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.

¶ A Discouerie of the mani∣folde corruptions of the holie Scriptures, by the Heretikes of our dayes, specially the English Sectaries, & of their foule dea∣ling herein, by partiall and false Translations to the ad∣vantage of their heresies, in their English Bibles vsed, and authorized since the time of Schisme.

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.

CHAP. II.

Hereticall translation of holy Scripture against Apostolicall TRADITIONS.

Martin.

THis is a matter of such importance, that if they* 1.79 shoulde graunt any traditions of the Apostles, and not pretende the written worde onely: they know that by c 1.80 such traditions mentioned in all antiquitie, their religion were wholy defaced and ouerthrowen. For remedie whereof, and for the defacing of all such traditions, they bend their translations against them in this wonderfull maner. Wheresoeuer the holy Scripture spea∣keth against certaine traditions of the Iewes, partly friuolous, partly repugnant to the law of God, there all the English trans∣lations follow the Greeke exactly, neuer omitting this word, tra∣dition.* 1.81 Contrariwise, wheresoeuer the holy Scripture speaketh

in the commendation of Traditions, to wit, such traditions a•• the Apostles deliuered to the Church, there all their sayd trans∣lations agree, not to followe the Greeke, which is still the selfe same word, but for, traditions, they translate, ordinaunces, or instructions. Why so and to what purpose? we appeale to the worme of their conscience, which continually accuseth them of an hereticall meaning, whether, by vrging the word, tradi∣tions, wheresoeuer they are discommended, and by suppressing the word, wheresoeuer they are commended, their purpose and in∣tent be not, to signifie to the Reader, that all traditions▪ are naught, and none good, all reproueable, none allowable.

Fulke.

TRaditions in deede is a matter of such im∣portance, as if you may be allowed what∣soeuer you will thrust vpon vs vnder the name of vnwritten traditions, the written worde of God shall serue to no purpose at all. For first as you plainly professe, the holy Scripture shall not be accounted sufficient to teach all truth neces∣sary to saluation, that the man of God may be perfect, prepared to all good works. Secondly with the Valenti∣nian heretikes, you accuse the Scriptures of vncertaine vnderstāding without your traditions, vnder pretense of which, you wil bring in what you list, though it be neuer so contrary to the holy Scriptures plaine wordes, by co∣lour of interpretatiō, as you do the worshipping of ima∣ges, & many other like heresies. As for the mention that is made of Apostolicall traditions in diuerse of the aun∣cient fathers, some of thē are such, as you your selues ob∣serue not, & not for the tenth part of those that you ob∣serue, can you bring any testimony out of the ancient fa∣thers, as is proued sufficiently by so many propositiōs as were set downe by the Bishoppe of Sarisburie M. Iewel, whereof you can bring no proofe for any one to haue

bene taught within 600. yeres after Christ. Now concer∣ning the traditions of the Apostles, what they were, who can be a better witnesse vnto vs than Ignatius the disciple of the Apostles, of whom Eusebius writeth, that when he was led towardes Rome where he suffred martyrdom, he earnestly exhorted the Churches, by which he passed, to continue in the faith, and against all heresies which euen then began to bud vp, he charged thē to retaine fast the traditiō of the Apostles, which by that time he protested to be committed to writing: for by that time were al the books of the new Testament written. The words of Eu∣sebius concerning this matter are, li. 3. c. 35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And he ex∣horted thē straitly to kepe the tradition of the Apostles, which testifying that it was now for assurance cōmitted to writing, he thought necessary to be plainly taught.

A∣gainst this tradition of the Apostles, which for certaintie & assurance is contained in their holy & vndoubted wri∣tings, we say nothing, but striue altogither for it. But be∣cause the word traditions, is by you Papistes taken to si∣gnifie a doctrine secretely deliuered by worde of mouth, without authority of the holy Scriptures, we do willing∣ly auoide the word in our translations, where the simple might be deceiued, to think that the holy ghost did euer cōmēd any such to the church, which he would not haue to be committed to writing in the holy Scriptures: & in steede of that word so commōly taken, although it doth not necessarily signifie any such matters, we doe vse such wordes, as do truly expresse the Apostles meaning, & the Greke word doth also signifie. Therfore we vse the words of ordināces or instructiōs or institutiōs or the doctrine deliuered, all which being of one sense, the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doeth signifie, and the same doth tradition si∣gnifie, if it be rightly vnderstoode: but seing it hath bene commonly taken, and is vrged of the Papistes to signifie only a doctrine deliuered beside the word of God writ∣ten

in such places where the holy Ghost vseth the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that sense, we translate by that worde (tradition) where he vseth it for such doctrine as is groū∣ded vpon the holy Scriptures, our translatours haue a∣uoyded it, not of any hereticall meaning, that all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 traditions are naught, but that all such as haue not the holy Scripture to testifie of them, and to warrant them, are euill, and to be auoyded of all true Christians, which can not without blasphemie, acknowledge any imperfection in the holy Scriptures of God, which are able to make a man wise vnto saluation, if they shoulde thinke any doctrine necessarie to saluation not to be cō∣tained therein.

MART. 2. For example Matt. 15. Thus they translate, Why do thy disciples transgresse the TRADITION of* 1.82 the Elders? And againe, Why do you also transgresse the commaundement of God by your TRADITION? And againe. Thus haue you made the commaundement of God of no effect by your TRADITION: Here (I warrant you) all the bels sound tradition, and the word is neuer omitted, and it is very well and honesty translated, for so the Greeke worde doth properly signifie. But nowe on the other side, concerning good traditions, let vs see their dealing. The A∣postle* 1.83 by the selfe same worde both in Greeke and Latine, sayth thus: Therefore, brethren, stand and hold fast the TRA∣DITIONS which you haue learned either by worde, or* 1.84 by our Epistle. And againe, Withdraw your selues from euerie brother walking inordinately, and not according to the TRADITION which they haue receiued of vs. And againe (according to the Greeke which they professe to fo∣low:) I praise you brethren, that in all things you are* 1.85 * 1.86 mindefull of me, and as I haue deliuered vnto you, you keepe my TRADITIONS.

FVLK. 2. No maruell, though you can not abide the bels sounding against mans traditions, which sound must nedes pearce your cōscience more than it offendeth your eares, seeing you know that many of those things

which you defend vnder the name of traditions, against the holy scriptures, haue not God for their auctor, which forbiddeth to be worshipped in such sorte, but man, or rather Sathan, which hath inspired such things vnto mē, thereby to dishonor God, and to discredite his holy and most certaine written worde. Yet you say it is well and honestly translated. God knoweth how faine you would there were no such text extāt in the Gospel against your superstition and will worshipping. But now let vs see our craftie dealing (as you compte it) against good traditi∣ons. In the first text 2. Thessal. 2. v. 15. You may see your vnderstanding of traditions, quite ouerthrowen. For the Apostle speaketh of such traditions as were deliuered to them partly by preaching & partly by his Epistle. Ther∣fore tradition doth not signifie a doctrine deliuered by worde of mouth onely. But yet you will say it signifieth here a doctrine deliuered by word of mouth also, which is not written. How proue you that? because all that the Apostle preached was not conteyned in his Epistles to the Thessalonians, therefore was it no where written in the Scriptures? what the tradition was in the second text▪ 2. Thess. 3. v. 6. is expressed by and by after: that he which will not labour must not eate. Was this doctrine neuer written before? when God commaundeth euery man to labour in his vocation. As for the third place. 1. Cor. 11. 2. your owne vulgar Latine translater both teacheth vs how to translate it, and also dischargeth our translation of heresie and corruption, for he calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that place, praecepta precepts or instructions, or commaū∣dements, or ordinances, I see no great difference in these wordes. By which his translation he sheweth, that in the other places, 2. Thes. 2. & 3. He meaneth the same thing by traditiones, traditions, that we doe by ordinances or instructions, and might as well haue vsed the word prae∣cepta▪ in those two places, as he did in this one, if it had pleased him.

MART. 3. Here we see plaine mention of S. Paules tra∣ditions,

and consequently of Apostolicall traditions, yea and tra∣ditions by worde of mouth, deliuered to the saide Churches without writing or Scripture. In all whiche places looke, gentle reader, and seeke all their English translations, and thou shalt * 1.87 not once finde the worde, tradition, but in steede thereof, ordinances, instructions, preachings, institutions, and any worde else rather than, tradition. In so much that Beza their maister translateth it traditam doctrinam, the doctrine de∣liuered, putting the singular number for the plural, & adding, doctrine of his owne. So framing the text of holy Scripture ac∣cording to his false commentarie, or rather putting his commen∣tarie in the text, & making it the text of Scripture. Who would* 1.88 thinke their malice and partialitie against traditions were so great, that they should all agree with one consent so duely and exactly in these and these places to conceale the worde, which in other places do so gladly vse it, the Greeke worde being all one in all the saide places?

FVLK. 3. There is no question but the Apostles by word of mouth, that is by preaching & teaching, deliue∣red the doctrine of the Gospel to the Churches, but that they preached taught or deliuered any doctrine, as nece∣sarie to saluation, which they proued not out of the holy Scriptures, and which is not contained in the new Testa∣mēt or the old, this is not yet proued, neither euer can it be proued. Such matters of ceremonies, order, & disci∣pline, which are mutable, no man denies, but they might & did deliuer, but yet in them nothing but agreeable to the generall rules set downe in the Scripture. But in all these places the word tradition can not once be founde. Yet M. Fulke saith it is foūd. Yea doth? where saith he so? You answere pag. 153 against D. Saunders Rocke. Ther∣fore if he giue not an instaunce, let him giue him selfe the lie. But he that chargeth Fulke to say it is found, li∣eth the more. For so he saith not: read the place who wil. He speaketh against Saunder, who affirmed that the very name of tradition vsed in the better part, can not be suf∣fered to be in the Englishe Bible: as though there were

some decree of the Synode, or Act of Parliament against it, and sayth: it may be and is suffered in that sense, which the holy Ghost vseth it, but not to bring prayer for the deade, or any thing contrarie to the Scripture vnder the name of traditions Apostolike. By which wordes I meane, that there is no prohibition or edict to the con∣trarie, but if any man will vse the worde tradition in translation of the Bible, he is permitted so to doe, I doe not affirme it is so founde. But as if I shoulde say. The Papistes in Englande are suffered to liue as becom∣meth good subiectes, I affirme not that they are, or shall be founde so to liue. But to omit this foolishe quarrell, Beza our Maister is sayed to haue translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the doctrine deliuered, putting the singular number for the plurall, and adding doctrine of his owne. What an hainous matter here is, the word do∣ctrine is a collectiue, comprehending many precepts or traditions, and in the next chapiter, the Apostle vseth the same word in the singular number. Againe, the 1. Thes. 4. v. 2. he calleth the same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, precepts or docu∣ments, which worde signifieth the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, witnes your vulgar latin trāslator, which giues one word for both, praecepta, 1. Cor. 11. & 1. Thes. 4. And that the word doctrine is added to the text, it is a fonde cauil: for the word doctrine is cōtained in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth a deliuerie▪ but whereof? ••f not of doctrine. Our Sauiour Christ also, Math. 15. v. 9. by the testimony of Esay, repro∣ueth the traditiō of the Pharisees, teaching the doctrines precepts of mē, which testimonye of Esay, could take no hold of thē, if traditiōs were not doctrines & precepts. So that in this trāslatiō of Beza, (cry out as lowd as you can) there is neither fraude nor corruptiō, malice nor partiali∣tye, but a prudent declining of that terme, which might giue occasiō of error, & the Apostles meaning truly and faithfully deliuered. To shewe that one word may be di∣uersly trāslated, especially whē it signifieth diuers things, to wise mē is needeles. I haue said before you your selues

translate, or else you should be taken for mad men, the Latine worde tradere (of which tradition is deriued) sometimes to deliuer, sometimes to betray, and yet the Greeke and Latine worde being all one in all the saide places.

MART. 4. Yea they doe else where so gladly vse this word, tradition, when it may tend to the discredit thereof: that they put the sayd word in all their English Bibles, with the like ful consent as before, when it is not in the Greeke at all. As when they translate thus, If ye be dead with Christ from the ru∣dimēts* 1.89 * 1.90 of the world: why as though liuing in the world, ARE YE LEDD•• WITH TRADITIONS? and as an other * 1.91 English translation of theirs readeth more hereti∣cally, Why are ye burdened with traditions? Tell vs sincere∣ly you that professe to haue skill in the Greeke, and to translate according to the Greeke: tell vs we beseech you, whether this Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doe signifie tradition, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be lead or burdened with traditions. You can not be ignorant* 1.92 that it doth not so signifie, but as a litle before in the same chap∣ter, and in other places, your selues translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ordi∣naunces▪* 1.93 decrees: so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, must be (as in the vulgar Latine it is) Quid decernitis? Why do you ordaine or de∣cree, or, why are you ledde with decrees?

FVLK. 4. It grieueth you that tradition shoulde be mentioned so often in the ill part as it is. And it seemeth you would defend the Colossians against S. Paule, who reproueth them because they were led with ordinaunces according to the precepts and doctrines of men. But you seeme to make light of suche traditions, and therefore you count that the more hereticall translation, which sayth, why are you burthened with traditions? Wherfore I pray you is that more hereticall? Doe you not thinke that such traditions, as are the commaundements & do∣ctrines of men, are burthenous to mens consciences? But they that haue skill in the Greeke tongue must tell you sincerely whether this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doe signifie tradition, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be led or burdened with traditions.

I answere you if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as you confesse, signifie ordi∣nances and decrees or doctrines, and the worde tradi∣tion signifieth the same, why shoulde not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifie to be ledde or burdened with traditions, as well as with ordinaunces, customes, or decrees. These wordes differ much in sounde, but not greatly in signification. Dogmata Pythagoraea that might neuer be put in writing, what were they but the traditions of Pythagoras. Such were the Philosophicall decrees called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whereof Tullie speaketh in his booke de finibus, which were di∣ctata taught by worde of mouth, which to set foorth, among them was compted an heynous offence, might not those rightly be called traditions?

MART. 5. Iustifie your translation if you can, either out of Scriptures, fathers, or Lexicon. And make vs a good reason* 1.94 why you put the worde, traditions, here, where it is not in the Greeke: and would not put it in the places before, where you know it is most euidently in the Greeke. Yea you must tell vs, why you translate for tradition, ordinance, and contrarie for ordinance, tradition: so turning ca••te in panne (as they say) at your pleasure, and wresting both the one and the other to one end, that you may make the very name of traditions odious a∣mong the people, be they neuer so authenticall, euen from the Apostles: which your conscience knoweth, and you shal answere for it at the dreadfull day.

FVLK. 5. Firste out of Scripture I iustifie it thus: Those dogmata against which the Apostle writeth, were according to the precepts, & doctrines of men: but such the Scripture calleth traditions▪ Math. 15. Therfore these were traditions. Secōdly out of the fathers, Chrysostome vpon this place saith, Traditiones graecorum taxat, he repro∣ueth the traditions of the Greekes, saying all is but a hu∣mane doctrine. Secondly S. Ambrose vpon this texte. Loue not the world sayth he, nor those errours Quos hu∣mana adinuenit traditio, which the tradition of men hath inuēted. And afterward, Sagina enim carnalis sensus humana traditio est. For the tradition of man is the pampering of

carnal sense, by which he saith men are so burthened, that they cannot be ioyned to the head which is aboue. Yet burthening with traditions, is called of you the more he∣retical translation. Say as much to Ambrose, that he ma∣keth an hereticall cōmentarie. The interpretor of Theo∣doret printed at Collen 1573. hath translated in the very text, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, traditiones hominum traditions of mē. You see nowe this matter is not so voide of testimonie of the fathers, as you supposed. The reason you require vs to make, is made often before. Wee thought it not meete, to expresse the Greeke worde in both places, by the same english word, because the english word as it is vsed by you, is not so indifferent, to signifie the doctrine of God deliuered out of the Scriptures: as to signifie do∣ctrines of men deuised beside the Scriptures. If we must answere why we call tradition ordinance, and ordinance tradition: let your vulgar Latine interpreter answere vs, or you for him, why he calleth tradition precept, and vsage or precept, traditiō? The one he doth 1. Cor. 11. v. 2. the other Act. 6. v. 14. where the Greeke is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying there precepts, or obseruations commaūded, he transla∣teth traditiones, as in the other place the Greeke being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he translateth praecepta. If this be lawfull for him why should it be coūted corruptiō or false translation in vs? seeing we are moued with as good reason, as can be yeelded for him. As for authentical and apostolicall tra∣ditions that are grounded vpon the doctrine of the Apo∣stles expressed in their writings, we shall be ready to re∣ceiue them, when so euer they shal be brought soorth. If they cānot be proued by the Scriptures, which are writtē that we might beleeue, and beleeuing haue eternall life, & which are able to make vs wise vnto saluatiō, we haue nothing to do with them: we may wel spare them: nay we dare not admit them, least we should answer for blas∣phemie against the holy Scriptures, in that dreadfull day, if by admitting of such traditiōs, we should professe, that the doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures, is vnper∣fect

or insufficient to saluation.

MART. 6. Somewhat more excusable it is, but yet pro∣ceeding of the same hereticall humor, and on your parte (that should exactly folow the Greeke) falsely translated, when you translate in S. Peters Epistle thus: You were not redeemed* 1.95 with corruptible things frō your vaine conuersation re∣ceiued by the tradition of the fathers. Where the Greeke is* 1.96 thus rather to be translated, frō your vaine conuersation de∣liuered by the fathers. But your fingers itched to f••••st in the word, tradition, and for, deliuered, to say, receiued, because it is the phrase of the Catholike Church, that it hath receiued many things by tradition, which you woulde here controll by likenesse of wordes in this false translation.

FVLK. 6. I maruaile why you should compte it an heretical humor, to vse the worde traditions in the euill part, which the holy ghost so vseth, and your owne vulgar translator also: but that you are more partial in allowing the traditions of mē, than we in auoiding the terme som∣times, only for doubt lest traditiōs of mē, should creepe into the place of Gods cōmandemēts. But how is it falsly translated on our part, that professe to folow the Greke, which is truly translated in your vulgar Latin text, which professeth to translate the Greeke, as well as we? belike because we say, receiued by the tradition of the fathers, which according to the Greeke should be, deliuered by the fathers, but that our fingers itched to foyst in the word tradition. What I pray you? hath your vulgar trāsla∣tor foisted in that word? did his fingers itch against such catholike phrases, that he would cōtrol thē by a false trā∣slation? do you not perceiue that while you raile vpō vs▪ you reuile your owne vulgar Latin translatiō, which hath the same word traditiō, for which you storme against vs? But for, deliuered, we haue said, receiued. See whether fro∣wardnes driueth you, the Apostle saith, they were deliue∣red frō the vaine cōuersation of their fathers traditiō. Do you then vnderstād, that it was deliuered by the fathers, but not receiued by their sonnes? Certainely they were

deliuered from that vaine conuersation which they had receyued. For receyuing doth necessarily importe deli∣uering. And because you called for a Lexicon in the next section before, Scapula will teach you, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signifie, as indifferently A patre traditus as à patre acceptus, deliuered by the father, and receyued by the fa∣ther. What wrangling then is this, about the moone shine in the water, to crie out false translation, foysting, itching fingers, and I know not what?

MART. 7. But concerning the worde tradition, you will say perhaps the sense thereof is included in the Greeke worde, deliuered. We graunt. But would you be content, if we should alwayes expresly adde, tradition, where it is so included? then should we say 1. Cor. 11. 2. I praise you that as I haue deli∣uered* 1.97 you (by tradition,) you keepe my precepts or tradi∣tions. And againe v. 23. For I receiued of our Lord, which also I deliuered vnto you (by tradition) &c. And Luc. 1. v. 2. As they (by tradition) deliuered vnto vs, which from the beginning sawe &c. and suche lyke, by your example, wee should translate in this sorte. But we vse not this licentious ma∣ner in translating holy Scriptures, neither is it a translators parte, but an interpreters, and his that maketh a commentarie: neither doth a good cause neede other translation than the ex∣presse text of the Scripture giueth.

FVLK. 7. We will say it is contained in the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifieth receaued by tradi∣tion or deliuerie frō the Fathers, & not in the verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifieth otherwise many times, thā sim∣ply to deliuer, & when it signifieth to deliuer, it doth not alway signifie to deliuer by word of mouth, without wri∣ting, as you vnderstand tradition: but as well by wri∣ting, as by preaching. As when S. Paule saith, I receaued of the Lord, that which I deliuered vnto vou, speaking of the institution of the supper, he meaneth that which the Euangelists had written, & he him selfe doth write. So 2. Thess. 2. when he willeth thē to hold the traditiōs, which they had learned of him, he speaketh not only of such as

they learned by his preaching: but such also as they learned by his Epistle. Wherefore if you should expresly adde the worde tradition in your partiall signification, wheresoeuer you finde the word deliuered, you shoulde not onely translate ridiculously, but also heretically and falsly. Wordes in deriuation and composition, doe not alwaies signifie according to their primitiue.

MART. 8. And if you will yet say, that our vulgar La∣tine translation hath here the worde, tradition: we graunt it hath so, and therefore we also translate accordingly. But you professe to translate the Greeke, and not the vulgar Latine, which you in England condemne as Papisticall, and say it is* 1.98 the worst of all, though Beza your maister pronounce it to be the very best: and will you notwithstanding followe the sayde vulgar Latine, rather than the Greeke, to make traditions odi∣ous? Yea such is your partialitie one way, and inconstancie an other way, that for your hereticall purpose you are content to followe the olde Latine translation, though it differ from the Greeke, and againe another time you will not follow it, though it be all one with the Greeke most exactly. as in the place before alledged, where the vulgar Latine translation hath nothing of traditions, but, Quid decernitis, as it is in the Greeke: you* 1.99 translate, Why are ye burdened with traditions?

FVLK. 8. You may be sure we will saye, that we know to be true, and sufficient to discharge our transla∣tion from your foolish and malicious quarrelling. But we professe (you saye) to translate the Greeke, and not the vulgar Latine. And I pray you, what doth your vulgar Latine Interpreter professe to translate, but the Greeke? if he then translating out of Greeke, could finde traditi∣on in the Greeke worde, why shoulde not we finde the same, especially being admonished by him: who if he translated truly, why are we blamed for doing as he did: if his translation be false, why is it allowed as the onely authenticall text. We follow not therefore the Latine translation, but ioyne with it wheresoeuer it followeth the Greeke, as we doe in ten thousand places more than

this, and willingly depart not from it, but where it de∣parteth from the Greeke, or else vseth such wordes as would be offensiue, if they were translated into English, or occasion of errour, as you doe likewise, when you de∣part from the proper and vsuall signification of wordes, which your Latine translator vseth: as when you call foenerator, a creditor, which signifieth an vsurer, Luc. 7. Sta∣bulum, an Inne, and stabularius, an host, Luc. 10. Vna Saba∣thi, the first of the Sabaoth, Iohn. 2. Ecclesia, the assembly, Act. 7. Baptismata, washings, Marc. 7. and such like. But we in England (you say) condemne the Latine translation, as papisticall. We accuse it as not true, in many places, & we saye it is the worst of all, though Beza, our maister, pronounce it to be the very beste. This toucheth me somewhat, for in the margent is noted Discouerie of the Rocke, pag. 147. where in deede speaking of the Hebrew text, of the olde Testament, and the Greeke of the newe, the Greeke translation of the Septuaginta, and the com∣mon Latine translation, I saye the Tridentine Councell alloweth none for authenticall, but the common Latine translation, that is, the worst of all. Now what sayth Be∣za contrary to this? speaking of the diuerse Latine tran∣slations of the new Testament onely, he sayth of the vul∣gar Latine, that he followeth it for the most part, & pre∣ferreth it before all the rest, maxima ex parte amplector & caeteris omnibus antepono. So that I speake of the whole Bi∣ble, Beza of the new Testament only. I speake of the vul∣gar Latine text, in comparison of the originall Hebrew and Greeke, and the Septuagintaes translation: Beza of the Latine translation of the new Testament, in compa∣rison of all other Latine translations, that were before him, as Erasmus, Castallion, and such like. According to your olde maner therefore, you rehearse out of my wri∣tings, either falsifying the words, or peruerting the mea∣ning. These things considered, you haue no cause to ac∣cuse vs of partialitie and inconstancie, for following, or leauing your Latine text, which we neuer did but vpon

good ground, and reason sufficient.

MART. 9. So that a blind man may see, you frame your translations to bolster your errours and heresies, without all re∣spect of following sincerely either the Greeke or the Latine. But for the Latine no maruell, the Greeke at the least, why doe you* 1.100 not follow? Is it the Greeke that induceth you to say ordinances* 1.101 for traditions, traditions for decrees, ordinances for iustificati∣ons,* 1.102 Elder for Priest, graue for hell, image for idoll? tell vs be∣fore* 1.103 God, and in your conscience, whether it be, because you will* 1.104 exactly follow the Greeke: nay, tell vs truly, and shame the di∣uell,* 1.105 whether the Greeke words doe not sound, and signifie most properly that, which you of purpose will not translate, for disad∣uantaging your heresies? And first let vs see concerning the question of Images.

FVLK. 9. A blind man may see, that you cauill, and slaunder, quarrell and raile, without respect either of cō∣science towards God, or honestie toward the world: in so much, that most commonly, you forget the credit of your owne vulgar Latine translation, so you may haue a colour to find fault with ours. And yet againe you aske, whether it be the Greeke, which induceth vs to say, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ordinances, and for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, traditions, &c. I tell you, the Greeke alloweth vs so to say, which is sufficient, when other godly causes moue vs beside, so to translate. Is it the Latine that induceth you to say, for an vsurer, a* 1.106 * 1.107 creditor: for a stable, an Inne: for, what was done, what* 1.108 was chaunced: for, fastening to, crucifying: for, be you sa∣ued,* 1.109 saue your selues: for, creature, creation: for, confes∣sed,* 1.110 promised: for a boate, a shippe: for a shippe, a boate:* 1.111 * 1.112 for singing, piping: for hay, grasse: for refection, refecto∣rie:* 1.113 for foolishnes, madnes: for an image, an idoll, &c. I* 1.114 blame not all these as false translations, yet euery man* 1.115 * 1.116 may see, they are neither vsuall, nor proper: yet as for* 1.117 some of these (though not for all) I know you may giue* 1.118 good reason, so may we, for any shew of alteration, or* 1.119 departing from the vsuall signification of the Greeke word, that you are able to alledge against vs.

CHAP. III.

Hereticall translation against sacred IMAGES.

Martin.

I Beseech you, what is the next and readiest,* 1.120 and most proper English of Idolum, ido∣lolatra, idololatria? is it not Idol, Idola∣ter,* 1.121 idolatrie? are not these plaine English* 1.122 wordes, and well knowen in our languag••?* 1.123 Why sought you further for other termes and wordes, if you had meant faithfully? What needed that circumstance of three words for one, wor∣shipper of images and, worshipping of images? whether* 1.124 (I pray you) is the more naturall and conuenient speeche, ei∣ther in our English tongue, or for the truth of the thing, to say as the holy Scripture doth, Couetousnes is idolatrie, & con∣sequently, The couetous man is an idolater: or as you tran∣slate, Couetousnes is worshipping of Images, and, The co∣uetous man is a worshipper of images?

Fulke.

IF you aske for the readiest and moste* 1.125 proper English of these wordes, I must needes answere you, an image, a wor∣shipper of images, and worshipping of images, as we haue sometimes transla∣ted. The other, that you would haue, I∣doll, Idolater, and Idolatrie, be rather Greekish than English wordes: which though they be vsed of many English men yet are they not vnderstoode of all, as the other be. And therefore I say, the more na∣turall, and conuenient speech for our English tongue, &

as conuenient for the truth of the thing it is to say, co∣uetousnesse is the worshipping of images, and the co∣uetous man is a worshipper of images: as to say coue∣tousnesse is idolatrie, and the couetous man is an idola∣ter, as I haue proued before. Seeing Idolum by your owne interpreter is called simulachrum, and simulachrum signi∣fieth as much as imago an image, Cap. 1. numb. 5.

MART. 2. We say commonly in Englishe, Suche a riche* 1.126 man maketh his money his God: and the Apostle sayth in like maner of some, Whose belly is their God, Phil. 3. and gene∣rally euerie creature is our idol, when we esteeme it so excee∣dingly that we make it our God. But who euer heard in English, that our money, or bellie, were our images, & that by esteeming of them too much, we become worshippers of images? Among your selues are there not some euen of your Superintendentes, of whom the Apostle speaketh, that make an idol of their money and bellie, by couetousnesse and bellie cheere? Yet can we not call you therefore in any true sense, worshippers of images, nether would you abide it. You see then that there is a great dif∣ferēce betwixt idol and image, idolatrie & worshipping of ima∣ges: and euen so great difference is there betwixt S. Paules wordes and your translation.

