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.

FVLK. 4. The brasen serpent first and last was an i∣mage, holy, when it was commaunded by God to bee made as a sacrament of our redemption by Christ, law∣full, when it was reserued onely for memorie of that ex∣cellent miracle: vnlawefull, cursed, and abhominable,

when it was worshipped, and therefore iustly broken in peeces, by the godly king Ezechias. You cite Augustine as it pleaseth you, to followe your owne context. Quem sanè serpentem propter facti memoriam reseruatum, cum posteà populus errans, tanquam idolum colere cepisset Ezechias, &c. Which serpent truly being reserued for the memorie of the fact, when afterward the people going astray, began to worship as an idoll, Ezechias the king, seruing God with religious power, with great praise of his pietie, brake in peeces. Here it is certaine, that Augustine as most Ecclesiasticall writers, vseth the word Idolum, for an image abused. But that the people began to adore it as God, he sayth not, for they onely worshipped God by it, falsly in deede, and superstitiously: but yet not beleuing that image to be God him selfe, but a holy representati∣on of his power, which was shewed by it in the dayes of Moses. That Ezechias by religious or Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie, did put downe idolatrie you passe it by, as though you saw it not in S. Augustine. But you bring an other example to proue, that images except they be worshipped as gods, be no idols. In truth, seeing all religious worship is due onely to God, although the idolaters intend not to worship their images as gods, yet by worshipping of them, they make vnto them selues gods of them, and so offende both against the first, and second commaundementes. Yet how proue you, that the Israelites made a god of their calfe. Because they sayed these are thy gods, ô Israel, that brought thee out of the land of Aegipt. But euen by that same speach it is mani∣fest, that they worshipped not the calfe, as beleuing it to be God: but contrariwise protested thereby, that they meaned not to chaunge their God, but to worshippe the same God, which brought thē out of the land of Aegipt by that image, which they could not be ignorant that it was made but yesterday, of their earings, and therefore could not thinke it was the same god that brought them out of the lande of Aegipt, but that they would worship

God by that visible shape, which they sawe before them. And Aaron by his proclamation cōfirmeth the same. To morow, (saith he) shal be holy daie to Iehoua, that is, to the only true God, whom they dishonored, pretending to worship him by that Image: so hainous a thing it is, to make Images to represent God, and to worship them for his honour, although the worshipper do not beleeue them to be Gods. Therefore where wee haue in some translations, 1. Cor. 10. called those Idolaters worship∣pers of Images, we haue not erred: for an Image it was they worshipped, thinking to worshippe God thereby. But if either Image, or Idoll; worshippers of Images or Idolaters, would please you, wee haue both in our tran∣slations, the one expressing what wee meane by the o∣ther, that these cauillations were needelesse, but that ma∣lice against the truthe incenseth you to picke quarrels, and that translation whiche vseth the termes of Idols and Idolaters, was then in printing at Geneua, when Images were in pulling downe in Englande, namely the firste and seconde yeares of the Queenes raigne, beyng finished the 10. of April 1560. whiche notably confuteth the fonde purpose, that you slaunder our tran∣slators to haue had.