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. 1.

That the Protestantes translate the holie Scriptures falsly of purpose, in fauour of their heresies.

MARTIN.

THOVGH this shall euidently appeare tho∣rough out this whole Booke in euery place that shall be obiected vnto them: yet because it is an obseruation of greatest importaunce in this case & which stigeth thē sore, & toucheth their credit exceedingly, in so much that one of them setting a good* 1.1 face vpon the matter, sayth confidently, that al the Papists in the worlde are not able to shew one place of Scripture mistran∣slated wilfully of purpose: therfore I wil giue the reader certein brief obseruations and euident markes to know wilfull corrupti∣ons, as it were an abridgement and summe of this Treatise.

FVLKE.

ALTHOVGH this trifling treatise was in hand two or three yeares a∣go, as by the threatning of Bristow, and Howlette it may appeare: yet that it might seeme new, and a sud∣den peece of worke compyled with small studie, you thought good by carping at my confutation of Howlet last made, and of M. Whitakers work, set forth later than it, as it were by setting on newe eares vpon your olde potte, to make it seeme to be a newe vessell. And first of all you would seeme to haue taken occasion of my confident speech in my confutation of Howlets nyne Reasons, in re••earsing wherof, you vse such fidelitie, as commonly Papistes vse to beare towardes God, the Churche, your Prince, and your Countrie. For what face soeuer I set vpon the mat∣ter: with a whorish forehead and a brasen face, you make reporte of my saying: which beeing testified by a thou∣sande copies printed, as it were by so many witnesses, doth crie out vpon your falshode, and iniurious dealing. For my wordes out of the place by you quoted against Howlet, are these: That some error may bee in translation (although by you it can not be shewed) I will not denye: but that any shameles translations, or wilfull corruptions, can be* 1.2 found of purpose to draw the Scriptures to any hereticall opini∣on, all the Papistes in the world shall neuer be able to make de∣monsiration. This was my saying, and I repeat it againe with as great confidence as before, yea and with much greater too, forasmuch as all the Papistes in the Semina∣rie, hauing now beaten their heades togither to find out shameles translations and wilful corruptions, of purpose to maintaine heresies ▪ can find nothing, but olde friuo∣lous quarrels answered long before, or new trifling ca∣uils, not worthy in deede of any learned mans answer

but for satisfying of the simple and ignoraunt. Howe this my saying, differeth from your slaunderous re∣porte, I trust euery reasonable Papist that will take paines to conferre them togither, will be enforced to acknowledge. For where I say shamelesse translations and wilfull corruptions (as Howlet chargeth vs,) you re∣porte me to saye mistranslated, although in playne wordes I did confesse, that there might be some er∣rours euen in the best and perfectest of our translati∣ons. For to translate out of one tongue into an other, is a matter of greater difficultie than it is commonly ta∣ken, I meane exactly to yeeld as much and no more, than the originall containeth, when the wordes and phrases are so different, that fewe are found▪ which in all pointes signifie the same thing, neither more nor lesse in diuers tongues. Wherefore notwithstanding any translation that can be made, the knowledge of the tongues, is ne∣cessary in the Church▪ for the perfect discussing of the ••ense, and meaning of the holy Scriptures. Now if some of our translators, or they all, haue not attained to the best, and most proper expressing of the nature of all wordes and phrases of the Hebrew and Greeke tongues in English, it is not the matter that I will stande to de∣fende, nor the translators them selues, I am well assu∣red, if they were all liuing. But that the Scriptures are not impudently falsified, or willfully corrupted by them, to mayntayne anie hereticall opinion, as the aduersarie chargeth vs, that is the thing, that I will (by Gods grace) stande to defende, against all the Papistes in the worlde. And this ende you haue false∣ly and fraudulently omitted, in reporting my say∣ing, wherevppon dependeth the chiefe, yea the whole matter of my assertion. You plai•• manifestly with vs, the lewde parte of Procustes the theeu••sh hoste, whiche woulde make his guestes stature equall with his beddes, eyther by stretching them out if they were too short, or by cutting off their legges,

if they were too long. So if our sayings be too short for your purpose, you straine them to be longer, if they be too long, you cut of their shankes, yea that which is worse, the very head, as you play with me in this place. I my selfe, and so did many hundreds beside me, heare that reuerend father M. Doctor Couerdale of holy and lear∣ned memorie, in a sermon at Paules crosse, vpon occasi∣on of some slaunderous reportes, that then were raysed againste his translation, declare his faithfull purpose in doing the same, which after it was finished, and presen∣ted to King Henry the eight, of famous memorie, and by him committed to diuerse bishops of that time to per∣vse, of which (as I remember) Steuen Gardiner was one: after they had kept it long in their handes, and the King was diuerse times sued vnto for the publication thereof, at the last being called for by the King him selfe, they redeliuered the booke: and being demaunded by the King what was their iudgement of the translation, they aunswered that there were many faultes therein. Well said the King, but are there anye heresies maintayned thereby: They answered there was no heresies that they could finde, maintained thereby. If there be no heresies sayd the King, then in Gods name let it goe abroad a∣mong our people. According to this iudgement of the King and the Bishops, M. Couerdale defended his tran∣slation, confessing that he did now him selfe espie some faultes, which if he might reuiew it once ouer againe, as he had done twise before, he doubted not but to amend: but for any heresie, he was sure there was none maintai∣ned by his translation. After the same maner, I doubt not (by Gods helpe) so to defende all our translati∣ons, for all your euident markes to know wilful corrup∣tions, that not one shal bee founde of purpose to main∣taine any hereticall opinion, and not many errours committed through negligence, ignorance, or humaine frailtie.

MARTIN. 2. The first marke and most generall is:

If they translate elsewhere not amisse, and in places of contro∣uersie* 1.3 betwene them and vs, most falsely: it is an euident ar∣gument that they doe it not of negligence, or ignoraunce, but of partialitie to the matter in controuersie. This is to be seene through the whole Byble, where the faultes of their translations are altogither, or specially, in those Scriptures that concerne the causes inquestion betwene vs. For other small faultes, or rather ouersights, we will no further note vnto them, than to the ende, that they may the more easily pardon vs the like, if they finde them.

FVLKE. 2. This marke is too generall, to knowe any thing thereby: when you doe exemplifie it in spe∣ciall, you shall easily be answered: in the meane time, it is sufficient to deny generally, that wherwith you so ge∣nerally charge vs; that we haue in places of controuersie translated any thing falsely. If one worde be otherwise translated in any place of controuersie, than it is in other places out of controuersie: there may be rendred suffi∣cient reason of that varietie, without that it must needes come of parcialitie to the matter in controuersie, but rather of loue of the truth, which in all matters of que∣stion betwene vs, is confirmed by plaine text of Scrip∣tures, or necessary collection out of the same, so that if the translation in those places were the same that yours is, of the newe Testament, it should neither hinder our truth, nor fortifie your errour. As for small faultes, and ouersightes, reason it is (as you say) they should be par∣doned on both sides.

MART. 3. If, as in their opinions and heresies, they for∣sake the auncient fathers: so, also in their translations, they goe from that text and auncient reading of holy Scriptures, which all the fathers vsed and expounded: is it not plaine that their translation followeth the veine and humor of their heresie? And againe, if they that so abhorre from the auncient expositions of the fathers, yet if it seeme to serue for them, sticke not to make the exposition of any one Doctor, the very text of holy Scripture: what is this but hereticall wilfulnesse? See this 1. chap. num. 43.

chap. 10. num. 1. 2. chap. 18. num. 10. 11. and chap 19. num. 1.

FVL. 3. We neuer goe from that text, and auncient reading, which all the fathers vsed & expoūded, but we translate that most vsual text, which was first printed out of the most auncient copies, that could be found. And if any be since found, or if any of the auncient fathers▪ did reade otherwise, than the vsual copies in any word that is any way material, in annotation, commētaries, readings & sermons, we spare not to declare it as occasiō serueth: but that we sticke not to make the exposition of any one Doctor, the very text of holy Scripture, it is a very hai∣nous slaunder, neither can it be proued in any of the pla∣ces of your booke, which you quote for that purpose.

MART. 4. Againe▪ if they that professe to translate the Hebrew and Greeke, and that because it maketh more for them (as they say) and therefore in all conferences and disputations appeale vnto it as to the fountaine and touchstone, if they (I say) in translating places of controuersie, flee from the Hebrew and the Greeke, it is a most certaine argument of nilfull cor∣ruption. This is done many wayes, and is to be obserued also throughout the whole Bible, and in all this booke.

FVLK. 4. We neuer flee from the Hebrewe and Greeke in anie place, much lesse in places of controuer∣sie: but we alwaies hold as neare as we can, that which the Greeke and Hebrew signifieth. But if in places of controuersie, we take witnesse of the Greeke, or vulgar Latine, where the Hebrew or Greeke may be thought ambiguous. I trust no wise mā wil count this a flight frō the Hebrew, and Greeke, which we alwaies translate a∣right, whether it agre with the 70 or vulgar Latin, or no.

MART. 5. If the Greeke be, Idololatria, and Idolola∣tra:* 1.4 and they translate not. Idolatrie, and, Idolater: but, wor∣shipping* 1.5 of Images, and, worshipper of Images, and that so absurdly, that they make the Apostle say, Couetousnes is wor∣shipping* 1.6 of images: this none would do but fooles or mad mē. vnles it were of purpose against sacred images. See cha. 3. nu. 1. 2.

FVLK. 5. If the Greeke wordes doe signifie, as we

translate, as hath bene oftē proued, who but a wrangling quarreller would find fault therewith, except it were to maintaine Idolatry, or worshipping of images, which be∣fore God and all wise men of the world, is al one. And where you say, none but fooles, or mad men would tran∣slate, Ep 5. Col 3 Couetousnes is worshipping of Images. I pray you in whether order wil you place Isydorus Clarius of a Monke of Casinas made bishop Fulginas: which in the 3. to the Collossians vpon your vulgar Latine text, which according to the Greeke, calleth Idolatria, Simulachrorū seruitus, the seruice of images: in his notes vpon the place writeth this. Praeter caet••ra peccata auaritia peculiare hoc no∣men assecuta est, vt dicatur esse (horrendū nomen) cultus simu∣lachrorū, nam pecunia quid aliud est quàm simulachrū quoddā vel argente••, vel aureū, quod homines auari plus amani & lō∣gè maiore cultu atq▪ honore prosequuntur, quàm ipsum Deū. A∣boue other sinnes, couetousnes hath obtained this pecu∣liar name, that it is called (which is an horrible name) the worshipping of images▪ for what other thing is mo∣ny, but a certaine image, either of siluer or gold? which couetous mē do loue more▪ & prosecute with farre grea∣ter worship & honor, than they doe God him selfe. or if you make no count of Is••dorus Clarius, in what degre wil you account the deputies of the coūcell of Trent, whose seuere censure, this note hath escaped, of fooles or of mad men, or of enimies to sacred images? yea how will you excuse your owne vulgar Latine translation, which turneth Idololatria out of Greeke into simulachrorum ser∣uitus, the seruice or worship of Images? I am not so vn∣acquainted with your shameles shifts, but I know right wel, that you wil say, this Latine word Simulachrū signifi∣eth a false image, or an idoll that is worshipped as God. For nothīg els you wil knowlege to be an idol. But who shal better tel vs what the Latine word Simulachrū doth signifie, than the father of eloquence in the Latin tong, euen Tully himself, who in his oration pro Archia poeta, v∣seth simulachrū, for the same that statua, & Imago, speaking

of the cunning image makers of Greece, he sayth: S••a∣tuae & imagines non animorum simulachra sunt, sed corporum. Standing images, and other images are not similitudes or images of the mindes, but of the bodies. And in his accusation of Verres: he nameth Effigies simulachrū{que} Mi∣thridatis: The shape and image of Mithridates. In his se∣cond booke de inuentione, he sheweth that Zeuxis, that famous painter, did paint the image of Helena, vt excel∣lentem muliebris formae pulchritudinem muta in sese imago cō∣tineret, Helenae se pingere velle simulachrum dixit. That a dumbe image might containe in it, the excellent beau∣tie of a womans forme, he said he would paint the simi∣litude or image of Helena. Also in his familiar epistles, Epist. 68. Illi artifices corporis simulachra ignotis nota facie∣bant. Those workemen did make the images of the bo∣dies knowen to them that knew them not. And so com∣monly he vseth simulachrum iustitiae, virtutis, ciuitatis, for the image or similitude of iustice, of vertue, of a citie or common wealth &c. And so doe other good Latin wri∣ters as well as he, vse the worde Simulachrum: not onely for an image, that is religiously worshipped, but euen generally for any image, and in the same signification that they vse the worde Imago. But peraduenture Eccle∣siasticall writers vse the worde Simulachrum onely for idols forbidden, and I perhaps shall be chidden of Mar∣tin for citing testimonies out of prophane authors, to knowe the vse of Ecclesiasticall termes. Let vs see then what Christian writers saye to this matter, and howe they vse this worde Simulachrum. You your selues saye, we maye not translate that verse of Gene∣sis, God made man after his idoll. But Lactanti∣us* 1.7 calleth men viuentia Dei simulachra, liuing ima∣ges of God whiche wee ought to garnishe rather, than Simulachra insensibilia Deorum, The senselesse i∣mages of the Gods, whiche the Heathen garnished, yea he hath a whole chapter, intituled, de simulachris* 1.8 & vero Dei simulachro & cultu. Of Images and of the

true Image and Worshippe of God. In whiche also he sheweth that Simulachrum is called of similitude. And therefore the heathenish Idols, hauing no resem∣blance of God, can not properly be called Simulachra. S. Ambrose an other writer of the Church, vpon 1. Cor. 10. vpon that text: Non quia simulachrum est aliquid &c. Not that the image is any thing, the Greeke is Idolum, simula∣chrum verè nihil est quia imago videtur rei mortuae. The image or idoll is in deede nothing, because it seemeth to be an image of a dead thing. Also vpon the 45. Psalme. God was high in the Patriarches and Prophetes, which did not compare him Imaginibus terrenis & simulachris scrupeis, to images or similitudes of the earth and stone. Tertullian also, a Latine writer, in his booke De specta∣culis, speaking of cunning workemanship of Imagery, shewed in those playes, and the auctors of them, sayeth: Scimus enim nihil esse nomina mortuorum, sicut nec ipsa simu∣lachra eorum. We know that the names of those dead mē, are nothing, as also their images. Afterwarde to their names Nominibus he ioyneth Imaginibus, to shew that Si∣mulachra and Imagines are all one, which of Christians at that time were greatly abhorred, in detestation of Ido∣latrie. S. Augustine calleth the same Simulachra which before he called Imagines. Cùm ex desiderio mortuorum con∣stituerentur Imagines, vnde simulachrorum vsus exortus est. When for desire of the dead, Images were made, wherof the vse of Images came, through flatterie, diuine honor was giuen vnto them: and so they brought in idolatrie or the worshipping of images. The same Augustine in his booke Octaginta Quaestion. in the 78. quaest. which is intituled De simulachrorum pulchritudine, of the bewtie of Images, ascribeth to God, the cunning, by which they are made bewtifull. And in his questions vpō the booke of Iudges, lib. 7. cap. 41. enquiring how Gedeons Ephod was a cause of fornication to the people, when it was no Idoll, he plainely distinguisheth Simulachrum from Ido∣lum, as the generall from the speciall. Cùm idolum non fue∣rit,