FVLK. 2. Before you can shewe that absurditie of this translation, a couetous man is a worshipper of ima∣ges, you must defende your owne vulgar Latine transla∣tion, which calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 simulachrorum seruitus, which I haue proued to signifie the seruing or worship∣ping of images, cap. 1. nu. 5. Now to our English phrase, a riche man maketh his money his God, a glutton his bellie, and so of other creatures honoured aboue mea∣sure. I say the worshipping of images may be after two sortes, either when they are worshipped as gods, (as a∣mong the grosser sort of the Gentils & Papistes) & then it is against the first commaundement. Thou shalt haue none other gods but me: or else when men pretende to worshippe God by them, as the Israelites did in the calfe Ex. 32. & in Ieroboams calues, & in the brasen serpent, &

the wiser sort of the Gentils and Papists pretend to do in worshipping their images: & then it is a sinne against the second cōmaundement. Thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen images. Thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worship thē. By similitude therfore of thē that trusted in images as their gods, & so honored thē, which were not able to helpe them, the Apostle calleth the couetous man a worshipper of images, & couetousnes worshipping of images: & not properly: but because their monie is to thē the same occasion of departing from God, that the ima∣ges was to the worshipper of thē. So if we will speake vn∣properly, as the Apostle saith, their belly is their God, we may say, it is their idoll, or their image, which they wor∣ship as God: not that the belly, or any such thing is God, or an idol, or an image properly, but that it is so termed, for that to such vile creatures, is giuen that diuine honor, which is due to God: but by worshippers of idols, and i∣mages, is giuen to idols or images. I confesse the vse of the English tongue in these speaches, is rather to call thē idols, than images, and to extend the name idol (which is alwaies taken in the euill parte) to that which the word i∣mage can not so aptly signifie: yet in trueth of the thing there is no difference betwene idol and image, worship∣ping of idols, and worshipping of images, whether you speake of such as be idols & images so properly called, or of such as be onely by similitude, figuratiuely so na∣med. If any of our Superintendēts be such as you speake of, I wish them amended or else remoued. For my parte I know none to be suche, although I wish to the best, en∣crease of Gods grace, to despise the world, & to be more earnest in setting foorth Gods glorie. As for the great difference you speake of, betwixt S. Paules wordes, and our translation, I see none as yet.

MART. 3. Will you see more yet to this purpose? In the English Bible printed the yeare 1562. you reade thus: Howe* 1.127 agreeth the Temple of God with images? Can we be i∣gnorant of Satans cogitations herein, that it was translated of

purpose to delude the simple people & to make them beleue that the Apostle speaketh against sacred images in the Churches, which were then in plucking downe in Englande, when this your translation was first published in print? Whereas in very truth you know, that the Apostle here partely interpreteth him selfe to* 1.128 speake of men, as of Gods temples wherein he dwelleth, partely alludeth to Salomons Temple, which did very well agree with i∣mages (for it had the Cherubins, which were the representations of Angels, & the figures of oxen to beare up the lauatory) but with idols it could not agree: and therefore the Apostles words are these, How agreeth the Temple of God with idols?

FVLK. 3. We had neede to see more, before we be conuicted of corruption: for hitherto we haue seene no∣thing, but a folish cauill, groūded vpon the cōmon vse of the word idol in English, in which speach it is takē only for vnlawful images, although in the Greeke it signifieth as generally, as Imago in Latin, & by Tully him selfe is v∣sed for the same. But in the English Bible printed 1562. we read thus 2. Cor. 6. How agreeth the tēple of God with images? Here you can not be ignorant of Satans cogita∣tiōs, that it was translated of purpose, to make the simple people beleue, that the Apostle speaketh against sacred images in churches, which were then in plucking downe in Englande when this translation was first published in print. You are so cunning in Satans cogitations, that he hath inspired into you a manifest vntrueth: for this text was so translated, & printed nere 30. yeres before 1562. in King Henrie the eightes time, when images were not in plucking downe. And when it was printed againe 1562. which was the fifth yere of her Maiesties reigne (God be thāked) there was no neede to plucke downe images out of churches, which were pluckt downe in the first and se∣cōd yeres of her reigne. Wherfore that purpose is vainly imagined of you, for the trāslaters purpose was the same that the Apostles: to shew that the religion of God, hath nothing to do with images, made by mans deuise▪ to ho∣nor them as gods, or to honor God by them. And where

you say that the Apostle alludeth to Salomons temple, which did well agree with images, but not with idols: I answere you, Salomons tēple did not agree with images made by the deuise of man, to honour God by them, or in thē. For the Cherubins were not of mans deuise: but of Gods commaundemēt: the oxen to hold vp the laua∣tory, the pomegranats, & other ornaments, were not for any vse of religion to worship God in them, or by them, but for vse & garnishing of the house appointed by God in his law, and by direction of his spirit in Salomon. For the commaundement, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe, is no restraint vnto God, but vnto men of their owne braine, or priuate intent, to make images to serue in re∣ligion. Therefore the Apostle speaking of suche images as were forbidden by Gods lawe, is not otherwise to be vnderstoode, and no more is our translation.

MART. 4. When Moises by Gods appointment erected* 1.129 a brasen serpent, and commaunded the people that were stung* 1.130 with serpents, to behold it, & thereby they were healed: this was an image only, and as an image was it erected & kept & vsed by Gods commaundement. But when it grew to be an idol (saith S. Augustine) that is, when the people began to adore it as God,* 1.131 then king Ezechias brake it in peeces to the great cōmendation* 1.132 of his piety & godly zeale. So when the children of Israel in the absence of Moises made a caife, & said, These are thy Gods* 1.133 ô Israel that brought thee out of Aegipt, was it but an i∣mage* 1.134 which they made? was that so hainous a matter, that God* 1.135 would so haue punished them as he did? No they made it an idol also, saying, These are thy gods ô Israel. And therfore the A∣postle* 1.136 saith to the Corinthians, Be not idolaters, as some of* 1.137 them. Which also you translate most falsely, Be not wor∣shippers of images, as some of them.

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.

MART. 5. We see then that the Iewes had images with∣out sinne, but not idols. Againe for hauing idols they were ac∣counted like vnto the Gentiles, as the Psalme saith, They lear∣ned* 1.138 their workes, and serued their grauen idols. But they were not accounted like vnto the Gentiles for hauing images, which they had in Salomons Temple, and in the brasen serpent. S. Hierom writeth of the Ammonites and Moabites (who were* 1.139 Gentiles and Idolaters) that comming into the Temple of Hie∣rusalē, & seeing the Angelicall images of the Cherubins coue∣ring the Propitiatory, they sayd, Lo, euē as the Gentils, so Iuda also hath idols of their religion. These men did put no differēce betwene their owne idols, and the Iewes lawfull images. And are not you ashamed to be like to these? They accused Salomons Temple of idols, because they sawe there lawefull images: you

accuse the Churches of God of idolatrie, because you see there the sacred images of Christ and his Saincts.

FVLK. 5. We knowe that the Iewes had images without sinne, and so haue we: but to haue images in a∣ny vse of religion without Gods expresse commaunde∣ment, neither is it lawfull for thē nor vs, because we haue a generall commaundement to the contrary. They were accounted like the Gentils therefore, for hauing images contrarie to Gods commaundement, of their owne ap∣pointment, & worshipping them: not for hauing images appointed by God, which yet it was not lawful for thē to worship. But the Protestāts (you say) are like to the Am∣monits, and Moabits, of whom S. Hierom writeth, that* 1.140 comming into the temple, and seeing the Cherubins co∣uering the propitiatorie, they said, loe, euen as the Gen∣tiles, so Iuda also hath idols of their religion, as we ac∣cuse the church of God of idolatrie, because we see there the sacred images of Christ, and his Saincts.

This that you say S Hierom writeth, he onely repor∣teth it, as a ridiculous fable of the Iewes. Ridiculam verò in hoc loco, Haebrei narrant fabulam. The Hebrewes in this place, tell a ridiculous fable. But fables are good e∣nough, to bolster false accusations. Secondly, he re∣porteth them to say: Sicut cunctae gentes colunt simulachra, ita & Iuda habes suae religionis Idola. As all nations wor∣shippe images, so hath Iuda also idols of their religion. By which wordes you see, that he calleth images, and i∣dols, the same thinges. For simulachrum, to be taken as largely as Imago, I haue proued before, in so much that man is called Simulachrum Dei, the image, not the i∣doll of God, as idoll is taken in the euill parte. But neither are you like to Iuda, nor we to Ammon, and Moab, in this case. For Iuda had Gods commaunde∣ment, to warrant their images, so haue not you, but his commaundement against your images. Againe, Mo∣ab and Ammon (if the tale were true) had idolatrous images of their owne, so haue not we.

MART. 6. But tell vs yet I pray you, do the holy Scrip∣tures of either Testament speake of all maner of images, or ra∣ther of the idols of the Gentiles? your conscience knoweth that* 1.141 they speake directly against the idols and the idolatrie that was among the Pagans and Infidels: from the which as the Iewes in the old Testament, so the first Christians in the new Testament were to be prohibited. But will you haue a demonstration that your owne conscience condemneth you herein, and that you ap∣ply all translation to your heresie? What caused you being o∣therwise in all places so ready to translate, images: yet Esai. 31. and Zachar. 13. to translate, idols, in all your Bibles with full consent? Why in these places specially and so aduisedly? No doubt because God saith there, speaking of this time of the new Testament: In that day euery man shall cast out his idols of siluer and idols of God. And, I will destroy the names of the idols out of the earth, so that they shall no more be had in remembrance. In which places if you had transla∣ted, images, you had made the prophecie false, because images haue not bene destroyed out of the world, but are, and haue bene in Christian countries with honour and reuerence, euen since Christes time. Mary in the idols of the Gentiles we see it veri∣fied, which are destroyed in all the world so farre as Gentilitie is conuerted to Christ.

FVLK. 6. Verily the commaundement of God, be∣ing a cōmaundement of the first table, vnto which what soeuer is said in the Scriptures of images, or the worship of them forbidden, must be referred, speaketh general∣ly of all maner of images made by the deuise of man, for any vse of religion, whether they be of Iewes, Pagans, or false Christians. But we are offred a demonstration, that our owne conscience condemneth vs herein, and that we applie all translation to our heresie. And that is this. In Esai 31. and Zacha. 13. with one consente all translate I∣dols, because God speaketh of the time of the newe Te∣stament, where if they had translated Images, they had made the prophecie false, because Images in Christian countries are with honour, but Idols of the Gentiles are

destroyed out of the worlde so farre as gentilitie is con∣uerted to Christe. A goodly demonstration I promise you. That the translators had no such respect, it is plaine, for that they do not vnderstād the 31. of Esay of the time of Christe: but of the reformation made by Ezechias. But in Esay 44. whiche is a manifest prophesie of the Church of Christ, they all vse the worde Image, also Mi∣cheas the 5. and in diuerse other places, where the destru∣ction of Idolatrie is prophesied, by the religion of Christ, which is verified onely in true Christians: for o∣therwise both the Idolatrie of Pagans, and of false Chri∣stians, hath remained in many places, and yet remaineth to this day.

MART. 7. And what were the Pagans idols or their* 1.142 idolatrie? S. Paule telleth vs, saying: They changed the glo∣rie* 1.143 of the incorruptible God into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, & of birdes and beasts, and creeping thinges, and they serued (or worshipped) the creature more than the creator. Doth he charge them for making the image of man or beast? Your selues haue hangings and clothes full of such paintings and embroderings of imagi∣rie. Wherewith then are they charged? with giuing the glorie of God to such creatures, which was to make them idols, and them selues idolaters.

FVLK. 7. That the Paganes changed the glory of God into the similitude of the Image of man, &c. it was the extremitie of their madnesse, but that they made Images of man or beaste, If you will not confesse▪ that Iupiter, Mars, &c. were men, and Isis a cowe or beast, yet remember that they made Images of their Emperours, and committed Idolatrie to them: otherwise to make Images out of religiō, was not the offence of Idolatrie in them, nor vs, that haue them in hangings, and paintings, and other lawfull Images.

MART. 8. The case being thus, why do you make it two* 1.144 distinct things in S. Paul, calling the Pagans, idolaters: and the Christians doing the same, worshippers of images: and that

in one sentence, whereas the Apostle vseth but one and the selfe same Greeke worde in speaking both of Pagans and Christians? It is a maruelous and wilfull corruption, and well to be marked, and therefore I will put downe the whole sentence, as it is in your English translation. I wrote to you that you shoulde not companie with fornicators: and I meant not at all of the fornificators of this world, either of the couetous, or ex∣tortioners, either * 1.145 the idolaters &c. but that ye cōpanie not togither, if any that is called a brother, be a fornica∣tor, or couetous, or * 1.146 A WORSHIPPER OF IMA∣GES, or an extortioner. In the first, speaking of Pagans, your translator nameth idolater according to the text, but in the la∣ter part speaking of Christians, you translate the very self same Greeke word, worshipper of images. Why so? forsooth to make the reader thinke that S. Paule speaketh here, not only of Pagan idolaters, but also of Catholike Christians that reuerent∣ly▪ kneele in praier before the Crosse, the holy Roode, the images of our Sauiour Christ and his Saincts: as though the Apostle had commaunded such to be auoided.

FVLK. 8. The reason is, because we compt Idola∣ters and worshippers of Images to be all one. But it is a maruelous wilfull corruption, that in one sentence 1. Cor 5. we call the Paganes Idolaters, and the Christians worshippers of Images, and yet the same Greeke worde in both. If this were a faulte, it were but of one transla∣tion of the three, for the Geneua Bible, hath Idolater in both, the other worshipper of Idolls, in the later place. And wee thinke the later to be vnderstoode of Idola∣trous Papists, which worship Idols made with handes of men, as Crosses, Roodes, and other Images, to as great dishonor of God, and daunger of their soules, as Pagans did. So that if it had bene worshippers of Images in both, the translation had not bene amisse.

MART. 9. Where if you haue yet the face to denie this your malitious and heretical intent, tell vs, why all these other wordes are translated and repeated alike in both places, coue∣tous, fornicators, extortioners, both Pagans and Christians:

and only this word (idolaters) not so, but Pagans, idolaters: and Christians, worshippers of images. At the least you can not de∣nie but it was of purpose done, to make both seeme all one, yea and to signifie that the Christians doing the foresaid reuerence before sacred images (which you call worshipping of images) are more to be auoided than the Pagan idolaters. Whereas the A∣postle speaking of Pagans and Christians that committed one and the selfe same heynous sinne what soeuer, commaundeth the Christian in that case to be auoyded for his amendement, lea∣uing the Pagan to him selfe and to God, as hauing not to doe to iudge of him.

FVLK. 9. I thinke the cause was, that Christians might vnderstand, who was an Idolater, & what the word Idolater signifieth, which was vsed in the former parte of the sentence. And if the translators purpose was by this explication, to dissuade the readers from worshipping of popish Images, I see not what cause he hath to be asha∣med thereof, seeing the Greeke word signifieth as much as he saith: not as though Idols were proper onely to the Gentiles, and Images to Christians, for in other places he vseth the name of Images, speaking both of the Pagans, and the Christians, 1. Cor. 8. Although for my parte, I could wishe he had vsed one worde in both places, & either called them both Idolaters, or both wor∣shippers of Images.

MART. 10. But to this the answere belike will be made,* 1.147 as one of them hath already answered in the like case, that in the English Bible appointed to be read in their Churches, it is otherwise, and euen as we would haue it corrected: and therfore (saith he) it had bene good before we entred into such hainous accusations, to haue examined our grounds that they had bene true. As though wee accuse them not tru∣ly of false translation, vnlesse it be false in that one Bible which for the present is redde in their Churches: or as though it per∣tained not to them how their other English Bibles be translated: or as though the people read not all indifferently without prohi∣bition, and may bee abused by euery one of them: or as

though the Bible which nowe is read (as wee thinke) in their Churches, haue not the like absurde translations. yea more ab∣surde,* 1.148 euen in this matter of images, as is before declared: or as though we must first learne what English translation, is reade in their Church (which were hard to know, it changeth so oft) before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation: or as though it were not the same Bible that was for many yeares read in their Churches, and is yet in euery mans handes, which hath this absurde translation whereof we haue laste spoken.

FVLK. 10. Mine answere was framed to Howlets reason, who would proue that our seruice was naught, because the Scriptures were therein redde in false and shamelesse translations: example of whiche hee brin∣geth. 1. Iohn. 5. Children keepe your selues from Ima∣ges. To whome mine answere was apte, when I saide in the Bible appointed to bee redde in the seruice, it is otherwise, and as he him self saith, it ought to be, which answere as though it were made to the generall accusa∣tion of our translations, you with many supposings, as though this, as though that, would make it seeme to be vnsufficient, whereas to Howlets cauill, it was not on∣ly sufficient, but also proper. And therfore this is a vaine supposell, as though we accuse them not truely of false translation, vnlesse it be false in that one Bible, whiche for the present is redde in their Churche. For we graunt you not the other to be false, because this is true, and so are all the rest. As though it pertayned not to them howe their other English Bibles be translated. It pertaineth so farre that if their were a faulte in the former, we haue amen∣ded it in the later. But in that text, for which I answered, I acknowledge yet no faulte, neither is that mine on∣ly answere, for I proue that Image and Idoll with the Apostle, signifieth the same thing. Or as though the people redde not all without prohibition, and may be abu∣sed by euery one of them: There is no suche false tran∣slation in any of them, that the people canne bee abused there by, to runne into heresie. Yet againe:

Or, as though the Bible which now is redde (as we thinke) haue not the like absurd translation, yea more absurd euē in this mat∣ter of Images, as is declared before. As though you haue pro∣ued, whatsoeuer you prate of: once againe: Or, as though we must first learne, what English translation is redde in their Church (which were hard to knowe, it changeth so often) before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation. If you will accuse that translation, which is redde in our Church, as Howlet doth, reason would you should first learne which it is, and that is no hard matter, seeing there was neuer more appointed than two, as oft as you say we chaunge. Or, (at last) as though it were not the same Bible, that was for many yeares redde in their Churches, and is yet in euery mans hands, which hath this absurd translation, whereof we last spake. As though I could prophecie, when I answered Howlet, for the Bible appointed to be redde in the Church, in 1. Iohn. 5. that you would finde fault with an other text, in that translation, that sometime was redde in the church, and yet is in many mens hands? Which although it be well altered in that point, which you quarrell at, in the two later translations, yet I see no absurditie in the first, which for one Greeke word, giueth two English words, both of one signification, yea, & the later being plainer, explicating the former, which to English eares is more obscure, and lesse vnderstoode.

MART. 11. Surely the Bible that we most accuse, not* 1.149 onely in this point, but for sundrye other most grosse faultes and hereticall translations, spoken of in other places, is that Bible which was auctorised by Cranmer their Archbishop of Canter∣burie, and redde all King Edwards time, in their Churches, and (as it seemeth by the late printing thereof againe, anno 1562) a great part of this Queenes reigne. And certaine it is, that it was so long redde, in all their Churches, with this venemous and corrupt translation of images, alwaies in steede of idols, that it made the deceiued people of their secte, to despise, contemne, & abandon the very signe and image of their saluation, the crosse of Christ, the holy roode, or crucifixe, representing the maner of

his bitter passion and death, the sacred images of the blessed virgin Mary, the mother of God, and of S. Iohn Euangelist, re∣presenting their standing by the crosse, at the very time of his* 1.150 passion. In so much that now by experience, we see the foule in∣conuenience thereof, to wit, that all other images and pictures of infamous harlots and heretikes, of heathen tyrants and perse∣cutors, are lawfull in England at this day, and their houses, par∣lours, and chambers, are garnished with them▪ onely sacredi∣mages, and representations of the holy mysterie of our redemp∣tion, are esteemed idolatrous, and haue bene openly defaced in most spitefull maner, and burned, to the great dishonour of our Sauiour Christ, and his Saincts.

FVLK. 11. That Bible perhaps you mislike more, than the other translations, because Archbishop Cran∣mer allowed it by his authoritie. But howsoeuer it be, (as I thinke, there be more imperfections in it, than in the other) it is not your accusation without due and substantiall proofe, that can make it lesse esteemed, with any indifferent, or wise man. If it haue caused the people to contemne, and abandon all Popish Idols, there is cause, that we shoulde giue God thankes for it. Albeit not the translation onely, but preaching of the Gospell, and Christ crucified especially, by which Christ hath bene truely, and liuely paynted forth vnto them, and euen crucified amonge them, hath made them contemne, yea and abhorre all carnall and hu∣mane deuises of the image of our saluation, or repre∣sentation of his passion, by vayne and dead images, to be any helpes of faith, religion, or the worshippe of God. Where you saye it is seene by experience, that all other images of infamous harlots, and heretikes, of Heathen tyrants, and persecutors, are lawefull in England, to garnish houses, when sacred images are e∣steemed idolatrous, defaced, and burned: I knowe not well your meaning. For if you haue any true ima∣ges of the Patriarches, Prophetes, Apostles, or other holye persons, I thinke they be as lawefull, to garnishe

priuate houses, as the other you speake of. Yea the stories of the whole Bible paynted, both of the olde Testament, and the newe, are not forbidden, but in many places vsed. Prouided alwaies, that in the pla∣ces appoynted for the publike seruice of God, suche thinges are not lawefull, for daunger of idolatrie, nor in priuate places to be abused, as they are of Papistes, but rather, though they were as auncient, and as good∣ly monuments as the brasen serpent was, which no i∣mages at this daye, can be, it is to the great honour of God, that they shoulde be despised, defaced, bur∣ned, and stamped to powder, as that was, which some∣tyme was erected by the commaundement of God, by which not onely great miracles were wrought, but the wonderfull mysterie of our saluation through faith in Christ, was prefigured.

MART. 12. And as concerning the Bible, that at this daye is redde in their Churches, if it be that of the yeare 1577. it is worse sometyme in this matter of images, than the other. For where the other readeth, Couetousnes, which is wor∣shipping* 1.151 of idolls: there this later (where vnto they appeale) readeth thus, Couetousnes, which is worshipping of i∣mages. and Ephes. 5. it readeth as absurdly as the other, A* 1.152 couetous man which is a worshipper of images. Loe, this is the English Bible, which they referre vs vnto, as bet∣ter translated, and as correcting the fault of the former. But because it is euident by these places, that this also is partly worse, and partly as ill as the other, therefore this great con∣futer* 1.153 of Maister Iohn Houlet, fleeth once more, to the Gene∣ua English Bible, saying, Thus we reade, and, so we tran∣slate: to wit, A couetous person, which is an Idolater. Where shall we haue these good fellowes, and howe shall we be sure that they will stande to any of their translations? from the first redde in their Churches, they flee to that that is nowe redde, and from this againe, to the later Geneua En∣glish Bibles, neither redde in their Churches (as we suppose) nor of greatest authoritie among them: and we doubt not but

they will as fast flee from this, to the former againe, when this shall be proued in some places more false and absurd, than the other.

FVLK. 12. It pleaseth you worse perhaps, that lesse fauoureth your pelting distinction of images, and idols, but it is neuer the worse to be liked of them, that be wise, and learned, which know that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Greeke, doe signifie the same thing, which you can not deny. And where you say, in your scornefull moode, loe, this is the Bible, which they referre vs vnto, as better trā∣slated, and as correcting the fault of the former, you fol∣low your accustomed vaine of lying. For I acknowledge no fault of the former, in this point of images, but con∣fute the frowardnes of that foolish reason, which accu∣seth our seruice, of reading the Bible, in shamelesse tran∣slations, in that text, 1. Iohn. 5. whereas in the Bible ap∣pointed for the seruice, it is not as he sayth, but euen as he would haue vs to saye. I flye not therefore (as it plea∣seth your wisedom to say) from that translation also, to the Geneua Bible, neither doe I alledge the Geneua trā∣slation for that cause you pretend, but to shew, that albe∣it we translate in such words, as you can not mislike, yet your venemous slaundering pennes, and tongues, can ne∣uer giue ouer your peeuish quarrelling. In the place by you quoted, I defend both as true, and answerable to the Greeke, and of one sense and meaning, where the sound of words onely, is diuers, the signification of matter, one, and the same. And yet you must haue your foolish florish in roperipe termes. Where shall we haue these good fellowes, &c? You shall haue vs, by the grace of God, ready to iustifie all our translation, from shame∣lesse falsification, and hereticall corruptions, which is your impudent charge against vs. And if in matter of lesser moment, you can descry the least errour, in any, or in all of our translations, we shall be willing to confesse the same, and ready to reforme it. For truth is deerer to vs, than credit: although we thinke it better credit, to

reforme a fault, than being admonished, wilfully to cō∣tinue it, or defend it.

MART. 13. But what matter is it howe they reade in their churches, or how they correct their former translations by the later: when the olde corruption remaineth still▪ being set of purpose in the top of euery dore within their churches, in these wordes: Babes keepe your selues from images? Why re∣maineth* 1.154 that written so often and so conspicuously in the wals of their churches, which in their Bibles they correst as a fault? their later Bibles say, Keepe your selues from idols: their church walles say, Keepe your selues from images. S. Iohn speaking to the lately conuerted Gentiles, biddeth them beware of the idols from whence they were conuerted: they speaking to the olde instructed Christians, bid them beware of the sacred image of Christ our Sauiour, of the holy Crucifixe, of the Crosse, of euerie such representation and monument of Christes passion, and our redemption. And therefore in the verie same place where these holy monumentes were wont to stande in Ca∣tholike times, to witte, in the roode loft, and partition of the Church and chauncell: there nowe standes these wordes as con∣fronting and condemning the foresayd holy monumentes, Babes keepe your selues from images. Which wordes whosoeuer esteemeth as the wordes of Scripture, and the wordes of Sainct Iohn, spoken against Christes image, is made a verie babe in deede, and sottishly abused by their scribled doores, and false translations, to count that idolatrie, which is in deede to no o∣ther purpose, than to the great honour of him whose image and picture it is.

FVLK. 13. Still you harpe on the olde vntuneable string, that the former is a corruption, which saith, Babes kepe your selues from images, which sentence sore grie∣ueth you, to be written in the toppe of church dores, or in place where the Roode loft stoode. And you aske why it remaineth on the wals, which we correct as a fault in the Bibles? But who tolde you that they correct it as a fault in the Bibles? Is euery alteration with you a corre∣ction? The one explicateth the other, that idols of which

S. Iohn speaketh, be images abused in religion. Not that all images be idols (as the worde idoll in the Englishe speach is taken) nor that al idols be images, but as ima∣ges that are worshipped. But S. Iohn (you say) speaking to the conuerted Gentiles, biddeth them beware of the idols from whence they were conuerted. That is true, but not onely from them, but from all other idols. Ex∣cept perhappes you thinke, that Christians by that texte shoulde not abhorre the images of Simon Magus, and Selene, and the images of the Valentinians, and Gno∣stikes, and other heretikes, which worshipped the image of Christ, and of Sainct Paule, as Irenaeus and Epiphanius* 1.155 doe testifie. And it seemeth you so thinke in deede. For you say soone after, whosoeuer esteemeth those wordes, as the wordes of Scripture (if images be put for idolls spoken against Christes image) is made a verie babe. Suchs babes were Irenaeus and Epiphanius, that they condemned this worshipping of images for heresie. Suche a babe was Epiphanius, that finding the image of Christ painted in vaile hanging in a Church at Ana∣blatha, he iudged it to be contrarie to the Scriptures, and rent it in peeces. Suche a babe was Tertullian, that speaking of that verie texte of Sainct Iohn, litle chil∣dren keepe your selues from idolls, he writeth, Non iam ab idololatria quasi ab officio, sed ab idolis, id est ab ipsa effigie eorum.

Indignum enim vt imago Dei viui, Imago Ido∣li & mortui fiat, He biddeth them take heede, not nowe from idolatrie, as from the seruice, but from the idolls them selues, that is to say, from the verie images, or shapes of them. For it is vnworthie that the image of the liuing God, shoulde bee made the image of an i∣doll, and that being deade.

Finally, suche a babe was your vulgar translatour, that he sayth. Filioli cust••di∣te vos à simulachris, Which is all one, as if he shoulde haue sayed ab imaginibus (as I haue plentifully proued) children keepe your selues from images. As for the purpose you pretende to haue in honouring Christ by

images contrarie to his commaundement, is in deede nothing but dishonouring of him and destruction of your selues.

