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. 17.

Hereticall translations against the blessed Sacra∣ment, and Sacrifice, and Altar.

NOW let vs see concerning the Eucharist, which they allow for a Sacrament, how they handle the matter to the disgracing and de∣facing of the same also. They take away the operation and efficacie of Christes blessing* 1.1 pronounced vpon the bread and wine, ma∣king it onely a thankesgiuing to God: and to this purpose they translate more gladly, thanks-giuing then, blessing▪ as Mat. 26. the Greeke wordes being two, the one signifying properly, to blesse: the other, to giue thanks: they translate both thus,* 1.2 when he had giuen thanks. Likewise Marc. 14. in the Bi∣ble printed 1562. And when they translate it, blessing, they meane nothing else but giuing thankes, as Beza telleth vs in his Annotations Mat. 26. ver. 26. Wee reply and by most ma∣nifest Scripture prooue vnto them, that the former Greeke woorde doeth not signifie thankes giuing properly, but blessing, and a blessing of creatures to the operation of some great effect

in them: as when Christ tooke the fiue loaues and two fishes, to multiply them, he blessed them Luc. 9. What say they to this* 1.3 thinke you? Doth not the Greeke worde here plainly signifie, blessing of creatures? No, (saith Beza) no doubt but here also it signifieth giuing thankes. Howe Beza? he addeth, Not as though Christ had giuen thankes to the bread, for that were too absurd: but wee must mollifie this in∣terpretation thus, that he gaue thankes to God the fa∣ther for the loaues and the fishes. Is not this a notable ex∣position of these wordes, benedixit eis?

FVLK. 1

THE Sacrament of the bodie & bloud of Christ beeing a matter of some great weight & controuersie between vs, you might not omit but note our false translations against it. But be∣cause wee haue dealt so syncerely as malice hath nothing to blame therein, you must fayne a quarrell and forge a controuersie where none is be∣tweene vs, namely, that we take away Christes blessing pronounced vpon the bread and wine making it onely a thanksgiuing vnto God: which is a false and impu∣dent slander, as in that which followeth concerning this matter most plainly shall appeare euen by testimo∣nie of him whom you doe most slaunder in this case. But let vs see what fault is in our translation. Math. 26. and Ma••. 14. two of our translations for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 say, when he had giuen thankes. To this I answere, that Beza telleth you that in seuen Greeke copies the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth giuing of thankes, with∣out controuersie, as also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth, but not onely so expressing rather the Hebrue worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which si∣gnifieth

both to blesse, and to giue thankes. But seeing Saint Luke and S. Paul reporting the institution of the supper doe vse the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifieth giuing of thankes: wee count them the best interpre∣tors of the other two Euangelists which plainly teache vs that by blessing they meane giuing of thankes, or that the Greeke worde doeth here signifie giuing of thankes as in manie other places. The place Luke. 9. where Christ blessed the loaues is also interpreted by S. Iohn who reporting the same miracle (as Beza she∣weth) vseth the word which signifieth only thankes gi∣uing, but because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in Luke vsed as a verbe transitiue, which cannot signifie thanks giuing or pray∣er made to the creatures, wee must vnderstand, that hee blessed the loaues, that is he gaue thankes to God for them, and with all prayed, that so small a quantitie of bread and fish might feede so great a multitude, and that this whole feast might be referred to the glorie of God. This is Bezaes interpretation, which because it was too long for your quarrell you cut off the better part of it, and like a grinning hypocrite scoffe at a piece as though it were the whole exposition of these words henedixit eis he blessed them.

MART. 2. Wee aske him in the like cases, when God blessed Adam and Eue, Gen. 1. & 9. Noe and his children, saying, Increase and multiplie: when hee blessed the* 1.4 children of Israel, and they multiplyed exceedingly, when hee blessed the latter things of Iob more than the first, Iob. 42. Was this also a giuing of thankes, and not an effectuall blessing vppon these creatures? What will they say, or what difference will they make? As God bles∣sed here, so hee was God and man that blessed the loaues and fishes there. If they will say hee did it as man, and therefore it was a giuing of thankes to God his father: to omit that hee blessed them as hee multiplyed them, that is, rather ac∣cording to his diuine nature than humane: we aske them, when he blessed as man, was it alwaies giuing of thankes? he blessed

the litle children, he blessed his disciples, when he ascended:* 1.5 was this giuing thankes for them, as Beza expoundeth his bles∣sing of the loaues and fishes? When * 1.6 we blesse the table or the meate vpon the table, When S. Paul saith, 1. Timoth. 4. all meate is lawefull that is sanctified by the worde and by praier: is all this nothing but giuing thankes? So sayeth Beza in expresse wordes.

FVLK. 2. When I see those often most impudent in∣uectiues against Beza and other, I muse with my selfe whether you haue read Beza, and the other your selfe, or whether you giue credit to some malicious cauiller who is set on worke to picke quarels out of other mens writings to serue your turne. But when I consider all circumstances of euerie place, and namely howe you obiect against Beza, that which he sayth of the blessing or consecrating of our ordinary meates and drinkes, I thinke it is not like but that you haue reade the places your selfe. And then of all that euer I knewe, I must e∣steeme you the furthest from synceritie & honest dea∣ling, that so often, so openly, so confidently, so purpo∣sedly commit so vile and shamefull forgerie. Beza saith that our meate is sanctified by the worde of God and prayer and thankesgiuing. For the 1. Tim. 4. the Apo∣stle ioyneth both as heere Luke 9. we must ioyne both together. For partly for the meate giuen to vs thankes is giuen to God: partely petition is made that we may vse it purely and soberly, that we may spende the rest of our life in the worshippe of God. Heereof it com∣meth that Christians are saide to blesse the table, and to consecrate the table, whereas yet this blessing per∣taineth not to the meates themselues, but to God ra∣ther, and them that shalbe partakers of them. But in the cuppe of blessing which we blesse (as it is written. 1. cor. 10. v. 16.) although the worde of blessing may bee expounded after the same manner, yet the ende of the blessing is altogether diuerse, as in due place wee shall expounde. These are the wordes of Beza. Is all this

nothing but giuing of thankes?

MART. 3 Wee goe forwarde, and prooue the contrarie yet more manifestly, in the verie matter of the blessed Sacra∣ment, for the which they multiplie all the foresaide absurdities. Wee tell them that Saint Paul sayeth thus, The chalice of* 1.7 blessing, which wee blesse, is it not, &c. howe coulde hee speake more plainely, that the chalice or cup (meaning that in the cup) is blessed? Which S. Cyprian de Coen. Dom. expli∣cateth thus, Calix solenni benedictione sacratus, The* 1.8 Chalice consecrated by solemne blessing. Oecumenius thus▪ The Chalice which blessing wee prepare. that is, which wee blesse and so prepare, for so it must signifie, and not as Beza would haue it, which with thankes giuing wee prepare. and that I prooue by his owne wordes immediatly* 1.9 before, where hee sayeth that the Greeke worde beeing vsed of the Apostle transitiuely, that is, with a case following, cannot signifie giuing thankes. Howe then can it so signifie in Oecu∣menius wordes, who doeth interprete the Apostles meaning by the Apostles owne wordes and phrase? yea (that you may note a notorious contradiction) how doeth Beza then in the place of Luke before alleaged (where the same Greeke worde is a plaine transitiue as in this place) expound is of giuing thanks* 1.10 for the bread and fishes? A lyer (they say) must bee minde∣full, to make his tale agree in euerie point. Hee that before forced the worde in euerie sentence to bee nothing else but thankes giuing▪ euen when it was a plaine transitiue, now con∣fesseth that hee neuer read it in that signification, when it is a transitiue. and so wee haue that the blessing of the cup or of the bread, is not giuing thankes as they either translate, or in∣terprete it.