id est cuiuspiam dei falsi & alieni simulachrum. When it was no Idoll, that is to say, an Image of some false or straunge God. Againe he sayth, those things that were commaunded to be made in the tabernacle, were rather referred to the worship of God, than that any thing of them should be taken for God, or for an image of God, pro Dei simulachro. So that Simulachrum with S. Augu∣stine, signifieth as generally, as Image, and can not be restrayned to signifie an Idoll, in the euill parte, except you adde, that it is an image of a false or straunge God. Arnobius an ecclesiasticall writer of the Latine Church vseth the worde Simulachrum for an image generally: calling man also simulachrum Dei, as Lactantius doth the image of God, Cont. gent. lib. 8. Putatis autem nos occulta∣re quod colimus si delubra & aras non habemus. Quod enim simulachrum Deo fingam, cùm si rectè existimes sit Dei ho∣mo ipse simulachrum. Thinke you that we do hide that which we worship, if we haue no temples, and aultars. For what image shall I fayne to God, whereas if you iudge rightly, man him selfe is the image of God. You see therefore that Simulachrum signifieth not an Idoll worshipped for God, but euen as much as I∣mago, by your owne rule. Laste of all, for I will not trouble the Reader with more, although more might be brought. Isidorus Hispalensis an auncient Bishop of the Latine Churche, Originum lib. 8. speaking of the firste inuentors of Images, whiche after were abused to Idolatrie, sayeth: Fuerunt etiam & quidam viri for∣tes aut vrbium conditores: quibus mortuis homines qui eos dilexerunt, simulachra finxerunt, vt haberent aliquod ex imaginum contemplatione solatium: sed paulatim hunc er∣rorem &c. There were also certayne Valiaunt menne or buylders of Cities, who when they were dead, men which loued them, made their images or coun∣terfaites, that they might haue some comforte in be∣holding the images: but by little and little the de∣uilles perswading this errour, it is certayne that so it

crepte into their posteritie, that those whome they ho∣nored, for the onely remembraunce of their name, their successours esteemed and worshipped as gods. Agayne he sayeth, Simulachra autem à similitudine nun∣cupata, &c. Images are called Simulachra of the simi∣litude, because by the hande of the artificers, of stone, or other matter they resemble the countenāce of them, in whose honor they are fayned. Or they are called à Simulando, whereof it followeth, they are false things. These testimonies needed not, for them that be but halfe learned, whiche knowe right well, that Simula∣chrum is Synonomon with Imago: but that our aduersa∣ries are so impudent, that to serue their idolatrous affe∣ction, they care not what Idolles they inuent, of wordes, of significations, of distinctions, so they maye seeme to saie somewhat in the eares of the vnlearned, which are not able to iudge of such matters. But perhappes they will saie, their vulgar Latine interpreter vseth the worde Simulachrum, onely for Idols, that are worship∣ped with diuine honor. Neyther is that true, and al∣though it were, seing it seldome vseth Simulachra, and most commonly Idola, and sometimes Imagines, what reason is their why we may not call those things Images which your Interpreter calleth Simulachra? And to proue that your interpreter vseth Simulachrum for an image generally, as all other Latine writers doe, you may see 1. Sam. cap. 19. where speaking of the image which Mi∣chol layed in the bedde, to counterfaite the sicknesse of Dauid, firste he calleth it Statuam, and afterwarde the same image he calleth Simulachrum. And sure it is, that Dauid had no idolles in his house. And least you should cauill about the Hebrew word Teraphim, which the Sep∣tuaginta translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Aquila calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. S. Hieron. telleth you they signifie Figuras or Imagines, fi∣gures* 1.9 or images, which somtimes were abused to idola∣trie▪ as those which Rachel stole, and those which are mē∣tioned Iud. 17. Aben Ezra and other of the Rabines saye,

they were astronomicall images to serue for dials, or o∣ther purposes of Astrologie: and such it is most like was that, which was placed in Dauids bed, which your inter∣pretor calleth Statuam & Simulachrum. Therfore wheras wee haue translated Idololatria, Col. 3. worshipping of Images, we haue done rightly: and your Latine interpre∣ter will warrant that translation, which translateth the same word Simulachrorum seruitus, the seruice of Images. It is you therefore, and not we, that are to be blamed for translation of that worde. For where you chardge vs to departe from the Greeke texte, which we professe to translate, we doe not, excepte your vulgar transla∣tion be false. But you professing to followe the La∣tine, as the onely true, and authenticall texte, do mani∣festly departe from it, in your translation, for the La∣tine being Simulachrorum seruitus, you call it the ser∣uice of idolles, appealing to the Greeke worde, whiche you haue set in the margent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and dare not translate according to your owne Latine, for then you should haue called couetousnesse euen as we doe, the worshipping or seruice of images. And yet you charge vs in your notes, with a meruailous impudent, and foo∣lish corruption. But I reporte me to all indifferent Rea∣ders, whether this be not a meruailous impudent, and foolish reprehension, to reproue vs for saying the same in English, that your owne interpreter sayeth in Latine. For Simulachrorum seruitus, is as well the seruice of ima∣ges, as Simulachrorum artifex, is a maker of images, whome none but a foole or a madde man, woulde call a maker of Idolles, bicause not the craftes man that frameth the image, but he that setteth it vp to be wor∣shipped as God, maketh an idoll, according to your owne acception of an Idoll. But of this matter enough at this time.

MART. 6. If the Apostle say, A pagan idolater, and a* 1.10 Christian idolater, by one and the same Greeke woorde, in one and the same meaning: and they translate, A pagan idolater,

and a Christian worshipper of images, by two distinct words and diuerse meanings: it must needes be done wilfully to the foresaid purpose. See chap. 3. num, 8. 9.

FVLKE. 6. We translate not only pagane Idola∣ters, but also Iewes Idolaters, nor Christians only wor∣shippers of Images, but Paganes also: wherefore this is a foolish obseruation. And if we do any where explicate, who is an Idolater, by translating him a worshipper of images, both the word beareth it, and it is not contrarie to the sense of the Scriptures, in which we find the wor∣shipping of images alwaies forbidden, but neuer com∣maunded or allowed.

MART. 7. If they translate one and the same Greeke* 1.11 word, Tradition, whensoeuer the Scripture speaketh of euill traditions: and neuer translate it so, whensoeuer it speaketh of good and Apostolicall traditions: their intention is euident a∣gainst the authoritie of Traditions. See chap. 2 numb. 1. 2 3.

FVLKE. 7. This is aunswered sufficiently in con∣futation of the Preface Sect. 51. The English word Tra∣dition sounding in the euill parte, and taken by the Pa∣pistes for matter vnwritten, yet as true, and as necessarie as that which is contained in the holie Scriptures: we haue vpon iust cause auoided in such places, as the Greeke worde signifieth good and necessarie doctrine, deliuered by the Apostles, which is all contained in the Scriptures, and yet haue vsed such English wordes as suf∣ficiently expresse the Greeke word vsed in the originall text. Doe not you your selues translate Tradere some∣times to betray, and sometimes to deliuer?

MART. 8. Yea if they translate, Tradition, taken in* 1.12 ill parte, where it is not in the Greeke: and translate it not so, where it is in the Greeke, taken in good parte: it is more eui∣dence* 1.13 of the foresaid wicked intention. See chap. 2. numb. 5. 6.

FVLK. 8. Our intention can be no worse, than your vulgar Latine Interpreters was, who, where the Greeke hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 translateth it Traditions Act. 6. And the right vnderstanding of the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according

to the Apostles meaning, wil yeeld traditions as well, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the place before mentioned.

MARTINE. 9. If they make this a good rule, to translate according to the vsuall signification, and not the originall deriuation of wordes, as Beza, and Maister* 1.14 Whitakers doe: and if they translate contrarie to this rule, what is it but wilfull corruption? So they doe in translating, Idolum, an Image, Presbyter, an Elder: and the like. See chap. 4. & chap. 6. numb. 6. 7. 8. &c. numb. 13. &c.

FVLKE. 9. Neither Beza, nor Maister Whitaker make it a perpetuall rule, to translate according to the vsuall signification, for sometimes a worde is not taken in the vsuall signification, as Foenerator vsed by your vulgar Latine Interpreter. Luke. 7. vsuallye si∣gnifieth an Vserer: yet doe you translate it a Credi∣tor. Likewise Stabulum vsed Luke. 10. vsually signi∣fieth a Stable, yet you translate it, an Inne. So Nauis which vsually signifieth a Shippe, you call it a Boate. Marke. 8. and Nauicula which vsuallye signi∣fieth a Boate, you call a Shippe▪ Luke. 5. And yet I thinke you meant no wilfull corruption. No more surelye did they whiche translated Idolum an Image, and Presbyter an Elder, whiche you can not deny. But they followe the originall deriuation of the wordes, whereas some of yours, both goe from the v∣suall signification, and also from the originall deri∣uation.

MARTINE. 10. If Presbyter, by Ecclesiasticall vse, bee appropriated to signifie a Priest, no lesse than, E∣piscopus, to signifie a Bishoppe, or Diaconus, a Dea∣con: and if they translate these two later accordingly, and the first neuer in all the Newe Testament: what can it be but wilfull corruption in fauour of this heresie, That* 1.15 there are no Priestes of the Newe Testament? See chap. 6. numb. 12.

FVLKE. 10. The worde Priest, by Popishe

abuse, is commonly taken for a Sacrificer, the same that Sacerdos in Latine. But the Holie Ghost ne∣uer calleth the Ministers of the worde and Sacra∣mentes of the Newe Testament 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Sacerdotes. Therefore the translatours to make a difference be∣twene the Ministers of the Olde Testament, and them of the Newe, calleth the one, according to the vsuall acception, Priestes, and the other accor∣ding to the originall deriuation Elders. Which di∣stinction seeing the vulgar Latine texte doth alwaies rightly obserue, it is in fauour of your hereticall Sacrificing Priesthoode, that you corruptly translate Sacerdos and Presbyter alwayes, as though they were all one, a Priest, as though the Holie Ghost had made that distinction in vayne, or that there were no difference betwene the Priesthoode of the Newe Testament, and the Olde. The name of Priest, ac∣cording to the originall deriuation from Presbyter, wee doe not refuse: but according to the common acception for a Sacrificer, wee can not take it, when it is spoken of the Ministerie of the Newe Testa∣ment. And although many of the auncient Fathers, haue abusiuelye confounded the termes of Sacerdos, and Presbyter: yet that is no warrant for vs to trans∣late the Scripture, and to confounde that which we see manifestly the spirit of God hath distinguished. For this cause, we haue translated the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Elder, euen as your vulgar Latine translater doeth diuerse times, as Actes. 15. and 20. 1. Pet. 5. and else where calleth them Seniores, or Maiores natu. Which you commonly call, the Aun∣cientes or Seniors, because you dare not speake En∣glishe, and say the Elders. Neither is Presbyter by Ecclesiasticall vse so approprietated to signifie a Priest, that you woulde alwayes translate it so in the Olde Testament, where your vulgar translatour vseth it for a name of Office, and Gouernment, and not

for Priests at any time. Neither do we alwayes translate the Greeke worde Episcopus and Diaconus for a Bishoppe and a Deacon, but sometimes for an ouerseer, as Act. 20. and a minister generally oftentimes.

The word Baptisma by Ecclesiasticall vse signifieth the holy Sacrament of Baptisme, yet are you enforced Marke. 7. to translate Baptismata washings. Euen so doe we to obserue that distinction, which the Apostles and Euangelistes alwaies doe keepe, when we call Sacer∣dotes Priestes, for difference we call Presbyteros Elders. and not least the name of Priestes shoulde enforce the Popishe sacrifice of the Masse. For this worde Presbyter will neuer cōprehend a sacrificer, or a sacrificing Priest∣hoode.

MART. 11. If for Gods altar, they translate, Temple: & for Bels idololatrical table, they translate, altar: iudge whe∣ther it bee not of purpose against our altars, and in fauour of their communion table. See chap. 17. numb. 15. 16.

FVLK. 11. If there be any suche mistaking of one word for an other, I thinke it was the fault of the Prin∣ter rather than of the Translator, for the name of altar is more than a hundred times in the Bible: and vnto the storie of Bell, we attribute so small credit, that we will take no testimonie from thence, to proue or dis∣proue any thing.

MART. 12. If at the beginning of their heresie, whē sa∣cred images were broken in peeces, altars digged downe, the Ca∣tholike Churches authoritie defaced, the king made supreme* 1.16 head, then their translation was made accordingly, and if after∣warde when these errours were well established in the realme, and had taken roote in the peoples hartes, all was altered and changed in their later translations, and now they could not finde that in the Greeke, which was in the former translation: what was it at the firste but wilfull corruption to serue the time that then was? See chap. 3. 5. chap. 17. numb. 15. chap. 15. num. 22.

FVLK. 12. For images, altars, the Catholike Chur∣ches authoritie, the kings supremacie, nothing is altered

in the later translations, that was falsely translated in the former, except perhaps the Printers fault be reformed. Neither can any thing be proued to maintaine the po∣pish images, altars, churches authoritie, or Popes supre∣macie, out of any translation of the Scriptures, or out of the originall itselfe. Therefore our translations were not framed according to the time, but if any thing were not vttered so plainly or so aptly as it might, why should not one translation helpe an other.

MART. 13. If at the first reuolt, when none were noted for Heretikes and Schismatikes, but themselues, they did not once put the names of Schisme or Heresie in the Bible, but in steede thereof, diuision, and, secte, in so much that for an He∣retike,* 1.17 they sayd, an author of Sectes, what may we iudge of it but as of wilfull corruption? See chap. 4. numb. 3.

FVLK. 13. Yes, reasonable men may iudge, that they did it to shew vnto the ignorant people, what the names of schismatike, and heretike doe signifie, rather than to make them beleue, that heresie, and schisme was not spoken against in the Scripture. That they translated he∣resie, secte, they did it by example of your vulgar La∣tine Interpreter, who in the 24. of the Actes, translateth the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sectae. In which chapiter like∣wise, as he also hath done, they haue translated the same word, heresie.

MART. 14. If they translate so absurdly at the firste, that them selues are driuen to change it for shame: it muste needes be at the first wilfull corruption. For example, when it was in the first, Temple, and in the later, Altar: in the first alwaies, Congregation, in the later alwaies, Church: in the first, To the King as chiefe head, in the later, To the King as hauing preeminence. So did Beza first translate, carcasse, and afterward, soule. Which alteration in all these places is so great, that it could not be negligence at the first or ignorance, but a plaine hereticall intention. See chap. 17. numb. 15. chap. 5. numb. 4. 5. chap. 15. numb. 22. chap. 7. numb. 2.