MART. 14. But the gay confuter with whome I be∣ganne,* 1.156 sayeth for further aunswere: Admit that in some of our translations it bee, Children keepe your selues from images (for so he woulde haue sayed if is were truely printed) What great crime of corruption is here com∣mitted? And when it is sayed agayne, this is the crime and fault thereof, that they meane by so translating to make the simple beleue that idols and images are all one, which is ab∣surde: he replyeth that it is no more absurditie, than in steede of a Greeke worde, to vse a Latine of the same si∣gnification. And vpon this position he graunteth that accor∣ding to the propertie of the Greeke worde a man may say, God* 1.157 made man according to his idol, and that generally, idolū* 1.158 may as truely be translated an image, as Tyrannus a King (which is verie true, both being absurde) and here he cited many authours and dictionaries idly, to proue that idolum may* 1.159 signifie the same that image.* 1.160

FVLK. 14. But this scornefull replier with whom I haue to do, is so accustomed, to false and vnhonest dea∣ling, that he can neuer report any thing that I haue writ∣ten truely, and as I haue written, but with one forgerie or an other, he will cleane corrupt and peruert my say∣ing. As here, he shameth nothing to affirme, that I graunt, that according to the propertie of the Greeke worde, a man may say. God made man according to his idoll I will reporte mine owne wordes, by which e∣uerie man may perceaue howe honestly he dealeth with me.

But admit that in some translation it bee as you say: Children keepe your selues from images: what greate crime of corruption is here committed? You saye that it is to make simple men beleeue that idolls and images are all one, which is absurde. This is no more absurditie, than in stead of a Greeke word to vse a

Latine of the same signification. But you replie, that then where Moises sayeth that God made man according to his owne image, we shoulde consequently say, that God made man according to his idoll. I aunswere, howsoeuer the name of idols in the Englishe tongue for the greate dishonour that is done to God in worshipping of ima∣ges, is become so odious that no Christian man woulde say, that God made man according to his idoll, no more than a good subiect woulde call his lawefull Prince a tyraunt, yet according to the Greeke word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may bee as truely translated an image, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a King.

Here if I were disposed to giue the rayne to affec∣tion, as you doe often being vnprouoked by me, were sufficient occasion offered, to insult against your false∣hoode. But I will forbeare, and in plaine wordes tell you, that if you be so simple, that you can not vnder∣stande the difference of these two propositions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wheresoeuer it is reade in Greeke, may be truely trans∣lated an image: and this: wheresoeuer the worde image is vsed in Englishe, you may vse the word idoll, you are vnmeete to reade a Diuinitie Lecture in Englande, how soeuer you be aduaunced in Rhemes. If not of igno∣rance, but of malice, you haue peruerted both my words and meaning, let God and all godly men be iudge be∣twene you and me. My wordes are not obscure nor am∣biguous, but that euerie child may vnderstand my mea∣ning to be no more but this. That this Englishe worde idoll is by vse restrayned, onely to wicked images. The Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth generally all images, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did all Kings, vntill Kings that were so called, be∣came hatefull for crueltie, which caused euen the name tyrannus to be odious.

MART. 15. But I beseech you Sir, if the dictionaries tell you that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may by the originall propertie of the worde si∣gnifie an image, (which no man denieth) doe they tell you also that you may commonly and ordinarily translate it so,

as the common vsuall signification thereof? or do they tell you that image and idol are so all one, that wheresoeuer you finde this worde image, you may truely call it, idol? for these are the points that you should defend in your answere. For an example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus, God hath* 1.161 predestinated vs to be made conformable to the idol of his sonne. And againe, As we haue borne the idol of the earthly (Adam:) so let vs beare the idol of the heauenly (CHRIST.) And againe, We are transformed into the* 1.162 same idol, euen as our Lordes spirit. And againe, The Law hauing a shadowe of the good things to come, not the* 1.163 very idol of the things. And againe, Christ who is the idol of the inuisible God? Is this (I pray you) a true translation? yea, say you, according to the propertie of the worde: but because the name of idols, in the English tongue, for the great dishonour done to God in worshipping of i∣mages, is become odious, no Christiā man would say so.

FVLK. 15. No man denieth (you say) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may by the originall proprietie of the worde signifie an image. It is well, that being conuicted by all Dictiona∣ries, old and new, you will at length yeelde to the truth. But you demaund whether the Dictionaries do tell me that I may commonly and ordinarily translate it so, as the common vsuall signification thereof. Sir I medle only with the translations of the Scripture, and the Dic∣ctionaries tell me that so it vsually signifieth, and there∣fore so I may translate in the Scripture, or any other an∣cient Greeke writer, that vseth the worde according to the originall proprietie thereof. Peraduenture some la∣ter Greeke writers restraining it onely to wicked ima∣ges, may so vse the terme, as the generall signification thereof will not agree to the meaning in some odde place or other. But that is no matter to pleade against our translation of the Scripture, whē in that time it was written, the word was indifferent, to signifie any image. Further than this, you aske of me, if the dictionaries do tell me, that image and idol are all one, and wheresoeuer

I find the worde Imago, I may truly call it idoll? No for∣sooth sir, they teach me no such thing: neither doe I say that the worde image and idoll may be confounded But the cleane contrary, if your Mastership had not mistaken me, because it was not your pleasure to take me either according to my wordes, or according to my meaning. Why sir, These are the pointes you shoulde defende in your aunswere, for an example, doe they teache you to translate in these places thus: God hath predestinated vs to be made conformable to the idoll of his sonne. And againe, wee haue borne the idoll of the earthly, &c. I pray you sir, pardon me to defende that I neuer sayd, ne thought, you your selfe confesse in the ende, that I say, that no Chri∣stian man woulde say so: wherefore when you say that I affirme, this is a true translatiō according to the proper∣tie of the word: can I say lesse? Then you lye like a Po∣pish hypocrite.

MART. 16. First note howe foolishly and vnaduisedly he speaketh here, because he would confounde images and idols, and make them falsely to signifie one thing: when he sayeth, the name of idoll, is become odious in the English tongue be∣cause of worshipping of Images, He shoulde haue sayed, The dishonour done to God in worshipping Idols, made the name of Idols odious. As in his owne example of Tyrant, and king: he meant to tell vs that Tyrant sometime was an vsuall name for euery king, and because certaine such Tyrants abused their power, therefore the name of Tyrant became odious. For he wil not say (I trow) that for the fault of kings, the name of Tyrant became odious. Likewise the Romanes tooke away the name of Mālius for the crime of one Manlius, not for the crime of Iohn at Nokes, or of any other name. The name of Iudas is so odious that men now commonly are not so called. Why so? because he that betrayed Christ, was called Iudas: not because he was al∣so Iscariote. The very name of Ministers is odious and con∣temptible. Why? because Ministers are so lewde, wicked, and vnlearned, not because some Priests be naught. Euen so the name of idoll grewe to be odious, because of the idols of the

Gentiles, not because of holy images. For if the reuerence done by Christians to holy images were euill, as it is not, it shoulde in this case haue made the name of images odious: and not the name of Idols. But God be thanked, the name of Images is no odious name among Catholike Christians, but onely among he∣retikes and Imagebreakers, such as the second generall Coun∣cell of Nice hath condemned therefore with the sentence of A∣náthema. No more than the Crosse is odious, which to all good Christians is honourable, because our Sauiour Christ died on a Crosse.

FVLK. 16. Nay firste note how falsly, and then how foolishly, and yet how impudently he continueth a slaū∣der against me, of his owne deuising, that I would con∣found those English wordes, images, and idols. For first he will teach me to speake English, that where I sayd the name of idoll is become odious in the English tongue, because of worshipping of images, I should haue sayed. The dishonour done to God in worshipping of idolls, made the name of idolls odious. And what I pray you were those idolls, the worshipping of which made the name odious, but images? May I not be so bold, vnder your correction, to vse the generall name images, which you say are not idolls, vntill they be abused. When the image of Iupiter, King of Creete, was first made, and nothing else done vnto it, would you call it an image, or an idoll. Sure I am, you called the brasen serpent, first an image, and then an idoll. Euen so I trust I may with∣out offence of English men, say, that the abuse of ima∣ges, called first without note of infamie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, idolls, made the name idols to be odious, and therefore not applyed, but to such abused images: and the exam∣ple I brought of Tyrannus, which first did signifie a king, is very plaie and like, but that you are disposed to play the peeuish quarreller. And trow you, I will not say, that for the fault of kings, the name of tyrant became odious. Yes verily, I will not spare to saye, and so I sayde before, that for the fault of such cruell Kings, as were called

Tyranni, though the name it self first signified not so, that name of tyrant became odious. As for your fombli∣tudes of Manlius, and Iudas, two proper names, compa∣red with image, and idoll, King, and Tyrant, which be common names, I will not vouchsafe to answer them. But the name of ministers (you saye) is odious, for the faults of ministers, and not for the faults of priestes. Po∣pish priestes are odious enough, for their owne faults, so that they neede not be charged vniustly, with the faultes of our euill ministers. Which, I would wish, were fewer, than they be, but I trust there are not so many euill of them, as your popish priestes haue bene, and are dayly found to be. And whosoeuer of our ministers hath bene found worst, I thinke there may be found, not a priest, but a Pope of your side, as euill, or worse than he. But if reuerence done by Papistes, (which you call Christians) to images, had bene euill, (say you,) it should haue made the name of images, odious also. No sir, that followeth not, so long as that reuerence was accounted good, and lawfull, and now that it is found to be abhominable, the people hauing the other odious worde of idolls, in vse, neede not abandon the name of images, except they had an other, to signifie lawfull, and good images. The curse of the idolatrous Councell of Nice the second, no Chri∣stian man regardeth, which knoweth that by Gods owne mouth in the Scriptures, all makers and worshippers of idolatrous images are accursed.

MART. 17. But to omit this mans extraordinary & v∣aduised speaches which be too many and too redious (as when he sayeth in the same sentence, Howsoeuer the name Idoll is growē odious in the English tongue, as though it were not also odious in the Latine & Greeke tongues, but that in Latin & Greeke a man might say according to his fond opinion, Fecit hominem ad idolum suum, and so in the other places where is imago) to omitte these rashe assertions I say, and to returne to his other wordes, where he sayeth, that though the originall propertie of the wordes hath that signification, yet no

Christian man would say, that God made man accor∣ding to his idoll, no more than a good subiect woulde call his lawfull Prince, a Tyrant. Doth he not here tell vs that, which we would haue, to wit, that we may not speake or tran∣slate, according to the originall propertie of the word, but accor∣ding to the common vsuall, and accustomed signification there∣of? As we may not translate, Phalaris tyrannus, Phalaris the King, as sometime Tyrannus did signifie, and in auncient au∣thors doth signifie: but, Phalaris the tyrant, as now this worde tyrannus is commonly taken, and vnderstoode. Euen so we may* 1.164 not now translate, My children, keepe you selues from i∣mages,* 1.165 as the word may, and doth sometime signifie, according* 1.166 to the originall propertie thereof, but we must translate, keepe your selues from idols, according to the common vse and sig∣nification of the word, in vulgar speech, and in the holy Scrip∣tures. Where the Greeke word is so notoriously and vsually pe∣culiar to idols, and not vnto images: that the holy fathers of the second Nicene Councell, (which knew right well the signification of the Greeke word, them selues being Grecians) doe pronounce Anathema, to all such as interprete those places of the holy scri∣pture, that concerne idols, of images, or against sacred images, as now these Caluinists doe, not onely in their commentaries vp∣on the holy Scriptures, but euen in their translatiōs of the text.

FVLK. 17. We can not yet be rid of this mans ex∣traordinarie, and vnaduised surmises, which are too ma∣ny, and tedious, as where I say, the name Idoll is odious in the English tongue, he gathereth, that I meane, it to be odious onely in the English tongue, and not in the Latine and Greeke. I haue shewed before, that in Tul∣lies time, it was not odious in Latine, and it is not long, since Maister Martin confessed the Greeke worde, accor∣ding to the originall proprietie, to signifie as generally, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an image, which is not odious. Although in la∣ter times, among Christians, both of the Greeke, and the Latine Church, the name of Idolum, became odious, as well as the word Idoll in English. Therefore it is not my fond opinion, but. M. Martines foolish collection, that a

man may say in Latine, fecit hominem ad idolum suum: and yet I am charged with rash assertions, when nothing is reproued that I affirme, but that which he him selfe doth imagine.

But nowe you will returne to those wordes of myne, where I say, that though the originall proprietie of the wordes, hath that signification: yet, no Christian man would say, that God made man according to his idoll, no more than a good subiect woulde call his lawefull Prince, a tyrant. These wordes (you say) doe tell vs, that we may not speake, or translate, according to the origi∣nall proprietie of the word, but according to the com∣mon, vsual, and accustomed signification thereof. For speaking I graunt, as the words are vsed in our time: but for translating, I saye you must regarde howe the wordes were vsed in time of the writer, whose workes you tran∣slate. As if you would translate out of Euripides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, would you say, who is tyrant of this land? or ra∣ther, who is King? or in Aristophanes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, would you translate, Iupiter, tyrant of the gods, or King of the gods? I thinke not. But in S. Iohn, seeing at that tyme that he wrote, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signified an image general∣ly, it may be translated, an image, generally, and seeing he speaketh of the vnlawefull vse of images, it may also be translated an idoll, as the worde is nowe taken to signifie. Howe the late pettie Prelates of the seconde Nicene Councell were disposed to vse the worde, to co∣lour their blasphemous idolatrie, it is not materiall. The auncient dictionaries of Suidas, Phauorinus, He∣sychius, with the examples of Homer, Plato, and other auncient Greeke Authors, are of more cre∣dite for the true and auncient signification of that word.

MART. 18. This then being so, that wordes must be* 1.167 translated as their common vse and signification requireth, if you aske your olde question, what great crime of corruption is committed in translating, keepe your selues from images,

the Greeke being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; you haue aunswered your selfe, that in so translating, idoll, and image, are made to signifie one thing, which may not be done, no more than Tyrant and King, can be made to signifie all one. And how can you say then, that this is no more absurditie, than in steede of a Greeke worde, to vse a Latine of the same signification. Are you not here cō∣trary▪ your selfe? Are idoll, and image. Tyrant, and King, of one signification? sayd you not that in the English tongue, idoll is growen to an other signification, than image, as tyrant is growen to an other signification than King? Your false tran∣slations therefore, that in so many places make idols, and images, all one, not onely forcing the word in the holy Scriptures, but dis∣gracing the sentence thereby, (as Ephes. 5. & Col. 3.) are they* 1.168 not in your owne iudgement very corrupt: and as your owne con∣sciences must confesse, of a malitious intent corrupted, to dis∣grace thereby the Churches holy images, by pretence of the ho∣ly Scriptures that speake onely of the Pagans idols.

FVLK. 18. Againe, I repeate, that wordes must, or may be translated, according to that signification they had in time of the writer, whome you translate. And to my question, what absurditie is it in that text of Saint Iohn, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to translate image: you aunswer by that meanes, idoll and image, are made to signifie one thing. But that is not so, for image signifieth more generally, than idoll in English, and image aunswe∣reth properly to the Greeke worde, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, idoll, to the meaning of Saint Iohn, that is of wicked images, so that the translation is good. Euen as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may be translated a King, generally, according to the worde, and if the Author meane of a cruell King, it may be translated a Tyrant. For King is a generall word, ap∣plyed to good Kings, and to euill, as image is to lawefull and vnlawefull images. Therefore our tran∣slations, that for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saye an image, are not false, much lesse anye malicious corruptions. And if the translators in so doing, intended to disgrace popishe images, I thinke they did wel, and according to the mea∣ning

of the holy Ghost, who forbidding generally, all i∣mages, that may be had in religious reuerence, did not restraine the signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the wic∣ked idols of the Gentiles, but left it at large, to compre∣hend all such images, and all kindes of worshipping them, as are contrary to the lawe and commaundement of God.

MART. 19. But of the vsuall, and originall signification of wordes (whereof you take occasion of manifold corruptions) we will speake more anone, if first we touch some other your fal∣sifications against holy images: as, where you affectate to thrust the word Image into the text, when there is no such thing in the Hebrew or Greeke, as in that notorious example; 2. Par. 36. (Bib. 1562.) Carued images that were layd to his charge.* 1.169 Againe, Rom. 11. To the image of Baal. and Act. 19 The image that came downe from Iupiter. Where you are not content to vnderstand image, rather than idoll, but also to thrust it into the text, being not in the Greeke, as you knowe very well.

FVLK. 19. Three places you note, where the word Image is thrust into the text, being neither in the He∣brew, nor Greeke. The first, 2. Par. 36. bib. 1562. which I confesse is a fault, but I maruell how it crept in. For Tho∣mas Mathewes bible, which was printed before it, hath not that worde, Carued images. It is reformed also in both the translations that followed.

The second, Rom. 11. is no corruption, for seeing you acknowledge, that a substantiue must be vnderstoode, to beare vp the feminine article, what reason is there, why we should not vnderstand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, rather than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, seeing it is certaine, Baal had an image, that was worshipped in his temple? 2. Reg. 10. The third place is, Actes the 19. where the worde Image is necessarily to be vnder∣stoode, which fell downe from Iupiter, as it was fayned. Herevnto Plinie beareth witnesse, lib. 16. cap. 40. & shew∣eth by whom it was made, & of what matter, of the like speaketh Herodianus. And the similitude of this Image,

is yet to be seene, in those auncient Coygnes, that yet re∣maine, which were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 temples. Wherefore your vulgar translation which turneth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Iouis prolis, is not right, and therefore is corrected by Isidorus Clarius, a Ioue delapsi simulachri, with the consent of the deputies of the Councell of Trent.

MART. 20. Of this kinde of falsification is that which is crept as a leprosie through out all your Bibles, translating, Scul∣ptile and conflatile, grauen image, molten image, namely in the first commaundement, where you know in the Greeke it is* 1.170 idoll, and in the Hebrue, such a worde as signifieth onely a gra∣uen* 1.171 thing, not including this worde image: and you know that God commaunded to make the images of Cherubins, and of oxen in the Temple, and of the brasen serpent in the desert, and ther∣fore your wisedomes might haue considered, that he forbadde not all grauen images, but such as the Gentiles made and worship∣ped* 1.172 as Goddes: and therefore Non facies tibi sculptile, con∣curreth with those wordes that goe before, Thou shalte haue none other gods but me. For so to haue an image as to make it a God, is to mke it more than an image: and therefore, when it is an Idoll, as were the Idols of the Gentiles, then it is forbid by this commaundement. Otherwise, when the Crosse stood many yeares vpon the Table in the Queenes Chappell, was it against* 1.173 this commaundement? or was it idolatrie in the Queenes Ma∣iestie and her Counsellers, that appointed it there, being the supreme head of your Churche? Or do the Lutherans your pue∣fellowes, at this day commit idolatrie against this commaunde∣ment, that haue in their Churches the crucifixe, and the holy* 1.174 Images of the mother of God, and of S. Iohn the Euangelist? Or if the whole storie of the Gospell concerning our sauiour Christ, were drawen in pictures and Images in your Churches, as it is in many of ours, were it (trow you) against this commaundement? fie for shame, that you should thus with intolerable impudencie and deceite abuse and bewitch the ignorant people, against your owne knowledge and conscience. For, wot you not, that God ma∣ny times expresly forbade the Iewes both mariages and other conuersation with the Gentiles, least they might fall to worship

their idols, as Salomon did, and as the Psalme reporteth of them?* 1.175 This then is the meaning of the commaundement, neither to make the idols of the Gentiles, nor any other like vnto them, and to that end, as did Ieroboam in Dan and Bethel.

FVLK. 20. This is a sore complaint, that we haue falsified the Scripture, as it were with a Leprosie, in tran∣slating sculptile, and conflatile, a grauen and a molten I∣mage, and namely in the first commaundement, where there is no worde of Image, or Imagrie: but in deede in the second commaundement, wee translate▪ the Hebrue worde Pesel a grauen Image. You say it signifieth a gra∣uen* 1.176 thing, not including the worde Image. I answere you are not able to bring a place in the Bible, where it signifieth any other grauen thing, but onely an Image: & yet it is deriued of a verbe, that signifieth to graue or hewe, as the worde Pisilim, Iud. 3. taken for quarries of* 1.177 stone doth declare. Beside this, the worde nexte follow∣ing, signifying a similitude or Image, sufficiently shew∣eth, that it is not taken generally for any grauen worke, but for such, wherein the likenesse or similitude of God, or any creature is meante to be resembled: and the same doth also the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 testifie; as for the Cherubins, Oxen, Brasen serpent, or any thing which God commaundeth, is not forbidden by this precept: but that whiche man maketh of his owne head, to ho∣nour as God, or to worship God by it. Wherefore very absurdely, to cloake suche abhominable Idolatrie▪ you say that this commaundement, Non facies sculptile, doth concurre with those words, Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me. By which not only two seuerall cōmaun∣dements are confounded, but also a vaine tautologie cō∣mitted: or els that added for interpretatiō▪ which is more obscure, than the text interpreted. Touching the crosse that stoode sometimes in the Queenes chappel, whereof you speake your pleasure, as also of hir Maiesties Coun∣cellours, it is not by and by Idolatrie, what soeuer is a∣gainst that commaundement, neither is the hauing of

any Images in the Churche (which are had in no vse of religion) contrarie to this commaundement. And al∣though wee will not accuse the Lutherans of Idolatrie, neither can wee, because they worship no Images: yet will we not excuse them, for suffering of Images to be in their Churches, whereof may ensue daunger of Idolatrie, but that in some parte they goe against this commaun∣dement, deceyued in their iudgement, and of vs not to be defended in their errour. After you haue railed a fitte, with fie for shame, and suche like Rhetorike, you seeme to make the prohibition of Images, none other, but such as the prohibition of mariage, and other conuersa∣tion with the Gentiles, which was only for feare of Ido∣latrie. But when you can shewe the like absolute com∣maundement, to forbid mariage, and conuersation with* 1.178 the Heathen, as this is for Images in religion, and wor∣shipping* 1.179 of them, we may haue some regarde of your si∣militude:* 1.180 otherwise the meaning of this commaunde∣ment,* 1.181 is generally to forbid all Images of God, and of* 1.182 * 1.183 his creatures, to honour God by them: for to honour* 1.184 them as Gods, is a breach of the first commaundement,* 1.185 as properly as of the second.* 1.186

MART. 21. This being a thing so plaine as nothing more* 1.187 * 1.188 in al the holy Scriptures, yet your itching humour of deceite & * 1.189 falfehood, for the most part doth translate still, images, images,* 1.190 when the Latine, and Greeke, and Hebrue haue diuers other* 1.191 * 1.192 wordes, and very seldome that which answereth to image. For* 1.193 when it is image in the Latin, or Greeke, or Hebrue, textes, your translation is not reprehended: for we also translate sometimes,* 1.194 images, when the text of the holy Scripture requireth it. And we* 1.195 are not ignorant that there were images, which the Pagans ado∣red for their gods: & we know that some idols are images, but not al images, idols. But when the holy Scriptures call thē by so ma∣ny names, rather than images, because they were not onely ima∣ges, but made idols: why do your translations, like cuckoes birds, sound continually, images, images, more than idols, or other* 1.196 wordes equiualent to idols, which are there meant?

FVLK. 21. In deede there is nothing more plaine in all the holy Scriptures, thā that the worshipping of Ima∣ges, of al sortes, is forbidden▪ but that our itching humor of deceit, and falshood, (as it pleaseth you to speake) hath corrupted the text, to establish any false opinion of the vse of Images, it is not yet proued. But now you set vpon vs with 13. Hebrue wordes, and 9. Greeke words at ones, which we for the most parte doe translate still Images, Images: and you say we sounde with Cuckowes birdes continually Images, Images, more than Idols or other wordes equiualent to Idols. How many times the word Image is sounded, I neuer had care to seeke, and now I haue no leysure to number, but I am sure Idols and I∣dolatrie, in that translation in which least, are named a∣boue fortie or fiftie times. But to a conscience guiltie of worshipping of Images, contrary to the expresse com∣maundement of God, the very name of Images must needes sounde vnpleasantly. That wee haue no greater chaunge of wordes to answere so many of the Hebrue tongue, it is of the riches of that tongue, and the pouer∣tie of our mother language, which hath but two wordes, Image, and Idoll, and them both borowed of the La∣tine and Greeke: As for other wordes equiualent, wee know not any, and we are loth to make any new wordes of that signification, excepte the multitude of Hebrue words of the same sense cōming togither, do sometimes perhaps seeme to require it. Therfore as the Greeke hath fewer wordes to expresse this thing than the Hebrue, so hath the Latine fewer than the Greeke, and the English fewest of all, as will appeare if you would vndertake to giue vs English wordes for the 13. Hebrue wordes. Ex∣cept you would coyne such ridiculous inkhorne termes, as you do in the new Testement, Azymes, Prepuce, Neo∣phyte, Scandale, Parasceue, and such like.

MART. 22. Two places onely wee will at this time aske you the reason of: first why you translate the Hebrue and Greeke* 1.197 that answeareth to Statua, image, so often as you doe?* 1.198

Whereas this word in the said tongues, is taken also in the bet∣ter part, as when Iacob set vp a stone and erected it for a title,* 1.199 powring oile vpon it: and the Prophet saith, Our Lordes altar shal be in Aegipt, and his title beside it. So that the word doth signifie generally a signe erected of good or euill, and there∣fore might very well (if it pleased you) haue some other English than, image. Vnlesse you will say that Iacob also set vp an i∣mage: &, Our Lords image shall be in AEgipt: which you will not say, though you might with more reason than in other places.

FVLK. 22. Seeing you aske, why we translate the Hebrue word Matsebah so often an image? It had bene reason you shoulde haue tolde vs howe often we doe so, or at least noted some place, where it can not signifie an image. We knowe the word being deriued of the verbe Iatsab that signifieth to stande, may be taken for some thing erected, that is no image, but a pillour, or as your Latine text calleth it a title, in both the places by you noted Gen. 28. Esai. 19. and else where Gen. 25. 2. Sam. 18. But when soeuer we translate it an image, the cir∣cumstaunce of the place so requireth, as 2. Reg. 10. where it is sayed, that Baals images were taken out of his temple, broken and burnt. For they were images of Baal, that were worshipped in his temple, and not titles or pillours. Likewise 2. Reg. 17. where it is sayd, that the Ismaelites made vnto them selues, Statuas, images, and groues vnder euerie high hil and vnder euery thicke tree: as appeareth by Ezechiel. 6. where they be called Gillulim idols, which had the similitude of men, as Baa∣lim and suche other.

MART. 23. Secondly we demaund, why your verie last* 1.200 Englishe Bible hath (Esa. 30. 22.) For two Hebrue wordes, which are in Latine Sculptilia and Conflatilia, twise, ima∣ges,* 1.201 * 1.202 images: neither worde being Hebrue for an image: no* 1.203 more than if a man would aske, what is Latine for an image, and you would tell him Sculptile. Whereuppon he seeing a faire painted image in a table, might happily say, Ecce egregium sculptile. Which euerie boy in the Grammar schoole woulde

laugh at. Which therefore we tell you, because we perceiue your translations endeuour and as it were affectate, to make Scul∣ptile* 1.204 and image all one. Which is most euidently false and to your great confusion appeareth Abac. 2. v. 13. Where for these wordes, Quid prodest sculptile quia sculpsit illud fictor* 1.205 suus, conflatile & imaginem falsam: Which is according to the Hebrue and Greeke: your later English translation hath, What profiteth the image? for the maker thereof hath* 1.206 made it an image, and a teacher of lies.

