifte? Christe is giuen vnto vs of God to be iustice, wisedome, sanctification, & in him we are iust, wise, and holie, not in our owne righteousnesse, wisedome, or holinesse. As for adding to the text, God knoweth how we abhorre it, but adding of words which do explicate the sense of the holyghost, is no additiō for∣biddē, for then all preaching were accursed, which is, or ought to be nothing els, but an explaining & settīg forth of the worde of God, in more words, the matter wherof (though in fewerwords) is cōteined in the scripture. And if we speake of adding of wordes in translation, haue I not shewed before, that you haue added many? some in deede vpon necessarie cause, & some without necessitie.

What needed you to say for Poeniterent, they had done penance, Luc. 10. for In omnibus bonis, in all his goodes, Gen. 6. for separamini, separate your selues, 2 Cor. 6. &c. To say wee are iustified, and to say we are made iuste, is all one: and therefore I meruayle why you thinke vs loth to say the one, rather than the other. Is any man so senselesse to thinke wee can say, a man is made righte∣ous, and dare not say he is made iuste. I tell you plaine∣ly, we defie the heresie of righteousnesse inherent, as much as of iustice inherent. We are iuste, we are righte∣ous in the sight of God, not by the iustice or righte∣ousnesse of our workes: but by the iustice or righteous∣nesse of Christe imputed to vs through faith. And we are made iuste by Christe, as wee were made sinners by A∣dam▪ in some respect, but not in euery respect, for the Apostle maketh a broade difference betweene the trans∣gression and the benefite Rom. 5. v. 15. and other diffe∣rences there be, which none, but a Pelagian, will denie. Nay Pelagius will not say, that we are iust by Christ ac∣cording to propagation: but according to faith.

MART. 2. And it is a worlde to see, how Beza shifteth from one signification of the word iustified, or, made iust, to an other. Sometime to be iustified, is to be pronounced qui••••e from all sinne, or declared iust before Gods indgement seate: and so ••e ••rāslateth it in the text Act. 13. v. 39. and as though his guil∣ty conscience were afraide of a blowe, he saith he fleeth not the terme of iustifying or iustification, because he vseth it in other places. He doth so in deede, but thē his cōmentarie supplieth the ••urne: as Ro. 2. v 13. Not y^t hearers of y^e law are RIGHTE∣OVS before God (so they delight to translate, rather than, IVST before God) but the doers of the Lawe shall be IVSTIFIED, that is (saith Beza) shal be pronoūced iust. The Apostle must needes say by the coherence and consequence of his words, no•• the hearers are iust, but the do••rs shall be iuste or iustified. Beza wil in no case haue it so, but either in text or cōmētarie make the Apostle say as him self imagineth. Yet in an other place he protesteth very solemnely, that to be iustified, is

not to be pronounced or accounted iuste, but rather to be iuste in deede: and that, he prooueth out of S. Paule. Ro. 5. v. 19. who maketh it all one, to be iustified, and, to be made iust. And againe by this reason, that it shoulde bee manifestly re∣pugnant to Gods iustice, to account him for iuste, that is not iuste, and therfore that man in deede is made iust. Thus Beza. Woulde you not thinke, hee were come to bee of our opinion? but hee reuolteth againe, and interpreateth all these goodly wordes in his olde sense, saying, Not that any qualitie is in∣wardly giuen vnto vs, of which wee are named iust: but because the iustice of Christe is imputed to vs by faith freely. By faith then at the least we are truly iustified. Not so neither, but faith (sayth he) is an instrument wherewith we apprehende Christ our iustice. So that we haue no more iustice in vs, than we haue glorie: for glorie also we apprehend by faith.

FVLK. 2. Al learned mē I hope do see, that you haue no regarde, how vainely you cauil, so you may seeme to the ignorant to say somthing against thē that be godly and learned. Act. 13. v. 39. Beza translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ab∣solui, that is (saith hee) to bee declared iust, or absolued. and giueth this reason, why he vseth not the worde iusti∣fica••i in that place which he vseth elsewhere.