FVLK. 14. Nay, it may be an ouersight, or escape

of negligence, or the Printers fault, as it is manifest in that quarrell you make of temple, for altar: for in Tho∣mas Mathews translation, the first that was printed in En∣glish, with authoritie, there is altar in both places. 1. Cor. 9. & 10. For the terme Congregation changed into Church, it was not for shame of the former, which was true, but because the other terme of Church was nowe well vnderstood, to shewe that the word of Scripture, a∣greeth with the worde of our Creede: or perhaps to a∣uoid your fōd quarrel, not now first picked to the terme Congregation. Wheras the former was: To the King or chiefe head, the later saying, the King as hauing preemi∣nence, doth nothing derogate vnto the former, and the former is contained vnder the later. For I hope you will graunt, that the King is chiefe head of his people, or if the word head displease you, (because you are so good a french man) tell vs what chiefe doth signifie, but an head? Now this place of Peter, speaketh not particularly of the Kings authoritie ouer the Church, or in Church matters, therfore if it had bene translated Supreme head, we could haue gained no greater argument for the su∣premacie in question, than we may by the word preemi∣nēce, or by the word extolling, which you vse. That Beza altered the word Cadauer into Animam: I haue shewed he did it to void offēce, & because the later is more proper to the Greeke, although the Hebrew worde which Da∣uid doth vse, may & doth signifie a dead body or carcase.

MART. 15. If they will not stand to all their translations, but flie to that, namely which now is redde in their Churches: & if that which is now redde in their Churches, differ in the points afore sayd, from that that was redde in their Churches in King Edwards time: & if from both these, they slie to the Geneua Bi∣ble, & from that againe, to the other afore sayd: what shall we iudge of the one or the other, but that all is voluntarie, and as they list? See chap. 3. num. 10. 11. 12. chap. 10. num. 12.

FVLK. 15. If of three translations, we preferre that which is the best, what signe of corruption is this? If any

fault haue either of ignorance, or negligence escaped in one, which is corrected in an other, and we preferre that which is corrected, before that which is faultie, what cor∣ruption cā be iudged in either? Not euery fault is a wil∣ful corruption, & much lesse an heretical corruptiō. The example that you quote out of your 3. chapiter concer∣ning the translation of Idolum, is no flying from our trā∣slation to an other, but a confuting of Howlets cauill a∣gainst our Church seruice: because this word is therein redde translated an image. 1. Ioan. 5. wheras in that Bible, which by authority is to be red in the church seruice, the word in the text is idols, & not images▪ & yet wil we iu∣stifie the other to be good & true, which readeth, Babes, keepe your selues from images, as your vulgare Latine text is à simulachris, wherein you flie from your owne authentical text to the Greeke, which except you thinke it make for your purpose, you are not ashamed to count falsified and corrupted.

MART. 16. If they gladly vse these wordes in ill part, where they are not in the originall text, Procession, shrines, deuotions, excommunicate, images: and auoide these wordes, which are in the originall, Hymnes, grace, mysterie, Sacrament, Church, Altar, Priests, Catholike, traditions, iustifications: is it not plaine that they doe it of purpose to dis∣grace, or suppresse the sayd things and speeches vsed in the Ca∣tholike Church? See chap. 21. num. 5. & seq. chap. 12. num. 3.

FVLK. 16. Who would be so mad, but blind ma∣lice, to thinke they would disgrace or suppres the things, or names of Catholike Church, whereof they acknow∣ledge thēselues mēbers: of grace by which they confesse they are saued: of hymnes, which they vse to the praise of God: of iustifications, when they professe they are of thē selues vniust: of Sacraments & mysteries, by which the benefits of Christ are sealed vp vnto them: of altar, when they beleue that Iesus Christ is our altar: of Priests, when they hold that al good Christians are Priests: of deuoti∣ons, when they dispute that ignorance is not the mother

of true deuotion, but knowledge, of excommunication, which they practise daily. As for the names and thinges of procession, shrines, images, traditions, beside the ho∣ly Scriptures in religiō, they haue iust cause to abhorre. Neither do they vse the one sort of termes, without pro∣bable ground out of the originall text: nor auoide the other, but vpon some good speciall cause: as in the seue∣ral places (when we are charged with them) shal appeare.

MART. 17. If in a case that maketh for them, they straine the very originall signification of the word, and in a case that maketh against them, they neglect it altogither: what is this but wilfull and of purpose? See chap. 7. numb. 36.

FVLK. 17. I answer we streine no words, to signifie otherwise, than the nature and vse of them will affoord vs, neither doe we spare to expresse that, which hath a shewe against vs, if the propertie, or vsuall signification of the word, with the circumstance of the place, doe so require it.

MART. 18. If in wordes of ambiguous and diuerse sig∣nification, they will haue it signifie here or there, as it pleaseth them: and that so vehemently, that here it must needes so signi∣fie, and there it must not: and both this, and that, to one ende and in fauour of one and the same opinion: what is this but wilfull translation? So doth Beza vrge 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signifie, wife,* 1.18 and not to signifie, wife, both against virginitie and chastitie of Priestes: and the English Bible translateth accordingly. See chap. 15. num. 11. 12.

FVLK. 18. To the generall charge, I answer gene∣rally, we do not as you slaunder vs. Nor Beza whom you shamefully belye, to vrge the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. Cor. 7. v. 1. not to signifie a wife against virginitie, and chastitie of Priestes. For cleane contrariwise, he reproueth Erasmus restraining it to a wife, which the Apostle saith general∣ly: it is good for a man not to touch a woman, which doth not onely conteine a commendation of virginitie in them that be vnmaried, but also of continencie in them that be maried. And as for the virginity or chasti∣tie

of Priestes, he speaketh not one worde of it, in that place, no more than the Apostle doth. Now touching the other place, that you quote. 1. Cor. 9. v. 5. Beza doth truely translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a sister to wife, because the word sister, is first placed, which comprehendeth a woman, and therefore the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 following, must needes ex∣plicate, what woman he meaneth, namely a wife. For it were absurd to say, a sister a woman. Therfore the vulgar Latine Interpreter, peruerteth the words, & saith: Mulie∣rem sororem. It is true, that many of the auncient fathers, as too much addict to the singlenes of the Clergie, though they did not altogither condemne mariage in them, as the Papists doe: did expound the sister whereof S. Paule speaketh, of certaine rich matrones, which followed the Apostles, whithersoeuer they went & ministred to them of their substance, as we reade that many did to our Sa∣uiour Christ. Math. 27. v. 55. Luc. 8. v. 3. But that expositi∣on can not stand, nor agree with this text for many cau∣ses. First the placing of the wordes, which I haue before spoken of. Secondly this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were needeles, ex∣cept it should signifie a wife: for the word sister signifi∣eth both a woman, & a faithful woman, and otherwise it was not to be doubted, least the Apostle would leade a heathen woman with him. Thirdly the Apostle speaketh of one womā, & not many, wheras there were many that followed our Sauiour Christ, whereas one alone to fol∣low the Apostle, might breede occasion of ill suspition, and offence, which many could not so easily. Fourthly, those that are mentioned in the Gospell, our Sauiour Christ did not leade about, but they did voluntarily fol∣low him: but the Apostle here saith, that he had authori∣tie, as the rest of the Apostles, to leade about a woman, which argueth the right, that an husband hath ouer his wife, or of a maister ouer his maide. Fiftly, it is not all one, if women could trauel out of Galilie to Ierusalem, which was nothing neare an hundred miles; that women could followe the Apostles into all partes of the world.

Sixtly, if the cause why such women are supposed to haue followed the Apostles, was to minister to them of their substance, the leading them about, was not burdenous to the Church, but helpeful: but the Apostle testifieth, that he forbare to vse this libertie, because he would not be burdenous to the Church of Corinth, or to any of them. Seuenthly, seing it is certaine that Peter had a wife, and the rest of the Apostles are by antiquitie reputed to haue bene all maried: It is not credible that Peter, or any of the rest, would leaue the companie of their owne wiues, & leade strange women about with them. As for the ob∣iection that you make in your note vppon the text, to what ende should he talke of burdening the Corinthi∣ans with finding his wife, when he himself cleerely saith, that he was single? I answer, Although I thinke he was single, yet is it not so cleere as you make it, for Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh he had a wife, which he left at Phi∣lippi, by mutual consent. But albeit he were single, it was lawfull for him to haue maried, and Barnabas also, as wel as all the rest of the Apostles. Againe, to what end should he talke of burdening the Church with a woman, which was not his wife, when such women as you say ministred to the Apostles of their goods? Wherby it should follow that none of the Apostles burdened the Churches where they preached with their owne finding, which is cleane contrary to the Apostles wordes and meaning. Where∣fore the translation of Beza, and of our Church, is most true, and free from all corruption.

MART. 19. If the Puritans & grosser Caluinists disagree about the translations, one part preferring the Geneua English Bible, the other the Bible read in their Church: & if the Luthe∣rans condemne the Zuinglians & Caluinistes translations, and contrariwise: & if all Sectaries reproue eche an others transla∣tion: What doth it argue, but that the translations differ accor∣ding to their diuerse opinions. See their bookes written one a∣gainst another.

FVLK. 19. Here againe is nothing but a generall

charge of disagreeing about translations, of Puritans, & Caluinists, Lutherans & Zuinglians, and of all Sectaries reprouing one an others translation, with as generall a demonstration. See the bookes written one against an other, which would aske longer time, than is needeful to answer such a vaine cauil; when it is alwaies sufficient to deny, that which is affirmed without certaine proofe.* 1.19

MART. 20. If the English Geneua Bibles them selues dare not follow their Maister Beza, whom they professe to tran∣slate, because in their opinion he goeth wide, and that in places of controuersie: how wilfull was he in so translating? See chap. 12. num. 6. 8. chap. 13. num. 1.

FVLK. 20. It is a very impudent slaunder. The Ge∣neua Bibles doe not professe to translate out of Bezaes Latine translation, but out of the Hebrew & Greeke, & if they agree not alwaies with Beza▪ what is that to the pur∣pose, if they agree with the truth of the originall text? Beza often times followeth the purer phrase of the La∣tine tongue, which they neither woulde, nor might fol∣low in the English. If in dissenting from Beza, or Beza from them, they or he dissent from the truth, it is of hu∣mane frailtie, & not of hereticall wilfulnes. The places being examined, shall discouer your vanitie.

MART. 21. If for the most part they reprehend the olde vulgar translation, and appeale to the Greeke: and yet in places of controuersie sometime for their more aduantage (as they thinke) they leaue the Greeke, and followe our Latine translati∣on: what is it else, but voluntarie and partiall translation? See chap. 2. num. 8. chap. 6. nu. 10. 21. chap. 7. nu. 39. chap. 10. nu. 6.

FVLK. 21. We neuer leaue the Greeke to followe your vulgar translation, as in the places by you quoted, I will proue manifestly: but I haue already proued, that you leaue the Latine, and appeale to the Greeke, in tran∣slating Simulachra, Idols, both Col. 3. & 1. Iohn. 5.* 1.20

MART. 22. If otherwise they auoid this world, iustificati∣ons, altogither, & yet translate it when they can not choose, but with a cōmētarie that it signifieth good works that are testimo∣nies

of a liuely faith: doth not this hereticall commentarie shew their heretical meaning, when they auoide the worde aliogither? See Chap. 3. Nu. 1. 2. 3.

FVLK. 22. To auoyde the worde altogither, and yet sometime to translate it, I see not how they can stand togither, for he that doth sometimes translate it, doth not altogither auoyde it. But you will say, they do alto∣gither auoyde it in all such places, where they doe not translate it. That is altogither false; for the Geneua tran∣slation Luc. 1. telleth you that the Greeke worde signi∣fieth iustifications, and yeeldeth a reason why it doth in that place otherwise translate it: and if to translate the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 otherwise than iustificatiō, must needes shew an hereticall meaning, then must you needs say▪ that your vulgar Latine translater had an hereticall meaning, for in the second place by you quoted, namely Rom. 2. v. 26. he tran••lateth it Iustitias, likewise Ro. 1. v. 32. Iustitiam, so likewise Rom. 5. v. 18. And if it be an hereti∣call commentarie, to say, that good workes are a testi∣monie of a liuely faith, you will also condemne the A∣postles of heresie, which teach it to be impossible to please God without faith, Heb. 11. and that what soeuer is not of faith, is sinne, Rom. 14. If there be any good workes that are not testimonies of a liuely faith. But it is sufficient for you, to call what you wil heresie, and he∣reticall falsification, and corruption, for your disciples are bounde to beleeue you, though you say the Gospell be heresie, and the Apostles themselues heretikes. Gre∣gorie Martine calleth this an heretical commentarie, what neede you seeke other proofe?

MART. 23. When by adding to the text at their plea∣sure, they make the Apostle say, that by Adams offence, ••inne* 1.21 came on all men, but that by Christs iustice, the benefite on∣ly abounded toward all men, not that iustice came on all, whereas the Apostle maketh the case a like, without any such diuers additions, to wit, that we are truely made iuste by* 1.22 Christ, as by Adam we are made sinners: is not this most wilfull

corruption for their heresie of imputatiue and phantasticall iu∣stice. See Chap 11. Nu. 1.

FVLK. 23. The Verse by you quoted Rom. 5. v. 18. is a manifest eclipsis or defectiue speach, to make any sense, wherof, there must needes be added a Nominatiue case, and a Verbe. Now by what other Nominatiue case, and Verbe, may the sense be supplied, but by that which the Apostle him selfe giueth before? Verse. 15. Vnto which all that followeth must be referred for explication. Where he saieth, as you your selues trāslate it: If by the offēce of one many died: much more the grace of God & the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpō many. Seing therfore that defectiue speach must be sup∣plied for vnderstanding in this probation, what is so apt as that which the Apostle him self hath expressed before in the proposition? Although you in your translatiō are not disposed to supplie it, bicause you had rather the text should be obscure, & wōdred at, than that it should be plaine & easie, or able to be vnderstood: albeit in other places you sticke not to adde such wordes as be necessa∣rie for explication of the texte, as euery translater must do, if he will haue any sense to be vnderstood in his trā∣slation. For that defectiue speach which in some tongue is well vnderstood, in some other is altogither voide of sense, and must be explicated by addition of that, which is necessarily or probably to be vnderstoode. So you translate Math. 8. Quid nobis. What is betweene vs? Mark. 2. Post dies, after some daies, Accumberet, he satte at meate and many such like. But where you charge our transla∣tion to say, the benefite (only) aboūded toward all men, not that iustice came on all: you do shamefully adde to our translation, for the worde onely is of your owne slaunderous addition, and the rest is your malitious co∣lection. For we meane not to extenuate the benefite of Christes redemption, but by all meanes to set it forth to the vttermost: as the worde (abounded) doth shew, if you do not blemish the light of it, by your blockish ad∣dition

of this worde (only). And that we are truely made iust by Christ, and yet by imputation, as wee are truly made sinners by Adam, and yet partly by imputation, as we are actually by corruptiō, we do at all times and in al places most willingly confesse, for the iustice of Christ which is imputed vnto vs by faith, is no false or phan∣tasticall iustice, as you do no lesse blasphemously, than phantastically affirme: but a true and effectuall iustice, by which we are so truly made iust▪ that we shall receiue for it the crowne of iustice, which is eternall life, as the Apostle proueth at large, Rom. 4. and 5. whom none but an hellhound will barke against, that he defendeth im∣putatiue and phantasticall iustice.