FVLK. 3. I must continue my admiration of your impudence, for Beza saith expressely in this place 1. cor. 10. that to blesse here is to sanctifie or consecrate, be∣cause that the ordinance of God being rehearsed and set foorth the breade and wine are appointed to this holy vse, that they should be the sacramentes of the true and naturall bodie and bloud of Christ, that is the

signes & pledges thereof, & that in such sort, y^t the same thing which is signified, is offred to vs to be receiued spi ritually. And because this whole actiō is ioined with the praise of God, & solemne thanksgiuing, therefore I e∣steeme y^t S. Paul signified this whole matter in the verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So y^t in my iudgemēt Oecumenius hath plainly & briefely expounded 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is which w^t praise & thanksgiuing we prepare. Which I admonish, (lest a∣ny man should think y^t by the terme of consecration, we meane any magical incantatiō.) That you would proue by Bezaes words, y^t he hath not iustly explicated y^e mea ning of Oecumenius, it is too too beyond all measure of impudēce. For Beza not contrarying y^t which he said before, sheweth how the cup is blessed, sanctified, con∣secrated, namely by prayer, praise of God, & thanksgi∣uing. For which he cyteth Chrysostō who expoundeth these words of S. Paul (which we blesse) to mean which we receiue with thanksgiuing. As for y^c place of S. Luke 9. Beza himself cyteth it, & manie other like, to prooue that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 w^t an accusatiue case signifieth to blesse, to sanctifie, to consecrate, as also in y^t place Luke. 9. he ex∣poundeth it. And yet you wil make him a lier, forgetting what tale he told before. In deed y^t rule you giue, is meet for a craftie lyer, that hath some care to maintaine his credite. But such an impudent lyer & shamelesse forger as you are, hath no regarde of any thing, but to de∣ceiue them whose ignorance and simplicitie is such as they neither can, nor care to examine your slanders.

MART. 4 And surely in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this is most eui∣dent, that it signifieth in this case the blessing & consecration of the creature or element: in so much that S. Basil & S. Chry∣sostom in their Liturgies or Masses say thus by the same Greek* 1.11 word: Blesse o Lord the sacred bread. & Blesse o Lorde the sacred cup. & why or to what effect? It followeth, chan∣ging it by the holie spirite. Where is signified the trans∣mutation and consecration thereof into the bodie and bloud. But in the other worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there may be some question, because it signifieth properly to giue thankes, & therefore may

seeme to be referred to God onely, and not to the element, and, creature. But this also we finde contrarye in the Greeke fa∣thers, who vse this worde also transitiuely, saying, panem & * 1.12 calicem eucharistisatos, or, panem in quo gratiae actae sunt. that is the bread and the cuppe made the Eucharist: the bread ouer which thankes are giuen: that is, which by the worde of prayer, and thankes-giuing is made a consecrated meate, the fleshe and bloud of Christ, as S. Iustine in fine 2. Apologo, and Saint Irenaeus, lib. 4. 34 in the same places, expound it. Whereas it may also signifie that, for which thankes are giuen in that most solemne sacrifice of the Eucharist, as S. Deny•• in one place seemeth to take it. Eccl. Hi∣er.* 1.13 c. 3. in fine. Who in the selfe same chapter, speaketh of the consecration thereof, most euidently.

FVLK. 4. That the creatures, or elements, are bles∣sed, and consecrated, that by the working of Gods spi∣rite, they shoulde bee chaunged into the bodye and bloud of Christ, after a diuine and spirituall manner, vnto the worthye receyuers, Beza, and we agree with the Greeke Liturgies. But that this blessing is perfor∣med by the worde of God, prayer, and thankes-gi∣uing, both Iustinus, and Irenaeus, doe most plainely testifie with Beza, and vs. When the mixed cuppe, and bread, sayth Irenaeus, receyueth the worde of God, it is made the Eucharist, &c. The breade on which, or for* 1.14 which, thankes is giuen. The bread which is of the earth, receyuing the vocation, or inuocation of God. So sayth Iustinus, the meate for which thankes are giuen▪ by the worde of prayer, which is receyued from him, and speaking of the verie manner of the consecration, vsed in his tyme. When the breade, and wine, with water, is offered: the chiefe Minister sendeth forthe prayers, and thankes-giuing, with all his might, and the people consenteth, saying, Amen. Then followeth the distribution, and participation of those thinges, for which thankes was giuen to euery one, &c. As for the Magicall mysteries of Dionyse, although in this be∣halfe,

they make nothing againste vs, we make not so great account of, that we will stand to his iudgement a∣ny more, than you to his practise.

MART. 5. Whereby we haue to note, that the Here∣tikes in vrging the worde, Eucharist, as meere thankes-gi∣uing, thereby to take away blessing, and consecration, of the e∣lements of bread and wine, doe vnlearnedly, and deceitfully. because all the fathers make mention of both: Saint Paule also calleth it, blessing of the chalice, which the Euangelistes call, giuing of thankes. Whose wordes Theophylacte explica∣teth thus. THE CHALICE OF BLESSING, that is, of the Eucharist. For holding it in our handes, we blesse it, and giue thankes to him that shedde his bloud for vs. See here both blessing, and Eucharist, blessing the chalice, and thankes-giuing to Christ. Saint Iames, and the Greeke fathers* 1.15 in their Liturgies, put both wordes in the consecration of eche element, saying thus, giue thankes, sanctifying, breaking: and, giuing thankes, blessing, sanctifying: and, taking* 1.16 the cuppe, giuing thankes, sanctifying, blessing, fil∣ling it with the holy Ghost, he gaue it to vs his Disci∣ples. Saint Chrysostome, who in many places of his workes speaketh much of thankes-giuing in these holy mysteries, doth he not as often speake of the blessing, consecration, yea, and the transmutation thereof, and that with what wordes, and by what power it is done? Doth not Saint Augustine saye of the same,* 1.17 benedicitur, & sanctificatur, it is blessed, and sanctifi∣ed,* 1.18 who often speaketh of the solemne giuing of thankes in the sacrifice of the Church? Doth not the Church at this daye, vse the very same termes, as in Saint Augustines time, Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro, Let vs giue thankes to the Lord our God. and, Verè dignum & iustum est, sem∣per & vbique tibi gratias agere, &c. It is very meete and right, alwayes, and in all places, to giue thee thanks: Which the Greeke Church also in their Liturgies expresse most aboundantly? yet doth there follow blessing, and conse∣cration, and whatsoeuer Saint Ambrose describeth to be done in this holye sacrifice, touching this poynt, writing thereof

moste excellently in his booke, de ijs qui initiantur myste∣rijs, c 9.

FVLK. 5. If it were to proue any thing that we de∣ny, you would be as bare and hungry, as nowe you are franke and plentifull of your testimonies. Theophylact sayth the same that Beza sayde out of Chrysostome, and Oecumenius. The Greeke Liturgies, falsely intituled to Saint Iames, Basil, and Chrysostome, haue no other thing: nor any other author whome you name. But your popish Church, doth not, either as the Greeke Li∣turgies, or as the Churches in Ambrose and Augustines time. For they holde, that the elements are consecra∣red by prayer, and thankes-giuing, whereof, although you vse some termes in your masse, yet you holde, that the consecration consisteth onely in a Magicall murmu∣ration of the wordes, Hoc est corpus meum, ouer the bread by a Priest, with intent of consecration, wherefore you are farre from the iudgement that the auncient fathers had, and we haue, of the consecration of the bread and wine, to be the sacraments of the bodye and bloud of Christ.