Ne quis illud ab omnibus, perinde acciperet ac si casus esset modi, aut instru∣menti, per quod iusti••icemur, id est, iustifiamus, ac pronuncie∣mur, aut pro iustis habeamur, hoc quidem loco malui absoluē∣di verbum vsurpare. vt magis perspicua esset oratio: Least a∣nie man should take this worde of the texte ab omnibus, as though it were the case of the meane, or instrument, by which we are iustified, that is, made and pronounced iust, or accounted for iuste. In this place I chose rather to vse the worde of absoluing, that the sentence mighte bee more cleare. The Latine ab omnibus, may signifie by all things▪ or from all things.

Therefore, leaste anye manne shoulde mistake the Apostle, as thoughe hee saide wee are iustified by all those thinges, where hee meaneth wee are iustified from all thinges, Beza in

this place vseth the worde of absoluing or acquitting, in the same sense that he doth iustifying in other places, where hee speaketh of the same matter: and sayeth as plainely as a man can speake, that to be iustified, and to be made iuste, or pronounced, or accompted iust bee∣fore God is all one. Yet our Momus findeth faulte with him, for expounding, to be iustified, Rom. 2. v. 13. to bee pronounced iuste, as thoughe God will pronounce anye man iuste, whiche is not iuste indeede. But Beza (hee saith) elsewhere, protesteth that to be iustified, is not to be pronounced or accompted iuste, but rather to be iust indeede. If Martin hadde not beelyed Beza, we shoulde haue hadde Bezaes wordes sette downe, bothe in Latine and Englishe. But in truth Beza hath no suche words: yet in sense he hath thus muche, that to be iustified be∣fore God, is to be iuste indeede, and not to bee onely pronounced or accompted iuste, when hee is not so in deede. But that wee are made truely iust indeede, by the iustice of Christe, whiche is imputed vnto vs freely by faith. And as for that newe life or iustice whiche is called inherēt in vs, it is not the cause but the witnes of that iustice, by imputation of whiche, wee are saued, folowing him that is iustified, and not going before iu∣stification: and faith indede, is the instrument by which we apprehend Christ our iustice. Neither doth Beza say, that we are not truely iustified by faith: but that faith is not the principall efficient cause, which is the mercie of God, but the instrumentall cause, by whiche wee take holde of the mercie of God in Christe. In al this, Beza hath said nothing contrarie to himself, nor to the truth. And it is no absurditie to say, that the iustice of Christe, by which we are iustified is no more inherent in vs, than his glorie. And yet both assured vnto vs by faith. As for that iustice, whiche is an effect of Gods sanctifying spi∣rite, and a fruite of our iustification beefore God, by whiche also we are iustified, or declared iuste beefore men, as S. Iames teacheth, is inherēt in vs: as also the first

fruits of glorification, by that peace of cōscience, & ioy that we haue in God, being reconciled to vs by Christ.

MART. 3. For this purpose bothe hee and the En∣glishe Bibles translate thus: Abraham beleeued God, and it was reputed to him FOR IVSTICE, Rom. 4. v. 3. & 9. Where he interpreateth, for iustice, to be nothing else but. in the steede & place of iustice: so also taking away true inhe∣rent iustice euen from Abraham himselfe. But to admit their translation (whiche notwithstanding in their sense is moste false) must it nedes signifie, not true inherent iustice, because the Scripture saith, it was reputed for iustice? Do such spea∣ches import, that it is not so in deede, but is onely reputed so? Then if wee say, This shall be reputed to thee for sinne: for a greate benefite, and so foorth: it shoulde signifie, it is no sinne indeede, nor great benefite. But let them call to mind, that the Scripture vseth to speake of sinne and of iustice alike. It shal be sinne in thee, or, vnto thee, as they translate Bibl. 1577: or as S. Hierome translateth, It shall bee reputed to thee for sinne, Deut. c. 23. & 24. & (as themselues translate) it shall be righteousnesse vnto thee, before the Lord thy God. And againe, Deut. c. 6. This shall bee our righteous∣nes before the Lord our God, if we kepe al the com∣maundements, as he hath commaunded vs. If then iustice onely be reputed▪ sinne also is onely reputed: if sin bee in v•• in∣deede, iustice is in vs indeede.