MART. 24. But if in this case of iustification, when the* 1.23 question is whether onely faith iustifie, and wee say no, ha∣uing the expresse wordes of S. Iames: they say, yea, hauing ne expresse scripture for it: if in this case they will adde, only, to the very text: is it not most horrible and diuelish corruption? So did Luther, whom our English Protestāts honor as their father, & in this heresie of only faith, are his owne childrē. See ch. 12.

FVLK. 24. In the question of iustification by faith only, where S. Iames saieth no: we say, no also, neyther can it be proued that we adde this word only to the text in any translation of oures. If Luther did in his transla∣tion adde the worde only to the texte, it can not be ex∣cused of wrong translation in worde, although the sense might well beare it. But seing Luther doth him selfe confesse it, he may be excused of frawde, though not of lacke of iudgement. But why should our translation be charged with Luthers corruption? Because our English Protestants honour him as their father. A very lewde slaunder: for we call no man father vpon earth, though you do call the Pope your father, albeit in another sense Luther was a reuerende father of the Churche for his time. But as touching the doctrine of only faith iustify∣ing, it hath more patrones of the fathers of the auncient, primitiue Church, than Martine can beare their bookes,

though he would breake his backe, who in the same plaine wordes do affirme it as Luther doth, that only faith doth iustifie. And the Apostle which saieth that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law, speaketh more plainely for iustification by faith only, (as we do teach it), than if he had sayed a man is iustified by faith only. Which text of Rom. 3. and many other, are as expresse scripture to proue that we teach and beleeue, as that S. Iames sayeth against iustification by faith only, where he speaketh of an other faith, and of an other iu∣stification, than S. Paule speaketh of, and we vnderstand, when we holde that a man is iustified by faith only, or without workes of the law, which is all one.* 1.24

MART. 25. If these that account themselues the great Grecians and Hebricians of the world, will so translate for the aduauntage of their cause, as though they had no skill in the world, and as though they knew neither the significatiō of words, nor proprietie of phrases in the saide languages: is it not to be esteemed shamelesse corruption?

FVLK. 25. Yes, but if it can not be proued that so they translate, then is this an impudent slaunder, as al the rest are, and so it will proue when it cōmeth to be tried.

MART. 26. I will not speake of the German Heretikes,* 1.25 who to mainteine this heresie, that all our workes, be they neuer so good, are sinne, translated, for Tibi soli peccaui, to thee only haue I sinned▪ thus, Tibi solùm peccaui▪ that is, I▪ haue nothing else but sinned: whatsoeuer I do, I sinne:* 1.26 whereas neither the Greeke nor the Hebrewe will possibly admit* 1.27 that sense. Let these passe as Lutherans, yet wilfull corrupters, and acknowledged of our English Protestants for their good brethren. But if Beza translate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when* 1.28 we were yet of no strength, as the Geneua English Bible also doth interprete it, whereas euery young Grecian knoweth that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is weake, feeble, infirme, and not altogither without strength: is not this of purpose to take away mans free will alto∣gither? See chap. 10. nu. 13.

FVLK. 26. I knowe not what German heretikes

those be which maintaine that heresie, that al our works be they neuer so good are sinne, except they be the Li∣bertines with whom we haue nothing to do. For we ne∣uer say, that good workes are sinne, for that were al one to say that good were euill. But that al our good workes are short of that perfection, which the law of God requi∣reth, we do humbly confesse against our selues. Or else, what soeuer seemeth to be a good worke, and is done of mē voyde of true faith, is sinne. For these assertions we haue the scripture to warrāt vs. And if to proue the later any man hath translated those words of Dauid in the 51. Psalme, Lecha, Lebadecha, Tibi solum, or tantūmodo tibi pec∣caui,* 1.29 &c. To the only or altogither to thee I haue sinned, in respect of his naturall corruption which he doth ex∣presse in the next verse, he hath not departed one whitte from the Hebrewe wordes, nor from the sense which the wordes may very wel beare, which he that denieth, ra∣ther sheweth him selfe ignorant in the Hebrew tongue, than he that so translateth. For what doth Lebad signifie,* 1.30 but Solum or Tantum and therefore it may as well be translated Solum tibi, as Soli ••ibi. And the Apostle Rom. 3. prouing by the later end of that verse, all men to be vn∣iust, that God only may be true, and euery man a lier, as it is written that thou mayest be iustified in thy wordes &c. fauoreth that interpretation of Bucer, or who soeuer it is beside. But if Beza translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when wee were yet of no strength, as the Geneua Englishe Bible doth also interprete it, whereas euerye young Gre∣cian knoweth that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is weake, feeble, infirme, and not altogither withoute strengthe: is not this of purpose to take awaye mannes free wyll altogither? Chapter tenth, Number. 13. Naye it is to shewe as the Apostles pur∣pose is, that wee haue no strength to fulfill the lawe of God without the grace of Christ, euen as Christ him selfe sayth, without me you can do nothing, Ioan. 15. v. 5. But euery young Grecian (saye you) knoweth that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is weake, feeble, infirme, and not altogither with

out strength. And is there then any old Grecian that will proue, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alway signifieth him that is weake, but not voide of strength? Doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alwayes signifie him that hath some strēgth? Certaine it is that the Apo∣stle speaketh here, of those that were voide of strength, for the same he calleth in the same verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vngodly, or voide of religion, for whom Christ died. Howe say you then, had vngodly persons any strength to be saued, except Christ had died for them? Therefore he that in this place translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, weake, feeble, infirme▪ must needes vnderstand men so weake, feeble, and infirme, as they haue no strength. For how might it else be truely sayed, what hast thou, which thou hast not receiued? 1. Cor. 4. v. 7. Yes, say you, we haue some peece of freewil at least, some strength to clime to heauen, euen with∣out the grace of God, without the death & redemption of Christ. If you say no, why cauill you at Bezaes trans∣lation and ours? The Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as great a Grecian as you would make your selfe, signifieth weake or infirme, sometime that which yet hath some strength, sometime that which hath no strength at all, as I will giue you a plaine example out of S. Paule. 1. Cor. 15. v. 43. The dead bodie is sowen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in weakenesse: it riseth againe in power. Doth not weakenesse here signi∣fie priuation of all strength? It is maruaile, but you will say a dead bodie is not altogither voide of strength. Be∣za telleth you out of S. Paule, Rom. 8. v. 6. That the wise∣dome of the flesh without Christ is death, it is enmitie against God, it is neither subiect vnto the law of God▪ neither can it be, where is the strength of free will that you complaine to bee taken away by our translation? Beza doth also tell you, that S. Paule calleth all the ce∣remonies of the lawe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; as they are separated from the spirit of Christ, the weake and beggerly elementes, Gala••. 4. Are they not voide of strength, & riches which are voide of Christs grace and spirit? But your purpose was only to quarrell, and seeke a knot in a rush, & there∣fore

you regarded not what Beza hath written, to iusti∣fie his translation.

MART. 27. If Caluine translate, Non ego, sed gra∣tia* 1.31 Dei quae mihi aderat: may not meane Graecians controle* 1.32 him, that he also translateth falsely against free will, because the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth require some other participle to be vnder∣stoode, that shoulde signifie a cooperation with free will, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which laboured with me? See chap. 10. numb. 2.

FVLK. 27. The Greeke is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the grace of God which is with me. A meane Graecian will rather vnderstande the verbe substantiue, than the participle, as you doe, and then must needes againe vn∣derstand the verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hath laboured. For thus the sense must be, if your participle be vnderstood, I haue la∣boured more than they all, yet not I but the grace of God which labored with me hath labored. Who would commit such a vaine tautologie. The sense is therefore plaine, which the Apostles words do yeeld in the iudge∣ment of better Graecians than euer G. Martine was, or will be. I haue not labored more than the rest of the A∣postles, of mine owne strength or will, but the grace of God which is in me, or with me, hath giuen me greater strength & ability to trauel in the Gospell than to them. But you are afraid least it should be thought, that the A∣postle had done nothing, like vnto a block, forced only: a blockish feare, & a forced collection. For when the A∣postle first saith, he hath labored & after denieth & saith, I haue not laboured: what sensible man will not gather, that in the former, he labored as a man indued with life, sense, and reason, and in the later, that he laboured not by his owne strength or vertue, but by the grace of God▪ to which he attributeth all that he is in such respect? By the grace of God I am that I am (saith he) which mani∣festly excludeth naturall free will, to that which is good & appertaining to the glorie of God. For which cause he denieth that he laboured more than the rest, not I but the grace of God▪ which was present with me.

MART. 28. If, when the Hebrue beareth indifferently, to say, Sinne lieth at the dore: and vnto thee the desire thereof* 1.33 shall be subiect, & thou shalt rule ouer it: the Geneua English Bible translate the first without scruple, & the later not▪ because of the Hebrue Grammar: is not this also most wilfull against free will? See chap. 10. numb. 9.

FVLK. 28. I graunt this to bee done willingly, a∣gainst free will, but yet no false nor corrupt translation. For in the participle Robets, which signifieth lying, is a* 1.34 manifest Enallage or chaunge of the gender to declare that in Chataoth, which word being of the feminine gen∣der, signifieth sinne, is to bee vnderstoode Auon, or some such worde as signifieth the punishment of sinne, which may agree with the participle in the masculine gender, that the antithesis may be perfect. If thou doest well, shall there not be reward or remission, if thou doest euill, the punishment of thy sinne is at hand. But that the later end of the verse can not be referred to sinne, but vnto Cain, not only the Grammar, but also the plaine wordes, and sense of the place doth conuince. For that which is sayd of the appetite, must haue the same sense, which the same wordes haue before, of the appetite of Eue to∣wardes her husband Adam, that in respect of the law of nature, and her infirmitie, she should desire to be vnder his gouernment, & that he should haue dominion ouer her. So Abel the yonger brother should be affected to∣ward his elder brother Cain, to whom by the law of na∣ture he was louing and subiect, and therefore no cause, why Cain should enuy him as he did. Otherwise it were a straunge meaning, that sinne which is an insensible thing, shoulde haue an appetite or desire towarde Cain, who rather had an appetite to sinne, than sinne to him. But you are so greedie of the later parte, that you consi∣der not the former. I knowe what the Iewisne Rabbines fauourers of Hethenish free will, absurdly doe ima∣gine to salue the matter, but that which I haue said may satisfie godly Christian▪.

MART. 29. If Caluine affirme that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 can* 1.35 not signifie, propter reuerentiam, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not so vsed, & Beza auoucheth the same more earnestly, and the English Bi∣ble* 1.36 translateth accordingly, which may be confuted by infinite examples in the Scripture it selfe, & is cōfuted by Illyricus the Lutheran: is it not a signe either of passing ignorance, or of most wilfull corruption, to maintaine the blasphemie that hereupon they conclude? See chap. 7. numb. 42▪ 43.

FVLKE. 29. If Beza, Caluine, & the English trans∣lations be deceiued about the vse of the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it proueth not that they are deceiued in the translation of the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the matter in question. They haue other reasons to defend it, than the vse of the preposition, although you sclaunder Caluine, in saying he affirmeth, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not vsed for propter. For he sayth no more, but that the preposition is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or some such like, that may designe a cause quae causam designet, that is, that certainly may point out a cause, & can not o∣therwise be taken. Likewise Beza saith, Atqui non facile mihi persuaserim, proferri posse vllum exemplum in quo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ita vsurpe••ur. But I can not easily persuade my selfe, that any example may be brought forth, in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so vsed, that is, for propter, or secundum, for which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were more proper and vsuall. Now if Illyricus haue hel∣ped you with a few examples where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so taken, what say Beza or Caluine against it, but that it doth not vsual∣ly and certainly signifie so. Their iudgement vpon the place remaineth still grounded vpon other argumentes, although that reason of the acception of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be not so strong, as if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had neuer bene so taken. But as for the blasphemie, you say, they conclude vpon that place, will redound vpon your owne necke, for their exposition is honourable and glorious to God the father, and Christ his sonne, and to the Holy Ghost, by whom that Epistle was indited, to the confusion of your Popishe blasphe∣mies, of the sacrifice propitiatorie offred in the Masse.

MART. 30. If Beza in the selfe same place contende,

that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not signifie reuerence or pietie, but suche a feare as hath horrour & astonishment of mind: & in an other place sayth of the selfe same worde, cleane contrarie: what is it but of purpose to vpholde the said blasphemie? See chap. 7. nu. 39. 40.

FVLK. 30. Beza in the same place, doth bring ma∣ny examples to proue, that the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signifie a great feare, and so is to be taken Heb. 5. But it is an impudent lye to say, he doth contend, that it neuer signifieth reuerence, or piety: and therfore that he saith it signifieth piety in an other place, is nothing con∣trarie to that he spake in this place, for the word signi∣fieth both, as no man that will professe any knowledge in the Greeke tongue can deny.

MART. 31. If he translate for, Gods foreknowledge* 1.37 * 1.38 Gods prouidence, for soule, carcas, for hell, graue: to what* 1.39 end is this but for certaine hereticall conclusions? And if vpon* 1.40 admonition he alter his translation for shame, and yet prote∣steth that he vnderstandeth it as he did before, did he not trans∣late before wilfully according to his obstinate opinion? See chap. 7.

FVLK. 31. Beza doth in deede translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 prouidentia, but he expoūdeth himselfe in his annotation. id est, aeterna cognitione, for what hereticall conclusion he should so do, you do not expresse, neither can I imagine. To your other quarrels, of soule, and carcasse, hell and graue, I haue sayd enough in aunswer to your preface, Sect. 46. & 47.* 1.41

MART. 32. If to this purpose he auouch that, Sheol, signifieth nothing else in Hebrue but a graue, whereas all He∣bricians* 1.42 know that it is the most proper and vsuall word in the Scripture for Hell, as the other word Keber, is for a graue: who would thinke he would so endaunger his estimation in the He∣brue tongue, but that an hereticall purpose against Christs de∣scending into hell, blinded him? See chap. 7.

FVLK. 32. Nay rather all learned Hebriciās know that Sheol is more proper for the graue, than for hell, and

that the Hebrewes haue no worde proper for hell, as we take hell, for the place of punishment of the vngod∣ly, but either they vse figuratiuely Sheol, or more cer∣tainly Topheth, or Gehinnom. For Sheol is in no place so necessarily to be taken for hell, but that it may also be taken for the graue. That Keber signifieth the graue, it is no proofe that Sheol doth not signifie the same, & there∣fore you shew your selfe to be too young an Hebrician, to carpe at Bezaes estimation in the knowledge of the tongue.

MART. 33. And if all the English Bibles translate ac∣cordingly, to wit, for Hell, Graue, wheresoeuer the Scripture may meane any lower place that is not the Hell of the damned: and where it must needes signifie that Hell, there they neuer a∣uoide so to translate it: is it not an euident argument, that they know very well the proper signification, but of purpose they will neuer vse it to their disaduantage in the questions of Limbus, Purgatorie, Christs descending into Hell? chap. 7.

FVLKE. 33. I haue sayd before, there is no place in the old Testament, where Sheol must nedes signifie, that hell, in which are the damned, but the place may be rea∣sonably and truly translated the graue: although, as in diuerse places, by death is meant eternall death, so by graue is meant hell, or damnation. Concerning the questions of Limbus, Purgatorie, and the descending of Christ into hell, they are nothing like: for the last is an article of our faith, which we doe constantly beleue in the true vnderstanding thereof, but the other are fables and inuentions of men, whiche haue no grounde, in the Scripture, but onely a vayne surmise, builded v∣pon a wrong interpretation of the wordes of the Scri∣pture, as in the peculiar places shall bee plainely de∣clared.