MART. 6. Of all which, this is the conclusion, that the Eucharist is a solemne name, taken of the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so called, because this sacrament and sacrifice, is blessed, and con∣secrated with prayer, & thankes-giuing, as S. Iustine speaketh, and because in this sacrifice, so blessed and consecrated into the body and bloud of Christ, him we offer vp a most acceptable ob∣lation of thankes-giuing, and a memorie of all Gods maruelous benefites towarde vs. In this sense, the fathers, and the holye Church, speake 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 gi∣uing of thanks, as S. Irenaeus doth plainly signifie, when he decla∣reth,* 1.19 that being before bread, & receiuing the inuocati∣on of God ouer it, now is no more cōmon bread, but the Eucharist, cōsisting of two things, the earthly, & the hea∣uenly. So that it is made the Eucharist by circūstance of solemne

wordes, and ceremonies, and therefore is not a meere giuing of thankes: and further we learne, that S. Iustines, and S. Irena∣us* 1.20 wordes before alledged, Panis & calix Eucaristisatus, sig∣nifie, the bread and chalice made the Eucharist: and con∣sequently we learne, that the a〈…〉〈…〉e thereof, is, by thankes-gi∣uing to make the Eucharist. a〈…〉〈…〉 ••ecause the other word of bles∣sing, and this of thankes-giuing, are vsed indifferently, one for an other, in Christs action, about this Sacrament, we learne vn∣doubtedly, that when it is sayd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the meaning is, blessing, and giuing thankes, he made the Eucharist of his bodye and bloud, that is the Sacrament and Sacrifice of a singular thankes-giuing, which (as S. Augustine often is wont to say) the faithfull onely doe knowe and vnderstand in the sa∣crifice of the Church: and because the faithfull onely vnder∣stand, therefore the Protestants and Caluinistes are so ignorant in this mysterie, that to take away all the dignitie thereof, they bend both their expositions and translations.

FVLK. 6. That the elements are blessed, and conse∣crated by prayer, and thankes-giuing, as Iustine, Irenae∣us, and other auncient fathers write, it is the thing that we contende for. But you (except you be a Schisma∣tike from all other Papistes) doe teache, that they are consecrated by these wordes, pronounced by a Priest, this is my bodie: which are wordes neyther of prayer, nor of thankes giuing. Neuerthelesse, to pricke vs with a pinne, you haue wounded your selfe with a sworde, and saye the sacrament is blessed, and conse∣crated with prayer, and thankes▪ giuing. Except you haue some Sophisticall meaning, that it is consecrated with them, but not by them. The signification of the actiue, which you gather out of the passiue, vsed by Iustinus, sheweth what a learned Clerke you are, Iu∣stinus writeth to the Gentiles, or Heathen men, of whome he coulde not haue bene vnderstoode, if he had not vsed the passiue, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in that signifi∣cation, that all other men did vse it in, in that tyme. What we vnderstande of the mysterie of the Lordes

supper, and the sacrifice of prayer and thankes gy∣uing, whiche is the onely sacrifice of Christians, as Iustinus writeth, the Churche of God dothe acknow∣ledge, thoughe the synagogue of Antichristian here∣tikes wil not confesse it.

MART. 7. After they haue turned blessing or conse∣cration into bare thankes giuing, which is one steppe towarde the denying of the real presence, they come nearer, and so include Christe in heauen, that he cannot bee withall vpon the aultar, translating thus, Whome heauen muste containe, vntil the* 1.21 times that al things be restored, Acts. 3. v. 21. and yet Beza worse, and he that alleadge••h him, M. Whitakers: who muste be contained in heauen. Which is so farre from the Greeke, that, not onely Illyricus the Lutheran, but Caluin himselfe doth not like it. Beza protesteth, that he so translateth of purpose, to keepe Christs presence from the altar: and we maruel the lesse, because we are wel acquainted with many the like his impudent Protestations. M. Whitak. only we do maruel at, that he should be either so deceiued by an other mans translation, or himself be so ouerseene in the Greeke worde, that hee knoweth not a meere* 1.22 deponent, and only deponent, from a passiue.

FVLK. 7. The aunsweare to this cauill is at large contained, Cap. 1. sect. 36. your owne translation is▪ whom heauen must receiue. If there bee nowe suche difference betweene, receiuing, and containing▪ capere and recipere it is very strange to learned eares, howsoeuer sottishe Pa∣pistes wil accept whatsoeuer proceedeth from you. But forasmuche, as this section, with twoo other following, are directed principally against Master Whitakers, I shal need to say little, seeing he hath fully answeared for him self. This one thing I may say, cōcerning his knowledge in the Greeke tongue, which you make to be so small, that he knoweth not a deponent from a passiue, he is wel knowne to bee so well learned therein, that manye of your Seminarie maye maruaile at him as you saye, but neither you, nor any of you all is able to matche hym therein.

MART. 8. This doth not become hym that ob∣iecteth* 1.23 ignoraunce of the Greeke to an other manne, and that after hee hadde well tryed by publique conference, that* 1.24 hee was not ignoraunte: and so obiecteth it, as though•• hee knewe not three wordes in that tongue, whereas hee hadde hearde hym reade and interpreate Saint Basil, not the easiest of the Greeke Doctours. This is palpable im∣pudencie, and a face that can not blushe, and full of malice agaynste the sainctes of God, who, if they knewe not a worde in the Greeke tongue, were neuer the worse, nor the lesse learned, but among fooles and children, that esteeme learning by suche trifles, whyche Grammarians knowe farre better than greate Diuines. For, were not hee awise manne that woulde preferre one Maiser Hum∣frey, Maister Fulke▪ Maister Whitakers, or some of vs poore menne, because wee haue a little smacke in the three tongues, beefore Saint Chrysostome, Saint Basil, Saint Augustine, saint Gregorie, or saint Thomas, that vnderstoode well, none but one? howbeeit, if they esteeme learning by knowledge of the tongues, they wil not (I trowe) compare with Catholikes, eyther of former time, or of these latter age, specially since their newe Gospell beganne: and if they will compare wyth vs herein for their simple credite, wee maye perhappes giue them occasion ere it bee long, to muster their menne all at once, if they dare shewe their face beefore our campe of excellent Hebricians, Grecians, Lati∣nistes, of absolute linguistes in the Chaldee, Syriake, Arabike, &c. whome they muste needes confesse to haue beene, and to be, euen at this day, their Maisters and tea∣chers.

FVLK. 8. It becommeth you that haue caste off all feare of God, and duetie to your Prince, to caste off all ciuill honestie; and humaine modestie also. If you speake of suche matters▪ as you might not bee controlled in them▪ yet, if you forbeare the truth, it were somewhat tollerable. But when you speake of Campions learning in the Greeke tongue,

wherein you maye bee so manifestly conuicted by hun∣dreths of witnesses, you stoppe the waye from any cre∣dite to bee giuen you in other matters. All Oxforde knewe, that Campion was no Graecian, when hee de∣parted from that Vniuersitie. His time spent in Ireland, and other places, where he trauailed, woulde not yeelde him greate knowledge since his departure, excepte hee hadde wholy applyed it, whyche he coulde not doe, nor any other serious studie in such sorte as he traueiled in diuerse places. But admitte he might haue know∣ledge by extraordinarie meanes or myracle if you wil, howe shall hee bee tried, but by reading and vnder∣standing that whyche greately concerneth his cause, in disputation and conference. You saide he didde reade and interprete Saint Basil, not the easiest of the Greeke Doctours. I was not present at that conference, and therefore haue the lesse to saye: But I my selfe making triall of hys skill. by a place of Epiphanius, both read it to him, and offering him the booke, he vnderstode no more the matter thereof, than if I hadde cited it in the Arabicke, or Persian language. And therefore, vpon the acknowledging of his dissembled ignorance, with great laughter of the hearers, I was content to ex∣pounde it to him in Englishe, beefore I coulde receiue any aunsweare to the argument taken from that autho∣ritie. Wherefore, I verily thinke, and am certainely perswaded, that if he pretended to interprete any thing out of Saint Basil, it was altogither by artificiall con∣iecture, either of the place which he knewe, and had read in Latine, or else by surmising of some one com∣mon worde▪ hee gathered what the sense of the whole shoulde bee. Indeede▪ if hee hadde neuer knowne a word of Greeke▪ althoughe hee had bene no meete man to chalenge a whole realme to disputation: yet hee might haue beene an honest man, and otherwise meanly learned, so hee had not pretended knowledge.