FVLK. 3. Our translation taketh not from Abra∣ham true iustice, nor yet iustice inherent, but declareth that he was not iustified before God by workes, that is by iustice inherent, but by faith whyche apprehen∣deth the iustice of Christ, whych is altogyther without vs. And therefore you cauil in your olde rotten quarrell, when you goe aboute to make reputed to bee contrarie to truthe, or indeede. Faith was reputed by God to A∣braham for iustice indeede, but not as iustice inherent. And Abrahā was truly iustified by faith as by an instru∣mentall cause, not that faith was the iustice by which he was iust in the sight of God, excluding all other causes:

but there was nothing in Abrahā but faith which God accompted for iustice. But Abrahams faith embraced the mercie of God in the promised seede, in whiche as well hee, as all the tribes of the earth should be blessed. The places of scripture that you cite speaking of sinne & iustice alike, be not contrary to the imputation of iu∣stice vnto them in which it is not inherent. For in nei∣ther of both places the holy ghost vseth the word of im∣putation, howsoeuer S. Hierome translateth it, but the verbe substantiue. And the meaning is plaine. It shal be sinne in thee: for sinne is indeede inherent, as perfecte iustice also shoulde bee if wee coulde obserue all the commaundements of God as Moses sayeth. Deut. 6. and we shoulde be iustified thereby. But by one iuste acte whereof Moses speaketh, Deut. 24. thoughe it proceede of iustice that is in vs, the scripture neuer saith that wee shall be iustified. To conclude, wee confesse, that bothe sinne and iustice are in the children of God, but not that iustice, whereby they are reputed iuste or iustified, or made iuste beefore God, but an effecte or fruite there∣of.

MART. 4. Againe the Greeke fathers make it plaine, that to be reputed vnto iustice, is to be true iustice in deede, interpreating S. Paules worde in Greeke, thus: Abraham ob∣tained iustice, Abraham was iustified. For that is, say they: It was reputed him to iustice. Doth not S. Iames say the like (cap. 2. verse. 23.) testifying, that in that Abraham was iustified by faith and workes, the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, it was reputed him to iustice? Gen. Cap. 15. verse. 6. In whiche wordes of Genesis, where these wordes were firste written by Moyses, in the Hebrewe, there is not, for iustice, or in steede of iustice, (whiche Beza pleadeth vppon, by the Hebrewe phrase) but thus, He (God) reputed it vnto him, iustice, though heere also the Englishe Bibles adde, for. Whiche precisely translating the Hebrewe they shoulde not do, specially when they meane it was so counted or reputed for iu∣stice, that it was not iustice indeede.

FVLK. 4. I knowe not against whome you fight, but against your owne shadow. For we say, that to be iustified, and be reputed iust, and to obtaine iustice, is all one in this case. But where S. Iames sayth, that Abraham was iustified by workes, he meaneth, that he was decla∣red iust before men, euen as he sayth, shewe me thy faith by thy workes, for Abraham was not iustified by a dead faith, but by a working faith: and yet he was not iustifi∣ed before God by workes, but the Scripture was fulfil∣led which sayd, Abraham beleued God, and it was repu∣ted to him for iustice, which is as S. Paule expoundeth it, Abraham was iustified before God, by faith, and not by workes, But in Gen. 15. v. 6. there is not the preposi∣tion (for) or (in steede) but simply iustice; therefore it should be translated he reputed it to him iustice. And will you then controule both the Apostles, Paule, and Iames, for adding the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which signifieth vn∣to, or for? Or will not common sense inforce the same vnderstanding that both the Apostles doe giue it? He reputed it to him as iustice, or for iustice. Must not such particles in translation be alwayes expressed, to make the sense plaine, which in English without the particle, hath no sense or vnderstanding? To translate precisely out of the Hebrew, is not to obserue the number of wordes, but the perfect sense and meaning of them, in fewer or more wordes, as the phrase of our tongue will serue to be vnderstood: or else 2. Cor. 8. qui multum, why do you translate, he that had much? and, qui modicum non minorauit, he that had litle wanted not? you should haue said which much, & which little not lessed, if you would haue giuen word for word, and not added any word for explication. Againe, 2. Cor. 1. Supra virtutem, aboue our power, why adde you (our) which is not in the text? and in deede not necessarie to be added in the translation? Againe, 1. Cor. 13. Euacuaui quae erant paruuli, I did away the things that belonged to a litle one. Here for foure Latine wordes you haue giuen tenne or eleuen English

wordes, which no reasonable man can greatly mislike, if you were not such a quarreller at other mens doing, without all cause, or wise colour, but onely to bleare the eyes of the ignorant.