MART. 34. If further yet in this kinde of controuersie,* 1.43 Beza would be bold to affirme (for so he saith) if the Gramma∣rians would giue him leaue, that Chebel with ••iue points si∣gnifieth,* 1.44 funem, no lesse than Chebel with sixe pointes: is he

not wonderfully set to maintaine his opinion, that will chaunge* 1.45 the nature of wordes, if he might, for his purpose?

FVLK. 34. Wonderfullye I promise you, for he translateth the worde for all this doloribus, and sayeth. Ni∣hil tamen ausus sum mutare ex coniectura. Yet I durst change nothing vpon coniecture. Annotat. in Act. 2. v. 24. You say he woulde chaunge the natures of wordes. Nothing so, but if the word might beare that signification, he thin∣keth it more agreeable to the Hebrue phrase, which the Euangelist doth often followe. Is not this a great matter to make an euident marke of corruption?

MART. 35. If passiues must bee turned into actiues▪ and actiues into passiues, participles disagree in case from their substantiues, or rather be plucked & separated from their true substantiues, soloecismes imagined, where the construction is most agreeable, errours deuised to creepe out of the margent, & such like: who would so presume in the text of holy Scriptures, to haue all Grammar, and words, and phrases, and constructions at his commaundement, but Beza and his like, for the aduantage of their cause? See chap. 5. numb. 6. and the numbers next follow∣ing in this chapter.

FVLK. 35. But if all these bee proued to be vaine cauils, and friuolous quarrells, as in the chap. 5. numb. 6. and in the numbers following in this chap∣ter it shall bee playnelye declared, then I hope all men of meane capacitie and indifferent iudgement will confesse, that ignoraunce hath deceiued you, malice hath blinded you, hatred of the truth hath ouerthrowen you, the father of lies and sclaunders hath possessed you.* 1.46

MART. 36. For example S Peter saith Heauen must* 1.47 receiue Christ. He translateth, Christ must be contained in heauen, which Caluine him selfe misliketh, the Geneua English Bible is afrayed to follow, Illyricus the Lutheran reprehendeth:* 1.48 & yet M. Whitakers taketh the aduantage of this translation, to proue that Christes naturall bodie is so cont••••ned in heauen, that it can not be vpon the alt••r. For he knew that this was his

maisters purpose and intent in so translating. This it is, when the blinde followe the blinde, yea rather, when they see and will bee blinde: for certaine it is (and I appeale to their greatest Graecians) that howsoeuer it be taken for good in their diuini∣tie, it will be esteemed most false in their Greeke scholes both of Oxford and Cambridge: and howsoeuer they may presume to translate the holy Scriptures after this sort, surely no man, no not them selues, would so translate Demosthenes, for sauing their credit and estimation in the Greeke tongue. See chap. 17. numb. 7. 8. 9.

FVLK. 36. Beza translateth quem oportet caelo capi. Act. 3. v. 21. You say, Heauen must receiue Christ. Beza sayth, Christ must be receiued of heauen. Call you this tur∣ning of actiues into passiues, and passiues into actiues? Or will you deny vs the resolution of passiues into a∣ctiues, or actiues into passiues? What difference is there in sense, betwene these propositions? Your purse con∣taineth money, and money is contained in your purse. The Church must receiue all Christians, or all Chri∣stians must be receiued of the Church. But Caluine, you say, misliketh this translation, and the Geneua Bible is afrayed to followe it. Yet neither of them both misli∣keth this sense, nor can, for it is all one with that which you translate, whome heauen must receiue. Caluine on∣ly saith, the Greeke is ambiguous, whether heauen must receiue Christ, or Christ must receiue heauen. But when you graunt that heauen must receiue Christ, you can not deny for shame of the worlde, but Christ must bee receiued of heauen: wherefore you vnderstande neither Caluine, nor Illyricus, who speake of the o∣ther sense, that Christ must receiue heauen. And Mai∣ster Whitaker, not of Bezaes translation, but of the text, and euen of your owne translation, may proue, that Christes naturall bodie is contayned in heauen. And as for your appeale to the greatest Graecians, and the Greeke schooles, both of Oxforde and Cambridge, is vaine and friuolous, for the least Grammarians that be

in any countrie schooles, are able to determine this que∣stion, whether these propositions be not all one in sense, and signification. Ego amo te, and Tu amaris à me, I loue thee, or thou art loued of me. But it is straunge Di∣uinitie, that Christ shoulde bee contayned in heauen. Verily howe straunge so euer it seemeth to Gregorie Martine, it was not vnknowen to Gregorie Nazian∣zen, as good a Graecian, and as great a Diuine as he is. For in his seconde Sermon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not farre from the beginning, he writeth thus of our Sauiour Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For he must raigne vntill then, and bee receiued or contayned of heauen vntill the times of restitution. Here you see Nazianzen citing this verie place of Sainct Peter Actes. 3. For the meane verbe of actiue signification, doubteth not freely to vse the passiue verbe in the same sense, that Beza trans∣lateth the place, against which you declaime so tragi∣cally. And if you thinke it to bee suche an haynous of∣fence, to render passiuely in the same sense, that which is vttered actiuely in the text, so that no man for his cre∣dite woulde so translate Demosthenes, as Beza doeth Sainct Luke: I pray you what regarde had you of your credit and estimation? When Matth. the 4. you translate out of Latine, Qui daemonia habebant, suche as were pos∣sest: and Luke the seconde, Vt profiterentur, to bee en∣rolled. Belike you haue a priuiledge to doe what you list, when other men may not doe that which is law∣full.

MART. 37. But there is yet worse stuffe behinde: to wit, the famous place Luke. 22. where Beza translateth thus, Hoc poculum nouum testamentum per meum sangui∣nem, qui pro vobis funditur: whereas in the Greeke, in all copies without exception, he confesseth that in true Grammati∣call construction it must needes bee sayd, quod pro vobis funditur, and therefore he sayth it is either a plaine soloeco∣phanes (& according to that presumption he boldly trs̄lateth)

or a corruption crept out of the margent into the text. And as for the word Soloecophanes, we vnderstand him that he mea∣neth a plaine soloecisme and fault in Grammar, and so doth M.* 1.49 Whitakers▪ but M. Fulke saith, that he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancie and figuratiue speech, vsed of most eloquent authors: and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needes smile at his deuises striuing to make S. Lukes speech here* 1.50 as he construeth the wordes, an elegancie in the Greeke tongue. He sendeth vs first to Budees commentaries, where there are examples of Soloecophanes: and in deede Budee taketh the word for that which may seeme a soloecisme, and yet is an elegan∣cie, and all his examples are of most fine and figuratiue phr••∣ses, but alas how vnlike to that in S. Luke. And here M. Fulke was very fowly deceiued, thinking that Beza and Budee tooke the word in one sense: and so taking his marke amisse, as it were a counter for gold, where he found Soloecophanes in Budee, there he thought all was like to S. Lukes sentence, & that which Beza meant to be a plaine soloecisme, he maketh it like to Budees elegancies. Much like to those good searchers in Oxford (as it is sayd) masters of arte, who hauing to seeke for Papisticall bookes in a Lawyers studie, and seeing there bookes with red let∣ters, cryed out, Masse bookes, Masse bookes: whereas it was the Code or some other booke of the Ciuill or Canon lawe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MART. 38. This was lacke of iudgement in M. Fulke at the least, and no great signe of skill in Greeke phrases, and he must no more call D. Sanders vnlearned for not vnderstanding Bezaes meaning, but him selfe, who in deed vnderstood him not. For, if Beza meant that it was an elegancie vsed of the finest authors, and such as Budee doth exemplifie of, why doth he say. that he seeth not why Luke should vse soloecophanes, but thinketh rather, it is a corruption crept into the margent? Tell vs M. Fulke we beseech you, whether is the better and ho∣nester defense, to say, that it is an elegancie and fine phrase in S. Luke, or to say, it is a fault in the text, it came out of the mar∣gent, the Gospell is here corrupted. Thinke you Beza such a foole, that he would rather stande vpon this later, if he might haue vsed the former, and had so meant by soloecophanes? yea what needed any defense at all, if it had bene an vsuall and knowne elegancie, as you would proue it?

FVLK. 38. I had rather it should be compted want of iudgement in me, so it were by a man of iudgement, than to be taken so often with falsification, and lacke of truth. For my skill in Greeke phrases, although I neuer professed any, yet I see nothing brought by you, to change mine opinion of Saunders vnlearned slaunder, in rayling against Beza, for saying that S. Luke should write false Greeke. And if Soloecophanes do differ as much from Soloecismus, as golde doth from copper (as you seeme to say) when you write that I take a counter for golde, I might thinke my selfe very vnlearned in deede, if I did vnderstand Beza speaking of Soloecophanes, as though he spake of Soloecismus. But you demaund why Beza sayeth, that he seeth not why S. Luke should vse Soloecophanes, if he meant that it was an elegancie vsed of the finest au∣thores. Still you thrust in your lie, in euery corner: who sayeth he meant it was an elegancie? Beza sayeth he

seeth no cause why S. Luke should vse Soloecophanes, that is, departe from the vsuall and ordinarie construction: and therefore passeth to an other coniecture. But you speake me fayre to tell you, whether is the better & ho∣nester defense, to say that it is an elegancie, and fine phrase, or to say it is a faulte in the texte, it came out of the margent, the Gospell is here corrupted. First I an∣swere you that Beza affirmeth neither, but rather tran∣slateth as Basill did re••d. Secondly, I say there is no dis∣honestie in either of both coniectures, for this Soloeco∣phanes though it be no elegancie, yet may be defended from Soloecisme, or false Greeke. And certaine it is that some woordes haue crept out of the margent into the texte, as the name of Ieremye in all copies that are ex∣tant Math. 27. and, of Esay in many: Marc. 1. And yet we say not the Gospell is corrupted, which fowle phrase it seemeth, you haue great pleasure in, not withstanding you your self out of Lindanus, charge all the Greeke co∣pies of the epistle to the Corinthians to be corrupted by Marcion the mischieuous mouse of Pōtus. You aske fur∣ther, whether I thinke Beza such a foole to stande rather vpon the later▪ if he might haue vsed the former, and had so meant by Soloecophanes? Nay rather, thinke you Beza such a foole, that he would meane a plaine Soloecisme, and call it only an appearaunce of Soloecisme? what he rather stoode vpon, his translation doth best shewe, which is both with S. Basilles reading, and with the appearaunce of incongruitie, which is none in deede. Yea what needed any defense at all, say you, if it had bene an vsuall and knowne elegancie. So well you loue a lie when you haue made it, that you can neuer leaue it vntill you haue worne it all to naught. Now you haue it, not onely an elegancie, but an vsuall and knowen elegancie. Verily I neuer saide it was an elegancie, as my wordes are plaine to be redde of euery man, and much lesse that it was an vsuall and knowen elegancie. Only I say it is vsuall and common in the Greeke tongue, that the praepositiue ar∣ticle,

is vsed for the relatiue, and so much in the next se∣ction you your selfe do graunt me: and as for defense you talke of, I see none needefull, except it be for that this phrase here vsed of S. Luke, is lawfull, though it be not so common, as the ordinarie construction.

MART. 39. For you say further, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is vnderstood, and that this is a common thing in the best Greeke authors, but you must adde, that the said relatiue must alwaies be referred to the antecedent of the same case, as this speach 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be resolued thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. but that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may be resolued, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you shal neuer be able to bring one example, and you wilfully abuse whatsoeuer knowledge you haue of the Greeke tongue, to deceiue the ignorant, or else you haue no skill at all, that speake so bar∣barously & rustically of Greeke elegācies. For if you haue skil, you know in your conscience, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is as great a soloecisme in Greeke, and no more ele∣gancie, than to say in Latine, In meo sanguine fusus pro vo∣bis, which in the schole deserueth whipping. And yet you aske very vehemently (concerning these wordes, Hic calix nouum Testamētum in meo sanguine qui pro vobis fundetur:) what meane Grammarian would referre, qui, to calix, and not to sanguis? I answere that a meere latinist, for ignoraunce of the Greeke tongue, would referre it rather as you say: but he that knoweth the Greeke; as you seeme to doe, though he be a very yong Grammarian, will easily see it can not be so referred: as in the like Act. 14 Sacerdos quo{que} Iouis qui erat ante ciuita∣tem eorum. Here, qui, is ambiguous, but in the Greeke we see* 1.51 that, qui, must be referred to, Iouis, and can not be referred to, Sacerdos.

FVLK. 39. First I take that you graunt me, that it is a cōmon thing in the Greeke tongue, that the article praepositiue is taken for the subiunctiue, and the Verbe substātiue may be vnderstood, where it is not expressed: which if you would not haue graūted, might haue bene extorted from you by confession of all Grecians, and

Greeke writers. Secondly where you teach me a gene∣rall rule, to adde to the former concession, that the sayd relatiue must alwaies be referred to the antecedent of the same case, as in the example you bring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you shall pardon mee to learne of you. I take you for no such▪ Aristarchus, that you haue power to make newe rules in the Greeke Grammar, and such as shall controll not only Homer, but all good authors that euer did write in that language, of Soloecisme and in∣congruitie. For if the relatiue must alwaies be referred to the antecedent of the same case, to agree with it in case, or else it is false Greeke, I will abide by it, there is no Greeke auctor whose workes are extant, but he hath committed Soloecisme. The examples that hereof might be brought out of euery seuerall writer, if they were heaped togither, would make a booke as bigge as Ilias. But in this so cleare a case, to cite any examples, I see not to what purpose it shoulde be, vnlesse it were to make little children that learne 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Gram∣mar schooles, to be witnesses of your intollerable ar∣rogancie, and incredible ignorance. One example I will bring you out of S. Marke, not vnlike this of S. Luke, but that the Verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is expressed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and they bring him to the place Golgotha, which is being interpreted the place of sculles. This example is more than sufficient, for so plaine a matter. For although it be an elegan∣cie for the relatiue to agree in case with the Antece∣dent sometimes, yet to make a perpetuall rule thereof it proceedeth of too much rashnesse, wante of know∣ledge and consideration. But I shall neuer be able to bring one example like to this of S. Luke, where the rela∣tiue not agreeing in case with the Antecedent, the Participle maye be resolued by the verbe Substantiue that is not ex∣pressed: and I wilfully abuse what so euer knowledge I haue of the Greeke tongue, to deceyue the ignoraunt, or else I haue no skill at all, to speake so barbarously, and rustically

of Greeke elegancies, and I knowe in my conscience, it is as great a Soloecisme in Greeke, and no more elegancie than to say in Latin In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the schoole deserueth whipping: and I knowe not what beside. But touching the similitude of the Soloecismes, if you had made your example a like, that is put in the re∣latiue in the Latine, as it is in the Greeke, In meo sanguine qui fusus pro vobis, there is no more Soloecisme in the one, than in the other. But all this while I bring no example, and you vrge an example, yea so extremelye, that you say confidently, I shall neuer be able to bring one: but what if I bring two or three? who then abuseth his knowledge in the Greeke? who hath no skil at all? who deserueth whipping? Haue you so redde all authors, and beare them, and all their phrases so well in minde, that you dare before all the worlde auouche, that I shall ne∣uer be able to bring one example? But to lette all the world see your vanitie, I will beginne with Theognis, who in the 863. of his Elegiake sentences writeth thus:

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

See you heere the relatiue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being the nominatiue case not agreeing with his antecedent, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the accusatiue case, but comming before the Verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is inclu∣ded in the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is inclu∣ded in the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; What can you here say? will you cauill at the subiunctiue article, then reade a fewe verses after, and see whether this Poet vseth not as indif∣ferently the prepositiue article as the subiunctiue, for the relatiue.