when he was in a maner altogither ignorant. For mine owne parte, thoughe it please you to name mee with Maister Humfrey, Maister Whitakers, and others, I neuer tooke vpon mee but a meane knowledge in the tongues, neither desire I in comparison to be prefer∣red before any learned manne, whose trauailes haue bin profitable to the Churche, althoughe he were ignorant in the tongues. Yet, this I muste freely say, that he which shall professe to bee an absolute learned diuine, with∣out the knowledge of three tongues, at the leaste, may thinke wel of himselfe, but hardely hee shall gette and retaine the credite hee seeketh amoung learned menne in this learned age. And therefore Campion, if disputation hadde beene meante rather than sedi∣tion, for al his arrogance and impudence, was an vn∣meete Apostle to bee sente from Gregorie of Rome, to chalenge all the wise and learned in England. Nei∣ther do I say this, as thoughe I measured all learning by knowledge of the tongues, but wherein soeuer any Papist in the worlde, shall bee bolde to chalenge the name of learning, in anie knowledge, that euer was, or is accounted good learning, God bee praysed, there are many of Gods true Catholike Churche, where∣of we are members, able to match them therein. That I saye not to excell them. And whereas you woulde make vs beholding to Papistes for suche knowledge, as any of vs hathe in the Greeke, Hebrewe, Syriacke, Chaldee▪ Arabicke tongues, &c. It is well knowne, the Papistes are more beholding to vs. And although I confesse, that some Papistes of late dayes, haue besto∣wed fruitefull paines, in setting foorth some of the orientall tongues: yet are they not the firste, nor all that haue traueiled profitably that wai••. But manye haue attained to competent skill in those langua∣ges many yeares beefore anye Papistes had written anye thing that mighte further them therein. You were wont to beare ignoraunt menne in hande, that we

were a sight of English Doctors, vnderstanding no lan∣guages but our mother tongue, which hath enforced di∣uerse men to shewe their skill in the tongues, which o∣therwise they would neuer haue openly professed. But now that the worlde seeth, to your shame, how richly God hath blessed vs, with the knowledge, and interpre∣tation of diuerse tongues, you exprobrate to vs our knowledge in the tongues, and traduce vs among the ignorant, as though we esteemed all learning by know∣ledge of tongues, and that we were but meare Gramma∣rians, & often tell vs of that stale iest, that the kingdome of Grammarians is paste, as though it were but a little Grammar, whereof we make a shew. But for that gene∣rall muster which you threaten to driue vs vnto, ere it be long, if you come as learned men should do, armed with bookes, penne, inke, and paper, I doubt not by the grace of God, but you shall finde them that dare confront you, and chase you out of the field also. But if you come vnder the Popes banner with such blessing, as he sente lately into Ireland, I hope you shall be mette with all, as those his champions were, and finde that promotion for your good seruice, whiche you haue long agoe de∣serued by your trauailes for vpholding of his king∣dome.

MART. 9. But to returne to you M. Whitakers, grea∣ter is your fault in diuinitie, than in the tonges, when you make your argument against the real presence out of this place, as out of the Scripture and S. Peter, whereas they are Bezaes wordes, and not S. Peters. Againe, whether you take Bezaes wordes, or S. Peters, your argument faileth very much, when you con∣clude that Christs natural body is not in the Sacrament, because it is placed and conteined in heauen. For S. Chrysostome telleth you, that Christe ascending into heauen, both lefte vs his* 1.25 flesh, and yet ascending hath the same. And againe, O mi∣racle, saith he? He that sitteth aboue with the Father, in* 1.26 the same moment of time is handled with the handes of al. This is the faith of the auncient fathers, M. Whitakers, and

this is the Catholike faith, and this is (I trow) an other maner of faith and farre greater, thus to beleeue the presence of Christ in both places at once, because he is omnipotent and hath said•• the worde: than your faith (whereof you boaste so much) which beleeueth no further than that he is ascended, and that therefore he cannot be present vpon the altar, nor dispose of his body as he list.

FVLK. 9. Maister Whitaker is not so young a di∣uine, but he knoweth that Chrysostome speaketh of the ineffable manner of Christs presence spiritually▪ though he be absent corporally. As in the place by you cited, Desacerdo••io, it is most manifest, where he saith that wee may see the people dyed and made redde with the preti∣ous bloud of Christe, which as it is not with the eye of the bodie, but with the eye of faith, so is Christe that is corporally present in heauen, spiritually present vnto the faith of the worthie receyuer.

MART. 10. Againe it is a very famous place for the real presence of the bloud (which wee haue handled at large * 1.27 else where, but here also must be briefly touched) when our Sauiour saith, Luc. 22. This is the Chalice the new Testa∣ment in my bloud, which (Chalice) is shedde for you. For so (which) must needes be referred according to the Greeke. In which speach, Chalice must needes be taken for that in the chalice, and that in the chalice must needes be the bloud of Christ, and not wine, because his bloud only was shed for v••. And so ••e do plain••ly proue the real presence, according a•• S. Chry∣sostome* 1.28 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 necessarie de∣duction Beza would defeate, by saying the Greeke is corrupted in all the copies that are extant in the world, and by translating thus cleane otherwise than the Greeke will beare, This ••••ppe is the newe Testament in my bloud, which (bloud) is* 1.29 shedde for you.

FVLK. 10. It is a famous place in deede that ne∣uer a one of the auncient writers, could cō••••der for any

reall presence to be drawne out of it. How Beza hath trā∣slated it I haue at large declared before, Cap. 1. Sect. 37. 38. 39. That which Chrysostome saieth wee confesse to be most true, after a spiritual & heauenly manner, and so he doth expound him selfe, in the same place, where he saith that Christ suffreth him selfe to be broken for vs, in the oblation, which he suffred, not on the crosse, where no bone of his was broken. Which none but a madde man would take otherwise than spiritually to be done, as he is present after a spirituall manner.

MART. 11. But what pertaineth this to the English he∣retikes, who translate, which is shed, so indifferētly that it may signifie, which cuppe, or, which bloud is shed? Thus farre it* 1.30 pertaineth, because they do not only defend this translation by al meanes, but they tel vs plainely namely Fulke, that they referre* 1.31 (which) to the word bloud, and not to the worde cuppe, ••uē as Beza doth, asking vs what Grammarian would referre it other∣wise. In which question he sheweth him self a very simple Grā∣marian in the Greeke, or a madde Heretike, that either knoweth not, or will not know, that in the Greeke it can not be so referred, and consequently neither in Latine nor English, which in true translation must folow the Greeke. But of these and other their* 1.32 foule and manifold shif••es to auoide this place, I haue spoken in an other place of this booke.

FVLK. 11. As you haue placed your crimination in the first chapiter to be sure that it should be redde of euery man that taketh your booke in hand: So haue I. obseruing your order, answered you in the same place, and in such sort I hope discharged my selfe, that you shall haue little lust hereafter to insult against mine igno∣rance, before you be able to weigh the matter your selfe with sounder knowledge.