MART. 5. But as for either the Hebrew or Greeke word, that is here vsed, to repute or account, they are then vsed, whē it must needes signifie, that the thing is so in deed, and not one∣ly so reputed. as Psal. 118. octonario SAMEC. I haue repu∣ted or accounted all the sinners of the earth, preuarica∣tors or transgressors. praeuaricantes reputaui. So did the Septuaginta take the Hebrew word, and read it. And S. Paule, So let a man repute or account vs as the Ministers of Christ. Let them goe now and say, that neyther they, were sinn••rs in deede, nor these, Christes ministers in deede, because they were reputed for such. let them saye the children of the promise were not the seede of Abraham, because the Apostle sayth, Rom. 9. v. 8. they are reputed for the seede. But howsoeuer it be, the Protestants will haue it so to be taken, at the least in the matter of iustification.

FVLK. 5. Silence were the beste aunswer to these tedious repetitions. It were sufficient once to saye a∣mong reasonable men. When faith is reputed by God, or accounted for iustice, faith is truely and in deede the instrumentall cause of iustification, or apprehending the iustice of Christ, by which we are accounted and made iust in the sight of God. It is therefore a most ri∣diculous cauill of the difference betwene reputing iust, and being iust in deede. For God when he iustifieth the vngodly, doth both repute him, and make him iust in deede, by the iustice of Christ, of his owne meere mercye, and not of the mans merits, or by iustice in∣herent. For what iustice can be in an v••godly man? and such is euery one of vs, whome God doth iustifie, and then giue vs his holy spirit, to sanctifie vs in newnesse of life, to set forth his glorie in our holye and blamelesse conuersation.

MART. 6. Againe, where Saint Paule sayth, 2. Cor.

5. That wee mighte bee made the iustice of God in him: they in their firste translations, intolerably corrupte i•• thus: That wee by his meanes should bee that righte∣ousnesse, which BEFORE GOD IS ALLOW∣ED. Who ••aught them to translate so dissolutely, Iustitia Dei, the righteousnesse which before God is allow∣ed? did not their errour and heresie, which is, that God re∣puteth and accounteth vs for iuste, though wee bee in deede moste foule sinners, and that our iustice beyng none at all in vs, yet is allowed and accepted before him for iustice and righteousnesse?

FVLK. 6. There is no texte in all the Bible more cleare against iustification by iustice inhae••ent. than this 2. Corinth. 5. wherein not altogither causelesse you reproue our firste interpreters to translate dissolutely. There it is certaine they had no suche purpose as you ascribe vnto them. For their translation dothe rather obscure than sette out our iustification by the iustice which is not in vs, but in Christ. The texte is there∣fore playne: him that knewe no sinne, he made sinne for vs, that wee might become the iustice of God in him, that is in Christ, and not in our sel••es. For though we be in deede most foule sinners, and all our iustice be (as the Prophete saith) as a menstruous cloth: yet in Christe he washeth and cleanseth vs from our sinnes, and reputing his iustice as ours, he maketh vs truly iuste before him, not hauing our owne iustice whiche is of the lawe, but the iustice which is by faith of Iesus Christe, the iustice which is of God through faith. Where you charge vs to affirme, that our iustice being none at all in vs, yet is allowed and accepted before hym for iustice and righteousnesse, it is no assertion of ours, but a dogged slaunder of your owne.