FVLK. 23. If it had said, the grauen images of siluer, and the molten or cast images of gold, I know not what aduauntage it had bene to you, or losse to vs. But nei∣ther word (you say) is Hebrue for an image. Alacke this is poore sophistrie, when all the worlde of Hebricians know, they are Hebrue for nothing else, but for grauen or cast images, and by the figure Synecdoche, are taken generally for images of what making or matter soeuer they be. And the question is not, by what art images are made: but to what vse, and howe they be vsed, that they may be condemned for vnlawefull. This I take to be the cause, why the interpretour neglected the difference of the Hebrue words, which sometimes is not obserued, & in English vnpossible alwaies, & vnprofitable to be kept. As for your owne conceite, whereat you thinke boyes might laugh, I leaue it to your selfe. For if we were as∣ked, what is Latine for an image, we coulde aunswere somewhat else than Sculptile. But if a boy shoulde aske Pesilim or Massecath in this place of Esay doth signifie, we woulde not aunswere a grauen thing, or a molten thing, least he might shewe vs the mantilltree of a chim∣ney, and a brasse pot hanging ouer the fire, and demaund further whether Esay in this text spake of them, and all such things as they are. But it is most euidētly false (you say) that Sculptile and Image are all one, and this appea∣reth to our great cōfusion, Abacuc the second &c. But I say to your shame, it will appeare by this verie texte, that Pesel and Massecah signifie one and the same thing

and that most euidently. For thus the textis, What pro∣fiteth the Image (Pesel) for his maker iots••ro, hath made it, or (as you will haue it) hath grauen it Pesalo: what followeth nowe, but Massecah an Image? you had ra∣ther say Conflatile a molten Image. But then you muste remember, that the maker of it by grauing, made it a molten Image, whiche is a straunge peece of worke, ex∣cepte you will saye, that first he did caste it, and then he did graue it, but saye whiche way you will, the same Image is called Pesel and Massecah without difference. The last wordes are vmoreh shaker, and a teacher of lies. For which wordes your translation hath Imaginem fal∣sam, a false Image, whereas Moreh neuer signifieth an Image. But of that afterwarde.

MART. 24. I woulde euery common Reader were a∣ble to discerne your falsehood in this place. Firste, you make Sculpere sculptile, no more than, to make an image: Which beyng absurde you knowe (because the painter or em∣broderer making an image, can not be sayde Sculpere scul∣ptile) might teach you that the Hebrue hath in it no signifi∣cation of image, no more than Sculpere can signifie, to make an* 1.207 image: and therefore the Greeke and the Latine precisely (for* 1.208 the most part) expresse neither more nor lesse, than a thing gra∣uen: but yet meane alwaies by these wordes, a grauen idol, to whiche signification they are appropriated by vse of holy Scri∣pture, as Simulacrum, idolum, conflatile, and sometime imago. In which sense of signifying Idols, if you also did re∣peate images so often, although the translation were not precise, yet it were in some parte tolerable, because the sense were so: but when you doe it to bring all holy images in∣to contempt, euen the image of our Sauiour Christe cruci∣fied, you may iustly be controlled for false and hereticall tran∣slatours.

FVLK. 24. I would euery common reader were a∣ble to discerne your foolishe malice in this place. For firste while you cauill at the Etymologie of the words, which the Prophete regardeth not, you make him say,

that the ••••••h••o••er thereof, hath grauen a grauen thing, a ••••cl••ea thing. Secondly, where you say, that the He∣brue word Pes•••• hath no signification of an image in it, leaning to the bare de••••••••tion from the verbe Pasal, you controule the onely vse of it, which is to signifie an i∣mage, or idoll, whether it be grauen, or molten, or by what workemanship soeuer it be made, which you con∣fesse to be the sense of it. But when we doe it (you say) to bring all holy images into contempt, we may iustly be controuled, for false and hereticall translatours. First we knowe no holy images, made with handes at this time so accompted, but they are all prophane and abho∣minable idols. Secondly, if the translatours purpose were euill, yet so long as the wordes and sense of the o∣riginall tongue will beare him, he can not iustly be cal∣led a false and hereticall translatour, albeit he haue a false and hereticall meaning. As you Papistes haue in your late translation of the newe Testament: yet where you translate, either according to the wordes, or accor∣ding to the sense, no equitie can condemne you for false translatours.

MART. 25. As in this verie place (which is an other* 1.209 falshoode like to the other) conflatile you translate image, as you did sculptile, and so here againe in Abacucke (as before in Esay is noted) for two distinct words, ech signifying an other di∣uerse thing from image, you translate, images, images. Third∣ly, for imaginem falsam, a false image, you translate an o∣ther thing, without any necessarie pretense either of Hebrue or Greeke, auoiding here the name of image, because this place tel∣leth you that the holy Scripture speaketh against false images, or as the Greeke hath, false phantasies, or as you translate the* 1.210 Hebrue, such images as teach lies, representing false gods which are not, as the Apostle saith, Idolum nihil est, And, Non* 1.211 sunt Dij qui manibus fiunt. Which distinction of false and true images you will not haue, because you condemne all ima∣ges, euen holy and sacred also, and therefore you make the holy Scriptures to speake herein accordingly to your owne faasie.

FVLK. 25. Seing the Prophet regardeth not the E∣tymologie of the wordes, but vseth both for one and the same Image, no nor regardeth the matter whereof it is made, as appeareth in the nexte verse, where he calleth this Idoll wodde, and stone, which cannot be molten, e∣uery reasonable man may see, that the worde Massecah doth in this place signifie generally an Image, which is made to be a teacher of lies. And whereas you repeate, that the two wordes doc signifie each an other diuerse thing from Image, because the one signifieth a grauen thing▪ the other a molten thing, you speake with out all shame, and sense of honestie: for Pesel signifieth not eue∣ry grauen, carued, or hewen thing, but onely an Image. For who would say, that a morter, or a gutter of hewen stone were in Hebrue to be signified by the word Pesel, or a pewter pot, or a dishe, by the worde Massecah; Seing the vse of the Hebrue tongue therefore hath appropried these names onely to Images, it is great frowardnesse, & no learning to quarell about the etimologie or deriua∣tion of them. As this name building in English, is taken only for houses: as when we say here are goodly buil∣dings, which if a man would extende according to the deriuation, & shewing nothing else but walles of bricke or other matter, prayse them for goodly buildings, he should be thought to speake straungly in our tongue, & yet according to the deriuation, building may signifie a∣ny thing that is builded. But for Imaginem falsam, a false image, you charge vs to translate an other thing, with∣out any necessary pretence, either of Hebrew, or Greeke. Such affirmations will make vs thinke meanly of your knowledge, in the Hebrew tongue. For what I pray you els, cā Moreh in this place signifie, but a teacher? or where* 1.212 is it euer taken for an image, as your Latine text hath, or a fantasie, as the Greeke readeth. Turne ouer your dicti∣onarie, and Hebrew concordance, and see if you can find it vsed for an image▪ or an idoll. At least wise, giue credit to Isidorus Clarius, who thus writeth in his notes vpon

the text. Quod ait imaginem falsam, in Heb. est docen••, vel annuncians mendacium. That he saith a false Image, in the Hebrue it is teaching or shewing foorth a lie The di∣stinction you make of true and false Images, is vaine for this purpose: for all Images that are vsed in religion, are false, and teachers of falshood, which you with Gregorie say are Laye mens bookes; but what shall they teache* 1.213 saith Abacuc and Ieremie, but lies and vanitie? where note that Ieremie calleth the Image woodde, by Synec∣doche, signifying all Images made with hands, of any matter. Againe he saith, euery artificer is confounded in his Image, because it is false which he hath made, and there is no breath in it. In whiche verse it is to be obserued, that hee vseth firste the worde Pesel, saying Mippasel and afterward Nifco, for the same Image made* 1.214 by the artificer, without distinction of grauing or melting, at leastwise for the sense, though the wordes be diuerse. Euen so your vulgar Latin translator vseth Sculptile, conflatile, imaginem & simulachrum, for one and the same thing. The Scripture therfore telling vs that all Images are false, because they being voyde of life, are sette vp to represent the liuing, it is not our fantasie, but the auctoritie of Gods worde, that causeth vs to reiect your fantasticall distinction, of true and false Images.

MART. 26. Wherein you proceede so farre, that when Daniel sayde to the King, I worshippe not idolls* 1.215 made with handes (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) you make him saye thus, I worshippe not thinges that be made with hands,* 1.216 leauing out the worde idolls altogither, as though he had sayd, nothing made with hand, were to be adored, not the Arke, the propitiatorie, no nor the holy crosse it selfe, that our Sauiour shed his bloud vpon. As before you added to the text, so here you diminish and take from it at your pleasure.

FVLK. 26. That (thing) is put for idoll, I confesse it to be a fault in some translations, but in the Geneua Bible it is reformed. Contempt of the authoritie of

that Apocryphall chapiter (as it seemed) did breede that negligence. Where you write, that he should by saying, I worshippe not thinges made with handes, haue denyed the Arke, and the propitiatorie to be worship∣ped, it is very true, for neither of both was to be wor∣shipped, as they were made with handes, but God was to be worshipped where they were, and those thinges to be reuerently esteemed, as the sacraments, of Gods presence. As for the crosse whereon Christ dyed, I see no cause why it shoulde be worshipped, if it were to bee had, but rather, if it were worshipped, it shoulde bee serued as the brasen serpent was. None of the Apostles made anye accounte of it: Nicode∣mus and Ioseph of Arimathia, if there had beene any matter of religion in it, might haue preserued it, and not haue suffered it to be buried in the earth, with the two other crosses▪ as the storie of the inuention, sayeth, if it be true. At the finding whereof, Helena as Sainct Ambrose writeth, Regem adorauit non lignum v∣tique, quia hic gentilis est error & vanitas impiorum. She worshipped the King, not the tree verily, for this is an Hethenishe errour and vanitie of vngodly men. De obit. Theodosij.

MART. 27. But concerring the worde image, which you make to be the English of all the Latine, Hebrew, and Greeke wordes, be they neuer so many and so distinct, I beseeche you, what reason had you to translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ima∣ges, Sap. 15. verse 13. doth the Greeke worde so signifie? doth not the sentence following, tell you that it shoulde haue bene translated, grauen idolls? for thus it sayth. They iudged all the idolls of the nations to be Gods. Loe, your images, or rather, loe, the true names of the Pagans gods, which it pleaseth you to call, images, images.

FVLK. 27. I thinke you are not able to proue, that we make, image the English to all the Hebrewe wordes, though you boldly affirme it. But in the place by you mentioned, I suppose they translated the Greeke worde

grauen or carued images, rather than idoll, because the writer in that place, Sap. 15. 13. speaketh of the first fra∣ming and fashioning of those images, which though the purpose of the workeman be neuer so wicked, yet can not properly be called idolls, before they be abused by them that worship them.

MART. 28. But (to conclude this point) you might, & it would haue well becommed you, in translating or expounding the foresayd wordes, to haue followed S. Hierom, the great famous* 1.217 translator, and interpreter of the holy Scriptures: who telleth you two senses of the foresaid wordes: the one literall, of the I∣dols of the Gentiles: the other mysticall, of Heresies & errours. Sculptile, sayth he, & conflatile: I take to be peruerse o∣pinions, which are adored of the authors that made thē. See Arius, that graued to him selfe this idoll, that Christ was onely a creature, and adored that which he had gra∣uen. Behold Eunomius, howe he molted and cast a false image, and bowed to that which he had molten. Suppose he had exemplified of the two condemned heretikes, Iouinian, & Vigilantius also: had he not touched your idols, that is, the olde condemned heresies, which you at this day adore?

FVLK. 28. It becommeth vs best in translation, to follow the originall text, and as neare as we can, the true meaning of the holy Ghost. As for the two senses, which Hieronym telleth, stand whole and vntouched, for our translation. There is a difference betwene a translation, and a commentarie. In commenting vpon the text, they that see it conuenient, may apply the idolls of the Gen∣tiles, & the worship of them, to the heresies of our times, of the Papistes, Anabaptistes, Libertines, and such like, as the Apostle doth by similitude to couetousnes. As for olde condemned heresies, which you charge vs to wor∣ship, as idols, you are able to proue none, whatsoeuer you bable of Vigilantius, and Iouinian, neither of both doe we follow in any error, much lesse in any heresie.

MART. 29. These onely (I meane heresies and here∣tikes) are the idols and idolaters (by the ancient Doctors iudge∣ment)

which haue bene among Christians, since the idolatrie of* 1.218 the Gentiles ceased, according to the Prophets. Therefore S. Hierom sayth againe: If thou see a man that will not yeeld to the truth, but when the falshoode of his opinions is once shewed, perseuereth still in that he began: thou* 1.219 mayst aptly say, Sperat in figmento suo, and he maketh dumme or deafe idolls. And againe, All Heretikes haue their gods: and whatsoeuer they haue forged, they a∣dore the same as Sculptile, and Constantile: that is as a gra∣uen and molten idoll. And againe, He sayth well, I haue* 1.220 found vnto my selfe an idoll: For, all the forgeries of heretikes are as the idolls of the Gentiles: neither doe they much differ in impiety, though in name they seeme to differ. And againe, Whatsoeuer according to the let∣ter* 1.221 is spoken against the idolatrie of the Iewes, doe thou referre al this vnto them, which vnder the name of Christ worship idols, and forging to them selues peruerse opi∣nions, carye the tabernacle of their king the deuill, and the image of their idolls. For they worshippe not an i∣doll, but for varietie of their doctrine, they adore di∣uerse Gods. And he put in very well, which you made to your selues: for they receiued them not of God, but forged them of their owne minde. And of the idoll of Samaria, he sayth, we alwayes vnderstand Samaria, (and the* 1.222 idoll of Samaria) in the person of Heretikes, the same Pro∣phet saying, WOE BE TO THEM THAT DE∣SPISE* 1.223 SION, AND TRVST IN THE MOVNT OF SAMARIA. For Heretikes despise the Churche of God, and trust in the falshood of their opinions, ere∣cting them selues against the knowledge of God: and saying, when they haue diuided the people (by schisme,) we haue no part in Dauid, nor inheritance in the sonne of Isay.

FVLK. 29. Not these onely, but the idols of the Simonists, Valentinians, Gnostici, Carpocratits, Colly∣ridians, and such like, made with handes, of Christ, and his mother, of Paule, and Simon, and Selene, and Pytha∣goras,

&c. and such other, were idolls of false Christi∣ans, since the idolatrie of the Gentiles gaue place, by the iudgement of Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and other auncient doctors. And whatsoeuer you cite, or can cite out of Saint Hierom, against the idolls of heresies, agreeth most aptly to your selues, the Papistes, who worship not onely idols made with handes, but also the idols of your braines, which are abhominable heresies.

MART. 30. Thus the Reader may see, that the holye Scriptures which the aduersaries falsly translate, against the holy images of our Sauiour Christ, and his Saincts, to make vs Idolaters, doe in deede concerne their idolls, and condemne them as idolaters, which forge newe opinions to them selues, such as the auncient fathers knewe not, and adore them, and their owne sense and interpretation of Scriptures, so farre and so vehemently, that they preferre it before the approued iudge∣ment of all the generall councels and holy doctors, and for main∣tenance of the same, corrupt the holy scriptures at their plea∣sure, and make them speake according to their fansies, as we haue partly shewed, and now are to declare further.

FVLK. 30. Thus the Reader may see, that when you haue cauilled, quarrelled, falsified, and slaundered, as much as you can, to charge vs with false translation of the Scripture, concerning images, you can finde no∣thing worth the nothing: but if some small ouersight, through negligence, or perhaps the Printers fault, hath escaped, you make a great matter of it, although it be corrected by our selues in other translations, and when all other matter faileth, you returne to your accustomed veine of rayling, and reuiling, which in no wise mans iudgement, deserueth any aunswer, because it is so ge∣nerall.

CHAP. IIII.

The ECCLESIASTICALL vse of wordes turned into their ORIGINAL and PROFANE signification.

Martin.

WE spake a litle before of the double signifi∣cation* 1.224 of wordes, the one according to the originall propertie, the other according to the vsuall taking thereof in all vulgar speech and writing. These wordes (as by the way, we shewed before, vpon occasion of* 1.225 the Aduersaries graunt) are to be transla∣ted in their vulgar and vsuall signification, not as they signi∣fie by their originall propertie. As for example: Maior in the originall signification▪ is greater. But when we say, The Ma∣ior of London, now it is taken and soundeth in euery mans eare, for such an Officer: and no man will say, The greater of Lon∣don, according to the originall propertie of it. Likewise Epis∣copus, a Greeke word, in the originall sense, is euery ouerseer, as Tullie vseth it, and other profane writers: but among Christi∣ans, in Ecclesiasticall speech, it is a Bishop. And no man will say, My Lord ouerseer of London, for my Lord Bishop. Like∣wise we say, Seuen Deacons, S. Steuen a Deacon. No man will say, Seuen Ministers, S. Steuen a Minister. Although that be the originall signification of the word Deacon. But by Ecclesia∣sticall vse and appropriation being taken for a certaine degree of the Clergie, so it foundeth in euery mans eare, and so it must be translated. As we say, Nero made many Martyrs: not, Nero made many witnesses: and yet Martyr by the first originall propertie of the word, is nothing else but a witnesse. We say Bap∣tisme is a sacrament: not, washing is a sacrament. Yet Bap∣tisme and washing, by the first originall propertie of the word is all one.

Fulke.

WE haue also aunswered before, that* 1.226 words must not be alwaies translated, according to their originall and ge∣nerall signification, but according to such signification, as by vse they are ap∣propried to be taken. We agree also that words taken by custome of speech into an Ecclesiasticall meaning, are not to be altered in∣to a straunge or profane signification. For such vanities and nouelties of wordes, the Apostle prohibiteth, wher∣of the popish translatiō of the new Testament is fraught full. Notwithstanding our meaning is not, that if any Greeke termes, or words of any other language, haue of long time bene vsurped in our English language, the true vnderstanding of which is vnknowen at this day, to the common people: but that the same termes may be either in translation, or exposition, set out plainly, to en∣forme the simplicitie of the ignorant, by such wordes, as of them are better vnderstoode. Also when those termes are abused by custome of speech, to signifie some other thing, than they were first appointed for, or else be taken ambiguously for diuers things: we ought not to be su∣perstitious in these cases, but to auoide misvnderstan∣ding, we may vse words according to their originall sig∣nification, as they were taken in such time, as they were written by the instruments of the holy Ghost. As for ex∣ample, if a Bishop be mistaken by the people, either for such an idoll as the Papistes vsed to make of their S. Ni∣colas bishops, or else for a great Lord onely, that rideth about in a white rochet, they may be told, that the name of a Bishop describeth his office, that is, to be an ouer∣seer of the flocke of Christ, committed to his charge. Likewise if the word Deacon, be taken for such an one, as at a popish masse standeth in a disguised tunicle, hol∣ding

a patten, or some other Idolatrous bable vsed of them: the people must be taught, that this name signifi∣eth a minister, which was ordeined not to serue the Po∣pish altar, but the poore mens tables, that is, to prouide for the poore, and to see the Churches almes bestowed vpon them. Also if the name of Martyrs be not vnder∣stood, but taken onely for them that are tormented and rent in bodie, as the common speach is to say, of men & beasts, that they are martyred, whē their bodies are woū∣ded and mangled: here it is needefull to shewe, that the Saincts that suffered for Christe, had their name of their witnesse or testimonie, not of their paines & torments. The name of Baptisme is so common to Christians, that it neede not to be changed into washing: but yet it may and ought to be explicated vnto the vnlearned, what this worde doth signifie, which is no prophane signification, but a true and general vnderstanding of the word, which is vsed of the Euangelist for other washings than the Sa∣crament of Baptisme, and so, you are inforced to tran∣slate it, Marc. 7.

MART. 2. Now then to come to our purpose, such are the absurde translations of the English Bibles, and altogither like vnto these. Namely, when they translate congregation for Churche, Elder for Priest, Image for Idol, dissension for schisme, Generall for Catholike, secrete for Sacrament, ouer-seer for Bi∣shop, * 1.227 messenger for Angel, embassadour for Apostle, minister for Deacon, and such like: to what other end be these deceitfull translations, but to conceale and obscure the name of the Church and dignities thereof mentioned in the holy Scriptures: to dis∣semble the worde schisme (as they do also Heresie and Here∣tike)* 1.228 for feare of disgracing their schismes and Heresies, to say of Matrimonie, neither Sacrament which is the Latin, nor myste∣rie which is the Greeke, but to goe as farre as they can possibly from the common vsuall and Ecclesiastical wordes, saying, This* 1.229 is a great secrete: in fauour of their heresie, that Matrimonie is no Sacrament.

FVLK. 2. Absurde trāslations of the English Bibles,

you say are congregation for Churche, Elder for Priest, Image for Idoll and such like. The word Church being ambiguously taken of the people for the place of assem∣bly, & the assembly it selfe, it was as lawful for vs to cal congregation, as for you to call it assembly, Actes 7. This worde Priest, commonly taken for a sacrificer and the same that Sacerdos, and so by you translated: there was good occasion to vse the worde Elder, for which you vse Senior, or auncient in your translation, which is a name of auctoritie, as ouerseer is of diligēce, minister of seruice▪ pastor of feeding all which names set foorth a true Bishop, Pastor, and Elder, and if you will needes haue it, of a true Prieste Of Image for Idoll is sayde inough in the nexte Chapiter before, Schisme I knowe not how English men should vnderstand, except it were englished by dissension, diuision, rending, or some such like Of general for Catholike, we shal speake anon. Secrete for Sacrament, we vse, because wee would retaine the ecclesiasticall vse of this worde Sacrament which is to signifie the seales of Gods promises, and not confounde it, with euery holy or vnholy secrete thing. The Greeke worde mysterie, which you would enioyne vs to vse, was in the time of the firste translation more vnknowen, than that wee could well haue vsed it, ex∣cept wee would haue followed your veine, in vanitie and noueltie of termes, Praepu••e, neophyte, gratis, deposi∣tum, &c. or else made generall and common the proper vse of this Ecclesiasticall terme Sacrament, to euery my∣sterie, and called the Sacrament of preaching, of pu∣blishing the Gospel to the Gentils, of the seuen starres, as you do, and yet in the Sacrament of the whore of Baby∣lon you leaue it and call it mysterie, Apoc. 17. v. 7. as you shoulde be enforced to doe, if you would translate the old Testament out of Latine, Dan. 2. diuerse times, ex∣cept you would call Nabuchadonosors dreame, a Sacra∣ment, and Dan 4. where the king sayth, that to Daniell no secrete is impossible; meaning vnknowen, or not vn∣derstood,

you would say, no Sacrament, & Tob. 12. you would translate Sacramentum regis abscondere bonum est. It is a good thing to hide the kings Sacrament, where you should say secrete, and where the English phrase would hardly beare you to say the kings mysterie. Of the other termes, in the places by you quoted, it shal be sufficient to speake. But I haue rendred reasonable causes of these termes hitherto: so that no mā, but madde with malice, would thinke we conceale the name of Church, & digni∣ties therof, in hatred of them, or do dissemble the names of schisme & heresie, in fauour of those abhominations, which are as wel set forth to their detestatiō, in the terms of dissention and sectes: as for the name Sacrament, we find not in the Greeke but mysterium we trāslate a secrete or a mysterie, as the worde signifieth, which nothing fa∣uoureth the pretended Sacrament of Matrimonie.

MART. 3. S. Paul saith as plaine as he can speake, I* 1.230 beseech you brethren, that you all say one thing, and that there be no schismes among you. They translate for schis∣mes, dissentions: which may be in profane and worldly things, as well as in matters of religion. But schismes are those that diuide the vnitie of the Church, whereof they know them selues guilty. S. Paule saith as plainely as is possible, A man that is an He∣retike* 1.231 auoide after the first and second admonition. They* 1.232 translated in their Bible of the yeare 1562, A man that is an author of Sectes. And where the Greeke is, Heresie, rec∣kened among damnable sinnes, they say, Sectes: fauouring that* 1.233 name for their owne sakes, and dissembling it, as though the ho∣ly Scriptures spake not against Heresie or Heretikes, Schisme or Schismatikes.

FVLK. 3. S. Paule in deede speaketh plainely in Greeke, but if you speake English & say schismes, fortie thousand of the people in England will sweare they vn∣derstande you not. But schismes (you say) are those that deuide the vnitie of the Churche: dissentions may be in prophane and worldly things. Verily all schismes deuide not the Church, for they were not al the Church,

of whom it is sayde in S. Iohn 9. There was a schisme a∣mong them: for I thinke the best of the Pharisees, were scarse good members of the Churche. Againe where S. Paule doth say, least there should bee a schisme in the bodie. 1. Cor. 12. He speaketh of the natural bodie, wher∣vnto he compareth the Churche. S. Paule also sayth, as plainely as he canne speake in Greeke. 1. Cor. 11. v. 18. I heare that there be schismes among you: yet your vulgar Latine translatour is bolde to saye Scissuras, cut∣tings or rendings, where you are bold to goe from your Latine texte and call them schismes. And for explica∣ting the Greeke name of heresie, by sectes, why should wee be more blamed▪ than the vulgar Latine translator, who commonly translateth it Sectas, and namely Gal. 5. 2. Pet. 2. Actes. 24. diuerse times, 26. and 28 in all which places you your selues translate sectes. Is it because he, or you fauour heresies and heretikes? will you neuer leaue this foolish wrangling, which alwaies turneth you to the greater discredite?

MART. 4. As also they suppresse the very name Catho∣like, when it is expresly in the Greeke, for malice towarde Ca∣tholikes and Catholike religion, because they know, them selues neuer shall be called or knowen by that name. And there∣fore their two English Bibles accustomed to be reade in their* 1.234 Churche (therefore by like moste authenticall) leaue it cleane out in the title of all those Epistles, which haue bene knowen by* 1.235 the name of Catholicae Epistolae euer since the Apostles time: and their later English Bible (dealing somewhat more honest∣ly) hath turned the worde Catholike into General: saying, The Generall Epistle of Iames, of Peter, &c. As if a man shoulde say in his Creede, I beleeue the general Churche, because hee would not say, the Catholike Churche: as the Lutheran Catechismes say for that purpose, I beleeue the Christian Church. So that by this rule, when S. Augustine* 1.236 telleth that the maner was in cities where there was libertie of religion, to aske, Qua itur ad Catholicam? Wee muste translate it, Which is the way to the General? And when

Sainct Hierome sayth, If we agree in faith with the B. of Rome, ergo Catholici sumus: we must translate it, Then we are Generals. Is not this good stuffe? Are they not ashamed thus to inuert and peruert all wordes against common sense, and vse and reason? Catholike and Generall or vniuersall (we knowe) is by the originall propertie of the word all one: but according to the vse of both, as it is ridiculous to say, A Catholike Coun∣cell, for a Generall Councell: so is it ridiculous and impious to say, Generall for Catholike, inderogation thereof, and for to hide it vnder a bushell.

FVLK. 4. I doe not knowe where the name of Ca∣tholike is once expressed in the text of the Bible, that it might be suppressed by vs, which are not like to beare malice to the Catholike Church, or religion, seeing we teache, euen our young children to beleue the holy Ca∣tholike Church. But not finding the word Catholike in the text, you runne to the title of the seuen Epistles, cal∣led as commonly Canonicall as Catholike or Generall. But Eusebius belike testifieth that they haue bene so cal∣led euer since the Apostles time, lib. 2. cap. 22. I maruell you are not ashamed to auouch suche an vntruth. Euse∣bius speaking of his owne time, saith, they are so called, but that they haue bene so called euer since the Apostles time, he sayth not. And so farre off he is from saying so, that he pronounceth the Epistle of S. Iames in the same place, to be a bastarde, and speaketh doubtfully of the Epistle of S. Iude. But whereas in one translation we vse the worde Generall for Catholike, you make a greate may game of it, shewing your witte and your honestie both at once. For these 5. of Iames, 2. of Peter, one of Iude, and the first of Iohn, which are properly & right∣ly so intituled, haue that title, because they are not sent to any particular Church, or persons, but to all in gene∣ral, as the Greeke scholiast truly noteth.

And OEcume∣nius before the Epistle of S. Iames sayth expressely Ca∣tholicae id est vniuersales dicuntur hae, &c. These Epistles are called Catholike, that is to say Vniuersall or General

because not distinctly to one nation or citie (as S. Paule to the Romanes, or Corinthians) this companie of our Lords disciples doth dedicate these Epistles

, but general∣ly to the faithfull, or to the Iewes that were dispersed, as also Peter: or else to all Christians liuing vnder the same faith. For otherwise, if they should be called Catholike, in respect of the soūdnes of the doctrine cōtained in thē, what reason were there more to call them so, than to call all the Epistles of S. Paule? Wherefore in this title which yet is no part of the holy Scripture, it is rightly trāslated general. The other translatours seeing seuen to be called general, where only fiue are so in deede, and seeing them also called canonicall, which should seeme to be a con∣troulling of S. Paules Epistles, left out that title altogi∣ther, as being no part of the text▪ and word of God: but an addition of the stationers or writers.