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

And within two verses,

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

speaking of the same Wine.

Also Theocritus in 25. Eidyll.

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

And in the 24. Edyll.

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

From Theocritus let vs passe to Hesiodus, out of whome it were ouer tedious to cite, how often he vseth the article prepositiue for the relatiue, and not agreeing in case with the antecedent: but an example or two shall serue, where the verbe substantiue is vnderstood, and not expressed, nor any other verbe to gouerne the relatiue, yet not agreeing in case with the Antecedent.

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

Againe in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

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

Here me thinkes, I heare you grudge against poetrie, and poeticall licence, as doubtlesse you would quarrell against profane authorities, if I should bring you any like examples out of Prosaicall writers.

We must see therefore, whether we are not able to bring examples of the like phrase, out of the holy Scrip∣tures. First that Soloecophanes is found in S. Luke I wil re∣ferre you to the first cap. of his Gospell, v. 74. and cap. 6. v. 4. Likewise Actes 27. v. 3. and act. 13. v. 6. But for the like Soloecophanes to this in question Luc. 22. I will sende you first to S. Paule, Col. 1. v. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In this verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, must needes be the accusatiue case, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, by apposition, then is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for all the world, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the nominatiue case, signifying Quod absconditum fuit, which the later part of the verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth most plainly declare. For what else should be the nomi∣natiue case to the verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and euen so your vul∣gar Latine text hath it translated: vt impleam verbum Dei, mysterium quod absconditum fuit à saeculis & generatio∣nibus, nunc autem manifestatum est sanctis eius. But because this is not so euident, for that the nominatiue case & the accusatiue of the neuter gender be of one termination, I will bring you yet more plaine examples out of the re∣uelation

of S. Iohn, cap. 1. v. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Grace to you and peace from him, or from God, (as some copies haue) which is, and which was, & which is to come. Would not your grammer say it is a plaine Soloecisme, because he saith not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what haue you here to quarrel? Is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the same phrase that is in Luke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Well, let vs goe a litle further, to the next verse of the same chapter, where we reade thus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And from Iesus Christ which is a faithfull witnesse, the first borne from the dead, and Prince ouer the kinges of the earth. The more vsuall construction would require, that he should haue sayd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But that hev∣seth the same Soloecophanes, which S. Luke doth. ca. 22. (If the reading be not altered) where the article prepositiue is put in the place of the subiunctiue, and agreeth not in case with the antecedent, as often it doth, but being the nominatiue case, commeth before the verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is not expressed, but must needes be vnderstoode: as euen your vulgar translator doth acknowledge, rendring it in both verses thus: ab eo qui est, & qui erat, & qui ven••u∣rus est, and à Iesu Christo qui est testis fidelis, &c. These ex∣amples I doubt not, but they are sufficient to satisfie a∣ny reasonable man, to shew, that I haue not inuented a newe construction that neuer was heard of, to saue Be∣zaes credit, and whereof I am able to giue not so much as one example. But that I may ouerthrow M. Martines vaine insultation, with a whole cloude of examples, I wil yet adde one or two more. In the same reuelation, ca. 8. v. 9. Thus we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and there dyed the thirde of all creatures which are in the sea, which had liues. Your vulgar Latine text turneth it thus. Et mortua est ••ertia pars creaturae, eorum quae habebant animas in mari. And there dyed the thirde parte of the creatures, of those

thinges which had life in the sea. In which transla∣tion, although the order of the wordes which Saint Iohn vseth, is somewhat inuerted: yet the sense re∣mayneth the same, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is translated, quae ha∣bebant, which agreeth not with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in case, as euerye childe that can declyne a Greeke noune, doth knowe: where otherwise the moste common constru∣ction were to haue sayd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There∣fore the phrase and construction is the same, which is Luke 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. What can fine M. Gregorie, which carpeth at my skill, that speake so barbarously, and rustically of Greeke elegancies, what can Maister Gregorie Martin I saye, the great linguist of the Seminarie of Rhemes, alledge, why these phrases are not alike? or rather changinge the wordes, in figure the very same? And if he haue any thing to cauill against this example, as I see not what he can haue, yet haue I an other out of the same booke, cap. 3. v. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And I will write vppon him the name of my God, and the name of the cittye of my God, the newe Ierusalem, which descen∣deth out of heauen from my God. The vulgar Latine translation differeth not from this, which sayth: Et scri∣bam super eum nomen dei mei, & nomen ciuitatis dei mei, nouae Ierusalem, quae descendit de coelo à deo meo. Here the antece∣dent is of the genitiue case, the relatiue of the nomina∣tiue, which commeth before the verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vnderstoode in the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as in Luc. 22. it is in the partici∣ple, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. By these examples, in seeking whereof, I promise you, I spent no great time, you may learne to be wiser hereafter, & not to condemne all men, beside your self, out of your readers chaire at Rhemes, of ignorance, vnskilfulnes, barbarusnes, rusticity, yea wilfulnes & mad∣nes, where you your self deserue a much sharper censure, through your immoderat insultation, the matter thereof

being both more false and forged, than we might iustly haue borne, if we had bene ouertaken with a litle gram∣matical ignorance. By these examples I trust you see, or if you will needes be blinde, all the young Grecians in England, may see, that as in the Latine translation, you confesse the relatiue standeth more likely to be referred to the word Sanguine, than to the word Calix, so in the Greeke, there is no help to remoue it from the next ma∣nifest & necessary antecedent, to a worde further of, with which the signification of the participle can not agree. For who would say that a cup is shed for vs? And though you make a metonymye of the cup, for that which is in the cup, what is that I pray you? Not wine you wil say, I am sure, but the bloud of Christ. If you so resolue it, then followeth that vaine nugation which I haue noted a∣gainst Saunder This bloud in the cuppe, which bloud is shed for you, is the new Testament in my bloud. Is that bloud in the cuppe diuerse from that bloud in which the new Testament is confirmed? If it be the same, how of∣ten was ••t shed? If it were shed in the cuppe, how holdeth your vnbloudie sacrifice? Or howe can you saye that it was shed in the cup, where, by your rule of concomitans, it is not separated from the body, as it was in his passion? If it were not separated, as certainly his bloud was not separated from his bodye, in the supper, howe can that which was in the cup, be his bloud that was shed for vs? for the word of shedding signifieth separation. Where∣fore it can not be referred to that in the cup, but to his bloud which was shed on the crosse for vs, so that there is a manifest enallage, or change of the temps. The present being put for the future, as it is manifest by the other Euangelists, where the word of shedding, can be referred to nothing els, but to his bloud shedde vpon the crosse. wherfore the Greeke text can here resolue you of no am∣biguity, as in the place you cite, act. 14. Neither was there euer any auncient writer that stumbled vpon this ambi∣guitie, but al with one consent referre the word of shed∣ding

to his bloud, and not to the cuppe, or the content thereof, so many as speake of it.

MART. 40. And this is one commoditie among others, that we reape of the Greeke text, to resolue the ambiguitie that is sometime in the Latine: whereas you neyther admit the one nor the other, but as you list, neither doth the Greeke satisfie you, be it neuer so plaine and infallible, but you will deuise that it is corrupted, that there is a soloecisine, that the same soloecisme is an elegancie, and there vpon you translate your owne deuise, and not the worde of God. Which whence can it proceede, but of most wilfull corruption? See chap. 17. nu. 10 11. 12.

FVLK. 40. This is nothing but generall rayling, & impudent slaundering, as in the particular sections be∣fore is proued. For we neither deuise that the text is cor∣rupted, to alter any thing of the text, no not where it is vndoubtedly corrupted, as in the name of Ieremie. Math. 27. Neyther deuise wee a Soloecisme, when wee admonish that there is a Soloecophanes, which of no Papist that euer I heard of was before obserued. Neither make we a So∣loecisme to be an elegancie when we say against them that confound a Soloecisme with Soloecophanes, that Soloecophanes is a figure vsed sometimes of most eloquent writers, nei∣ther is it streight way a vertue or elegancie of speache what so euer eloquent writers sometimes haue vsed: wherefore we translate nothing of our owne deuise, but we translate the worde of God without any wilfull cor∣ruption.

MART. 41. If in ambiguous Hebrue woords of doubtfull signification, where the Greeke giueth one certaine sense, you re∣fuse the Greeke, and take your aduantage of the other sense: what is this but wilfull partialitie? so you doe in, Redime e∣leemosynis* 1.52 peccata tua. Dan. 4. and Inclinaui cor meum ad faciendas iustificationes tuas propter retributionem. and, Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus &c. and yet at an other time you folow the determination of the Greeke for an other aduantage: as Psal. 98. Adore his footestoole, because he is holy. Whereas in the Hebrue it may be as in our Latin, be∣cause* 1.53

it is holy. See chapt. 13. num. 18. chapt. 9. num. 23 24. chapt. 18. num. 1. 2. So you flee from the Hebrue to the Gre••ke, and from this to that againe, from both to the vul∣gar Latine, as is shewed in other places▪ and as S. Augustine* 1.54 saith to Faustus the Manichee, You are the r••le of truth: whatsoeuer is for you, is true: whatsoeuer is against you, is not true.

FVLK. 41. If Hebrue wordes be ambiguous, wee take that sense whiche agreeth with other places that are playne, and with out all ambiguitie, and this is no partialitie, but wisedome and loue of the truthe: not to grounde any newe doctrine vppon suche places onely, where the Hebrue worde is ambiguous, and may haue diuerse significations. As you do the redem∣ption of sinnes by almesse, vpon that place of Daniel. 4. Where you confesse that the Hebrue worde is ambi∣guous, & are not able to bring any one plain text for it, where the wordes are not ambiguous. But wee ground our refusal vpon a hundred plaine textes, that acribe the whole glorie of our raunsome & redemption frō sinnes, to the onely mercy of God. But as well this text, as the other two, that you cite in the chapters by you quoted, shall be throughly diseussed, to see if you can haue any aduaūtage at our translators of the same. But on the cō∣trarie side (you say) that at an other time we follow the determination of the Greeke for an other aduantage, as in that texte, Psalm. 89. Adore his foote stoole. be∣cause he is holy, whereas in the Hebrue it may be as in your Latine, because it is holy I answer, that we follow not the determination of the Greeke, as moued by the onely authoritie thereof, for any aduantage, but be∣cause wee learne our interpretation out of the verie Psalme it selfe. For whereas the Prophet in the 5. verse hath sayed. Exalt ••e the Lorde our God, and worshippe at the foote stoole of his feete, for he is holy: in the laste verse of the same, he repeateth againe the like ex∣hortation. Exalt ye the Lorde our God, and worshippe

him in his holy hill, for the Lorde our God is holy. In this verse for his foote stoole he placeth the holy hill, which expresseth where his foote stoole was, namely* 1.55 the holy A••ke, and for Cadhosh hu, holy is he, now he sayeth Cadosh I••houa, holy is the Lorde our God, which putteth the other verse out of ambiguitie. Where∣fore if wee take testimonie of the Greeke, we flie not to the Greeke from the Hebrue, but shewe that the Hebrue may so bee vnderstoode, hauing other more certaine arguments, than the testimonie of the Greeke. Againe it is vtterly false that you saie, we flie from both Hebrue and Greeke to the Latine, for wee neuer flie from the Hebrue, but acknowledge it as the fountaine and spring, from whence wee must receyue, the infalli∣ble truth of Gods worde, of the olde Testament, fol∣lowing the Latine or Greeke so farre, as they followe the truth of the Hebrue texte, and no farther. As for the saying of S. Augustine to Faust••s the Manichee. (You are the rule of truth,) doth moste aptly agree to you Pa∣pistes and to your Pope: for you will not aforde vnto the Scriptures them selues, any authoritie or certaintie of truth, but vpon your approbation and interpretation. Wherefore not only that which he sayth to Faustus the Manichee, agreeth aptly to you: what so euer is for you is true, what so euer is agaynst you, is not true: but that also whiche he reporteth, Tyconius the Donatist sayde of his secte (Quod volumus sanctum est, what so euer we will is holy) you your selues take vppon you. For no doctrine is good nor holy, though it be proued neuer so plainely out of the holy Scripture, except it be allow∣ed by you for catholike and holy.

MART. 42. What shall I speake of the Hebrue parti∣cle vau? whiche (Gen. 14. vers. 18.) muste in no case be* 1.56 translated, because, least it shoulde proue that Melchi∣sedec offered sacrifice of bread and wine, as all the ••a∣thers, expounde i••: but (Luc. 1. verse. 42.) where they translate the equiualent Greeke particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there Beza

proueth the said particle to signifie, because, and translateth ac∣cordingly,* 1.57 and the English Bezites likewise. I will not vrge thē why, we like the sense well, and Theophylacte so expoundeth it. But if the Greeke copulatiue may be so translated, why not the Hebrue copulatiue much more, which often in the Scripture is vsed in that sense? See chap. 17. nu. 13. 14.

FVLK. 42. That the Hebrue particle Vau, is some∣times to be taken for a casual coniunction, & signifieth, because: no man denieth: but that it must be taken so. Gen. 14. because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken so. Luc. 1. 42. what reason is this? But all the fathers (say you) expound Melchisedechs bringing foorth of bread and wine, to be a sacrifice. I graunt that many do, but not al: yet do not they ground vpon the coniunction causal, for Cyprian Lib. 2. Epist. 3. ad Caecilium readeth thus, Fuit autem sacerdos, and hee was a Priest. So dothe Hierom Epist. ad Euagrium, ex∣pounding the very Hebrue texte, saye, Et Melchisedech rex Salem protulit panem & vinum, erat autem sacerdos dei excelsi. The worde protulit also hath Ambrose, de mysterijs initiand. Augustine vpon the title of the 33. Psalme. Cy∣prian in the epistle before named, and the vulgar Latine hath proferens. Hierome Ep. ad Euagrium, sheweth that the beste learned of the Hebrues iudgement was, that Melchisedech Victori Abraham ••buiam processerit, & in refectionem, tam ipsius, quam pugnatorum ipsius, panes vinum∣que protulerit. Melchisedech came foorth to meete A∣braham the conquerour, and for refection, as well of him, as of his warriours, brought foorth bread and wine. And after many interpretations of the Greeke writers whiche he rehearseth, in the ende he will de∣termine nothing of his owne iudgement. The author of Scholastica historia, Cap. 64. agreeth with the inter∣pretation of the Hebrues. At vero Melchisedech rex Salem obtulit ei panem & vinum: quod (quasi exponens) Iosephus ait: ministrauit exercitui xenia, & multam a∣bundantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit, & super epulas benedixit Deum, qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos.

Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi. But Melchisedech king of Salem, offered vnto him bread and wine, which Iose∣phus (as it were expounding of it) sayth:

he ministred to his armie the duties of hospitalitie, and gaue him great plentie of things necessarie, and beside the feast, or at the feast, he blessed God, which had subdued vnto A∣braham his enemies: for he was a Priest of the highest God.

Therefore not all the fathers so iudged of Melchi∣sedeches breade and wine. But against all them that re∣ferred the same to his Priesthoode, we oppose the Apo∣stle to the Hebrues ca. 7. who searching of purpose what∣soeuer was in Melchisedech, wherein hee resembled Christ, so that he omitteth not the interpretation of his name, nor of his citie, maketh no mention of his sacri∣fice of breade and wine, whereas nothing seemeth to haue greater resemblance, than that, which deceiued ma∣ny of the auncient fathers, but yet was not obserued of the holy Ghost.

MART. 43. But I woulde aske rather▪ why 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.58 may not in any case be translated, full of grace: whereas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is translated, full of sores. Both wordes being of like* 1.59 forme and force. See chap. 18. numb. 4. 5.

FVLK. 43. The former worde being a participle, is best translated by a participle freely beloued: for the o∣ther, if wee had a participle in Englishe to say, sored or botched, we woulde vse it, but for lacke of a participle, we are constrained to vse the noune, full of sores. I may likewise aske you, whether you would translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 full of gold, or gilded? And so of all other verbes of that forme, where there is in Englishe a participle: why ought not likewise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bee translated by the participle?

MART. 44. Againe, why say they (Hebr. 13.) Let your* 1.60 conuersation be without couetousnes, & say not, Let ma∣riage be honourable in all, and the bed vndefiled. Both* 1.61 being expressed a like by the Apostle, and by way of exhorta∣tion, as the reste that goeth before and followeth? See chap.

15. numbr. 15.

FVLK. 44. Although the sense were not greatlye different, yet the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 following in the later parte of the verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. but fornicators and adulterers God will iudge, sheweth that the former parte of the verse, is an affirmation, rather than an exhortation. A∣gaine the purpose of the Apostle is playne, to disswade them from whoredom and adulterie, & not only to ex∣hort maried men to vse mariage temperately, but for a∣uoiding of whoredome and adulterie, which God will punish, to shewe the remedie that God hath prouided for mans infirmitie, to be honourable and voyde of fil∣thinesse.

MART. 45. Are we too suspicicious thinke you? howe* 1.62 can feare, be translated, that which he feared: * 1.63 repentance, them that repent or amende their life: tradition, the doctrine deliuered: temples, shrines: idols, deuotions: euerie hu∣mane creature, all ordinances of man: foreknowledge, pro∣uidence: soule, carcas: hell, graue: altar, temple: table, al∣tar: and such like?

FVLK. 45. We thinke you not more suspitious, than malicious. From his feare, may well (for explica∣tions sake) be translated, from that which he feared, Heb. 5. v. 7. euen as hope is somtime taken, for that which we hope for, as Col. 1. v. 5. Tit. 2. v. 13. So may repentance in Beza Act. 26. v. 20. signifie them that repent, as circum∣cision often signifieth them that are circumcised, neither is there any chaunge of the sense, to say the fruites wor∣thie of repentance, or the fruits worthie of them that re∣pent, or amend their life. And I pray you what doth tra∣dition, 2. Thess. 2. & 3. signifie, but the doctrine deliue∣red? Doth not the Apostle declare, what his tradition was, when he deliuereth this doctrine, that if any man will not worke, let him not eate. 2. Thess. 3. v. 10. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as it is vsed, Act. 19. v. 24. signifieth neither tem∣ples nor shrines, but certaine idolatrous coynes, on which was stamped the figure of Dianaes temple, more

like to your Popish shrines, than to the temple of God. Where idols are translated deuotions, I knowe not, ex∣cept you meane, Act. 17. v. 23. where the worde is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which your vulgar Latine translatour, 2. Thess. 2. cal∣leth quod colitur, that which is deuoutly worshipped, & so the worde signifieth whatsoeuer is religiously worship∣ped or adored, and not idols as you say, nor simulachra, i∣mages, as your translatour calleth them, Act. 17. For it is deriued of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth to ad∣ore, to worship, to honour deuoutly, or religiously. E∣uerie humane creature, signifieth in that place, 1. Pet. 2. euerie magistrate, of what creation or ordination soe∣uer he bee, and so is meant by that translation (all or∣dinaunces of men) not all lawes of men, which yet were not impious, if you adde the restraint, for the Lorde, for whome nothing can be, that is against his lawe. The rest of your quarrels bee all aunswered be∣fore.

MART. 46. What caused these straunge speeches in* 1.64 their Englishe Bibles. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue. Thou hast deliuered my soule from the lowest graue. A couetous mā is a worshipper of images. By lay∣ing on of the hands of the Eldership. Haile freely belo∣ued. SINNE lieth at the dore, and thou shalt rule ouer HIM. Breake of thy sinnes with righteousnesse, for Re∣deeme with almes. Ielousie is cruell as the graue, for as hell. Cant. Cant. 8. Bib. an. 1579. The griefes of the graue caught me. Psalm. 116. And, God will redeeme my soule from the power of the graue. O graue I will be thy de∣struction.* 1.65 Os. 13. and such like? what made Caluine so trans∣late into Latine, that if you turne it into English, the sense is, that God powred water vpon vs aboundantly, meaning the ho∣ly* 1.66 Ghost: what else but because he would take away the neces∣sitie of materiall water in Baptisme, as in his commentarie and Bezaes, it is euident?

FVLK. 46. These speaches are not straunge in Gods Church, howe soeuer they sound in your eares. So many

of them as translate for Sheol, the graue, haue their answeres sect. 32. and chap. 7. which is appointed for that question. The couetous man a worshipper of images sect. 5. of this chapter, and chap. 3. numb. 12. The laying •••• of hands of the Eldership, is warranted by the significa∣tion of the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth a companie of Elders, as it is translated by your owne vulgar Latine interpreter. Luk 22. vers. 66. Seniore•• plebis. The Elders of the people, and Act. 22. v. 5. he calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Omnes maiores natu. And for a consistorie of Elders, is the worde Presbyterium vsed in Latine by Cy∣prian lib. 3. epist. 11. and lib. 2. epist. 8. 10. Of haile freely be∣loued we spake lately, sect. 43. Of the text Gen. 4. v. 7. sinne lieth at the dore, &c. sect. 28. and chap. 10. sect. 9. of Dan. 4. breake, for redeeme thy sinnes. sect. 41.

If Caluine Tit. 3. did wrongly interprete, that which is spoken of water, to be ment of the holie Ghost, what is that to our translation? But certaine it is, that Caluine neuer meant to take away, the necessitie of ma∣teriall water from the sacrament of baptisme, although he taught that the want of the externall sacrament, where it cannot be had, doth not depriue gods electe from e∣ternal saluation: neither hath Beza anye other meaning in his annotation.

MART. 47. I hadde meant to haue but briefly skim∣med ouer these things, but multitude of matter maketh me too long, as it chaunceth to a manne that wadeth thoroughe myrie and foule places, and yet the greatest demonstration that they are wilfull corrupters, is behinde, whiche onelye I will adde, and for the reste, referre the reader to the whole booke.

FVLK. 47. It is a smal signe, that multitude of mat∣ter is cause of your length, when you repeate one mat∣ter in so manye sections, your similitude of a manne wading in foule and myrie places, doth well agree vnto you, for you haue beene all this while wading in the puddle of youre slaunders, misprisions, and false

and false accusations, in which you haue so berayed your selfe, as you shall not easily purge your selfe from the myre of them. But because you say the greatest demon∣stration, that we are wilfull corrupters, is behind, though it be tedious for vs to rake in such a gogmyre of your forgeries, and false accusations, yet we will take courage, and consider what mayne demonstration you can make, to proue vs in our English translations to be wilful cor∣rupters.

MART. 48. Doubt you whether they translate of pur∣pose and partialitie, in fauour of their opinions? you shall heare them selues say so, and protest it. If I dealt with Lutherans, this* 1.67 one testimonie of Luther were sufficient, who being asked why he added onely, into the text, Rom. 3. answered that he did it to ex∣plicate the Apostles sense more plainly, that is, to make the A∣postle say more plainly, that faith onely iustified. And his Dis∣ciple Illyricus disputeth the matter, that the Apostle saying▪ by* 1.68 faith without workes, saith in deede, onely faith. But be∣cause I deale rather with our English Caluinists, and Beza is their chiefe translator, and a Captaine among them, whome they professe to follow in the title of the new Testament, anno 1580. and by the very name of their Geneua Bibles, let vs see what he sayth.

FVLKE. 48. I thinke there is no man doubteth, but they translated the Scripture, with purpose to main∣taine their opinions, but whether they haue wittingly, and wilfully translated falsely, to maintaine any errours, or hereticall opinions, that is the matter in question, and which hath neede of your greatest demonstration, to make it apparant. That Luther might rightly interprete the place Rom. 3. of onely faith iustifying, by the exclu∣ding of works, I haue before acknowledged, & Illyricus doth rightly defend it. But that he did put in the worde (only) in his translation, which is not in the originall, I will not take vpon me to excuse, seeing the truth of that doctrine is manifest, without that addition: and Luther him selfe in his later editions, hath reformed it. Againe,

what fault soeuer other men haue committed in their translation, we are vniustly charged therewith, except we follow the same in ours. That we professe to follow Be∣za by the very name of our Geneua Bibles, it is a very ridiculous argument. For our Bibles are so common∣ly called, because they were translated, and first printed at Geneua, not by Beza, who at that time, had scarse finished his translation of the newe Testament, and ne∣uer dealt with translating of the olde, so farre as we knowe, but by certaine godlye, and learned Englishe men, which liued there in Queene Maries time, to en∣ioy the libertie of a good conscience, which they could not haue in their owne Country.

MART. 49. First, concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the vulgar Latine and Erasmus translate: Agite poeniten∣tiam, Repent. or, Doe penance. This interpretation (sayth he) I refuse for many causes, but for this especial∣ly, that many ignorant persons haue taken hereby an occasion of the false opinions of SATISFACTION, wherewith the Church is troubled at this day. Loe, of purpose against satisfaction he will not translate the Greeke worde, as it ought to be, and as it is proued to signifie, both in this booke, and in the annotations vpon the newe Testament. A litle after speaking of the same worde, he sayth: why I* 1.69 haue changed the name, poenitentia, I haue tolde a litle before, protesting that he will neuer vse those wordes,* 1.70 but resipiscere, and resipiscentia, that is, amendment of life: because of their heresie, that repentance is nothing else but a meere amendment of former life, without recompense or satisfaction or penance for the sinnes before committed. See chap. 13.

FVLK. 49. Of purpose against the heresie of satis∣faction, Beza will not translate the Greeke worde, as the vulgar Latine translator dothe, but yet as the Greeke worde ought to be translated. Erasmus finding the vul∣gar Latine vnsufficient, hath added Vitae prioris, that is, re∣pent yee of your former life. Neither dothe Beza finde

faulte with the English worde repent, but with the Latine Agite paenitentiam, when you translate it, do pe∣naunce, meaning thereby, paine or satisfaction for sinnes passed, to be a necessarie parte of true repentance, which is not conteyned in the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth changing of the mind, that is, not onely a sor∣row for the sinne past, but also a purpose of amendment, which is beste expressed by the Latine worde Resipiscere, which is alwaies taken in the good parte as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in the Scripture, where as the Latine wordes paenitere and Paenitentia, are vsed in Latine, of sorrowe or repentance that is too late. As paenitere and paenitentia may be saide of Iudas grief of minde, which caused him to hang him selfe, but not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or resipiscere and resipis∣scentia: and therefore the Holye Ghoste speakinge of his sorrowe, vseth an other worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And this is the cause, why Beza refused the worde Paenitentia, hauing a Latine worde that more properlye doeth expresse the Greeke worde, as wee might lawefullye doe in Englishe, if wee had an other Englishe worde proper to that repentaunce, whiche is alwayes ioyned with faith, and purpose of amend∣mente, for wante whereof, wee are constrayned to vse the wordes repente and repentaunce, whiche maye bee taken in good parte, or in euill. For wee saye, repentaunce too late, and Iudas repented too late, but there is no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that can bee called too late. But where you saye that resipiscere, and resipi∣scentia, is nothing but amendement of life, and that repentaunce in our heresie, is nothing else but a meere amendment of former life: you speake vntruly: for those words do signifie not only amendment of life, but also sorrow for the sinnes past, although without recompēce or satisfactiō, which you call penance, for the sinnes be∣fore cōmitted: for we know no recompence or satisfac∣tiō made to God for our sinnes, but the death of Christ, who is the propitiation for our sinnes. 1. Iohn. 1. Neither

hath your blasphemous satisfaction any grounde in the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but onely a foolish colour by the Latine translation Agite poenitentiam, which, it is like your Latine interpreter did neuer dreame of, and there∣fore he vseth the worde Resipiscere. 2. Tim. 2. Of them to whom God should giue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 repentaunce to the acknowledging of the truth, Et resipiscant, and so they may repent, or as you translate it, recouer themselues from the snare of the Diuell. Seyng therefore, repen∣tance is the gifte of God, it is no recompence or satis∣faction made by vs to God, to answere his iustice: but an earnest and true griefe of minde for our transgression of Gods lawe, and offending against his maiestie, with a certaine purpose and determination of amendment, so neere as God shall giue vs grace. Hetherto therefore we haue no demonstration of any wilfull corruption, but a declaration of the cause that moued Beza, to vse a more exact translation, and such as commeth nearer to the ori∣ginall worde, than that which the vulgar translation hath vsed, vpon which, occasion of a great blasphemie hath bene taken, and is yet mainteyned.

MART. 50. Againe concerning the worde, Iustificati∣ons,* 1.71 which in the Scripture very often signifie the commaun∣dements, he saith thus, The Greeke interpreters of the Bi∣ble* 1.72 (meaning the Septuaginta) applieth this worde to sig∣nifie the whole Lawe of God, and therefore commonly it is wont to be translated worde for worde, Iustificatio∣nes: which interpretation therefore only I reiected, that I might take away this occasion also of cauilling against iustification by faith, and so for, iustificationes, he put∣teth constituta, Tullies worde forsooth, as he saith. Can you haue a more playne tèstimonie of his heretic all purpose?