MART. 7. Againe to this purpose: they make S. Paul saie that God hath made vs accepted, or freely accepted in his beloued sonne as they make the Angel in S. Luke say to our Lady, Haile freely beloued: to take away all grace inherent

and resident in the B. Virgin, or in vs: whereas the Apostles worde signifieth, that wee are truely made gratious or gratefull and acceptable, that is to say, that our soule is inwardly endued and beautified with grace and the vertues proceeding thereof, and consequently is holy in deede before the sight of God, and not only so accepted or reputed, as they imagine. If they know not the true signification of the Greeke worde, and if their he∣resie will suffer them to learne it, let them heare S. Chrysostome not only a famous Greeke Doctor, but an excellent interpreter of all S. Paules epistles: who in this place putteth such force and significancie in the Greeke worde, that he saith thus by an allusion and distinction of wordes: He said not, WHICH HE FREELY GAVE VS, but, WHEREIN HE MADE VS GRATEFVL, that is, not onely dely∣uered vs from sinne, but also made vs beloued and ami∣able, made our soule beautiful, grateful, such as the An∣gels and Archangels are desirous to see, and such as him∣selfe is in loue withal, according to that in the Psalme, THE KING SHALL DESIRE, or BE IN LOVE WITH THY BEAVTIE. So S. Chrysostome, and after him Theophylacte, who with many moe wordes and similitudes explicate this Greeke worde, and this making of the soule gra∣tious and beautifull inwardly, truely, and inherently.

FVLK. 7. Wee make S. Paule saye no otherwise, than hee saith in deede: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hee hath made vs ac∣cepted, or he hath freely accepted vs in his beloued son. And so we truely say, the blessed Virgin Mary was freely accepted, or freely beloued. But this taketh not away the gratious gifts of God, which the blessed Virgin in most plentifull maner was, and we in some measure are indu∣ed by his grace and fauor, which also God loueth in vs, because they be his giftes, and because he loueth vs free∣ly in his beloued sonne, whom alwaies you forget, when you speake of iustice, or acceptation before God. For that being sanctified by his spirite, we are holie indeed, thoughe not perfectly, as sanctification is begunne, and not consummate in this life: for if it were, we should be

voyd of sinne, & death, we doe thankfully acknowledge, yet those vertues wherewith our soule is inwardly indu∣ed and beautified, are not the cause that iustifieth vs, or maketh vs acceptable in Gods sight: but onely his mer∣cie in Iesus Christ, for whose sake also, he accepteth this vnperfect holines and righteousnes, which is in vs by his grace and gift, rewarding the same for his sake also with euerlasting glorie. And nothing else doth Chrysostome say, or meane in the place by you cited, about whom you make so many wordes, that you might be thought, by giuing him his due praise, to haue him as it were bound to you, to maintaine your vnrighteous cause. But Chry∣sostome careth not for your commendation, and that which he sayth, maketh nothing for iustice inherent, by which we shoulde be iustified: for he sayth not so much, as that our soule is made amiable and beautiful by ver∣tues and good qualities infused by his grace, much lesse that for such qualities inherent in vs, GOD shoulde iustifie vs, but hee haeth made vs acceptable in Christe, amiable, and beautiful, and louely to the Angels: some effect of which grace, also appeareth in our life and conuersation, to the praise of God, and good example of men.

MART. 8. And I would gladly knowe of the aduersaries, if the like Greeke wordes be not of that forme and nature, to sig∣nifie so much as to make worthy, to make meete: & whe∣ther he whome God maketh worthy, or meete, or gratefull, iust, and holy, be not so in very deede, but by acceptation onely▪ if not in deede, then God maketh him no better than he was before, but only accepteth him for better: if he be so in deede, then the A∣postles word signifieth not, to make accepted, but to make such an one as being by Gods grace sanctified and iustified, is worthy to be accepied, for such puritie, vertue, and iustice, as is in him.