MART. 5. Is it because they would followe the Greeke,* 1.237 that they turne 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, generall? euen as iust, as when they turne 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 image, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instruction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ordi∣nance, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dissension, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sect, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 secrete, and such like, where they goe as farre from the Greeke as they can, and will be glad to pretende for aunswere of their worde, sect, that they followe our Latine translation. Alas poore shift for them that otherwise pretende nothing but the Greeke, to be tried by that Latine which them selues condemne. But we honour the sayd text, and translate it Sects also, as we there find it, and as we doe in other places followe the Latine text, and take not our aduantage of the Greeke text, because we knowe the Latine translation is good also and sincere, and approued in the Church by long antiquitie, & it is in sense all one to vs with the Greke: but not so to them, who in these daies of controuersie about the Greeke and Latine text, by not following the Greeke, which they professe sincerely to follow, bewray them selues that they doe it for a malitious purpose.

FVLK. 5. It is because we woulde haue the Greeke vnderstood, as it is taken in those places, when we turne Catholike generall, Idolum, image, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, instruction,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ordinaunce, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dissention, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sect, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, secret, and such like. And where you say, we woulde be glad for our word sect, to pretend to follow your Latine translation, it is a fable. For in translating sect▪ we follow the Greeke as truely, as your Latine translation doeth, which if it be true and sincere, as you confesse, what de∣uilish madnesse possesseth your malicious mind to bur∣then vs with such purposes, as no reasonable man would once imagine or thinke of, that we should vse that terme in fauour of heresie, and heretikes, whome we thinke worthie to suffer death, if they will not repent, and cease to blaspheme, or seduce the simple.

CHAP. V.

Hereticall translation against the CHVRCH.

Martin.

AS they suppresse the name, Catholike,* 1.238 euen so did they in their first English Bi∣ble the name of Church, it selfe: because at their first reuolt and apostasie from that that was vniuersally knowen to be the only true Catholike Church: it was a great obiectiō against their schismaticall proceedings, and it stucke much in the peoples consciences, that they forsooke the Church, and that the Church condemned them. Wherupō very wi••ily they suppressed the name Church in their English translation, so, that in all that Bible so long red in their* 1.239 congregations, we can not once finde the name thereof. Iudge by these places which seeme of most importaunce for the dignitie, preheminence, and authoritie of the Church.

Fulke.

HOwe can wee suppresse the name Ca∣tholike,* 1.240 which the holy Scripture neuer vseth, as for the name of Church, I haue alreadie shewed diuerse times, that for to auoyd the ambiguous taking of that terme, it was at the first lesse vsed, but ne∣uer refused, for doubt of any obiection of the Catho∣like Church against vs: the profession of which, being contained in our Englishe creede, howe could we relin∣quish, or not acknowledge to be contained in the Scri∣pture, in which we taught, that all articles of faith neces∣sarie to saluation are comprehended? But we are con∣tent to be iudged by those places which seeme of most importance for the dignity, preheminence, & authoritye of the Church.

MART. 2. Our Sauiour saith, Vpon this Rocke I will* 1.241 build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it. They make him to say, Vpō this rocke I wil build* 1.242 my congregation. Againe, If he heare not them, tell the Church: & if he heare not the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen and as a publicane, they say, Congregation. Againe, who woulde thinke they woulde haue altered the worde Church in the Epistle to the Ephesians? their English transla∣tion* 1.243 for many yeares red thus, Ye husbands loue your wiues as Christ loued the congregation, and clensed it to make it vnto him selfe a glorious congregation without spot or wrinkle. And, This is a great secrete, but I speake of Christ & of the cōgregation. And to Timothee, The house* 1.244 of God, which is the cōgregation of the liuing God, the pillar and grounde of truth. Here is no worde of Churche, which in Latine & Greeke is, Ecclesia Dei viui, columna & firmamētum veritatis. Likewise to the Ephesians againe, He hath made him heade of the congregation, which is his* 1.245 bodie. And to the Hebrues they are all bolde to translate: The

congregation of the first borne, where the Apostle nameth heauenly Hierusalem, the citie of the liuing God, &c.

FVLK. 2. In the first English Bible printed, where it was thus translated, Math. 16. vppon this rocke I will build my congregation:

the note in the margent is thus, vpon this rock, that is, as saith S. Augustin, vpon the con∣fession which thou hast made, knowledging me to be Christ, the sonne of the liuing God, I will build my con∣gregation or Church. Was not this translator thinke you sore afraid of the name of the Church?

What other thing should he vnderstand, by the word congregation, in al places by you noted, or in any like, but the church, as he doth here expound him selfe. And this translation almost worde for worde, doth the Bible you call 1562. follow.

MART. 3. So that by this translation, there is no more Church militant and triumphant, but congregation, and he is not head of the Church, but of the congregation: and this con∣gregation at the time of the making of this translation, was in a few new brethren of England, for whose sake the name Church was left out of the English Bible, to commend the name of con∣gregation, aboue the name of Church. Whereas S. Augustine* 1.246 telleth them, that the Iewes Synagogue, was a congregation: the* 1.247 Church, a conuocation: and that a congregation, is of beasts al∣so: a conuocation, of reasonable creatures onely: and that the Iewes congregation is sometime called the Church, but the A∣postles neuer called the Church, Congregation. Doe you see then what a goodly chaunge they haue made, for Church, to say congregation: so making themselues a very Synagogue, & that by the property of the Greeke word, which (yet as S. Augustine telleth them most truely) signifieth rather a conuocation?

FVLK. 3. A strange matter that the Church mili∣tant and triumphant should be excluded, by vsing the word congregation: when by it nothing is signified but the congregation or Church militant and triumphant: and that Christ should no more be head of the Churche when he is head of the congregation, where the differēce

is only in sound of words, not in sense or meaning. Your vaine and ridiculous surmise, why the name of Church shuld be left out of the Bible, I haue before cōfuted: she∣wing that in euery Bible it is either in the text, or in the notes. But S. Augustin telleth vs (say you) that the Iewes synagoge was a congregation, the church a cōuocation: & that a congregation is of beasts also, a conuocation of reasonable creatures only. But S. Luke in the person of S. Stephen telleth vs, and Augustine telleth vs as much, that the synagoge of the Iewes is called also Ecclesia: which signifieth the church and congregation. That Congregatio the Latin word, may be of beasts also, it skilleth not, for the church of Christ is called also a flocke, and sheepe of his pasture. But he that should say in English a cōgrega∣tion of beastes, might be taken for as wise a man, as he that said an audiēce of sheepe. And wheras S. Augustine, telleth you, that the Iewes congregation is somtime cal∣led the church: what is the cause that you doe translate it, the assembly, Act. 7. euen as you do the congregation of the Idolatrous Ephesians, Act. 19? But further (you say) Augustine telleth vs, that the Apostles neuer called the church congregation. It is a worlde to see what foolishe fetches you haue, to deceiue the ignoraunt. Augustine sayeth the Apostles neuer called our assembly Synagoga, but alwaies Ecclesia: and yet he is a litle deceiued: for S. Paul calleth our gathering togither vnto Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but Congregatio, a cōgregation, he saith not. And al∣though he make a nice distinction betwene the wordes Congregation & Conuocation, yet all men which know the vse of these words, will confesse no necessitie of a Iewish synagoge, to be implied in the word cōgregation more than in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which of the holy Ghost is vsed for an assembly or gathering togither, either of Iewes, Christiās, or Gentils. And therfore it seemeth the trans∣latour vsed the word congregation, which is indifferent for all, euen as the worde Ecclesia is vsed both in the Greeke, and vulgar Latine.

MART. 4. If they appeale here to their later translatiōs, we must obtaine of them to condemne the former, and to confesse this was a grosse fault cōmitted therein. And that the Catholike Church of our coūtrie did not il to forbid & burne such bookes which were so translated by Tyndal and the like, as being not in deede Gods booke, worde, or Scripture, but the Diuels worde. Yea they must confesse, that the leauing out of this worde Church al∣togither, was of an hereticall spirite against the Catholike Ro∣mane Church, because then they had no Caluinisticall Church in any like forme of religion & gouernement to theirs now. Nei∣ther will it serue them to say after their maner, And if a man should translate Ecclesiam, congregation: this is no more* 1.248 absurdity, than in steede of a Greeke word, to vse a Latin of the same signification. This (we trow) will not suffise them in the iudgement of the simplest indifferent Reader.

FVLK. 4. Wee neede not to appeale to the later translations, for any corruption or falsification of the former, no nor for any mistranslation. For seing the spi∣rite of God (as I haue said before) vseth the word Eccle∣sia generally for a companie of Christians, Iewes, and Gentils, the translator hath not gone from the truth, and vse of the Scriptures, to vse the word cōgregation, which signifieth indifferently all three. Wherefore there nee∣deth no condemnation, nor confession of any grosse faulte herein cōmitted, except you will count it a grosse fault in S. Luke, to vse the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without any scrupulositie for all three, as the translator doth the worde congregation, and you in two significations the worde assemblye. Neither can your heathenish and bar∣barous burning of the holy Scriptures so translated, nor your blasphemie in calling it the deuils worde, be excu∣sed, for any fault in translation, which you haue discoue∣red as yet, or euer shall be able to descrye. That stin∣king cauill of leauing out of the Bible this worde Church altogither, being both foolish and false, I haue aunswered more than once alreadye. It is not left out altogither, that in contents of bookes and chapiters,

and in notes of explication of this worde congregation is set downe. Neither could there be any purpose against the Catholike Churche of Christe in them that transla∣ted and taught the Creede in English, professing to be∣leeue the holy Catholike Church. As for our hatred of the malignant Antichristian Church of Rome, we neuer dissembled the matter, so that wee were afrayed open∣ly to professe it, what neede had wee then after suche a fantasticall manner (as is fondly imagined) to insi∣nuate it.

MART. 5. But, my Maisters, if you would confesse the former faults and corruptions neuer so plainely, is that inough to iustifie your corrupt dealing in the holy Scriptures? Is it not an horrible fault so wilfully to falsifie and corrupt the worde of God written by the inspiration of the holy Ghost? May you ab∣use the people for certaine yeares with false translations, and af∣terward say, Loe we haue amended it in our later translations?* 1.249 Then might the Heretike Beza be excused for translating in steede of Christes soule in hell, his carcas in the graue. And because some friend told him of that corruption, & he corrected it in the later editions, he shoulde neuerthelesse in your iudge∣ment, be counted a right honest man. No (be ye sure) the discrete Reader can not be so abused, but he will easily see, that there is a great difference in mending some ouersights which may escape the best men: & in your grosse false translations, who at the first falsifie of a prepensed malice, and afterwardes alter it for verie shame. Howbeit, to say the truth, in the chiefest & principal place that concerneth the Churches perpetuitie & stability, you haue not yet altered the former translation, but it remaineth as before and is at this day red in your Churches thus, Vpon this Rocke* 1.250 I will build my congregation. Can it be without some here∣ticall subtiltie, that in this place specially and (I thinke) only you chaunge not the worde congregation into Church? Giue vs a reason and discharge your credit.

FVLK 5. You are very hardly, & in very deede ma∣liciously bent against vs, that you will accept no confes∣sion of faults escaped, neuer so plainly made. As for cor∣rupt

dealing in the holy Scriptures, and falsifying of the word of god▪ you are not able no not if you would burst your selfe for malice, to conuict vs. And therefore looke for no confession of any such wickednes, whereof our conscience is cleare before God, and doth not accuse vs. As for Bezaes correction of his formen translation, Act. 2. v. 27. if your dogged stomach will not accept, he shall notwithstanding with all godly learned men, be accoū∣ted, as he deserueth, for one who hath more profited the Church of God, with his sincere translation, and learned annotations, than all the popish Seminaries, and Semi∣narists, shall be able to hinder it, iangle of grosse & false translations, as long as you will. But the chiefest & prin∣cipall place that concerneth the Churches perpetuitie, is not yet reformed to your minde. For in the Bible 1577. we reade still Math. 16. vpon this rocke I will build my congregation. If Christ haue a perpetuall congregation, builded vpon the foundation of the Prophets, and Apo∣stles, him selfe being the corner stone, his Church is in no daunger euer to decay. Yet you aske, whether it can be without some hereticall subtiltie, that in this place specially, and (as you thinke) onely, the word congrega∣tion, is not chaunged into Church. It is an homely, but a true prouerbe: the good wife would neuer haue sought her daughter in the ouen, had she not bene there first her selfe. You are so full of hereticall subtilties, and trai∣terous deuises, that you dreame of them in other mens doinges, whatsoeuer commeth into your handes: yea, where you your selfe can haue no probable imagination what to suspect. And therefore we must giue you a rea∣son, in discharge of our credit For my part, I knowe not with what speciall reason the translator was moued, but I can giue you my probable coniecture, that he thought it all one, (as in deede it is.) to say my congregation, or my Church. For what is Christes congregation, but his Church? or what is Christes Church, but his congrega∣tion? And yet to put you out of all feare, the Geneua

translation hath the worde Church, that you make so great account of, as though it were not an indifferent word to the true Church, of true Christians, and the false Church of malignant Heretikes: being vsurped first to signifie the congregation of Christians, by a Metonymie of the place containing, for the people contained. For the etymologie thereof is from the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was vsed of Christians for the place of their holy meetings, signifying the Lordes house, therefore in the northren, which is the more auncient English speech, is called by contraction Kyrke, more neare to the sound of the Greeke word.

MART. 6. What shal I say of Beza, whom the English Bibles also follow, translating actiuely that Greeke word, (which in common vse, and by S. Chrysostoms, and the Greeke doctors exposition, is a plaine passiue:) to signifie, as in his annotations is cleare, that Christ may be without his Church, that is, a head without a body. The words be these in the heretical translation, He gaue him to be the heade ouer all thinges to the* 1.251 Church, which (Church) is his body, the fulnes of him* 1.252 that filleth all in all. S. Chrysostom. saith Beza, (he might haue said, all the Greeke & Latine auncient fathers) taketh it pas∣siuely, in this sense, that Christ is filled all in all, because all faithfull men as members, & the whole Church as the bodie, cō∣curre to the fulnes & accomplishment of Christ the head. But this (saith he) seemeth vnto me a forced interpretation. Why so Beza?

FVLK. 6. That Beza translateth the participle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, actiuely, it is plaine, both in the text of his tran∣slation, & in his annotations. But that he doth it to sig∣nifie, that Christ may be without his Church, that is a head without a body, it is a shameles slaūder. His words, vpon which you weaue this cobweb, are these. Omninò au∣tem hoc addidit Apostolus, vt sciamus Christum per se non in∣digere hoc supplemento: vt qui efficia•• omnia in omnibus reue∣ra: nedum vt suppleatur à quoquam, nisi quatenus pro immen∣sasua bonitate Ecclesiam dignatur sibi quasi corporis instar ad∣iungere.

This the Apostle hath added altogither for this end, that we may know that Christ of him selfe hath no neede of this supplye: as he which worketh in truth all things in al so far it is, that he should be supplied by any body, but that of his infinite goodnes, he vouchsafeth to adioine his Church vnto him selfe, as his body.

Who but the deuil, would finde fault with this godly & Catholike saying? wherein it is affirmed, that Christ, which accor∣ding to the perfection of his diuine nature, needeth no supply, yet of his infinite mercie, vouchsafeth to become head of his Church, as of his body: so that he wil not be counted perfect without it. Is this to say, Christ may be a head without a bodie? or is it for his benefite, or the benefite of his Church, that he is the head thereof? But the more to laye open this malicious slaunder, and im∣pudent falsifying of Bezaes wordes, and meaning, I will set downe his saying, going immediatly before, vp∣on the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he calleth complementum siue supplementum, a fulfilling or supplying.

Is enim est Christi in Ecclesiam amor, &c. For such is the loue of Christ toward his Church, that whereas he performeth all thinges, to all men, vnto the full: yet he esteemeth him selfe as an vnperfect head, & maymed of the mem∣bers, vnlesse he haue his Church adioyned to him, as his bodye. Hereof it commeth, that Christ is taken sometime collectiuely for the whole Church, adioyned to her heade, as 1. Cor. 12. v. 12. & 13. and Gal. 3. 16. Hereof commeth also that phrase, (in Christ) so often repeated, which signifieth something more expresly, than with Christ, or by Christ. Hereof that voice of Christ, Saul, Saul, why doest thou persecute me? whether also pertaineth that which is written, Col. 1. v. 24. Finally, hereof proceedeth all our hope and consolation.

How thinke you, is not this man willing to separate the Church from Christ, the head frō the body? O mōstrous malices of godlesse Papists. His exposition of the place being such, as you see, let vs nowe examine what can be

sayde against his translation. For a man must not tran∣slate falsly, to make a true sense. It is alledged against him, that Chrysostome, and all the Greeke and Latine fathers take the participle passiuely. Beza confesseth it of Chrysostome, whome the later Greeke writers com∣monly doe followe. But the participle, being deriued of the meane verbe, may haue either passiue or actiue sig∣nification. But why doth Beza say, that the exposition of Chrysostom is forced, which taketh it passiuely? he saith not in respect of Chrysostomes sense, which he him selfe followeth, and it is contained in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but in respect of the grammar, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be put abso∣lutely without any word to gouerne it, seeing the parti∣ciple of the meane verbe, may be taken actiuely, and go∣uerne 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being the accusatiue case.

MART. 7. Marke his Doctors whom he opposeth to the fathers, both Greeke & Latine. Because Xenophon (sayth he) in such a place, & Plato in such a place, vse the sayd Greeke word actiuely. I omit this miserable match, and vnworthy names of Xenophon and Plato, in triall of S. Paules wordes, against all the glorious Doctors: this is his common custome. I aske him rather of these his owne Doctors, how they vse the Greeke word in other places of their workes? how vse they it most commonly? yea how doe all other Greeke writers either profane, or sacred, vse it? What say the Greeke readers of all Vniuersities? Sure∣ly, not onely they, but their scholers for the most part, can not be ignorant, that the vse of this word, & the like, is passiue, though* 1.253 sometime it may also signifie actiuely: but that is so rare in com∣parison of the other, that no man lightly will vse it, & I am well assured, it would be counted a fault, & some lacke of skill, if one now in his writings that would expresse this in Greeke, God filleth all thinges with his blessing, shoulde saye, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and, The wine filleth the cuppe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aske them that haue skill, and controule me▪ Contrari∣wise, if one would saye passiuely, All thinges are filled with Gods blessing, The cuppe is filled with wine, Such a pro∣phecie is fulfilled. What meane Grecian would not say, as S.

Chrysostome here expoundeth this word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vsing it pos∣siuely?

FVLK. 7. Marke howe malice carieth this man al∣most into madnesse. For who but a madde man woulde thinke, that Beza opposeth prophane writers to Ecclesi∣asticall doctours, for vnderstanding of the Scripture? The meane verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the meanest Grammarian in the world knoweth to be taken both actiuely & pas∣siuely by the Grammar rule De verbo medio, Beza pro∣ueth out of Xenophon, and Plato, that it is and may be vsed actiuely. Why not therfore in this place of S. Paule, where bothe the sense requireth it, that one thing be not repeated twise without necessary cause, and the con∣struction of the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 calleth for it, which other∣wise is lefte at randon, without any gouernment? Seeing therefore we haue the common rule of Grammar, and the example of eloquent writers for vse, I maruaile what M. Martine meaneth to waste so many wordes about so cleare a matter. No man that knoweth any thing, doub∣teth but that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be, and is often taken passiue∣ly: But seing it is also found to be a verbe meane, who neede to be afraide to vse it actiuely (hauing Xenophon and Plato for his warrant) yea euen in those examples you put of Gods blessing filling all things, or the wine filling the cuppe, if any man would speake so. But if be∣cause the worde is more vsually taken passiuely, men would refraine so to speake, yet why should we thinke that S. Paule did not vse it actiuely? when the actiue sig∣nification is more agreeable, both with his wordes, and with his meaning. But least you shoulde thinke Beza is alone, which taketh it actiuely, what say you to Philip∣pus Montanus one of your owne profession, which in his animaduersions vpon Theophlyactes translation, by him corrected, sayth vpon this place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qui adimplet, vel adimpletur, verbum enim est medium, passiuè autem videtur accipere Theophylactus.

Which filleth, or which is filled: for it is a verbe of indifferent signification, actiue or

passiue, but Theophylact seemeth to take it passiuely.

What say you to Isidorus Clarius, who although in his text he readeth passiuely, yet in his note, cōfesseth it may be takē either passiuely or actiuely. For this is his note. Plenitudo eius\] per omnia enim membra adimpletur corpus Christi, quia omnia in omnibus implet, dum ipse agit in omni∣bus, vel per omnes homines haec implet membra. Siue pleni••u∣dinem & complementum omne suum habet ipsa ecclesia ab illo, qui omnia in omnibus adimplet.

That is the fulnesse of him\] for by all the members the bodie of Christ is filled, be∣cause he filleth all in all, while he worketh in all, or throughout all men filleth these members. Or else the Church hir selfe hath all hir fulnesse and accōplishment of him, which filleth al in al.

These mē both Papists, were as good Grecians (I warrant you) as M. Gregorie Martin is, or euer will be, by whom if he will not be controlled, it were folly to presse him with the iudgement of our Greeke readers, which he requireth.

MART. 8. Yet (saith Beza) this is a forced interpre∣tation, because Xenophon forsooth and Plato (once perhaps in all their whole workes) vse it otherwise. O hereticall blindnesse or rather stubburnnesse, that calleth that forced, which is moste common and vsuall: and seeth not that his owne translation is forced, because it is against the common vse of the worde. But no maruel. For he that in other places thinketh it no forced in∣terpretation, to translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be conteined, Which ney∣ther* 1.254 Xenophon, nor Plato, nor any Greeke author will allow him to do, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 carcas, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. prouidence, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.255 them that amēd their liues, may much more in this place dis∣semble* 1.256 his forced interpretatiō of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But why he should* 1.257 call S. Chrysostoms interpretation forced, which is the cōmon and vsuall interpretation, that hath no more reason, than if a very theefe should say to an honest man, Thou art a theefe, and not I.

FVLK. 8. I haue shewed how it is inforced, because in taking the participle passiuely, you must either be en∣forced to admitte a playne soloecisme, where none nee∣deth: or else you must hardly vnderstande the preposi∣tion

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to gouerne, the accusatiue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Montanus telleth you in Theophylact, and as Oecumenius doth, & the sense wil be no more than is contained in the worde Complemenium. Whereas by taking it actiuely, the won∣derfull goodnesse of Christ shineth toward his Church, who although he needeth nothing to make him perfect, as Chysostome saith, but supplieth al things in al things, yet it is his gratious pleasure, to accoumpt him selfe im∣perfect without his Church, which he hath vnited to him as his bodie, in which he is not perfect without all his members.

As for your vayne and tedious repetition, lyke the Cuckowes songe, of Bezaes misprisions, I will not stand so often to answere, as you are disposed to rehearse thē: Only I must admonish the reader, of a piece of your cun∣ning, that in repeating the participle, you chaunge the temps, and for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as though it were the preterperfect temps, whiche can not bee taken, but only passiuely. I know the Printer shall beare the blame of this ouersight, but in the meane time it maketh a litle shew, to a yong Grecian, that considereth it not.

MART. 9. Is it forced Beza, that Christe is filled all in all by the Church? doth not S. Paul in the very next wordes before, call the Churche the fulnesse of Christ, saying, Which* 1.258 is the fulnesse of him that is filled all in al? If the Church be the, fulnesse of him, then is he filled or hath his fulnesse of the Church, so that he is not a maymed head without a bodie. This would S. Paule say, if you would giue him leaue, and this he doth say, whether you will or no. But what is the cause that they will not suffer the Apostle to say so? because (saith Beza) Christe needeth no such complement. And if he needeth it not, then may he be without a Church, and con∣sequently it is no absurditie, if the Church hath bene for many yeares not only inuisible, but also not at all. Would a man easi∣ly at the first imagine or conceiue that there were such secrete poison in their translation?

FVLK. 9. You should vrge Beza with a Latine Epi∣stle, seeing you are so earnest in the matter. I haue tolde you that the sense of Chrysostome is true, but not flow∣ing easily from the wordes of S. Paule. That Christ hath his fulnesse of the Churche, it is graunted by Beza vpon the worde Plenitudo or Complemenium, as you can not be ignorant, if you haue redde Bezaes Annotations, as you pretende. But you charge Beza to say, that Christ nee∣deth no such complement. Bezaes wordes are as I haue sett hem downe before, Vt sciamus Christum per se, non in∣digere hoc supplemento, that wee may knowe that Christe of him selfe, needeth not this supplie. Is this al one, with that you report him to say? No his saying was too long for your theeuish bedde, and therefore you cut of Perse of him selfe, or by him selfe. What say you? Dare you affirme that Christe of him selfe in respect of his diuine nature, hath neede of any complement? That Christe hath had alwaies a Churche since the beginning of the worlde, and shall haue to the ende, Beza dothe plaine∣ly in an hundreth places confesse: neither can it be o∣therwise proued by this translation, nor vet (by Bezaes wordes that Christe of him selfe is perfect and needeth no supply) but that it pleaseth him to become the head of the Churche, as of his bodie, whiche his diuine and mercifull pleasure, seeing it is immutable, Christe can not be without his Churche, nor the Churche without him. Yea as Beza in plaine wordes affirmeth, this is our whole hope and consolation, that Christ esteemeth him selfe an vnperfect head, and maymed of his mem∣bers, excepte he haue his Churche adioyned to him as his bodie.

MART. 10. Againe, it commeth from the same pud∣dle of Geneua, that in their Bibles so called, the English Be∣zites* 1.259 translate against the vnitie of the Catholike Church. For whereas them selues are full of sectes and dissensions, and the true Church is knowen by vnitie, and hath this marke giuen her by Christe him selfe, in whose person Salomon speaking saith,

Vna est columba mea, that is, One is my doue, or, My* 1.260 doue is one. Therefore in steede hereof, the foresayed Bible* 1.261 sayeth, My doue is alone: Neither Hebrue nor Greeke* 1.262 worde hauing that signification, but being as proper to signifie one, as Vnus in Latine.

FVLK. 10. He that hath any nose may smel, that this censure commeth from the stinking puddle of Po∣pish malice. For he that sayth my doue is alone. Cant. 6. 8. doth a great deale more strongly aduouche the vnitie of the Church, than he that sayeth my doue is one. For whereas Salomon sayeth in the verse going immediatly before. There are three score Queenes, and foure score concubines, and of the damsels without number, if you adde thereto my doue is one: it may bee thought she is one of those last mentioned. But if you say as the Gene∣ua Bible doth, but my doue is alone, and my vndefiled is the onely daughter of her mother: Nowe the church is excepted from all the rest of the Queenes, concubines, and damsels. And where you say, the Hebrue hath not that signification, I pray you goe no further, but euen to the same verse, and tell me whether the sense be, that, she is one of her mothers daughters, or the only daughter of her mother? Here therefore (as almost euery where) you doe nothing, but seeke a knot in a rush.

MART. 11. But we beseeche euerie indifferent Reader, euen for his soules health to consider that one point specially before mentioned of their abandoning the name of Church for so many yeares out of their Englishe Bibles: thereby to defeate the strongest argument that might and may possibly be brought against them and all other Heretikes: to wit, the authoritie of the Church which is so many wayes and so greatly recommended vnto all Christians in ho'y Scriptures. Consider (I pray you) what a malitious intention they had herein. First, that the name Church shoulde neuer sound in the common peoples eares out of the Scriptures: secondly, that as in other things, so in this also it might seeme to the ignoraunt a good argument against the authoritie of the Church, to say, We finde not this worde

(Church) in all the holy Scriptures. For as in other articles they say so, because they finde not the expresse word in the holy Scripture, so did they well prouide, that the worde (Church) in the holy Scriptures should not stay or hinder their schismaticall and hereticall proceedings, as long as that was the only English translation, that was read and liked among the people: that is, so long till they had by preaching taken away the Catholike Chur∣ches credit and authorite altogither, among the ignorant by op∣posing the Scriptures thereunto, which them selues had thus falsely translated.

FVLK. 11. We trust euerie indifferent Reader wil consider, that they which translated the Greeke worde Ecclesia, the congregation, and admonished in the notes that they did by that worde meane the church, and they which in the creede might haue translated Ecclesiam Ca∣tholicam, the vniuersall congregation, taught all chil∣dren to say, I beleue the Catholike churche, coulde haue no such deuilish meaning as this malicious sclaun∣derer, of his owne heade doeth imagine. For who euer hearde any man reason thus. This worde church is not found in the Scripture, therefore the church must be de∣spised, &c. Rather it is like (beside other reasons before alleaged) that those first translatours, hauing in the olde Testament out of the Hebrue translated the wordes Ca∣hal Hadath, and such other for the congregation (where the Papistes will not translate the church, although their Latine text be Ecclesia, as appeareth, Act. 7. where they call it assembly) thought good to retaine the word con∣gregation, throughout the newe Testament also, least it might be thought of the ignoraunt, that God had no church in the time of the olde Testament. Howsoeuer it was, they departed neither from the word, nor meaning of the holy Ghost: nor from the vsage of that word Ec∣clesia, which in the Scripture signifieth as generally, a∣ny assembly, as the worde Congregation doeth in En∣glishe.