MART. 12. Onely M. Whitakers (to say truely) hath* 1.33 brought somewhat to the purpose, to wit, that S. Basil readeth the Greeke as they translate. But he doth wel to make light of it, because it is euident that S. Basil cited not the text of the Euan∣gelist,* 1.34 but the sense, which Beza noteth to be the custome of

the auncient fathers, telling vs withall that therfore the reading of the fathers, is no certaine rule to reforme or alter the words of Scripture according to the same: and it is very like that if Be∣za or Fulke his aduocate had thought S. Basils reading of any importāce, they would haue vsed it long since, rather than so ma∣ny other shiftes and so absurde, as they do: vnlesse we may thinke they knew it not, and therefore could not vse it. But for S. Basill, according to the sense he citeth it very truely: for, whether wee say, the Cuppe that is shed, or, the bloud that is shed, both signifieth the bloud of Christ shed for vs, as S. Basil citeth it. The difference is, that referring it to the cuppe, as S. Luke hath it, it signifieth the bloud both present in the cuppe, and also then shed in a Sacrament at the last supper: but referring it to the word bloud, as S. Basil doth, and as they translate, it may signifie the bloud shed on the crosse also, yea (as these trāslatours meane and would haue it) only that on the Crosse, not considering that the Greeke worde is the present tense, and therfore rather signi∣fieth the present shedding of his bloud then in mysticall sacri∣fice, than the other visible shedding therof, which was to come in the future tense. Lastly, they translate S. Lukes Gospel, and not S. Basil: and therefore not folowing S. Luke, they are false tran∣slators, how soeuer S. Basil readeth.

FVLK. 12. The reading of S. Basil, whereof Beza maketh mention, in his Annotation vpon this texte of S. Luke, is also handled before. As the reading of the Doctours, is no perpetuall rule to reforme the texte of the Scripture by, so is it not to bee neglected, but that sometimes also the present reading may be cor∣rected thereafter. True it is, that Beza supposeth, it ra∣ther to haue bene added out of the margent, and I, as I haue before declared, doe thinke that either it is to be read as Basil did reade it, or else that the verbe substan∣tiue is to be vnderstood, and the article taken for the re∣latiue, as it is often bothe in prophane writinges, and in the new Testament it self, as by sundry examples I haue made it manifest.

MART. 13. As this falshood is both against Sacrament

and Sacrifice, so against the Sacrifice also of the altar it is, that they controule S. Hieroms translation, in the olde Testament, concerning the sacrifice of Melchisedec, Who brought forth* 1.35 bread and wine: Gen. 14. v. 18. that is, offered, or sacrificed bread and wine: which we proue to be the true sense and inter∣pretation (and that this bringing forth of bread and wine, was sacrificing thereof) not onely 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.)* 1.36 and by the Hebrew word, which is a word of sacrifice, Iud. 6. v. 18. and by the greatest Rabbines, and Hebricians, that a ri••••* 1.37 thereof, but we proue it also by these wordes of the very text it selfe, He brought forth bread, and wine, for he was the Priest of God most high. Which reason immediatly follow∣ing, Because he was Gods Priest, proueth euidently, that he brought it not forth in cōmō maner, as any other mā might haue done, but as Gods Priest, whose office is to offer sacrifice. This consequence is so plaine, that for auoiding thereof▪ the aduer∣saries will not haue it translated in any wise. For hee was* 1.38 the Prieste, as thoughe the Scripture gaue a reason, why hee brought forth bread, and wine: but, and he was a Priest, &c.* 1.39 Wrangling aboute the signification of the Hebrew coniunction.

FVLK. 13. That S. Hieronyme was author of the vulgar Latine interpretation, of the olde Testament, it is more boldly affirmed, than euer it can be sufficiently proued by you. But what do we controll, your vulgar in∣terpreter saith, that Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, and so say we. Which how sent Hierom & o∣ther vnderstādeth I haue before declared Cap. 1. Sect. 42.

Against all the Fathers that expound, that bringing forth of bread and wine, to pertayne to his Priesthood▪ I oppose the Apostle to the Hebrues, who could not haue omitted it, if it had bene so. That the Hebrue word is a worde of sacrifice▪ it is most impudently affirmed of you. For Iud. 6. it signifieth no more to offer than heare, although there Gedeon desire the Angell to stay, vntill he returne and bring from his house with him a gift or

oblation. But if you will contende that what so euer is brought forth, where soeuer this Hebrue worde is vsed, is a sacrifice, you shall make an hundreth sacri∣fices, more than euer God ordeyned. Neither will Ga∣latinus or Gerebrardus for their credite, once affirme that it signifieth to offer sacrifice. Though it may bee vsed in bringing foorth of Sacrifices as well as of all other thinges, that are brought foorth. But the con∣iunction causall maketh it cleare, that this bringing forth was in respect of his Priesthood. In deed if the He∣brue coniunction were causall and not copulatiue, wee were driuen to the wall: But seeing the Hebrue coniun∣ction copulatiue must be expounded according to the sense, you do very vnskilfully, to cōclude the sense, which is in controuersie, vpon the coniunction which is inde∣finite: and wee without partialitie haue translated the coniunction copulatiue, as it doth most commonly and ordinarily signifie.

MART. 14. Wherein the reader may see their excee∣ding partialitie and wilfulnesse. For, besides infinite like places of Scripture, whereby we do easily shew that this Hebrue parti∣cle is vsed to giue a reason or cause of a thing, themselues also in an other place proue it for vs, and that by the authoritie of* 1.40 Theophylact, and allegation of examples out of the Scripture, and translate accordingly thus: Blessed art thou among wo∣men▪* 1.41 because the fruite of thy wombe is blessed. Let them giue vs a reason, why the sayd coniunction is here by their tran∣slation, quia, or, enim, where it was neuer so translated before, and it must not be in any case in the other place of Genesis, where it hath bene so translated, and generally receiued, euen in the Primitiue Church. In other places of Scripture also, which Theophylact alledgeth, and many moe may be alledged, they cō∣fesse, and like very well it should so signifie: onely in the place of Genesi••, they can not abide any such sense, or translation there∣of:* 1.42 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 vndoubtedly (and in all

these cases, I knocke at their consciences) but that here they would auoide the necessarie sequele of Melchisedecks sacrifice, vpon such translation, which typicall sacrifice of bread & wine if it should be graunted, then would follow also a sacrifice of the newe Testament, made of bread and wine, aunswering to the same, and so we should haue the sacrifice of the altar, and their bare communion should be excluded.

FVLK. 14. Because we will not falsly translate, to maintaine a colour of your popish sacrifice, we shewe great partialitie. Wherein I praye you? The coniuncti∣on copulatiue, we knowe may often be resolued, into the causall, where the sense so requireth: But it neuer hath any force in it selfe, to breede such a sense, or to conclude suche a sense by it. It is agaynste all reason therefore, that you woulde vrge vs to translate contrarie to that whyche in our consciences beefore GOD wee take to bee the sense. Where you say, that the sacrifice of Melchisedech, if it were graun∣ted, woulde bring in your Masse, and exclude oure communion, it is altogither vntrue. For none of the auncient fathers, (who were deceiued, to imagine a sacrifice, where the Apostle seeking al things, pertai∣ning to Melchisedechs priesthoode, coulde find none) doth allow your propitiatorie sacrifice, but contrarie∣wise, by those onely speeches, that they vse aboute Melchisedechs oblation of breade and wine, wee are able to prooue, that they didde speake of a sacri∣fice of thankesgiuyng onely. And your sacrifice, in whyche, you say, is neither bread nor wine, should hardly resemble Melchisedechs oblation made of bread and wine.