FVLK. 50. Concerning the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Beza translateth Constitutionibus, constituti∣ons, and you confesse that in Scripture it doth very often signifie the commaundements. He sayth first, that as the whole Lawe of God is diuided into three partes, Morall,

Ceremoniall, and Iudiciall, so the Hebrewes haue three seuerall words, to expresse the seueral precepts of those lawes. For the Hebrew word which signifieth the Cere∣moniall precepts, the Greekes vse to translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So the sense is, that Zacharie, and Elisabeth were iust, walking in all the Morall commaundements, and ob∣seruing the holy rites, and ceremonies, as much as con∣cerned them: but the thirde worde, which signifieth Iudgements, S. Luke doth not adde, because the exer∣cise of Iudiciall cases, did not belong vnto them, being priuate persons. After this he saith, that the Greeke Interpreters of the Bible, transferred this worde, vnto the whole lawe of God, and especially to the holy ce∣remonies: so verily, exceedingly commending the law, that it is a certaine rule of all iustice. And therefore men are wont, commonly in respect of the worde, to turne it, Iustifications. And this worde in this place, Beza in deede confesseth, that he refused to vse, for auoyding of cauillations against iustification by fayth, seeing he hath none other worde, neither woulde he for offence, seeke any newe worde, to expresse iustification by faith, whereas the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this text, Luc. 1. verse 6. signifieth not that, by which they were made iust, but the commaundements or precepts of God, by walking in which, they were declared to be iust. For by the workes of the lawe (such as Saint Luke here speaketh of) no fleshe shall be iustified before God. Therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place, must haue an other sense, than iustifications, namely, commaundements, as you saye it is often taken, or constitutions, as Beza calleth them, which before God and the worlde, are not of suche difference, that you shoulde charge him with wilfull corruption, for translating that word con∣stitutions, which you confesse, signifieth very often, commaundements. Wherefore here appeareth no he∣reticall purpose, except you will say, that iustification by faith, which S. Paule so often, so diligently, and so pur∣posedly

doth teach, is an heresie.

MART. 51. Againe, when he had reiected this transla∣tion (Act. 2. verse 27.) Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, Thou shalt not leaue my soule in Hel: because (as he sayth) herevpon grewe the errours of Christes descen∣ding into Hell, of Limbus, and of Purgatorie: atlength he concludeth thus: Whereas the doubtfull interpretation of one or two wordes hath brought forth so many mō∣sters, I chose rather * 1.73 simply, for soule, to say, carkasse, for hel, graue: than to foster these foule errours.

FVLK. 51. Beza sheweth, that because the doubt∣full interpretation of the Hebrew worde Sheol into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which doth not properly signifie hell, but a darke place, such as the pit is, wherein the deade are put, and of the Poets is taken for hell, had bredde such mon∣sters, as Limbus patrum, Purgatorie, and Christes des∣cending into them: therefore he did plainly translate that verse, as it is ment. of the raysing vp of Christes bodie out of the graue, which if he had translated out of Hebrew, as he did out of Greeke, had not bene of∣fensiue, nor vntrue, as I haue shewed in aunswere to your Preface, sect. 46. and of this chapter, sect. 32. But seeing Beza him selfe, hath altered that translation, and it was neuer followed of our English translators, what demonstration is this, that we are wilfull corrupters of the holy Scriptures?

MART. 52. Againe, when he had translated for,* 1.74 Whome heauen must receiue, thus, who must be con∣tayned in heauen: he sayth, whereas we haue vsed the* 1.75 passiue kinde of speech, rather than the actiue (which is in the Greeke:) we did it to auoyd all ambiguitie. For it is very expedient, that there should be in the Church of God, this perspicuous testimonie against them, that for ascending by faith into heauen, so to be ioyned to our head, obstinately maintaine that Christ must be called againe out of heauen vnto vs. Meaning his presence in the ••. Sacrament, and inueying no lesse against the Lutherans,

than the Catholikes, as the Lutherans doe here against him,* 1.76 for this wilfull interpretation, and that by Caluines owne iudge∣ment, who thinketh it a forced translation.

FVLK. 52. True it is, that he meant concerning the maner of Christes presence in the blessed sacrament, and that so he translated, to exclude the carnall maner of presence, which the Papistes haue inuented: but all this while the translation is true, and warranted by Grego∣rie Nazianzene, as I haue shewed before, sect. 36. of this chapter. For he that sayth, Heauen must receiue Christ, (as you doe) can not deny, except he be mad, but that Christ must be receiued of heauen. So that Beza doth none otherwise translate, than you doe, Qui daemonia habebant, which is actiuely thus to be translated, those who had deuils, and you saye, which were possest of diuels, that is, were had of diuels. That the Lutherans finde fault with Bezaes translation, it proueth it not to be false, he hath iustified it sufficient∣ly in his answere to Selneccerus, and the Diuines of Ie∣na. Neither doth Caluine (as you saye vntruly) thinke it a forced translation, but not weying the sentence sufficiently, supposeth that the wordes are placed am∣biguously, for that it seemeth to be doubtfull, whe∣ther we shoulde save, that heauen must receiue Christ, or that Christ must receiue heauen. But if it be once graunted (as it is of you) that heauen must receiue Christ, there is neyther Caluine, nor Illyricus, nor any man that beareth the face, but of a young Gramma∣rian, yea of a reasonable man, which can deny, that conuersion by the passiue: Christe muste be recei∣ued of heauen. Therefore if you had any respect of your credite, with men of vnderstanding, you would not for shame, rehearse this quarrell so often, which hath not so muche as any colour or shewe of reason to maintayne it, but that you abuse the names of Illyricus and Caluine, as mislykinge it, whose argumentes by no meanes will serue your turne,

because that which is denied by them, or doubtfull to them, is plaine and confessed by you.

MART. 53. But Beza goeth forwarde still in this kinde. Rom. 5. verse. 18. whereas Erasmus had put propagatum est, indifferently, both of Adams sinne which made vs truely sinners, and of Christes iustice, which maketh vs truly iust: he reiecting it, amonge other causes why it displeased him, sayth: That olde errour of the Sophists (meaning Ca∣tholikes) which for imputatiue iustice put an inherent qualitie in the place, is so great, & so execrable to all good men, that I thinke nothing is so much to be auoi∣ded as it.

FVLK. 53. A manifest ecclipsis, or want of wordes, being in that verse, for which Erasmus hath put propaga∣tum est, which word is ambiguous, and may giue occasi∣on of error, for men to thinke, that the righteousnes of Christ commeth by propagation, as the guiltines of A∣dam doth: Beza thought good to supply the lacke, ra∣ther by such wordes as are warranted by the text, verse 12. 15. and 16. and can giue no occasion of errour. And therefore, thus he rendreth that verse, Nempe igitur, sicut per vnam offensam reatus venit in omnes homines ad condem∣nationem: ita per vnam iustificationem, beneficium redim∣dauit in omnes homines ad iustificationem vitae. Nowe therefore, as by one offence guiltinesse came vpon all men vnto condemnation: so by one iustification, the benefite abounded toward all men vnto iustification of life. In this verse these words, guiltinesse came, and, the benefite abounded, are added for explication sake, and are taken out of the verses going before, in which the Apostle speaketh of the same matter. There∣fore Beza to auoyde occasion of the heresie of the Pa∣pistes, of iustice inherent, among other causes which he rehearseth, refuseth that worde, by which Erasmus supplyed the text, and vseth suche wordes for that pur∣pose, as the Apostle him self in the verses precedent doth offer, for this necessarye supplye: which seeing it must

be made, that there may be a sense and vnderstanding: who can mislike that it should be made, by the Apostles owne wordes? or who cā suppose that the Apostle would leaue any other words to be vnderstood, than such as he him selfe had before expressed? And as for the heresie of inherent iustice, can haue no hold in this verse, except some suche worde be added for supplie, as the Apostle neuer vsed in this case. That Christes iustice doth make vs as truly iust, as Adams sinne made vs truly sinners, there is no question, but by what meanes we are made iust, wee say as the Scripture teacheth vs to speake, that iustice is imputed to vs through faith, Rom. 4. The Pa∣pistes say it is a qualitie inherent within vs, for which wordes and matter, they haue no warrant in the holy Scripture.

MART. 54. These few examples proue vnto vs that the Scriptures translated verbatim, exactly, and according to the proper vse and signification of the wordes, do by the Heretikes confession make for the Catholikes, and therefore Beza saith he altereth the wordes into other: and (I thinke) it may suf∣fice any indifferent reader to iudge of his purpose and meaning in other places of his translation, and consequently of theirs that either allow him, or follow him, which are our English Calui∣nists, and Bezites. Many other waies there are to make mosta certaine proofe of their Wilfulnesse, as when the translation is* 1.77 framed according to their false and hereticall commentarie: and, When they will auouch their translations out of prophane wri∣ters, Homer, Plutarch, Plinie, Tullie, Virgil, and Terence, and reiect the Ecclesiastical vse of wordes in the Scriptures and Fa∣thers: which Beza doth for the most part alwaies. But it were infinite to note all the markes, and by these, the wise reader may conceiue the rest.

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

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

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

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

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

MART. 55. But would you thinke that these men could notwithstanding speake very grauely and honestly against voluntarie and wilfull translations of Scripture, that so noto∣riously offend therein them selues? Harken what Beza saith a∣gainst* 1.78 Castaleo and the like: The matter (saith he) is now come to this point that the translatours of Scripture out of the Greeke into Latin, or into any other tōgue, think that they may lawfully doe any thing in translating. Whom if a man reprehend, he shall be answered by and by that they do the office of a translatour, not that tran∣slateth worde for worde, but that expresseth the sense. So it commeth to passe, that whiles euery man will rather freely folow his own iudgement, than be a religious in∣terpreter of the Holy Ghost, he doth rather peruert ma∣ny things than translate them. Is not this well said, if he had done accordingly? but doing the cleane contrarie, as hath ben•• proued, he is a dissembling hypocrite in so saying, and a wilfull Heretike in so doing, and condemned by his owne iudge∣ment.

FVLK. 55. No wise man doubteth, but they could both speake very grauely and auoyde most religiously al voluntarie, & wilful translations of scripture, that might tende to maintaine any errour. And the rather they will be perswaded, that Beza hath auoyded that lewde kinde of translatiō, for which he reproueth Castaleo, when they shall see, that you so malitious an enimie vnto him, ha∣uing spent all your inuention to seeke holes in his tran∣slation, can finde nothing but such childish cauils, as when they be discouered, men will maruaile that you were not ashamed to moue them.

MART. 56. But after this generall vewe of their wilfull purpose and heretical intention, let vs examine their false tran∣slations more particularly, and argue the case with them more at large, and presse them to answere, whether in their consci∣ence it be so or no, as hitherto is saide: and that by seuerall

chapters of such CONTROVERSIES as their corruptions concerne: and first of all (without further curiositie whence to begin, in cases so indifferent) of TRADITIONS.

FVLK. 56. The more particularly you examine our translations, the freer, I hope, they shall be found from falsehoode, & wilfull corruption. And the more at large you argue the case, and presse vs to answere, the more you shall make the case to appeare worse on your side, and the truth clearer on our parte. And as God is wit∣nesse of our conscience and sinceritie in setting forth his word, without adulteration, or corruptiō, so I appeale to the consciences of al indifferent readers, whether hither∣to you haue gotten any aduantage against vs in this whole chapter, which yet you professe to be the abridge∣ment, and summe of your whole treatise.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Confutation of 10. Ho 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ le••. fo. 35. p. 2.
• * 1.2

  Such doth Hovvlet charge vs vvithall.
• * 1.3

  Euident markes or signes to knovvvv••••∣full corrup∣tions in tran∣slating.
• * 1.4

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

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.6

  Eph. 5. Col. 3. •••••• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 577.
• * 1.7

  De vero Dei cultu. lib. 6. c••p 13.
• * 1.8

  De orig. error. lib. 2. cap. 2.
• * 1.9

  Quest. Heb. in Gen.
• * 1.10

  1. Cor. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bib. an. 1562.
• * 1.11

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

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

  Col. 2. ••. 20.
• * 1.14

  Pag. 209.
• * 1.15

  VVhitak. p. ••99.
• * 1.16

  Bib. in king Edvv. time printed a∣gaine 1562.
• * 1.17

  Bib. 1562. Tit. 3.
• * 1.18

  Beza in ••. Cor. 7. v. 1. & 9. v. 5. Bib. an. 1579.
• * 1.19

  Luc. 3. v. 36. Act. 1. v. 14. c. 2. v. 23. c. 3. v. 21. c. 26. v. 20. 2. Thes. 2. v. 15. &c. 9. v. 6.
• * 1.20

  Beza. Luc. 1. Ro. 2. Apoc. 19. 8. Beza in c. 1••. Apoc. v. 8.
• * 1.21

  Ro ••. v. ••8. No. T••st. an. 1580. Bib. 1579.
• * 1.22

  Ro. 5. v. 19.
• * 1.23

  ••a. 2. v. 14. Ro 3. v. 28. ••uth. tom. 2. fol. 405. edit. Witteb. an. ••551. Whitak. pag. 198.
• * 1.24

  Their igno∣rance of the Greeke and Hebrue ton∣gue, or their false & vvil∣full trans••a∣tion thereof against their knovvledge.
• * 1.25

  ••rentius Me∣lancth. See ••inda. Dubi. Dial. 1. c. 1••▪ Psal. 51.
• * 1.26

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.27

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.28

  Whitak. pag. 1••••. Ro. 5. v. 6.
• * 1.29

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

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.31

  ••. Cor. 15. 10▪
• * 1.32

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.33

  Gen. 4. v. 7. an. 1579.
• * 1.34

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.35

  Calu. in 5. Hebr.
• * 1.36

  Bib. an. 1579.
• * 1.37

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.38

  Act. 2. v. 23.
• * 1.39

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

  Ibid. v. 27. Annota. in no▪ test, post. edit.
• * 1.41

  Annotat. in Act. 2. v. 24.
• * 1.42

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.43

  Annot. in Act. 2. v. 24.
• * 1.44

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

  That is, he vvould trans∣late, Solutis funibus mor∣tis, not▪ Solu∣tis dolorib••s inferni.
• * 1.46

  Act. ••. 21.
• * 1.47

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.48

  Pag. 43.
• * 1.49

  Pag. 34. 35. Against D. Sand. Rocke. pag. 308.
• * 1.50

  See Comm. ••••d. Figurata constr••c••io, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.51

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.52

  Ps. 118. Octo••. Nun. Ps. 138.
• * 1.53

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.54

  ••i. 11. con••. Faust. cap. 20
• * 1.55

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

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

  Quia benedictus, for, & benedi∣ctus fructus ven∣••ris tui.
• * 1.58

  Luc. 1. v. 28.
• * 1.59

  Luc. 16. v. 20▪
• * 1.60

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.61

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.62

  Hebr. 5. v. 7.
• * 1.63

  Beza. Act. 26. v. 20. ••. Thess. 2. & ••.
• * 1.64

  Psalm. 86. ••3. Bib. 1579.
• * 1.65

  Psalm. 4••.
• * 1.66

  Tit. 3.
• * 1.67

  Tom. 2. fol. 405. edit. Witteb. anno 1551.
• * 1.68

  The expresse testimonies of Beza, (vvhom the English He∣reticall transla∣tions follovv herein) that he doth vvilfully and of purpose translate against such and such catholike asser∣tions.
• * 1.69

  Mat. ••. v. 8.
• * 1.70

  Loco supra citato.
• * 1.71

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.72

  Luc. 1. v. 6.
• * 1.73

  I o•• hovv sin •••••• Anima, carkasse. Infero nus, graue.
• * 1.74

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.75

  Act. 3. v. 21.
• * 1.76

  Flac. Illyr.
• * 1.77

  Cal. Heb. 5. 7. & Tit. 3. 6. Beza 2. Thess••l. 2. 15. & 3. 6.
• * 1.78

  Annot. act. 10. v. 46.