A defense of the sincere and true translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong against the manifolde cauils, friuolous quarels, and impudent slaunders of Gregorie Martin, one of the readers of popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes. By William Fvlke D. in Diuinitie, and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge. Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of all such quarrels & cauils, as haue bene of late vttered by diuerse papistes in their English pamphlets, against the writings of the saide William Fvlke.

MART. 3. This reason is so coherent and so necessary in this place, that if the greke word were only a passiue (as it is not) yet it might beseme Beza to translate it actiuely, who hath tur∣ned the actiue into a passiue without scrupulositie, as him selfe confesseth, and is before noted, against the real presence. Much more in this place might he bee bolde to translate that actiuely, whych is both an actiue and a passiue, specially, hauing such an exāple, and so great authoritie as is al the ancient Latin church til this day. But why would he not? surely, because he would fauor his and their heresie, which saith clean contrarie to these wordes of the Apostle, to wit, that God is a tempter to euil. Is that possible to be proued? yea, it is possible and plain. Bezaes words be these, Inducit Dominus in tentationē eos quos Satanae arbitrio permittit, aut in quos potius Satanam ipsum in∣dueit, vt cor eorum impleat, vt loquitur Petrus, Act. 5. v. 3. that is, The Lorde leadeth into tentation those whome hee permitteth to Satans arbitrement, or into

whom rather he leadeth or bringeth in Satan himself to fil their heart as Peter speaketh. Marke that he saith God bringeth Satan into a man, to fill his heart, as Peter said to A∣nanias, Why hath satan filled thy heart, to lie vnto the holie Ghost? So then, by this mans opinion, God brought Sa∣than into that mans heart, to make him lie vnto the holy Ghost, and so led him into tentation, being authour and causer of that hainous sinne.

FVLK. 3. How necessarie the coherens is, with the former wordes, that it maketh an absurde repetition in the wordes following, I haue noted beefore. And there∣fore, there is no cause, that shoulde driue Beza, to tran∣slate a worde of passiue signification actiuely, as you slaunder him to haue translated an actiue passiuely, a∣gainst the reall presence, for that you meane of Act. 3. he translateth not passiuely, so as the passiue is opposite to the actiue, but as the one may be resolued into the o∣ther, the same sense remaining, which euery childe in the Grammar schoole knoweth. Ego amo ••e, •••• amaris à me, I loue thee, thou art loued of me: and not as they may disagree, I loue thee, but I am not loued of thee.

But Beza (you say) would not followe the vulgar In∣terpretor, whose antiquitie I haue shewed for vniuersall receauing, not to haue bene aboue fiue hundreth yeares: seeing Bernard, which liued a thousand, and one hundred yeares after Christ, vseth it not alwayes. And why did Be∣za leaue the vulgar translation, in this place?

surely, in fauour of our heresie, that God is a tempter to euill.

The Lord him selfe be iudge, whether we abhorre not that heresie. Yet you say, it is both possible, and plaine to be proued, by Bezaes owne wordes. In his later edition, an.

1565. his wordes are these, vpon that petition of the Lordes prayer▪ Leade vs not into temptation. I••ducit au∣tem Dominus in tentationem eos quos Satanae arbitrio permis∣tit, vt cor eorum impleat, sicut loquitur Petrus, Act. 5. The Lord leadeth into temptation them, whom he permit∣teth to the will of Satan, that he may fill their hart as

Peter speaketh. These wordes declare, that God leadeth some men into temptation, and howe he leadeth them into temptation, namely, by giuing them ouer to Satan, who filleth their hart with all iniquitie.

But hereof it can not be proued, that he tempteth vnto euill. He sent the lying spirite into the mouth of Achabs Prophets, for a punishment vnto Achab, and them: yet he neither temp∣ted Achab to euil, nor his Prophets to lie. But you grate vpon these wordes, in the first edition, God bringeth Sa∣tan into a man. Beza meaneth no otherwise, than for a punishment, they are deliuered to Satan, as the lying spi∣rite was sent to deceiue Achab, not that God filleth their hartes, but that Satan filleth their hartes, to their destru∣ction, as Peter sayth: where you doe slaunderously ap∣ply that which Peter sayth of Satan, filling the hart of A∣nanias, to the whole sentence: as though Peter were al∣ledged to say, that God sendeth Satan into a mans hart. That God did leade Ananias into temptation, for his hypocrisie, and gaue him ouer to Satan, who filled his hart, and possessed him, so that he lyed vnto the holye Ghost, we may safly affirme, and yet it followeth not, that God either tempted Ananias to his sinne, or els was author aund causer of that hainous sinne, otherwise than he is the good author and causer of all things, which as they are caused by him, they are good. And yet of such things (as S. Augustin sayth,) he is no euil author, he may be, and is a iust reuenger. Wherefore you can no better gather of this saying, that God is the author of sinne, than when we say, that God created the deuill, or man to be of free will, for if they had not bene of free will to sinne, they shoulde not haue sinned. Or if God had not suffered, and ordained the deuil first to fall, he could not haue tempted Eue, and so haue brought man to sinne. But as God is cleare from the sinne of the deuill, and of Adam, which yet he might haue kept from sinning: so is he cleare from the sinne of them, whome for a iuste plague, he leadeth into temptation, and giueth into the

power of Satan, to worke his wicked will in them, to their eternall destruction.

Notes

• Annot. No. Test▪ an. 1556. Mat. 6. verse. 1••▪