MART. 15. For whiche purpose also their partiall translation aboute altare and table, is notorious. For, the* 1.43 name of altare (as they know verie wel) both in the Hebrue and Greeke, and by the custome of al peoples▪ both Iewes and Pa∣gans,* 1.44 implying and importing sacrifice, therfore we, in respect of the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud, say. altar, rather than,

table, as all the auncient fathers (Chrys. ho. 53. ad po. An∣tioch. and ho. 20. in 2. Cor. and in Demonst. {quod} Christus sit Deus, to. 5. Nazianz. de Gorgonia sorore. Basil. in Li∣turg. 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 sae∣pe) are wont to speake and write, (namely when S. Hierom cal∣leth the bodies or bones of S. Peter and Paule the altars of Christ, because of this sacrifice offercd ouer and vpon the same) though in respect of eating and drinking the body and bloud, it is also called a table: so that with vs it is both an altar and a table, whether it be of wood or of stone. But the Protestants, be∣cause they make it only a communion of bread and wine, or a supper, and no sacrifice, therefore they call it table onely, and abhorre from the worde, altar, as Papistical. For the which pur∣pose, in their firste translation (Bible an. 1562.) when altares were then in digging downe throughout England, they transla∣ted with no lesse malice, than they threwe them downe, putting the word, temple, in steede of altare: which is so grosse a cor∣ruption, that a man woulde haue thought it had beene done by ouersight, and not of purpose, if they hadde not doone it thrice immediately wythin twoo Chapiters, 1. Cor. 9. and 10. saying: Know you not, that they whiche waite of the TEMPLE, are partakers of the TEMPLE? and, Are not they whi∣che eate of the sacrifice, partakers of the TEMPLE? in al which places the Apostles worde in Greeke, is, altare, and not,* 1.45 temple. and see here their notorious peeuishnesse, where the Apostle saith, temple, there the same translation saith, sacri∣fice: where the Apostle saith, altar, there it saith, temple.

FVLK. 15. That the ancient fathers vsed the name of altar, as they did of sacrifice, sacrificer, leuite, and such like improperly, yet in respect of the spirituall oblation of prayse and thankes gyuyng, whyche was offered in the celebration of the Lordes supper, wee doe easilye graunte: as also, that they doe as commonly vse the name of table, and that it was a table indede, so stan∣ding as menne mighte stande round about it, and not a∣gainst

a wall, as your popishe altares stande, it is easie to prooue, and it hathe oftentimes bene prooued: and it seemeth you confesse as muche, but that it is with you, bothe an altare, and a table, with vs indeede it is, as it is called in the scripture▪ only a table. That we make the Sacrament, a communion of bread and wine, it is a* 1.46 blasphemous slaunder, when wee beleeue as the Apostle taught vs, that it is the communion of the bodie and bloud of Christe, and the Lordes supper, as for the cor∣ruption* 1.47 you pretend, I cannot thinke (as I haue aun∣sweared before) it was any thing else but the first Prin∣ters ouersight. For, why shoulde the name of altare mislike vs in that place, more than in an hundreth other places, when it is certaine, wheresoeuer it is vsed in the scriptures, in the proper sense, it signifieth, the altares of the Iewes, or of the Gentiles, and neuer, the communi∣on table, or that, at whyche the Lordes supper is prepa∣red and receiued.

MART. 16. Thus we see howe they suppresse the name of altare, where it shoulde be: now let vs see howe they putte in their translation, where it shoulde not bee▪ this also they doe thrice in one chapiter, and that for to saue the honour of their* 1.48 communion table, namely, in the storie of Bel, where we haue it thrice called the table of that idol, vnder which Bels Priestes had made a priuie entraunce, and, that the king looked* 1.49 vpon the table, and, that they did eate vppe such things as were vpon the table: these wicked translators fearing, least the name of Bels table might redounde to the dishonour of their* 1.50 communion table, translate it, altare, in al these places. Wher∣in I cannot but pitie their follie, and wonder exceedingly howe they coulde imagine it any disgrace, either for table or altare, if the idols also had their tables and altares, whereas S. Paule so plainely nameth both togither, The table of our Lorde, and* 1.51 the table of Diuels. If the table of Diuels, why not the table of Bel? if that be no disgrace to the table of our Lorde, why are you afraide of Bels table, leaste it shoulde disgrace yours? Or if you had no such feare, then you must tel vs some other good rea∣son

of your vnreasonable translation in this place, why you trā∣slate, altare, for table, that is, chalke for cheese.

FVLK. 16. That the authours of the firste transla∣tion in the fabulous storie of Bel, for table, translated altare, as I cannot excuse them of erroure, so I dare discharge them of any partialitie, or fauour of the com∣munion table. For, in King Henry the eights time, when that translation was first printed, there was neuer a communion table in any Churche of Englande. It is like therefore, they respected similitude of the placing thereof, so as a priuie doore mighte bee vnder it, which coulde not bee conueyed in tables of suche formes as nowe adayes are in vse. The Bible 1577. in the margent placeth the word, table, which is in the Greeke, sig∣nifying, that there is no greate matter whether word you vse. And that storie beeing of no credite, the translatoures coulde haue no purpose, either to prooue, or improoue, by authoritie thereof.

MART. 17. And heere, by the way, the Reader may note an other exceeding follie in them, that thinke the name of table, maketh againste altare and sacrifice, their owne tran∣slation heere condemning them, where they call Bels table, an altare. and Saint Paule, hauing saide to the Corinthians, the table of oure Lorde, saith to the Hebrewes. * 1.52 of the selfe same, we haue an altare. and againe, he saith, the ta∣ble of Diuels, whych, I am sure, they wil not denie to haue bene a true altar of Idololatrical sacrifice▪ and Malach. 1. v. 7. in one sentence it is called both altare & table, whereupon the Iewes offered their externall and true sacrifices▪ and all the fa∣thers, bothe Greeke and Latine, speaking of the sacrifice of the newe Testament, call that wherevppon it is offered, both al∣tare and table: but the Greekes more often, table, the La∣tine fathers more often, altare: and why, or in what respectes, it is called both this and that, we haue before declared, and here might ad the very same out of S. Germanus Arch. B. of Con∣stantinople, in his greke cōmentaries (called mystica theoria) on the Liturgies or masses of the Greke fathers▪ but to procede.

FVLK. 17. It were an infinite matter to note, not onely all the follies, that you commit, but also the im∣pudent assertions that you make, vpon your owne sur∣mise▪ without all proofe. Who made you so priuie of our thought, that you affirme vs to thinke the name of table, maketh againste altar, and sacrifice? We know the name of table, prooueth no sacrifice, but that the fa∣thers call the same, both a table and an altare, we do ne∣uer deny vnto you. Yet, that the Apostle to the Hebrues, 12. calleth that same an altare, whiche Sainct Paule to the Corinthians nameth a table, you shall neuer bee able to prooue: Howsoeuer Oecumenius and Haimo, twoo late writers, doate vpon that place whiche is eui∣dent, euen by the texte, to bee vnderstoode of the one∣ly sacrifice of Christes death vpon the Crosse. That the people whome the Prophete Malachie reproueth, called the Lordes altare, his table, is no sufficient proofe, that it might bee called by the one name as wel as the other. And althoughe, in respecte of the meate offerings and drinke offerings, it was also a table, at whiche God vouchsafed to bee entertained by the people, as theyr familiar friende. But, what is this to the purpose of anie controuersie betweene vs. The altare was called a table, in the olde Testament, but the table is ne∣uer called an altare, in the newe Testament, although by the a••ntient fathers, oftentimes.