CHAP. VI.

Hereticall translation against PRIEST and PRIESTHOODE.

Martin.

BVt because it may be, they will stande here v∣pon* 1.263 their later translations, which haue the name Church, (because by that time they sawe the absurditie of chaunging the name, & now their number was increased, and them selues beganne to challenge to be the true Church, though not the Catholike: and for former times when they were not, they deuised an inuisible Church) If then they will stande vpon their later translations, and refuse to iustifie the former: let vs demaund of them concerning all their Englishe transla∣tion, why and to what ende they suppresse the name Priest, trāslating it Elder, in all places where the holy Scripture would signifie by Presbyter and Presbyterium, the Priestes and Priesthoode of the new Testament?

Fulke.

IF any errour haue escaped the former* 1.264 translations, that hath bene reformed in the later, all reasonable men ought to be satisfied with our owne correc∣tions. But because we are not charged with ouersights and small faults com∣mitted either of ignorāce, or of negli∣gence, but with shamelesse trāslations, wilful & heretical corruptions, we may not acknowledge any such crimes,

whereof our conscience is cleare. That we deuised an in∣uisible church, because we were few in number, whē our translations were first printed, it is a lewde sclaunder. For being multiplied (as we are God be thanked) we holde still that the Catholike church, which is the mo∣ther of vs all, is inuisible, and that the church on earth may at sometimes be driuen into suche streights, as of the wicked it shall not be knowen. And this we helde alwayes, and not otherwise. Nowe touching the worde Presbyter, and Presbyterium why we translate them not Priest, and Priesthoode of the new Testament, we haue giuen sufficient reason before: but because we are here vrged a freshe, we must aunswere as occasion shall bee offered.

MART. 2. Vnderstand gentle Reader, their wily pollicie therein is this. To take away the holy sacrifice of the Masse, they take away both altar and Priest, because they know right well that these three (Priest, sacrifice, and altar) are depen∣dentes and consequentes one of an other, so that they can not be separated. If there be an externall sacrifice, there must be an external Priesthoode to offer it, an altar to offer the same vpon. So had the Gentiles their sacrifices, Priestes, and altars: so had the Iewes: so Christ him selfe being a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec, had a sacrifice, his bodie: and an altar, his Crosse, vpon the which he offered it. And because he insti∣tuted this sacrifice to continue in his Church for euer, in com∣memoration and representation of his death, therefore did he withall ordaine his Apostles Priests at his last supper, there & then instituted the holy order of Priesthoode and Priestes (saying, hoc faecite, Do this:) to offer the selfe same sacrifice* 1.265 in a mysticall and vnblouddie maner, vntill the worldes end.

FVLK. 2. In denying the blasphemous sacrifice of the popish masse, with the altar, & priesthood, that therto belongeth, we vse no wily policie, but with open mouth at all times, and in all places, we cry out vpon it. The sa∣crifices, priestes, and altars of the Gentiles, were abho∣minable. The sacrifices of the Iewes, their priestes, and

altars, are all accomplished and finished in the onely sa∣crifice of Christ our high Priest, offered once for all, vp∣on the altar of the crosse: which Christ our Sauiour, see∣ing he is a Priest, according to the order of Melchise∣dech, hath an eternall priesthood, and such as passeth not by succession, Heb. 7. Therefore did not Christ at his last supper, institute any externall propitiatory sacrifice of his bodie and bloud, but a sacrament, ioyned with the spirituall sacrifice of praise, and thankes giuing. Which sacrament being administred by the ministers thereto appoynted, the sacrifice is common to the whole Church of the faithfull, who are all spirituall priestes, to offer vp spirituall sacrifices, as much as the minister of the worde and sacraments.

MART. 3. To defeate all this, and to take away all ex∣ternall priesthood and sacrifice, they by corrupt translation of the holy Scriptures, make them cleane dumme, as though they had not a word of any such Priestes, or Priesthood as we speake of. Their Bibles (we graunt) haue the name of Priestes very often, but that is when mention is made eyther of the Priests of the Iewes, or of the Priests of the Gentiles (specially when they are reprehended & blamed in the holy Scriptures) and in such places our Aduersaries haue the name Priests in there transla∣tions, to make the very name of Priest odious among the com∣mon ignorant people. Againe they haue also the name Priests, when they are taken for all maner of men, women, or children, that offer internall and spirituall sacrifices, whereby our Ad∣uersaries would falsely signifie that there are no other Priestes,* 1.266 as one of them of late freshly auoucheth, directly against S. Au∣gustine, who in one briefe sentence distinguisheth Priests pro∣perly so called in the Church, and Priests as it is a cōmon name to all Christians. Lib. 20. de Ciuit. Dei, cap. 10. This name then of Priest and Priesthood properly so called (as S. Augustine saith) which is an order distinct from the Laitie and vulgar people, ordained to offer Christ in an vnbloudy maner in sacri∣fice to his heauenly father for vs, to preach & minister the Sa∣craments, and to be the Pastors of the people) they wholy sup∣presse

in their translations, & in all places where the holy scri∣pture calleth them, Presbyteros, there they neuer translate Priestes, but Elders. And that they doe obserue so duely and so warily, and with so full and generall consent in all their En∣glish* 1.267 Bibles, as the Puritans doe plainly confesse, and M. Whit. gift denieth it not, that a man would wonder to see how carefull they are, that the people may not once heare the name of any such Priest, in all the holy scriptures,

FVLK. 3. Nowe you haue gotten a fine nette to daunce naked in, that no ignorant blinde bussarde can see you. The maskes of your nette be the ambiguous and abusiue significations of this worde Priest, which in deede according to the originall deriuation from Presbyter, should signifie nothing else, but an Elder, as we translate it, that is, one appoynted to gouerne the Church of God, according to his word: but not to offer sacrifice for the quicke and the deade. But by vsurpation it is commonly taken, to signifie a sacrificer, such as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in Greeke, and sacerdos in Latine, by which names, the ministers of the Gospell are neuer called by the ho∣ly Ghost. After this common acception, and vse of this word Priest, we call the sacrificers of the olde Te∣stament, and of the Gentiles also: because the Scripture calleth them by one name Cohanin, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but because the Scripture calleth the ministers of the newe Testa∣ment by diuerse other names, and neuer by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we thought it necessary to obserue that distin∣ction, which we see the holye Ghost so precisely hath obserued. Therefore where the Scripture calleth them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we call them according to the etymologie, Elders, and not Priestes: which worde is taken vp by common vsurpation, to signifie sacrificers of Iewes, Gentiles, or Papistes, or else all Christians, in respect of spirituall sacrifices. And although Augustine, and o∣ther of the auncient fathers, call the ministers of the newe Testament, by the name of sacerdotes, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifie the ministers of the olde Testament: yet

the authoritie of the holy Ghost, making a perfect di∣stinction betweene these two appellations, and functiōs, ought to be of more estimation with vs. The Fathers were content to speake in Latin & Greeke, as the termes were taken vp by the common people newly conuerted from gentilitie, but yet they retained the difference of the sacrificing priesthood, of the one, and the ministe∣riall office of the other. This may suffice therefore to render a reason, why we vse not the worde Priest for Mi∣nisters of the new Testament: not that we refuse it in re∣spect of the etymologie, but in respect of the vse & com∣mon signification thereof.

MART. 4. As for example in their translations. When there fell a question about circumcision, They determined* 1.268 that Paule and Barnabas should goe vp to Hierusalem* 1.269 vnto the Apostles and ELDERS, about this question. Act. 15. And againe, They were receyued of the * 1.270 con∣gregation and of the Apostles and ELDERS. Againe, The Apostles and Elders came togither to reason of this matter. Againe, Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders with the whole congregation to sende &c. Againe, The Apostles and Elders and brethren sende greeting &c. Againe, They deliuered them the decrees for to keepe,* 1.271 that were ordained of the Apostles and ELDERS. If in all these places they had translated Priests (as in deede they should haue done according to the Greke word) it had then dis∣aduantaged them this much, that men would haue thought, both the dignitie of Priestes to be great, and also their authoritie in Councels, as being here ioyned with the Apostles, to be greatly reuerenced and obeyed. To keepe the people from all suche holy and reuerent cogitations of Priestes, they put Elders, a name wherewith our holy Christian forefathers eares were neuer ac∣quainted, in that sense.

FVLK. 4. In al those places by you rehearsed, Act. 15. and 16. your owne vulgar Latine text hath seniores, which you had rather call auncients (as the French Protestants call the Gouernours of their Churches,) than Elders,

as we doe. That Popish Priestes should haue any digni∣tie or authoritie in Councels, wee doe flatly denie: but that the Seniors, Auncients, Elders, or Priests (if you wil) of the new Testament, should haue as much dignitie and auctoritie, as Gods worde doth afford them, we desire with all our hartes. That our Christian Forefathers eares were not acquainted with the name of Elders, it was be∣cause the name of Priest in their time, soūded according to the etymologie, and not according to the corruption of the Papistes: otherwise I thinke their eares were as much acquainted with the name of Elders, which we vse, as with the name of Auncientes, and Seniors, that you haue newly taken vp, not for that they differ in significa∣tion from Elders, but because you woulde differ from vs.

MART. 5. But let vs goe forward. We haue heard of∣ten and of old time, of making of Priestes: and of late yeares also, of making Ministers: but did ye euer here in all England of making Elders? Yet by these mens translations it hath bene in England a phrase of Scripture this thirtie yeare: but it must needes be verie straunge, that this making of Elders hath not all this while bene practised and knowen, no not among them selues in any of their Churches within the realme of Englande. To Titus they make the Apostle say thus, For this cause left* 1.272 I thee in Creta, that thou shouldest ordaine ELDERS in euerie citie, &c. Againe of Paule and Barnabas: When* 1.273 they had ordained Elders by Election, in euerie con∣gregration.* 1.274 * 1.275 Act. 14. If they had sayed plainely as it is in the Greeke, and as our forefathers were wont to speake, and the truth is: Titus was le••t in Creta to ordaine Priestes in e∣uerie citie: and, Paule and Barnabas made Priestes in euerie Church: then the people would haue vnderstoode them they know such speaches of old, & it had bene their ioy & com∣fort to heare it specified in holy Scriptures. Now they are tolde an other thing, in suche newnesse of speaches and wordes, of El∣ders to be made in euery citie & congregation, and yet not one citie nor congregation to haue any Elders in all Englande, that

we know not what is prophane noueltie of wordes, which the A∣postle* 1.276 willeth to be auoided, if this be not an exceeding profane noueltie.

FVLK. 5. When you haue gottē a bable, you make more of it than of the towre of London, for you haue neuer done playing with it. It must needes be a clarkely argument, that is drawne from the vulgar speaches of making Priests, and making Ministers. Those Priests or Ministers, that are made among vs, are the same Elders that the Scripture in Greeke calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Bishops letters of orders, testifying of their ordination, call them by none other name, but by the name of Pre∣sbyteri, which the Scripture vseth: which terme though in English you sounde it Priests, Elders, Auncients, Se∣niors, or Ministers, which is the common peoples worde, it is the same office which is described by the holy ghost, Tit. 1. and in other places of Scripture. As for the pro∣phane noueltie wherewith this worde Elder is changed, we will consider of it in the next section.

MART. 6. That it is noueltie to all English Christian eares, it is euident. And it is also profane, because they do so En∣glish the Greeke worde of ordaining (for of the worde Pres∣byter* 1.277 * 1.278 we will speake more anone) as if they should translate Demosthenes, or the lawes of Athens concerning their choosing of Magistrates, which was by giuing voices with lifting vp their handes. So do they force this worde here, to induce the peoples election, and yet in their Churches in England the people elect not ministers, but their Bishop. Whereas the holy Scripture* 1.279 saith, they ordained to the people: and what soeuer force the word hath, it is here spoken of the Apostles, and pertaineth not* 1.280 to the people, and therefore in the place to Titus it is another* 1.281 worde which cannot be forced further, than to ordaine and ap∣point. And they might know (if malice and Heresic would suffer them to see and confesse it) that the holy Scriptures, and fathers, and Ecclesiasticall custome, hath drawen this and the like words from their profane and common signification, to a more peculiar and Ecclesiasticall speach: as Episcopus, an ouerseer in

Tulite, is a Bishop in the new Testament.

FVLK. 6. The name Elders vsed in our translation, is neither more nouell to English eares, nor more pro∣phane to godly eares, than the name Auncients, which your translation vseth. And yet I thinke the Apostle 1. Tim. 6. spake not of noueltie to English eares, but of that which was newe to the eares of the Churche of God. But the worde Elders (I weene) muste be pro∣phane, because we English the Greeke worde of ordei∣ning, as if wee should translate Demosthenes, or the Lawes of Athens concerning the choosing of Magi∣strates. Doth not this cauill redounde more against the holy Ghost, to accuse his stile of prophanenesse, which v∣seth the same wordes for the ordeining of Priestes, that Demosthenes or the lawes of Athēs might vse for choo∣sing of their Magistrates? But this worde we enforce (you say) to enduce the peoples election, and yet the Bishop, not the people, elect our ministers. We meane not to enforce any other election than the worde doth signifie. Neyther doth our Bishops (if they doe well) ordeine any Ministers or Priestes without the Testimo∣nie of the people, or at leastwise of such as be of moste credite where they are knowne. Where you vrge the pronowne, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to them, as though the people gaue no consent nor testimonie, it is more than ridiculous: and beside that, contrarie to the practise of the primitiue Churche▪ for many hundreth yeares after the Apostles, as also that you would inforce vpon the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vsed by S. Paule, Tit. 1. as though that worde of con∣stitution, did exclude election. That the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Fathers of the Church since the Apostles, hath bene drawne to other signification than it had before, it is no reason to teach vs howe it was vsed by the Apo∣stles. Election is an indifferent thing, the election of Bishops, Elders, or Priestes is an holy thing, the holy∣nesse whereof is not included in the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but in the holy institution of Christ, and authoritie by

appointment deliuered, by imposition of the handes of the Eldership.

MART. 7. And cōcerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which we now speake of, S. Hierom telleth them (in c. 58. Esai.) that it signifieth Cle∣ricorum* 1.282 ordinationem, that is, giuing of holy orders, whiche is done not onely by praier of the voice, but by* 1.283 imposition of the hande: according to S. Paul vnto Ti∣mothee, Manus citò nemini imposueris. Impose or put hands quickly on no man. That is, be not hastie or easie to giue holy orders. Where these great etymologistes, that so* 1.284 straine the originall nature of this worde to profane stretching forth the hand in elections, may learne an other Ecclesiasticall erymologie thereof, as proper and as well deduced of the worde as the other, to wit, putting forth the hand to giue orders: and so they shall finde it is all one with that which the Apostle cal∣leth imposition of hands, 1. Tim. 4 2. Tim 1: and consequently, for, ordaining Elders by election, they should haue sayd, ordaining or making Priests by imposition of handes: as else where S. Paule, 1. Tim. 5. and the Actes of the Apo∣stles (Act. 6. and 13.) do speake in the ordaining of the seuen Deacons and of S. Paul and Barnabas.

FVLK. 7. The testimonie of S. Hierome whom you* 1.285 cite, you vnderstand not, for speaking there of the ex∣tension of the finger, which the septuaginta translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and God requireth to be taken away: he saith, Many of our interpreters do vnderstande it of the ordi∣nation of Clerkes,

which is performed not onely at the imprecation of voice, but also at the imposition of hāds, least as we haue laughed at in some men, the secrete im∣precation of the voyce should ordaine Clerkes, being ignorant thereof. And so proceedeth to inueigh against the abuse of them,

that would ordaine Clerkes, of their basest officers, and seruitours, yea at the request of foo∣lish women. By which it is manifest, that his purpose is not to tell what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. properly doth signifie, but that imposition of handes, is required in lawfull ordi∣nation, which many did vnderstand by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

although in that place it signified no such matter. And therefore you muste seeke further authoritie to proue your Ecclesiasticall etymologie, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifi∣eth putting foorth of the handes to giue orders. The places you quote in the margent, out of the titles of Nazianzens sermons, are to no purpose, although they were in the texte of his Homilies. For it appeareth not, although by Synecdoche the whole order of ma∣king Clerkes were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that election was ex∣cluded where there was ordination by imposition of handes. As for that you cite out of Ignatius, pro∣ueth against you, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 differeth from impo∣sition of hands: because it is made a distinct office from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that signifieth to lay on handes? and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by your owne author doe differ.

MART. 8. But they are so profane and secular, that they translate the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in all the new Te∣stament, as if it had the old profane signification still, & were in∣different to signifie the auncients of the Iewes, the Senatours of Rome, the elders of Lacedemonia, and the Christian Clergie. In so much that they say, Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the El∣ders* 1.286 of the Church: Act. 20. and yet they were such as had their flockes, and cure of soules, as foloweth in the same place. They make S. Paul speake thus to Timothee, Neglect not the* 1.287 gift (so they had rather say than grace, lest holy orders should* 1.288 be a Sacrament) giuen thee with the laying on of the handes of the Eldership. or, by the authoritie of the* 1.289 Eldership. 1. Tim. 4. What is this companie of Eldership?* 1.290 Somewhat they woulde say like to the Apostles worde, but they will not speake plainly, least the worlde might heare out of the Scriptures, that Timothee was made Priest or Bishop euen as the vse is in the Catholike Churche at this day. Lette the* 1.291 fourth Councell of Carthage speake for bothe partes indiffe∣rently, and tell vs the Apostles meaning, A Prieste when hee taketh his orders, the Bishoppe blessing him and holding his hande vppon his head, let all the Priestes

also that are present, holde their handes by the Bishops hand vpon his head. So doe our priestes as this daye, when a Bishop maketh priests: and this is the laying on of the handes of the companie of Priests, which S. Paule speaketh of, & which they translate, the companie of the Eldership. Onely their former translation of 1562. in this place (by what chaunce or consideration we know not) let fall out of the penne, by the au∣thoritie of Priesthood.

FVLK. 8. We desire not to be more holy in the en∣glishe termes, than the holye Ghost was in the Greeke termes. Whome, if it pleased to vse such a word, as is in∣different to signifie the auncients of the Iewes, the Se∣nators of Rome, the Elders of Lacedemonia, and the Christian Cleargie, why shoulde we not truely tran∣slate it into English?

But I pray you in good sadnes, are we so profane, and secular, Act. 20. in calling those whome Saint Paule sent for out of Ephesus, Elders? What shall we saye then of the vulgar Latine text, which calleth them Maiores na∣tu? as though they obtayned that degree by yeares, rather than by any thing else? and why doe you so pro∣fanely, and secularly call them the Auncients of the Church? Is there more profanenesse and secularitie in the Englishe worde Elders, than in the Latine worde Maiores natu, or in your Frenchenglishe terme, Aun∣cients. Surely you doe nothing but play with the no∣ses of such as be ignorant in the tongues, and can per∣ceiue no similitude or difference of these wordes, but by the sounde of their eares. But nowe for the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vsed by Saint Paule, 1. Tim. 4. which we call the Eldershippe, or the companye of Elders, I haue shewed before, howe it is vsed by Saint Luke, in his Gospell, cap. 22. and Act. 22. You saye, we will not speake playnely, lest the worlde shoulde heare, that Timothie was made Priest, or Bishop, euen as the vse is in the Catholike Church at this day. And then you tell vs out of the Councell of Carthage, 4. cap. 3. that all

the Priestes present shoulde laye their handes on the heade of him that is ordayned, togither with the Bi∣shoppe. We knowe it well, and it is vsed in the Church of England, at this daye. Onely the terme of Elder∣ship displeaseth you, when we meane thereby the com∣panye of Elders. But whereas the translators of the Bible, 1562. call it Priesthood, eyther by Priesthood they meant the same that we doe by Eldershippe: or if they meant by Priesthood, the office of Priestes, or El∣ders, they were deceiued. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth, a companie of Elders, as it is twise vsed by S. Luke, and of∣tentimes by the auncient writers of the Church, both Greekes and Latines.

MART. 9. Otherwise in all their English Bibles, all the bells ringe one note, as, The Elders that rule well, are worthye of double honour. And, Against an Elder re∣ceiue no accusation, but vnder two or three witnesses, 1. Tim. 5. And, If any be diseased among you, let him* 1.292 call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray o∣uer him, and annoynt him with oyle, &c. Iacob. 5. Wher∣as* 1.293 Saint Chrysostom out of this place, proueth the high dignitie of Priestes in remitting sinnes, in his booke entituled, Of Priesthood, vnlesse they will translate that title also, Of El∣dershippe.* 1.294 Againe, they make S. Peter saye thus: The El∣ders which are among you, I exhort, which am also an Elder, feedeye Christes flocke, as much as lyeth in you, &c. 1. Pet 5.

FVLK. 9. In these three textes you triumphe not a litle, because your vulgar Latine text hath the Greeke worde Presbyter. The high dignitie of Priestes, or El∣ders, in remitting sinnes, we acknowledge with Chry∣sostom, in his booke entitled of Priesthood: which se∣ing it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we will neuer translate Eldershippe. But we may lawfully wishe, that both Chrysostom, and other auncient writers, had kept that distinction of termes, which the Apostles and Euangelists did so pre∣cisely obserue. In the last text, 1. Pet. 5. your vulgar La∣tine

sayth, Seniores and Consenior, your selues in English, seniors, and fellow senior. What trespasse then haue we committed, in saying Elders, & fellow Elder, or an Elder also?

MART. 10. Where if they wil tel vs (as also in certaine* 1.295 other places) that our Latine translation hath Seniores, and maiores natu: we tel them, as heretofore we haue told them, that this is nothing to them, who professe to translate the Greeke. Againe we say, that if they meant no worse than the olde Latine translator did, they would be as indifferent as he, to haue sayde sometime Priests, & Priesthood, when he hath the words Pres∣byteros & Presbyterium: as we are indifferent in our tran∣slation, saying Seniors and Auncients, when we finde it so in our Latine: being well assured that by sundry wordes he meant but one thing, as in Greeke it is but one, & as both Erasmus, & also Beza him selfe alwaies translate it, keeping the name Presbyter & Presbyteri: of whome by reason they should haue learned, rather than of our Latine translator, whom otherwise they con∣demne. And if they say, they doe follow them, & not him, because they translate not Senior, & maior natu, but the word Pres∣byter, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Elder, in all places: we tell them, and herein we conuent their conscience, that they doe it to take away the externall Priesthood of the new Testament, and to suppresse the name Priest, against the Ecclesiasticall, & (as nowe since Christ) very proper & vsual signification thereof, in the newe Testament, councels, & fathers, in all common writing and spea∣king: specially the Latine Presbyter, which grew to this signifi∣cation out of the Greeke, in the foresayd places of holy scripture.

FVLK. 10. I haue told you already, & you could not but know, that it should be told you, that seeing we tran∣slate none otherwise, thā your vulgar Latine trāslator, we are no more to be blamed of falshood, corruption, pro∣fanenesse, nouelty, thā he is, who professed to traslate the Greeke as much as we do. But if we had meant no worse (say you) than he, we would haue bene as indifferent to haue said somtimes priest & priesthood, where he hath the word Presbyteros, & Presbyteriū. I aunswer, Presbyteriū he

hath but once, and for that you haue Priesthood once, as you confessed before. And if the name Priest were of the same vnderstanding in common English, that the worde Presbyter is, from whence it is deriued, we woulde neuer haue sought more wordes for it, than we doe for the wordes Bishoppe, Deacon, and such like.

The wordes Presbyter, and Presbyterium, you confesse, that Beza doth alwayes vse, and so doe we, when we write or speake Latine, but we can not vse them in En∣glish, except we shoulde be as fonde as you in your gratis, deposi••um, and suche fantasies. And to tell you plainely, as our conscience beareth vs witnesse, we will neuer dissemble, that we auoyde that worde Priest, as it is vsed to signifie a sacrificer, because we would shew a perfect distinction, betwene the priesthood of the lawe, and the ministerye of the Gospell: betwene Sa∣cerdos, and Presbyter, a sacrificer, and a gouernor of the Church. And I appeale to your owne conscience, whether if the Englishe worde Priest, were as indif∣ferent as Presbyter, and sounded no more towardes a sacrifice, than either Presbyter, or your owne En∣glishe wordes, Auncient, and Senior, whether (I saye) you woulde make so muche a doe about it, for to haue it in all places of the Newe Testament, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in the Greeke. But seeing your po∣pishe sacrificing power, and blasphemous sactifice of your Masse, hath no manner grounde at all in the ho∣lye Scriptures, eyther in the originall Greeke, or in your owne Latine translation, you are driuen to seeke a seelye shadowe for it, in the abusiue acception and sounding of the Englishe worde, Priest, and priest∣hoode. And therefore you doe in the seconde secti∣on of this chapiter, in greate earnest affirme, that Priest, sacrifice, and altar, are dependents, and con∣sequents, one of another, so that they can not be se∣parated. If you shoulde saye in Latine Sacerdos, sacrifi∣cium,

altare▪ or in Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be such consequents, we will all subscribe vnto you: but if you will chaunge the first word, and say Presbyter, sacrificium, altare, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, euerie learned mans eares will gloe, to heare you say, they are dependents and consequentes inseparable. Therefore we must needes distinguish of the word Priest, in your Co∣rollarie, for you meane thereby Sacerdotem, we graunt the consequence of sacrifice and altar, but if you meane Presbyterium, we deny that euer God ioyned those three in an vnseparable bande, or that Presbyter in that he is Presbyter, hath any thing to doe with sacrifice, or altar, more than Senior, or Maicr natu, or Auncient, or El∣der.

MART. 11. Insomuch that immediatly in the first Ca∣nons* 1.296 and Councels of the Apostles and their successors, nothing is more common than this distinction of Ecclesiasticall degrees and names, Si Episcopus, vel Presbyter, vel Diaconus, &c. If any Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon doe this or that. Which if the Protestantes or Caluinistes will translate after their maner thus, If a Bishoppe, or Elder, or Deacon, &c. they doe against them selues, which make Presbyter or Elder a common name to all Ecclesiastical persons: and not a peculiar degree, next vnto a Bishop. So that either they must condemne all antiquity for placing Presbyter in the 2. degree after a Bi∣shoppe, or they must translate it Priest as we doe, or they must make Elder to be their seconde degree, and so put Minister out of place.

FVLK. 11. The distinction of Episcopus▪ and Pres∣byter to signifie seuerall offices, we graunt to be of great antiquitie, albeit we may not admitte the counterfaite Canons of the Apostles, nor the Epistles of Ignatius, for suche mens writings as they beare the name to be. We make Presbyter, or Elder, a common name to all Eccle∣siasticall persons, none otherwise, than you doe this word Priest. For Deacons with vs, are not called Presby∣teri, or Elders. As for the distinction of Bishoppes and

Elders names, which the Scripture taketh for the same, doth no more condemne all antiquity in vs, than in you. Who acknowledge that the Scripture vseth those names without distinctiō, in your note vpon Act. 20. v. 28. where they are called Bishoppes, which before ver. 17. are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

which you translate Auncients, and expound Priests: and thus you write. Bishops or Priests (for those names were sometime vsed indifferently, Gouernours of the Churche of God, and placed in that roome and high function by the holy Ghost.

But it seemeth you haue small regard to defende your owne notes, so you might find occasion to quarrell at our wordes.

MART. 12. And here we must aske them, how this name* 1.297 Minister came to be a degree distinct from a Deacon, whereas* 1.298 by their owne rule of translation, Deacon is nothing else but a Minister: & why keepe they the old and vsuall Ecclesiasticall* 1.299 name of Deacon in translating Diaconus, and not the name of Priest, in translating Presbyter? Doeth not Priest come of Presbyter as certainly and as agreeably as Deacon of Diaco∣nus?* 1.300 Doth not also the French and Italian word for Priest come directly from the same? Will you alwaies followe fansie and not reason, doe what you list, translate as you list, and not as the truth is, and that in the holy Scriptures, which you boast and vaunt so much of? Because your selues haue thē whom you call Bishops, the name Bishops is in your Englishe Bibles, which o∣therwise by your owne rule of translation, should be called an O∣uerseer or Superintendent: likewise Deacon you are content to vse as an Ecclesiasticall word so vsed in antiquitie, because you also haue those whom you call Deacons: Only Priests must be turned contemptuously out of the text of the holy Scriptures, & Elders put in their place, because you haue no Priestes, nor will none of them, and because that is in controuersie betwene vs. And as for Elders, you haue none permitted in Englād, for feare of ouerthrowing your Bishops office and the Queenes supreame gouernment in all spiritual things and causes. Is not this to fol∣lowe the humour of your heresie, by Machiauels politike rules without any feare of God?