FVLK. 8. I haue told you before, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signi∣fieth not to make worthye, but to account worthye, for many a man may desire (vsing this verbe) to be accoū∣ted worthy of him, which can not make him worthy, but

in his owne iudgement and account. But where you de∣maund further, whether he whome God maketh meete, worthy, gratefull, iust, holy, be not so in deede, but by ac∣ceptation onely: I aunswer, those whome he accepteth for worthy, meete, iust, holy, gratefull, are so in deede: but then it is further to be knowen, whether they be such in them selues, or in Christ. We say they are not such in them selues, but in Christ. Then are they made nothing better (say you) in them selues. Yes verily, as soone as they are accepted to be Gods children, and the iustice of Christ is imputed to thē through faith, they receiue the spirite of adoption, which reneweth them in the inwarde man, and beginneth in them holines, and iustice, pu∣ritie, vertue: but because all these qualities are vnper∣fect, they are not worthy in Gods iustice to be accepted for them, but the cause of their acceptation, is still the mercie of God in Christ, in whome both they, and their vnperfecte good qualities are accepted to re∣ward.

MART. 9. Againe, for this purpose (Dan. 6. 22.) they will not translate according to Chaldee, Greeke, and Latine, Iu∣stice was founde in me. but they alter it thus, My iustice was found out. and other of them, My vnguiltinesse was found out. to draw it from inherent iustice, which was in Da∣niel.

FVLK. 9. I can but wonder at your impudence and malice, which saye so confidently, that for this purpose they translated thus: Would any man by the iustice, or innocencie that was in Daniel, or in any iust man, feare lest any thing should be detracted from the iustice of Christ, whereby Daniel, and all iust men, are iustified in Gods sight? Well, let that purpose rest in Gods iudge∣ment, as Daniels iustice did, when he was shamefully slaundered. But what is the fault of the translation? Ac∣cording to the Chaldee, Greeke, and Latine, it should be, Iustice is found in me. For Greeke and Latine, we will not contende, because we translate not Daniel out of

Greeke, and Latine, but out of the Chaldee. But in good sadnes, are you so deepely seene in Chaldee, that you will auouch the proper signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be in me. A hū∣dreth boyes in Cambridge knowe, that it signifieth as well in Chaldee, as in Hebrew, to me, rather than in me. But moste properly haue our translators expressed the phrase in English, saying, my iustice, or vnguiltines was found out: for of a vertue inherent, Daniel speaketh otherwise, Dan. 2. v. 30. to the king 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not by wisedome, which is in mee. So that heere your quarrell bewrayeth more spite than wit, more malice than learning.

MART. 10. Againe, it must needes be a spot of the same infection, that they translate thus, As Dauid DESCRI∣BETH the blessednes of the man, vnto whome God imputeth righteousnes. Rom. 4. 6. as though imputed righte∣ousnes were the description of blessednes. They knowe▪ the Greeke doth not signifie, to describe. I woulde once see them precise in following the Greeke, and the Hebrew▪ if not, we must looke to their fingers.

FVLK. 10. It must needes come of an high wit, to haue such deepe insight into other mens intents, & pur∣poses. But why I praye you, is not righteousnes imputed by God, &c. and so forth, as Paule sayth, a description of mans blessednes. If they had sayd, defineth, where they saye, describeth, you would haue made much a doe. But can you not allowe this, that the Prophet sayth, to be a description of mans blessednesse? howsoeuer it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth not to describe, but to speake, to saye, to pronounce, and in effect, there is nothing els meant by the worde▪ describeth, here vsed, but that Dauid pronounceth or setteth forth the blessednesse of man in such wordes. You in your translation saye, termeth, as Dauid termeth, which if you meane it not scornefully, commeth as neare a definition, as, describeth, the worde which we vse, and our, describeth, is as neare the Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as your, termeth, is to the Latine dicit.

But looke to our fingers, and spare not to tell vs where you see vs goe wide from the Greeke or Hebrew, but if you doe nothing but trifle and quarrell, as you haue done hetherto, be sure we will be bold to beshrew your fingers▪ and hit you on the thumbes now and then also to your discredite.

Notes

• 1
• Annot, in Rom. 5. 18.
• Rom. 5.
• 1
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. absolui. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. absoluitur.
• Ius••i pronuntia∣bu••••••••.
• Annot. Ro. 3. v 20.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Non quasi nobis indatur qualitas.
• Annot. in Ro. 4. v. 2▪
• Pro iustitia. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Vice & loco.
• Reputabitur tibi in peccatum.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• Oecum in caten. Phot••ni▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. Cor. 4.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Bib. 1562. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Philip. 3.
• 1. Eph. v. 6.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.