MART. 18. There are also some places lesse euident, yet such as s••ach of the like heretical humor against the B. Sacra∣ment. In the prophet I••re. c. 11. v. 17. wee reade thus, accor∣ding to the Latin and the Greke, Let vs cast * 1.53 wood vpon his bread, that is, saith S. Hierome, in comment. huius loci, the crosse vpon the bodie of our Sauior. For it is he that saide, I am the breade that descended from heauen. Where the Prophete so long beefore saying, bread, and mea∣ning his bodie, alludeth prophetically to his bodie in the B. Sacrament made of breade, and vnder the forme of breade, and therefore also called breade of the Apostle. So that bothe

in the Prophete and Apostle, his breade and his bodie is alone,* 1.54 and leaste wee shoulde thinke, that the breade onely signifieth his bodie, he saith, Let vs put the Crosse vpon his breade, that is, vppon his verie natural bodie, whyche hung on the Crosse. Nowe for these wordes of the Prophete, so vsual and well known in the Church and al antiquitie, how thinke you do these newe Maisters translate? in one Bible thus, Let vs destroy the tree with the fruite thereof. Another, wee wil destroy his meate with wood. or as they shoulde haue saide rather, the wood with his meate. Doe you see how properly they agree, whiles they seeke nouelties, and forsake the auncient vsuall translation?

FVLK. 18. The phrase or manner of speach which the Prophete Ieremie vseth, beeing somewhat obscure, and vnusuall, hathe bredde dyuerse translations. The most simple meaning, and agreable vnto the Hebrue, is this: Lette vs destroye him wyth woodde in steede of breade, that is, lette vs famishe hym in a close pri∣son, or in the stockes, &c. and so maye the Greeke and vulgare Latine be expounded, lette vs giue hym woodde for breade, rather than that violent exposition of Saint Hierome, is to be admitted, whiche referreth it to his crucifying, where beside, it were an intollera∣ble figure in that place to vnderstand his body by bread, it is cleane contrarie to that you saide. For, the Crosse was not putte vppon Christe, but Christe vppon the Crosse. Suche wresting of the Scripture, where no neede is, maketh the Christians ridiculous to the Iewes. And yet it is more farre fetched, to drawe it to the sacrament, which is called bread, & is not bread: Neither doth Saint Hierome extend his interpretation so farre.

MART. 19. They wil say, the first Hebrewe word can not be as Saint Hierome translateth, and as it is in the Greeke, and* 1.55 as all antiquitie readeth: but it muste signifie, Let vs destroy. They say truely, according to the Hebrewe word which now is.* 1.56 But is it not euident thereby, that the Hebrewe worde nowe

is not the same which the Septuaginta translated into Greeke••* 1.57 and S. Hierom into Latine? and consequently the Hebrue is al∣tered and corrupted from the originall copie which they had: perhaps by the Iewes (as some other places) to obscure this prophecie also of Christes Passion, and their crucifying of him vpon the Crosse. Such Iewish Rabbines and new Hebrue words do our newe maisters gladly folow in the translation of the olde Testament, whereas they might easily conceyue the old Hebrue worde in this place, if they would employ their skill that way, and not onely to nouelties. For who seeth not that the Greeke Interpreters in number 70. and al Hebrues of best skill in their* 1.58 owne tongue, S. Hierom also a great Hebrician did not reade as now wee haue in the Hebrue, Nashchîta, but, Nashitha, or, Nashlîcha? Againe the Hebrue worde that now is, doth so litle agree with the wordes folowing, that they cannot tell how to translate it, as appeareth by the diuersitie and difference of their translations thereof before mentioned, and transposing the wordes in English otherwise than in the Hebrue, neither of both their translations hauing any commodious sense or vnder∣standing.

FVLK. 19. If we shoulde acknowledge the Hebrue word to be altered in so many places, as the 70. departe from it, we should not only condemne the Hebrue text, that now is, in many places, but your vulgar Latine text also, the translator whereof differing oftentimes from the Greeke, followeth the truth of the Hebrue, or at least commeth nearer vnto it. Your argument of the number of the 70. interpreters al Hebrewes, is very ridiculous & childish. Hierom him selfe will laugh you to skorne in it, who acknowledged for certaintie, no more than the bookes of the lawe translated by them. And Lindanus proueth manifestly vnto you, that some partes of the old Testament in Greeke, which wee now haue, are not the same that were counted the 70. translation in the aunci∣ent fathers time. Whether Hierom in this place did con∣sider the Hebrue text, we know not, for he doth not, as his manner is, shew the diuersitie of the Hebrue and the

Septuaginta in this chapiter, beside he professeth great breuitie, intreating vpon so long a Prophete. But whe∣ther a letter in this word haue bene altered or no, or* 1.59 whether it were corrupt in the copie, which the Greeke translater and Hierom did reade, for the true or simple sense thereof, there is no great difference. No nor for that sense which Hierom bringes, which although it see∣meth to be farre from the Prophets meaning, yet it may haue as good ground vpon the worde Naschita, as vpon the worde Nashlicha.

MART. 20. But yet they will pretende that for the first worde at the least, they are not to be blamed, because they fo∣low the Hebrue that now is. Not considering that if this were a good excuse, then might they as well folowe the Hebrue that now is Psal. 21. v. 18: and so vtterly suppresse and take out of the Scripture this notable prophecie, They pearced my hands and my feete: Which yet they do not, neither can they doe it for shame, if they will be counted Christians. So that in deede, to folow the Hebrue sometime where it is corrupt, is no suffi∣cient excuse for them, though it may haue a pretence of true translation, and we promised in the preface, in such cases not to call it hereticall translation.

FVLK. 20. To this cauill against the certaine truth of the Hebrue texte, I haue sufficiently answered in my confutation of your preface Sect. 44. shewing that the true reading of this word, as Felix Pratēsis, Ioannes Isaak, Tremelius, and other do acknowledge, is still remayning and testified by the Mazzorites.

MART. 21. But concerning the B. Sacrament, let vs see* 1.60 once more how truely they folow the Hebrue. The holy Ghost (saith S. Cyprian ep. 63. nu. 2.) by Salomon foresheweth a type of our Lordes sacrifice, of the immolated host of bread & wine, saying, Wisedome hath killed her hostes, SHE HATH MINGLED HER WINE INTO the cuppe. Come ye, eate of my bread, and drinke the wine that I HAVE MINGLED for you. Speaking of WINE MINGLED (saith this holy doctor) he foresheweth pro∣phetically

the cuppe of our Lorde, MINGLED WITH WATER AND WINE. So doth S. Hierom interprete this mixture or mingling of the wine in the chalice, so doth the au∣thor of the commentaries vpon this place among S. Hieroms* 1.61 workes, so doe the other fathers. So that there is great impor∣tance in these propheticall wordes of Salomon. She hath min∣gled her wine into the cuppe, and, the wine which I haue mingled, as being a manifest prophecie of Christes mingling water and wine in the Chalice at his last supper, which the Ca∣tholike Churche obserueth at this day, and whereof S. Cyprian writeth the foresaide long epistle.

FVL. 21. It had bene to be wished that S. Cyprian when he goeth aboute to proue the necessitie of wine, in the celebration of the Lordes supper, agaynst the Heretikes, called Aquarij, that contended for onely water, had retained the precise institution of Christe in wine onely, which the Scripture mencioneth, and not allowed them a mixture of water, and for that purpose driuen him selfe to suche watrie expositions, as this of Prouerbes 9. which without good warrant, he draw∣eth to represent the Lordes supper. Where if hee had bene vrged by the aduersaries, whereto the beastes slayne were referred in this Sacrament, hee muste haue bene driuen to some violent comment. But whereto tendeth this preparation?