FVLK. 12. Here I must aunswere you, that we haue no degree of Ministers distinct from Deacons, but by vulgar and popular vse of speaking, which we are not cu∣rious to controule. Otherwise, in truth, we account Bi∣shops, Elders, and Deacons, all Ministers of the Church. It is no more therefore, but the common speache of men, which vseth that worde, which is common to all Ecclesiasticall persons, as peculiar to the Elders, or Priestes. Why we keepe the name of Deacons in trans∣lating Diaconus, rather than of Priestes, in translating Presbyter, I haue tolde you often before. The name Priest being by long abuse of speache applied to signifie Sacrificers of the olde Testament, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we could not giue the same name to the Ministers of the new Te∣stament, except we had some other name whereby to call the Ministers of the olde Testament, wherein we followe reason, and not fansie, for it is great reason, we should retaine that difference in names of the Ministers of both the Testamentes, which the holy Ghost doth al∣waies obserue. But you follow fansie altogither, imagi∣ning that Priestes onely are put out of the text, because we haue no Priestes. Whereas we haue Priestes as well as we haue Bishops, and Deacons, and so are they called in our booke of common prayer indifferently Priestes, or Ministers. And where you say, we haue no Elders permitted in Englande, it is false, for those that are commonly called Bishoppes, Ministers, or Priestes a∣mong vs, be suche Elders as the Scripture commendeth vnto vs. And although we haue not suche a consisto∣rie of Elders, of gouernemente, as in the Primitiue Churche they had, and many Churches at this daye haue: yet haue wee also Elders of gouernement to exercise discipline, as Archbishoppes, and Bishoppes, with their Chauncellours, Archedeacons, Commis∣saries, Officialles, in whome if any defecte bee, we wishe it may be reformed according to the worde of God.

MART. 13. Apostles you say for the most parte in your translations (not alwayes) as we doe, and Prophetes, and E∣uangelistes, and Angels, and such like, & wheresoeuer there is no matter of controuersie betwene you and vs, there you can pleade verie grauely for keeping the auncient Ecclesiasticall* 1.301 wordes, as your maister Beza for example, beside many other places where he bitterly rebuketh his fellow Castal••ons transla∣tion, in one place writeth thus: I can not in this place dis∣semble* 1.302 the boldnesse of certaine men, which would God it rested within the compasse of words only. These men* 1.303 therefore concerning the worde Baptizing, though vsed of sacred writers in the mystery or Sacrament of the new Testament, and for so many yeares after, by the secrete consent of all Churches, consecrated to this one Sacra∣ment, so that it is now growen into the vulgar speaches* 1.304 almost of all nations, yet they dare presume rashly to chaunge it, and in place thereof to vse the word washing. Delicate men forsooth, which neither are moued with the perpetual authority of so many ages, nor by the dai∣ly custom of the vulgar speach, can be brought to thinke that lawfull for Diuines, which all men graunt to other Maisters and professors of artes: that is, to retaine and holde that as their owne, which by long vse and in good faith they haue truly possessed. Neither may they pretēd the authoritie of some auncient writers, as that Cyprian sayeth, TINGENTES, for BA••PTIZANTES, and Tertullian in a certaine place calleth SEQVESTREM, for MEDIATOREM. For that which was to those aun∣cientes as it were newe, to vs is olde: and euen then, that* 1.305 the selfe same words which we now vse, were familiar to the Church, it is euident, because it is very seldome that they speake otherwise. But these men by this noueltie seeke after vaine glorie, &c.

FVLK. 13. If in any place we vse not the name of the Apostles, Prophetes, Euangelists, Angels, and such like, wee are able to giue as sufficient a reason why we translate those wordes according to their Generall

signification, as you for translating somtime Baptismata, washings, and not baptismes, Ecclesia the assembly and not the Church, with such like. Therefore as Castaleo & such other Heretikes, are iustly reprehended by Beza, for leauing (without cause) the vsuall Ecclesiasticall termes, so when good cause or necessitie requireth not to vse them, it were superstition, yea and almost madnes some∣times in translating to vse them, as to call the Pharisees washings Baptismes, or the assembly of the Ephesiā Ido∣laters the Churche, yet both in Greeke and Latine the wordes are Baptismata, ecclesia.

MART. 14. He speaketh against Castaleon, who in his newe Latine translation of the Bible, changed all Ecclesiasticall wordes into profane and Heathenish, as Angelos into genios, Prophetas into Fatidicos, Templum into fanum, and so foorth. But that which he did for foolish affectation of finenesse and stile, do not our English Caluinistes the very same when they list, for furthering their Heresies? When the holy Scrip∣ture saith idols according as Christians haue alwayes vnder∣stood it for false goddes, they come and tell vs out of Homer and* 1.306 the Lexicons, that it may signifie an image, and therfore so they* 1.307 translate it. Do they not the like in the Greeke worde that by Ecclesiasticall vse signifieth, penaunce, and doing penaunce,* 1.308 when they argue out of Plutarch, and by the profane sense ther∣of, that it is nothing else but chaunging of the minde or amend∣ment of life? Whereas in the Greeke Church, Poenitentes, that is, they that were in the course of penance, and excluded from the Church, as Catechumeni, and Energumeni, till they had accomplished their penance, the very same are called in the Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.309

FVLK. 14. That Castaleo did for foolish affecta∣tiō of finenesse, you slaūder vs to do for furthering of he∣resie. And here againe with lothsomnes, you repeate your rotten quarrell of idols, translated images, which was to discouer your abhominable idolatrie, cloked vnder a blind & false distinction of images and idols. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we translate repentance, as you doe sometimes,

when you can not for shame vse your Popishe terme pe∣nance, by which you vnderstande satisfaction for sinne, which in diuerse places you are enforced to giue ouer in the plaine fielde, and to vse the terme repentance: as in the fift of the Actes. This Prince and Sauiour, God hath exalted with his right hand to giue repentance to Israell and remission of sinnes, likewise Act. 11. where the Scri∣pture speaketh of God giuing repentaunce to the Gen∣tils. And when you speake of Iudas, you say also repen∣ting him, so that the repentance of Iudas, and that which God gaue to Israell, and to the Gentils is vttered in one terme, whereas else you haue almost euerie where pe∣nance, and doing of penance. Where you say we make repentance nothing but chaunging of the minde, or a∣mendment of life, you speake vntruely, for not euerie chaunging of the minde is godly repentance, neither is only amendment of life all repentance: but there must be contrition, and sorowe for the life past. That in the Greeke Church they that were Catechumeni, and Energu∣meni, were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as are in repentance it maketh nothing against the true vse of the Greeke word, as it is vsed in the Scriptures. We know the disci∣pline of the Churche appointed an outwarde exercise of praying, fasting, and other humbling, for a trial, and te∣stimonie of true and hartie repentance, which was some times called by the name of repentaunce by a Meto∣nymia signi, whiche hee that will enforce by that name to bee partes of true and inwarde repentaunce, is as wise as hee that will contend the Iuy bushe to be a parte of wine, because some men seing it hang ouer the house, will say, loe here is wine.

MART. 15. They therefore leauing this Ecclesiasti∣call signification, and translating it according to Plutarch, doe they not much like to Castaleo? Doe they not the same,* 1.310 agaynst the famous and auncient distinction of Latrîa, and Dulîa, when they tell vs out of Eustathius vpon Homer, and Aristophanes the Grammarian, that these two are all one?

Whereas wee proue out of S. Augustine in many places, the* 1.311 seconde Councell of Nice, Venerable Bede, and the long cu∣stome of the Churche, that according to the Ecclesiasticall sense and vse deduced out of the Scriptures, they differ very much. Doe they not the like in Mysterium and Sacramentum, which they translate a Secrete in the profane sense, whereas they know how these wordes are otherwise taken both in Greeke and Latine, in the Church of God? did they not the like in the worde Ecclesia, when they translated it nothing else but con∣gregation? Doe they not the like in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which they tran∣slate, ordaining by election, as it was in the profane court of Athens: whereas S. Hierons telleth them, that Ecclesiasticall writers take it for giuing holy orders by imposition of hands? Do they not the like in many other wordes, wheresoeuer it serueth their hereticall purpose? And as for profane translation, is there any more profane than Beza him selfe, that so often in his annotations, reprehendeth the olde translation, by the authori∣tie of Tullie, and Terence, Homer, and Aristophanes, and the like profane authors? yea so fondly and childishly, that for Ol∣factum, which Erasmus vseth, as Plinies word, he will needes say, odoratum, because it is Tullies word.

FVLK. 15. In translating the Scripture, we vse the worde repentance, in the same signification, that the scri∣pture vseth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In other Ecclesiasticall writers, we can neuerthelesse vnderstand it, as they meane it. Con∣cerning that vnlearned distinction of Latria and Dulia, we doe rightly, to shewe out of profane writers, that it is vaine, and that the termes signifie all one, and you your selfe confesse in your marginall note, that sometimes in the Scripture 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doe not signifie the seruice and honour that is proper to God, as for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is in more than an hundred places, vsed for the seruice & honour proper to God. S. Augustine you confesse after∣ward, knew wel but one tōgue, & therfore he is no meete iudge of distinction of Greeke wordes. Bede followeth Augustines error. The idolaters of the 2. Nicene councel, were glad of a cloke for the raine, cōtrary to the property

of their tongue. As is proued by Eustathius, Aristopha∣nes, Xenophon, Suidas, and by later writers, no Prote∣stants, Laurentius Valla, and Ludouicus Viues. Mysteri∣um we translate a secret, or a mysterie, indifferently, the word signifying no more an holy secret, than a prophane and abhominable secrete, as the mysterie of iniquitie, the mysterie of Babylon. For the wordes Ecclesia, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we haue sayd sufficiently, and very lately. To vse Tul∣lies words, when they answer the Greeke, as properly as any barbarous wordes, or lesse commendable wordes, I knowe not why it shoulde be counted blame worthy in Beza, or in any man, except it be of such a Sycophant, as liketh nothing, but that which sauoureth of his owne spittle.

MART. 16. But to returne to our English translatours: doe not they the like to profane Castaleo, and doe they not the very same that Beza their Maister so largely reprehendeth, when they translate Presbyterum, an Elder? Is it not all one fault to translate so, and to translate, as Castaleo doth Baptis∣mum, washing? Hath not Presbyter bene a peculiar and v∣sual word for a Priest, as long as Baptismus for the Sacrament of regeneration, which Castaleo altering into a cōmon and pro∣fane worde, is worthily reprehended? We will proue it hath, not for their sake, who know it well enough, but for the Readers sake, whom they abuse, as if they knew it not.

FVLK. 16. If it be as great a fault in vs to translate Presbyterum, an Elder, as for Castaleo to translate Bap∣tismum, washing: your vulgar translatour must be in the same faulte with vs, which so often translateth Presbyte∣ros, seniores, or maiores natu, which signifie Elders, and not Priestes: it is a vaine thing therefore that you pro∣mise to proue, that Presbyter hath bene a peculiar, and v∣sual word for a Priest, as long as Baptismus for the Sacra∣ment of regeneration. For peculiar you can neuer proue it, seeing it is vsed in the Scripture so often, for such El∣ders & Ancients, as you your selfe would not cal Priests. So that if you did translate the whole Bible out of your

owne vulgar Latine▪ you must translate Presbyter thrice, an Elder or Auncient, for once a Priest.

MART. 17. In the first and second Canon of the Apo∣stles* 1.312 we reade thus, Episcopus à duobus aut tribus Epis∣copis ordinetur. Presbyter ab vno Episcopo ordinetur, & Diaconus, & alij Clerici. that is, Let a bishop be consecrated or ordained by two or three Bishops. Let a Priest be made by one Bishop. See in the 4. Councel of Carthage the diuerse maner of* 1.313 cōsecrating Bishops, Priests, Deacons, &c. Where S. Augustine was present and subscribed. Againe, Si quis Presbyter contē∣nens* 1.314 Episcopum suum &c. If any Priest contemning his Bishop, make a seueral congregation, and erect another altar, (that is, make a Sehisme or Heresie) let him be depo∣sed. So did Arius being a Priest against his Bishop Alexāder. Againe, Priests and Deacons, let them attempt to do no∣thing* 1.315 without the Bishop. The first Councell of Nice saith,* 1.316 The holy Synode by all meanes forbiddeth, that neyther Bishop, nor Priest, nor Deacon &c. haue with them any forren woman, but the mother, or sister, &c. in whom there is no suspicion. Againe, It is told the holy Councel,* 1.317 that in certaine places & cities, Deacons giue the Sacra∣ments to Priests. This neither rule nor custome hath de∣liuered, that they which haue not authoritie to offer the sacrifice, should giue to them that offer, the body of Christ. The 3. Councel of Carthage wherein S. Augustine was, and to the which he subscribed, decreeth, That in the Sacra∣ments* 1.318 of the body & bloud of Christ, there be no more offered than our Lord him selfe deliuered▪ that is, bread and wine mingled with water. Whiche the sixth generall Councell of Constantinople repeating and confirming, ad doth If* 1.319 therefore any Bishop or Priest doe not according to the order giuen by the Apostles mingling water with wine, but offer an vnmingled sacrifice, let him be deposed &c. But of these speaches all Councelles be full: where wee would gladly know of these new Translatours, how Presbyter must be translated: eyther an Elder, or a Priest.

FVLK. 17. I thinke you haue cleane forgotten your

promise so lately made, that this word Presbyter hath al∣waies bin peculiar for a Priest, you bring many testimo∣nies, some counterfaite, some autenticall, in which the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Presbyter is found, but that in all them it is peculiar for a Priest, you shew not at all. Some colour it hath of that you say, in the 14. Can. of the Nicene Councell, & Carth. 3. c. 24. repeated Const. 6. where men∣tion is made of sacrifice and offering, for so they did vn∣properly call the administration of the Lordes supper, in respect of the sacrifice of thanks giuing that was offered therein. After which phrase also, they called the Mini∣sters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Sacerdotes, sacrificers. So they called that which in deede was a table of wood an altar, and the in∣ferior ministers Leuites, by which it appeareth they did rather allude to the names vsed in the old Testamēt, than acknowledged a sacrificing Priesthood, that might as properly be so called, as the Priesthood after the order of Aaron was. Sometime they vsed the name of sacrifice & Sacerdos generally, for religious seruice, & the minister of religion as the Gentils did. And hereof it is that wee read often▪ of the sacrifices of bread and wine,

and in the Canon of Carthage by you cited. Nec amplius in sacrificijs offeratur quàm de vuis & frumentis. And let no more be offered in the sacrifices, thā that which is made of grapes and corne.

This was bread and wine, not the naturall body and bloud of Christe. Wherefore these vnpropre speaches proue not a sacrificing priesthood, whereby the naturall body and bloud of Christ should be offered in the Masse, which is the marke you shoote at.

MART. 18. Do not all the fathers speake after the same maner, making alwaies this distinction of Bishop and Priest,* 1.320 as of the first and second degree? S. Ignatius the Apostles scho∣ler doth he not place Presbyterium as he calleth it, and Pres∣byteros* 1.321 (Priests, or the College of Priests) next after Bishops, and Deacons in the third place, repeating it no lesse than thrice in one Epistle, and cōmending the dignitie of all three vnto the* 1.322 people▪ doth not S. Hierom the very same, saying▪ Let vs honour

a Bishop; do reuerence to a Priest, rise vp to a Deacon?* 1.323 And when he saith, that as Aaron & his sonnes & the Leuites were in the Temple, so are Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in the Church, for place and degree. And in an other place, speaking of 〈…〉〈…〉 ages done by the Vandals and such like, Bishops were* 1.324 〈…〉〈…〉 Priestes slaine, and diuerse of other Ecclesiastical o••••ers: Churches ouerthrowen, the altars of Christe made stables for horses, the relikes of Martyrs digged vp, &c. When he saith of Nepotian, fit Clericus, & per so∣litos gradus Presbyter ordinatur: he becommeth a man of the Clergie, and by the accustomed degrees in m〈…〉〈…〉at? a Priest, or an Elder? when he saith, Mihi ante Presby••••••ū se∣dere non licet &c. doth he meane he could not sit aboue an El∣der, or aboue a Priest, him self as then being not Priest? When he▪ & Vincentius (as S. Epiphanius writeth) of reuerence to the* 1.325 degree, were hardly induced to be made Presbyteri: did they refuse the Eldership? What was the matter that Iohn the B. of Hierusalem, seemed to be so much offended with Epiphanius & S. Hierom? was it not because Epiphanius made Pauliamus, S.* 1.326 Hieroms brother, Priest within the said Iohns Diocese?

FVLK. 18. Before the blasphemous heresie of the Po∣pish sacrifice of the Masse was established in the world, the fathers did with more libertie vse the termes of sacri∣fice, and sacrificing Priestes: which improper speaches, since they haue giuen occasion in the time of ignorance, to maintain that blasphemous heresie, there is good rea∣son that we should beware how we vse any such termes, especially in translatiō of the Scriptures. Al the rest of the authorities you cite in this section, & 500. moe such as they are, speake of Presbyter or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which wordes we embrace: but of the English word Prieste, as it is cō∣monly taken for a sacrificer, or against this word Elder, they speake nothing, for in all those places, we may tru∣ly translate for Presbyter an Elder.

MART. 19. When all antiquitie saith, Hieronymus Presbyter, Cecilius Presbyter, Ruffinus Presbyter, Philippus, I••••encus, Hesychius, Beda, Presbyteri: and when S. Hierom so

often in his Cataloge saith, Such a man Presbyter: is it not for distinction of a certaine order, to signifie that they were Priests, and not Bishops? namely when he saith of S. Chrysostom, Ioannes Presbyter Antiochenus, doth he not meane, he was as then but a Priest of Antioche? Would he haue said so, 〈…〉〈…〉 had written of him, after he was Bishop of Constantinopl〈…〉〈…〉

FVLK. 19. Al this while here is nothing for the En∣glish word Priest, in that respect we auoid it in trāslatiō, nor against the worde Elder, which we vse, by which we meane 〈…〉〈…〉 other thing, than the Scripture doth giue vs to vn〈…〉〈…〉d by the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As for the distin∣ction of Episcopus, & Presbyter which came in afterward, you your selfe confessed as we heard of late, that it is not obserued in the Scriptures, but the same men are called Episcopi, which before were called Presbyteri. And accor∣ding to that distinctiō, you can allow but one Bishop of one citie at once: yet the Scripture in diuerse places spea∣keth of many Bishops of one citie, as Act. 20. the Bishops of Ephesus called before Presbyteri, Elders, also he salu∣teth the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi, Phil. 1. where your note saith, that, In the Apostles time, there were not obserued alwaies distinct names of either function of B. & Priest. Would you haue vs to translate the Scripture with distinction of names which the holy ghost maketh not, nor your vulgar Latin obserueth, nor you your selfe for shame can obserue? And if we should haue transla∣ted for Elders, Priests, that distinction taken vp after the Apostles times, or the writing of the Scripture, had bene neuer the more confirmed.

MART. 20. But of al other places, we would desire these gay translatours to translate this one place of S. Augustine, speaking of him self a Bishop, and S. Hierom a Priest. Quan∣quam* 1.327 enim secundū honorū vocabula, quae iam Ecclesiae vsus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio maior fit: tamen in multis rebus, Augustinus Hieronymo minor est. Is not this the English therof? For although according to the ti∣tles or names of honour, which now by vse of the church

haue preuailed, the degree of Bishoppe be greater than Priesthood, yet in many things, Augustine is lesse than Hierom. Or, doth it like them to translate it thus, The degree of Bishop is greater than Eldership, &c? Againe, against Iulian the heretike, when he hath brought many testimonies of the holy doctors, that were all Bishops, as of S. Cyprian, Am∣brose, Basil, Nazianzene, Chrysostome: at length he commeth to S. Hierom, who was no Bishop, and sayth: Nec sanctum Hi∣eronymum,* 1.328 quia Presbyter fuit, contemnendum arbi∣treris, that is, Neither must thou thinke, that S. Hierom, because he was but a priest, therfore is to be contemned: whose diuine eloquēce, hath shined to vs, from the East, euen to the West, like a lampe, and so forth to his great com∣mendation. Here is a plaine distinction of an inferiour degree to a Bishop, for the which the Heretike Iulian did easily con∣temne him. Is ••ot S. Cyprian full of the like places? is not all an∣tiquitie so full, that whiles I proue this, me thinketh I proue no∣thing els, but that snow is white?

FVLK. 20. Of all other importune and vnreasona∣ble iudges, you are one of the worst, that would enforce vs to translate the Scriptures, which you confesse obser∣ueth not the distinction of Bishops, and Priestes, accor∣ding to the fathers, which doe almost alwayes obserue it. If we should translate those sentences of S. Augustine, we might vse the word Priest, for Presbyter, and priest∣hood, for presbyterium, and if we vse the words Elder, and Eldership, what offence I pray you, were it, when by these names we vnderstand nothing, but the same function & minister which Augustine doth? That Episcopus, a Bi∣shop, was of very olde time vsed, to signifie a degree Ec∣clesiasticall, higher than Presbyter, an Elder or Priest, we did neuer deny, we knowe it right well.

We knowe what S. Hierom writeth vpon the epistle to Titus, cap. 1. idem est ••rgo Presbyter, qui Episcopus. The same man is Presbyter, or an Elder, or Priest, which is Episcopus, a Bishop. And be∣fore that by the instinct of the deuill, factions were made in religion, and it was sayd among the people, I am of

Paule, I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, the Churches were gouerned by common councell Presbyterorum, of the Elders. But afterwarde, when euery one thought those whome he had baptised to be his owne, and not Christes, it was decreed in the whole worlde, that one de Presbyteris, of the Elders, being elected, should be set ouer the reste, to whome all the care of the Churche should pertaine, and the seedes of schismes shoulde be taken away.

This and much more to this effect, writeth Saint Hieronyme of this distinction, in that place, and in diuerse other places, which nothing proueth, that we are bounde to translate Presbyter in the Scripture, a Priest, and least of all, that we are bound in termes, to keepe that distinction, which the Scripture maketh not, and the Papistes them selues can not obserue in their most partiall translation.

MART. 21. In all which places, if they will translate El∣der, and yet make the same a common name to all Ecclesiastical degrees, as Beza defineth it, let the indifferent Reader consider* 1.329 the absurd confusion, or rather the impossibilitie thereof: if not, but they will graunt in all these places, it signifieth Priest, and so is meant: then we must beate them with Bezaes rodde of re∣prehension* 1.330 against Castaleon: that we can not dissemble the boldnesse of these men, which woulde God it rested within the custome of words onely, and were not important matter, concerning their heresie. These men therefore tou∣ching the word Priest, though vsed of sacred writers in the mysterie of the newe Testament, and for so many yeares after, by the secret consent of all Churches, conse∣crated to this one Sacrament, so that it is now growen to be the proper vulgar speeche almoste of all nations: yet* 1.331 they dare presume rashly to change it, and in place there∣of, to vse the word Elder delicate men forsooth (yea worse a great deale, because these do it for heresie, & not for delicacy) which neither are moued with the perpetuall authoritie of so many ages, nor by the daily custome of the vulgar speech, can be brought to thinke that lawful for diuines,

which all men graunt to other maisters & professors of artes, that is, to reteyne & hold that as their owne, which by long vse, & in good faith, they haue truely possessed. Neither may they pretend the authoritie of any auncient writer (as that the old Latine translator sayth, Senior, & Se∣niores)* 1.332 for that which was to them as it were newe, to vs is olde: & euen then, that the selfe same wordes which we now vse, were more familiar to the Church, it is eui∣dent, because it is very seldom that they speake other∣wise.

FVLK. 21. I see no impossibilitie, but that in all places where we reade Presbyter, we may lawfully tran∣slate Elder, as well as Priest, and make it stil in Scripture, a common name to all Ecclesiasticall degrees, at least, to as many as the Scripture maketh it common, without a∣ny absurditie or confusion. And albeit in the fathers, we should translate it Priest, because they vnderstood by the name Presbyter, a distinct degree from Episcopus: yet the saying of Beza against Castaleo, could not by any wise man be applyed to vs. For Castaleo changed the name of the Sacrament Baptismus, by which both the Scriptures, and the fathers vniformely, did vse to signifie one, and the same Sacrament: whereas the name of Pre∣sbyter, in the Scripture, signifieth one thing, and in the fa∣thers an other. For in the Scripture it is taken indifferēt∣ly for Episcopus, and Episcopus for Presbyter: but in the fa∣thers these are two distinct degrees. Therfore he is wor∣thy to be beaten in a Grammar schole, that can not see manifest difference betwene the vse of the worde Baptis∣mus, which being spoken of the Sacrament▪ in the Scrip∣tures, and fathers, is alwayes one and of Presbyter, which in the Scriptures is euery Ecclesiasticall gouernor, in the fathers one degree onely, that is subiect to the Bishop.

MART. 22. Thus we haue repeated Bezaes wordes a∣gaine, onely changing the word Baptisme into Priest, because the case is all one: and so vnwittingly Beza the successor of Cal∣uin in Geneua, hath giuen plaine sentence against our English

Translatours in all such cases, as they goe from the common re∣ceiued and vsuall sense, to another profane sense, and out of vse: as namely in this point of Priest and Priesthood. Where we must needes adde a word or two, though we be too long, because* 1.333 their follie and malice is too too great herein. For whereas the very name Priest, neuer came into our English tongue, but of the Latine Presbyte••, (for therevpon Sacerdos also was so called, onely by a consequence) they translate Sacerdos, Priest, and Presbyter, not Priest, but Elder, as wisely, and as reaso∣nably, as if a man should translate, Praetor Londini, Maire of London: & Maior Londini, not Maire of London: but Grea∣ter of London: or Academia Oxoniensis, the Vniuersitie of Oxford: and Vniuersitas Oxoniensis, not the Vniuersitie, but the Generalitie of Oxford: and such like.

FVLK 22. Bezaes words agree to vs, as well as Ger∣mans lippes, that were nine myle asunder. For if this en∣glish word Priest, by custom of speech, did signifie no more than the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we would no lesse vse it in our translations, than Bishops and Dea∣cons: which offices though they be shamefully abused by the Papistes, yet the abuse of the wordes, maketh no confusion betwene the ministers of the lawe, and of the Gospell, as this worde Priest doth, by which the Iewish sacrificers are rather vnderstoode, than preachers of the Gospell, and ministers of the Sacraments. But where∣as the etymologie of this English worde Priest, com∣meth from Presbyter, you charge vs with great follie and malice, that for Sacerdos, we translate Priest, and for Presbyter, Elder. To this I aunswere, we are not Lordes of the common speeche of men, for if we were, we woulde teache them to vse their termes more properly, but seeing we can not chaunge the vse of speeche, we followe Aristotels councell, which is to speake, and vse wordes▪ as the common people vseth, but to vnderstande and conceaue of thinges, accor∣ding to the nature and true propertie of them. Al∣thoughe for my parte, I lyke well of the Frenche

translation, which for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Sacerdotes alwaies transla∣teth sacrificateurs, sacrificers, and for Presbyteri, where they signifie the Ministers of the word and Sacramentes, Prestres, Priests. But this diuersitie being only of words and not of matter, or meaning reasonable men wil take an aunswere, fooles and quarrellers will neuer acknow∣ledge any satisfaction.

MART. 23. Againe, what exceeding folly is it, to thinke that by false and profane translation of Presbyter into Elder, they might take away the externall Priesthoode of the new Te∣stament, whereas their owne word Sacerdos, which they do and must needes translate Priest, is as common and as vsuall in all antiouitie, as Presbyter: and so much the more, for that it is vsed indifferently to signifie both Bishoppes and Priestes, which Presbyter lightly doth not but in the new Testament. As when Constantine the Great sayed to the Bishoppes assembled in the Councell of Nice, Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, &c. God* 1.334 hath ordained you Priests, and hath giuen you power to iudge of vs also. And Sainct Ambrose, When diddest thou* 1.335 euer heare, most clement Prince, that lay men haue iud∣ged Bishoppes. Shall we bende by flatterie so farre, that forgetting the right of our Priesthoode, we should yeld* 1.336 vp to others, that which God hath commended to vs? And therefore doeth Sainct Chrysostome entitle his sixe bookes De Sacerdotio, Of Priesthoode, concerning the dignitie and calling not only of mere Priestes, but also of Bishoppes: and S.* 1.337 Gregorie Nazianzene handling the same argument sayth, that they execute Priesthoode togither with CHRIST. And S. Ignatius sayth, Do nothing without the Bishoppes, for they are Priests, but thou the Deacon of the Priests. And in the Greeke Liturgies or Masses, so often, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Then the Priest saith this, and that▪ signifying also the Bishoppe when he sayth Masse. and * 1.338 S. Denys sayeth sometime Archisacerdo∣tem cum sacerdotibus. The high Priest or Bishoppe with the Priests: whereof come the wordes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the auncient Greeke fathers, for the sacred function of Priesthoode, and executing of the same.