MART. 22. But the Protestants counting it an idle superstitious ceremonie, here also frame their translation accor∣dingly, suppressing altogither this mixture or mingling, and in steede thereof saying, Shee hath drawen her wine, and,* 1.62 drinke the wine that I haue drawen: or (as in other of their Bibles) Shee hath powred out her wine, and, the wine* 1.63 which I haue powred out: neither translation agreing either with Greeke or Hebrue. Not with the Greeke, which doth* 1.64 euidently signifie, mingling and mixture, as it is in the Latine, and as al the Greeke Church from the Apostles time hath vsed this word in this very case whereof wee nowe speake, of ming∣ling water and wine in the chalice. S. Iames, and S. Basil in their

Liturgies expresly testifying that Christ did so, as also S. Cyprian* 1.65 in the place alleaged. S. Iustine in the end of his second Apolo∣gie, calling it of the same Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is (accor∣ding to Plutarche) wine mingled with water: likewise S. Ir••∣neus* 1.66 in his fifth booke neere the beginning. See the sixth ge∣nerall Councell most fully treating hereof and deducing it from the Apostles and auncient fathers, and interpreting this Greeke worde by any other equiualent, and more plaine to signifie this* 1.67 mixture.

FVLK. 22. The authoritie of the holy Scriptures with vs is more woorth than the opinion of all the men in the world. In the Scripture we finde the fruite of the vine, water we find not, therefore we account not water to be of any necessitie in the celebration of the Lordes supper. In the primitiue Church, we know water was v∣sed first of sobrietie, then of ceremonie, and at length it grew to be compted of necessitie. The Armenians ther∣fore are cōmendable in this point, that they would ne∣uer departe from the authoritie of the Scriptures, to yeeld to the custome, practise, or iudgement of any men. But against this mixture, as you surmise, we haue trāsla∣ted powred out or drawne. I confesse our translators, should more simply according to the worde haue saide, mingled hir wine, and the wine that I haue mingled, but because that speach is not vsuall in the English tongue, it seemeth they regarded not so much the propertie of the worde, as the phrase of our tongue. But that they had no purpose against the mixture of the wine with wa∣ter in the Sacrament, it is manifest by this reason, that none of them did euer thinke, that this place was to be interpreted of the Lordes supper, but generally, of such spirituall foode as wisedome giueth to mens soules. Therefore it is certaine they had no meaning to auoide the worde of mixing for any such intent as you sur∣mise.

MART. 23. Thus then the Greeke is neither drawing of wine, nor powring 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 poure out. Gentle Reader, if thou haue skill, looke the Hebrew Lexicon of Pagnine, esteemed the best:* 1.68 if thou haue not skill, aske, and thou shalt vnderstande, that there is no such signification of this worde, in all the Bible, but that it signifieth onely mixture and mingling. A straunge case, that to auoid this mingling of the cuppe, being a most certaine tradition of the Apostles, they haue inuented two other signifi∣cations of this Hebrew word, which it neuer had before.

FVLK. 23. The Dictionaries are more sure to teach what a word doth signifie, than what it doth not signifie. I confesse, Pagnine giueth none other signification of that roote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but miscuit. But euen the worde miscuit, may signifie, a powring out, when there is no respect of ioyning diuers things togither, but of seruing one with the cuppe, as Tullie vseth the word. Qui alteri misceat mul∣sum, ipse non sitiens. He that serueth an other with sweete wine, when he is not a thirst him selfe. So is the Hebrew word vsed, Esai. 19. where the Prophet sayth. The Lorde hath powred forth amonge them, the spirite of errour. Where the worde of mixture, is not so proper. Againe, your owne vulgar Latine Interpretor, Prouerb. 23. tran∣slateth mimsach, a worde deriued from the same roote,* 1.69 not for any mixture, but for drinking vppe, or making cleane the cuppes, & student calicibus epotandis, which stu∣dy how to empty or drinke vp all that is in the cuppes. In Hebrew it is, which go to seeke strong wine, or mingled wine. And if a mixture be graunted in the place you re∣quire, how proue you a mixture, with water rather than with any thing else. Verily, the circumstance of the place, if there must needes be a mixture, requireth a mixture of spices, hony, or some such thing, to make the wine de∣lectable, vnto which, Wisedome doth inuite, and allure all men to drinke it, rather than of water onely, to abate the strength of it. As also in the text, Prouerbes 23. the drunkards that continued at the wine, and went to seeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mingled wine, went not to seeke wine mingled

with water, but some other delicate mixture. And Esay. 5. where woe is pronoūced to drunkards, the same word is vsed: woe be to them, that are strong to drinke wine, and men of might, limsoch, to mingle strong drinke, not* 1.70 to mingle it with water, for sobrietie, but with some o∣ther delectible matter, to prouoke drunkennesse, as your vulgar Interpretor translateth it. So that albeit the word did signifie to mingle, neuer so properly, and cer∣tainly, you can make no good argument for mingling with water, in that place. Prouerbs 9. where either it sig∣nifieth simply to drawe, broche, or powre out, or else to prepare with some other more pleasant mixture, than of water onely.

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bib. 1562. 1577.
• * 1.2

  Great diffe∣rence in the scriptures betweene blessing, and giuing of thanks.
• * 1.3

  Benedixit eis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Annot. in 9. Luc. v. 16.
• * 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Psal. 106. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.5

  Luc. 24.
• * 1.6

  Beza, loco citato. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which word can neuer si∣gnifie, gi∣uing thanks
• * 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.8

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.9

  Annot. in 1. Cor. 10. v. 16.
• * 1.10

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.11

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.12

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.14

  Lib. 5. cap. 4. Lib. 4. cap. 34. Apolog. 2.
• * 1.15

  Liturg. S. ••at. Ba∣sil. Chrys.
• * 1.16

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hom. 2. in Tim. 2. Hom. 83. in Mat. Hom. de Iuda proditore.
• * 1.17

  Aug. ep. 59.
• * 1.18

  De bono viduit. c. 16.
• * 1.19

  Lib. 4. cap. 3••.
• * 1.20

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.21

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ad rat. Cam. pag. 43.
• * 1.22

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.23

  Ibid. pag. 84.
• * 1.24

  If he had not yet tried him, he presumed to belie him, be∣fore he knevve him.
• * 1.25

  Ho. 2 ad po. An∣tioch.
• * 1.26

  Li. 3. de Sacer∣dotio.
• * 1.27

  Chap. 1. num. 38. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.28

  In 1. Cor. ca. 10. ••om. 24.
• * 1.29

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.30

  Ad rat. Camp. pag. 34.
• * 1.31

  Against D. Sand. Rocke pag. 309.
• * 1.32

  Chap. 1. num. 37. 38. &c.
• * 1.33

  Pag. 35.
• * 1.34

  Praef. in No. Test. an. 1556.
• * 1.35

  The sacrifice of Melchisedec.
• * 1.36

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.37

  See Pet. Galat▪ lib. 10. c 4. & 5. & Chro. Gene•• brardi, pag. 13.
• * 1.38

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.39

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.40

  •••••••• ••nnot. in ••. Luc. v. 42.
• * 1.41

  No. Test. an. 1580▪ Benedicta tu &c. & benedictus, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.42

  Gen. 14. v. 18.
• * 1.43

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.44

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.45

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. c. 9. v. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.46

  1. Cor. 10. 11.
• * 1.47

  Chap. 1 sect. 11.
• * 1.48

  Dan•• 4. v. 12. 17. 20.
• * 1.49

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.50

  See the Bib. 1562. and 1577.
• * 1.51

  1. Cor. 10. v. 2.
• * 1.52

  Haimoi Oecumen.
• * 1.53

  Lignum in panem eius. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.54

  ••. Cor. 10.
• * 1.55

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.56

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.57

  Psal. 21.
• * 1.58

  Destruamus. Ponamus. Mittamus.
• * 1.59

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.60

  That vvater & vvine ought to be mingled in the chalice. Pro. 9.
• * 1.61

  See S. Augustine De Ciuit. Dei lib. 17. c. 20.
• * 1.62

  Bibl. 1579.
• * 1.63

  An. 1577.
• * 1.64

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Miscuit. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Miscut.
• * 1.65

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.66

  Mixtus calix. Conc. Constanti∣nop. 6. can. 32.
• * 1.67

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.68

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.69

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.70

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