MART. 24. If then the Heretikes coulde possibly haue extinguished Priesthoode in the word Presbyter, yet you see, it would haue remained still in the wordes Sacerdos & Sacer∣dotium▪ which themselues translate Priest and Priesthoode: and therefore we must desire them to translate vs a place or two after their owne maner: first Sainct Augustine speaking thus, Q••is vnquam audiuit sacerdotem ad altare stantem etiā* 1.339 super reliquias Martyrum▪ dicere: offero tibi Petre, & Paule vel Cypriane? Who euer hearde that a PRIEST standing at the altar▪ euen ouer the relikes of the Mar∣tyrs, said, I offer to thee Peter, and Paule, or Cyprian? So (we trow) they must translate it. Againe, Nos vni Deo & * 1.340 Martyrum & nostro, sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrificium sicut homines Dei, suo loco & ordine nomi∣nantur, non tamen à sacerdote inuocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrificat, quamuis in memoria sacrificet eorū, quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorū. Ipsum verò sacrificium corpus est Christi. We thinke they will and must translate it thus. We offer sacrifice to the only God both of Martyrs and ours, at the which Sacrifice, as men of God they (Martyrs) are named in their place & order: yet are they not inuocated of the Priest that sacrificeth. For he sa∣crificeth* 1.341 to God, and not to them (though he sacrifice in the memorie of them) because he is Gods Priest, and not theirs. And the sacrifice it selfe is the body of Christ.

FVLK. 23. 24. Nay, what exceeding follie is it to thinke that an externall sacrificing office, can be establi∣shed in the new Testament (which neuer calleth the Mi∣nisters thereof, Sacerdotes, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) because men of later time haue vnproperly transferred those termes vnto the Elders or Priests of the new Testamēt. Certainly among so many names as the Scripture giueth them, if sacrifi∣cing for the quicke and the deade, had bene the princi∣pall parte of their function, as by you Papistes hath bene accounted: is it credible, that the holy Ghost would neuer haue called them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as well, yea, and ra∣ther than the Sacrificers of the olde Testament? Seeing

therefore the holy Ghost had made such a broade diffe∣rence, betwene their names, and offices, those auncient fathers that confounded those names, which the spirit of God would haue to be distinct can not be excused: al∣though they neuer dreamed of the mischiefe that follo∣wed, that the altar of the crosse being ouerthrowē, & the only & sufficient sacrifice, which Christ our high Sacri∣ficer offered once for all, being iudged imperfect, a new altar, a newe sacrifice, and a new sacrificing Priesthoode shoulde be set vp in the steede of it. Wherefore the vn∣proper speaches of the auncient writers, are no warrant for vs, either to translate the Scripture according to their vnproper speaking, or to set vp a newe sacrifice and function of sacrificing, contrarie to their meaning. They named sacrifice and offering, but they meant not propitiatorie sacrifiee, but only of prayers, or praises and giuing of thankes. They named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Sacerdo∣tes, but they meant according to the generall etymo∣logie of those wordes, suche as were occupied in di∣stributing holy things, not suche as shoulde verily sa∣crifice the bodie of Christ againe to his father, but offer the sacrifice of thankes giuing in the Sacrament of the Lordes supper, which after a certaine manner (as Sainct Augustine sayeth) is called the bodie of Christ,* 1.342 when in deede it is the Sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ. And it is called the sacrificing of the bodie of Christ, not in trueth of the thing, but a signi∣fying mysterie▪ as Gracian citeth out of Hierome.

MART. 25. Likewise when Sainct Ambrose sayth▪ The* 1.343 consecration (of the bodie of Christ) with what wordes is it, and by whose speache? Of our Lord Iesus. For in the rest that is said there is praise giuen to God, prayer made for the people, for Kings, and others: but when it com∣meth that the venerable Sacrament must be consecrated,* 1.344 now the Priest vseth not his owne words, but he vseth the wordes of Christ. And S. Chrysostome in very many places* 1.345 saith, The sacred oblation it selfe, whether Peter, or Paul,

or any meaner Priest whatsoeuer offer it, is the verie* 1.346 same that Christ gaue vnto his disciples, and which now the Priestes doe make or consecrate Why so I pray thee? because not men doe sanctifie this, but Christ him selfe. which before consecrated the same. And againe, It is not man that maketh the bodie and bloud of Christ, but he that was crucified for vs, Christ: the wordes are vtte∣red* 1.347 by the Priestes mouth, and by Gods power & grace are the things proposed, consecrated. For this, sayth he, is my bodie. With this worde are the things proposed, consecrated.

FVLK. 25. These testimonies are heaped vp without any neede, for the vnproper vsage of these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Sacerdos in the auncient writers, we doe acknowledge: but in the holy Scripture you are not able to bring one place, where Presbyteri of the newe Testament are cal∣led Sacerdotes, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Wherefore of the vnproper ap∣plying of these names, to the Ministers of the newe Testament, can followe no consequence of externall sa∣crifice, or altar which you vrge, except sacrifice and altar be likewise vsed vnproperly, as where the table is called an altar, the bread & wine a sacrifice, as in Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. where also he saith, that the sacrifices do not san∣ctifie the man, but the cōscience of the man being pur••, sanctifieth the sacrifice, and causeth God to accept it as of a friende cap▪ 34. Which can not in any wise be true of the naturall bodie of Christ.

MART. 26. And so be these places, where them selues translate Sacerdos a Priest, they may learne also how to trans∣late Presbyteros in S. Hierome saying the verie same thing,* 1.348 that at their praiers, the bodie and bloud of our Lord is made. And in an other place, that with their sacred mouth, they make our Lordes bodie. Likewise when they read S. Ambrose agaist the Nouatians, that God hath graūted licēc•• to his Priests to release & forgiue as well great sinnes as* 1.349 litle without exception: & in the Ecclesiastical history, how the Nouatian Heretikes taught that such as were fallen into great

sinnes, should not aske for remission of the Priest, but of God* 1.350 onely: they may learne howe to translate Presbyteros, in S. Hierom, and in the Ecclesiasticall historie, where the one sayth thus: Episcopus & Presbyter, cùm peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, qui soluendus: and the o∣ther* 1.351 speaketh de Presbytero Poenitentiario, of an extraor∣dinarie Priest, that heard confessions, and enioyned penance, who afterward was taken away, and the people went to diuerse ghostly fathers, as before. And especially Saint Chrysostome ••ill make them vnderstand what these Presbyteri were, and how they are to be called in English, who telleth them in their owne word, that Sacerdotes, the Priestes of the newe lawe* 1.352 haue power, not onely to know, but to purge the filth of the soule, therefore whosoeuer despiseth them, is more worthy to be punished, than the ••ebell Dathan, and his complices.

FVLK. 26. Where S. Hierom vseth the worde Pres∣byteri, we wil make no great curtesie to translate Priests: knowing that when he sayth, at their prayers, the bodie and bloud of Christ is made, he meaneth the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud: of Christ, as he him selfe sayth in an other place.

Dupliciter sanguis Christi, & ••ar•• intelli∣gitur. The bloud and flesh of Christ is vnderstoode two maner of wayes either that spirituall and diuine, whereof he him selfe sayde: my flesh is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede: and except yee shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud, you shall not haue eternall life: or else the flesh and bloud which was crucified, and which was shedde by the speare of the souldier. This and such other places teach vs to vnderstand S. Hierome,

if he speake any where obscurely or vnproperly of the myste∣rie of our Lordes supper. We graunt with Ambrose, that God hath giuen auctoritie to all the ministers of the worde, to remit all sinnes that be remissible. But this do not you graunt, for you reserue some to the Bishops, and some to the Pope alone to remitte, wherein you goe cleane against Ambrose, who fauoureth you not so

much by the terme Sacerdos, which you say he vseth, as he condemneth your partiall & Popish reseruation of cases, when he alloweth euery Priest to forgiue, as well great sinnes as litle▪ without exception. S. Hierom you cite at large, as it seemeth, to insinuate auricular cōfession. But the whole saying you liked not, because it▪ sheweth how they forgiue sinnes. It is writtē in Math. lib. 3. cap. 16. vpō those wordes spoken to Peter.

Vnto thee will I giue the keies of the kingdome of heauen &c. Istū locū episcopi & presbyteri nōintelligentes &c. This place Bishops & Priests not vnderstanding, take vpon them somewhat of the pride of the Pharizees: so that they thinke they may ey∣ther condemne the innocentes, or lose the guiltie per∣sons: whereas with God not the sentence of the Priests, but the life of the persons accused is inquired of. Wee read in Leuiticus of the Lepers, where they are cōmaun∣ded to shewe them selues to the Priestes, and if they haue the Leprosie, then by the Priest they are made vn∣cleane. Not that Priestes make Lepers and vncleane per∣sons, but that they may haue knowledge of him that is a Leper▪ and him that is no Leper: and may discerne who is cleane or who is vncleane. Therefore euen as the Prieste doth there make the Leper cleane or vncleane: So here also the Bishop and Prieste doth binde or lose, not them that be innocent or guiltie, but according to his office, when he shall heare the varietie of sinners, he knoweth who is to be bound, and who is to be loosed.

But where you saye, the people went to diuerse ghostly fathers, as before, when that extraordinarie penitenti∣arie Priest was taken away, for the adulterie of a Deaco•• at Constātinople, you speake beside the booke, to make the ignorant beleeue that the people went to auricu∣lar shrift. For in Constantinople, where this priuie con∣fession was taken away, the people were left to their owne consciences. At Rome the same time, great offen∣ders did open penance, neither were there any such di∣uerse ghostly fathers, as you speake of. That Chryso∣stom

sayth, lib. 3. de sacerdotio, we receiue it, being so vn∣derstood, as i•• be not contrary to that I cited euen nowe our of Hie〈…〉〈…〉 But what maketh all this against transla∣ting Presbyter, an Elder?

MART. 27 Nowe then (to conclude this point) see∣ing* 1.353 we haue such a cloud of witnesses (as the Apostle speaketh) euen from Christes time, that testifie not onely for the name▪ but for the very principall functions of externall Priesthood, in of∣fering the sucrifice of Christs bodie & bloud▪ in remitting sinnes, and so forth: what a pe••••ish, malicious, and impudent corrup∣tion is this, for the defacing of the testimonies of the holy scrip∣tures tending therevnto, to seeke to scratch aduantage of the ••ord Presbyter, and to make it signifie an Elder, not a Priest: Presbytenum Eldership rather than Priesthoode: as if other new fangled companions that would forge an Heresie that there were no Apostles, shoulde for that purpose translate it alwaies legates: or that there were no Angels▪ & should translate it al∣waies Messengers: & that Baptisme were but a Iudaical cere∣mony, & should translate it washing: which Castalio did much more tolerably in his trāsiatiō than any of these should, if he did it only of curiosity & folly. And if to take away al distinction of clergie & lai••y the Protestantes should alwayes translate cle∣rum▪* 1.354 * 1.355 lotte or lotterie, as they do translate is for the same pur∣pose parish and heritage: might not Beza him selfe controule them, saying, that the auncient fathers transferred the name clerus to the Colledge of Ecclesiastical Ministers?

FVLK. 27. A cloude of testimonies in deede you haue heaped togither, not as the Apostle did to vpholde the certainty of faith: but to obscure the light of truth. For our trāslation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Elder is true, cleare & plaine, without ambiguity. Insomuch as the vulgar Latin interpreter▪ who as it semeth was a Greciā, & therfore v∣seth gladly many Greeke termes, doeth yet translate this wo••d almost twise as oftē senior or maior natu, as he doth Presbyter, whē he speaketh of the ministers of the gospel. How the anciēt writers applied vnto thē improperly the name of sacrificer, as vnto the sacramēt the name of ob∣lation or

sacrifice, I haue spoken already sufficiently. Our transla∣tion therefore is nothing lyke your vai〈…〉〈…〉 supposall of of new fangled companions, which to 〈…〉〈…〉▪ Apostles, Angels, and Baptisme, would turne the wordes into Le∣gates, Messengers, & washing. Whereas we haue no pur∣pose to denie any office or function of the Churche ap∣pointed by Christ, but to distinguish in name, as his spi∣rite in the Scriptures doth alwaies, the sacrificers of the old Testament, from the Ministers of the new Testamēt. The worde Clerus, 1. Pet. 5▪ which we translate parishe or heritage, your selues in your notes of that place confesse, to comprehende in signification all Christians, whiche you are not able to proue, that in S▪ Peters time it was transferred vnto the college of ecclesiasticall ministers, as Beza saith it was afterwarde: wherefore it is one of your accustomed slaūders, to say we trāslate it so of pur∣pose, to take away all distinction of Cleargie and Lai∣tie, when al men know, that wheresoeuer our Churches are established, we retaine the distinction, and so thinke it necessarie alwayes.

MART. 28. But al••s, the effect of this corruption and heresie concerning Priestes, hathe it not wrought within these fewe yeares such contempt of al Priestes, that nothing is more odious in our countrey than that name: which before was so ho∣nourable & venerable, & now is, among all men? If ministery or Eldership were growen to estimation in steede thereof, somwhat they had to say but that is yet more contemptible, and especi∣ally Elders and Eldership, for the Queenes Maiestie and her Counsailours wil permit none in gouernement of anie Churche in Englande, and so they haue brought all, to nothing else, but profane lai••ie. And no maruel of these horrible inconueniences, for as the Sacrifice and Priesthoode goe togither, and therfore were both honourable togither: so when they had according to Daniels prophecie, abolished the daily sacrifice out of the chur∣che, what remained, but the contempt of Priestes and Cleargie and their offices, so farre foorth, that for the holy Sacrifice sake, Priestes are called in great despite, Massing Priestes▪ of them

that litle consider, or lesse care, what notable holy learned fathers of all ages since Christes time, this their reproch toucheth and concerneth, as by the testimonies before alleaged is manifest, and whereof the Reader may see a peculiar Chapter in the late Apo∣logie* 1.356 of the English Seminaries.

FVLK. 28. A meruaylous corruption, for vs to cal them Elders, whom you in your translation call Aunci∣ents, and the vulgar Latine before vs both called Seniores. But what is come to passe I pray you by this wonderfull corruption? The name of Popish Priestes is so contem∣ptible, that nothing is more odious in England. And good cause why: both for their blasphemie against God, and traiterous practises against the honourable state of the realme▪ and our most gratious Queene. But Elders and Eldership (you weene) is more contemptible be∣cause the Queenes Maiestie & her Counsailors will per∣mit none in gouernment of any Churches in England, and so they haue brought all to nothing else, but pro∣phane Laitie. This trayterous slaunder of yours, is as true, as all the rest. For although the Queenes Maiestie and the Counsaile do not permitte such consistories of Elders for onely discipline and gouernment, as be in some other Churches, yet doe they not only permit, but also mainteyne and reuerence, such Elders, being signifi∣ed by the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as are necessarie for the gouernment of the Church in doctrine, Sacraments, and discipline to the saluation of Gods people. The day∣ly sacrifice mentioned in Daniell, was the Morning and Euening sacrifice of the old Lawe, wherevnto your blas∣phemous sacrifice of the Masse hath no resemblaunce. You may not therefore looke to recouer the credite of Massing Priestes, by that sacrifice, which being once in∣stituted by God, was at length taken away by the onely sacrifice of Christes death: Against which all the Apo∣logies in the worlde shall neuer be able to defende your Massing Priesthood. As for the chapter of Allens Apo∣logie, wherevnto you refer vs, conteyneth certaine quo∣tations,

& a few sentences of the auncient writers which haue bene answered an hūdreth times, to iustifie massing Priests, but all in vaine, for neuer shall he proue, that any one from the Eldest which he nameth vnto Beda, which is the yongest, was such a Massing Prieste in all pointes, as those traytours are, which by the Queenes lawes and edict are proscribed and prohibited. I meane not for their manners, but for their Masse and all opinions inci∣dent therevnto.

CHAP. VII.

Hereticall translation against PVRGATORIE, LIMBVS PATRVM, CHRISTS DESCENDING INTO HEL.

Martin.

HAVING now discouered their corrupt tran∣slations* 1.357 for defacing of the Churches name, and abolishing of Priest and Priesthood: let vs come to another point of very great im∣portance also, and which by the wonted conse∣quence or sequele of errour, includeth in it many erroneous branches. Their principall malice then being bent against Purgatorie, that is, against a place were Chri∣stian soules be purged by suffering of temporall paines after this life, for surer maintenaunce of their erroncous deniall hereof, they take away and denie all third places, saying that there was neuer from the beginning of the worlde any other place for soules after this life, but onely two: to witte, heauen for the blessed: and hell for the damned. And so it foloweth by their hereticall doctrine, that the Patriarches, Prophetes, and other good holy men of the old Testament, went not after their deaths, to the place called Abrahams bosome, or Limbus patrum. But

immediatly to heauen: & so againe by their erroneous doctrin•• it foloweth, that the fathers of the old Testament were in hea∣uen, before our sauiour Christe had suffered death for their re∣demption: and also by their erroneous doctrine it foloweth, that our sauiour Christ was not the first man that ascended and en∣tred into heauen: and moreouer by their hereticall doctrine it foloweth, that our sauiour Christe des••ended not into any such third place, to deliuer the fathers of the olde Testament out of their prison, and to bring them triumphantly with him into hea∣uen, because by their erroneous doctrine they were neuer there •• and so that article of the Apostles Creede concerning our saui∣our Christ his descending into hell, must either be put out by the Caluinists, as Beza did in his Confession of his faith printed An. 1564. or it hath some other meaning, to wit, either the lying of his bodie in the graue, or (as Caluine and the purer Caluinists* 1.358 his schollers will haue it) the suffering of hell paines & distresses vpon the Crosse. Loe the consequence and coherence of these er∣rours and heresies.

Fulke.

WE may be bolde to say with S. Augu∣stine,* 1.359 We beleeue according to the au∣ctoritie of God▪ that the kingdome of heauen is the first place appointed for Gods elect, and that hell is the seconde place, where all the reprobrate & such is be not of the faith of Christe, shall suffer eternall punishment. Tertium penitus ignoramus, imo nec esse in scripturis sanctis inuenimus. The thirde place we are vtterly ignorant of, yea and that it is not, wee finde in the holy Scriptures. But hereof it followeth, say you, that the godly of the olde Testament, went not af∣ter their deathes to Abrahams bosome, or Limbus pa∣trum, but immediately to heauen. Of Limbus patrum. which is a border of the Popes hel, I graūt it followeth▪

but of Abrahams bosome it followeth none otherwise, than if I should say, Gregorie Martin went into Chepe∣side, Ergo, he went not to London. That the fathers of the old Testament were in Heauen, before our Sauiour Christ had suffered death for their redemption, it is no incōuenience: for his death was as effectuall to redeeme them that liued before he suffered actually, as them that liue since, because in Gods sight, hee is the Lambe that was slaine from the beginning of the world. And the fa∣thers that were iustified by faith in his bloud, receyued the same crowne and rewarde of rightuousnesse, that we do beyng iustified by the same meanes. And yet our Sa∣uiour Christe was the first man, that in his whole man∣hood ascended and entred into heauen, into the fulnesse and perfection of glory which is prepared for all Gods elect, to be enioyed after the generall resurrection. That our Sauiour Christe descended into no prison after his death, we verily beleeue, and yet we do also constantly beleeue the article of our Creede, that he descended in∣to hel, by suffering in soule the paynes due to Gods iu∣stice, for the sinnes of all whome hee redeemed, and by vanquishing the Deuill, and all the power of hel, in working the redemption of all the children of God. If Beza in his confession had cleane left out that article, whiche is vntrue, hee had bene no more to bee blamed than the auctors of the Nicene Creede, and many o∣ther Creedes in which it is not expressed, because it is partly conteyned vnder the article of his sufferings, part∣ly it is in parte of the effect and vertue of his death and redemption.

MART. 2. These nowe being the hereticall doctrines which they meane to auouch and defende what soèuer come of it: first, they are at a point not to care a rushe for all the aun∣cient holy Doctours, that write with full consent to the contrarie* 1.360 (as themselues confesse, calling it their common errour) se∣condly, they translate the holy Scriptures in fauour thereof most corruptly and wilfully, as in Bezaes false translation (who is

Caluines successor in Geneua) it is notorious, for he in his newe Testament of the yeare 1556. printed by Robertus Stephanus in folio, with Annotations, maketh our Sauiour Christ say thus to his father, Non derelinques cadauer meū in sepulchro, Thou shalt not leaue my carcasse in the graue, Act. 2. For that which the Hebrue, and the Greeke, and the Latine,* 1.361 and S. Hierome according to the Hebrue, say: Non derelin∣ques animam meam in inferno, as plainly as we say in En∣glish, Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell. Thus the Pro∣phet* 1.362 Dauid spake it in the Hebrue▪ Psal. 15. Thus the Septua∣ginta vttered it in Greeke, thus the Apostle S. Peter alleageth it, thus the holy Euangelist S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, cap. 2. recordeth it, and for this, S. Augustine calleth him an infidel that denyeth it: yet all this would not suffise to make Be∣za translate it so, because of certaine errours (* 1.363 as he heretically termeth them) which he would full gladly auoide hereby, name∣ly the Catholike true doctrine of limbus patrum, and Pur∣gatorie. What neede we say more? he translateth animam, a Carcase: (so calling our Sauiour Christes bodie, irreuerently, and wickedly) he translateth infernum, graue.

FVLK. 2. That many of the Christian fathers helde this error, that the godly of the old Testament were not in heauen before Christes death, it is no cause why we should be afraid to confesse the truth, reuealed to vs out of the holy Scriptures, to the glorie of God. And if the wrong or ambiguous translation of one Hebrue word Sheol, deceiued them, that were for the most parte igno∣raunt* 1.364 of the Hebrue tongue, what reason were it that we shoulde not in translation reforme that errour? But as for Bezaes first translation of the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 deade bodie, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 graue, I haue aunswered at large, Cap. 1. sect. 31. where also it is shewed howe vaine∣ly you take hold of the English worde carcase, to charge Beza with vnreuerent calling of our Sauiour Christes bodie, when it was deade, because he calleth it in Latine Cadauer.

MART. 3. Neede we take any great labour to proue this

to be a foule corruption, or that it is done purposely, whē he con∣fesseth that he thus translateth because else it woulde serue the Papistes? Which is as much to say, as, the word of God if it be truly and sincerely translated, maketh in deede for them. For the first part, we will not stand vpon it, partly because it is of it selfe most absurd, and they are ashamed of it: partly because it shall susfise to confute Beza, that two other as famous heretikes as he, Castalio and Flaccus Illyricus write against him in this point, and confute him: partly also, because we speake not here vniuersally of all hereticall translations, but of the English cor∣ruptions specially, & therfore we may only note here, how glad∣ly they also would say somwhat else for, soule, euen in the text, if they durst for shame: for in the margent of that English trās∣lation,* 1.365 they say, or life, or person: thereby aduertising the Rea∣der, that he may reade thus, if it please him, Thou shalt not leaue my life in the graue, or, Thou shalt not leaue my person. As though either mans soule or life were in the graue, or, anima, might be translated person, which the selfe same Englishe Bible doeth not, no not in those places where it is eui∣dent* 1.366 that it signifieth the whole person. For though this worde soule, by a figure, is sometime taken for the whole man, yet e∣uen there they doe not, nor must not translate it otherwise than soule: beause our tongue beareth that figure as well as Latine, Greeke, or Hebrue: but here, where it can not signifie the whole person, it is wicked to translate it so.

FVLK. 3. If you take more labour than you are wel able to beare, yet shall you proue it no hereticall corru∣ption. As Castaleo, and Illyricus, the one an heretike, the other a schismatike, haue inueyed against Beza, so hath he sufficiently confuted them. But to our English trans∣lation, where in the margent, they say, life, or person, when in the text they say soule: what doeth this offende you? They render the vsuall English word for the Greke word, but they admonish the reader, that the word soule in this place signifieth not the soule separated from the bodie▪ but either the life, or the whole person. Because that although the bodie onely be layed in the graue▪ yet

according to vulgar speache and sense, the whole man is sayed to be buried, and his life seemeth to be inclosed in the graue, according to which popular and humane con∣ceyt, the Prophet in that Psalme speaketh, as appeareth in the later parte of that verse, which is all one in sense with the former. Neither wilt thou giue thy holy one to see corruption: where corruption which is proper onely to the bodie is there spoken generally of the whole man. If this expositiō please you not, yet you haue no cause to finde fault with the translation, which in that place is ac∣cording to the cōmon and ordinarie signification of the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, soule. Which as it is somtime taken* 1.367 for the whole person, as you note, Act. 7. 14. So is it here, as the later parte of the verse doth most plainly declare.

MART. 4. But as for the worde graue, that they put boldly in the text, to signifie that howsoeuer you interprete, soule, or whatsoeuer you put for it, it is not meant according to S. Augustine and the faith of the whole Catholike Church, that his soule descended into Hell, whiles his bodie was in the graue: but that his soule also, was in the graue, howsoeuer that is to be vnderstoode. So making it a certaine and resolute conclusion, that the holy Scripture in this place speaketh not of Christs be∣ing in Hell, but in the graue: and that according to his soule, or life, or person, or (as Beza will haue it) His carcase or bodie: and so his soule in Hell, as the holy Scripture spea∣keth, shall be, his bodie in the graue, as Beza plainly spea∣keth, & the Bezites couertly insinuate: & white shall be blacke,* 1.368 and chaulke shall be cheese, and euery thing shall be any thing that they will haue it. And all this their euident false transla∣tion, must be to our miserable deceiued poore soules, the holy Scripture and Gods word.

FVLK. 4. The Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wel beareth to be translated in some places a graue, & here the later part of the verse, speaketh of corruption, which can not be vn∣derstoode to be but in the graue, & so doth S. Peter vn∣derstand it, saying▪ that Dauid the Patriarch died and was buried, and his sepulchre remayneth with vs vnto this

day: and S. Paule vpon the same verse of the Psalme saith, he saw corruption. Both the Apostles therfore interpre∣ting this verse of the resurrection of Christ, we thinke it in deede a resolute conclusion, that the Scripture in this place, speaketh not of Christs being in hell, which we ac∣knowledge in the article of our Creede, but of his bu∣riall and resurrection. Your trifling of white and blacke, chaulke and cheese, may seeme pleasaunt Rhetorike to grosse eares, whom you seeke to fill with such vanities. But the wiser sort, that are acquainted with figuratiue speaches, wil thinke it nothing straunge, if words be not alwaies taken in their vsual & proper signification. That the Hebrue worde Nephesh, which the Prophet in that* 1.369 verse of the Psalme vseth, is taken diuerse times in the Scripture for a deade bodie, I haue before proued more plainly, than euer you shall be able to deny: where you may, if you be disposed to sport your selfe, vse your figu∣ratiue comparison of white & blacke, chaulke & cheese, but you shall sooner of white make blacke, of chaulke cheese, than you can possibly auoide the cleare light of those textes, which was seene euen of your owne vulgar Latine interpretours.

MART. 5. Where we can not but maruell, why they are affraide to translate the words plainly in this place, of his soule being in Hell: Whereas in the Creede they admit the words, and interprete them, that by suffering Hell paines vpon the Crosse, so he descended into Hell, and no otherwise. Why did they not here also keepe the words for the credit of their transla∣tion, and afterwarde (if they woulde needes) giue them that glose for maintenaunce of their heresie? This mysterie we know not, and woulde gladly learne it of the Puritane Caluinistes, whose Englishe translation perhaps this is. For, the grosser Cal∣uinistes (being not so pure and precise in following Caluine as the Puritans be, that haue well deserued that name aboue their fellowes) they in their other Englishe Bibles haue in this place* 1.370 discharged them selues of false translation, saying plainely. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in Hell. But * 1.371 in what sense

they say so, it is very hard to gesse: and perhaps them selues can* 1.372 not tell yet what to make of it, as appeareth by M. Whitakers answer to F. Campion. And he is nowe called a Bishop among them, and proceeded Doctor in Oxford, that could not obtaine his grace to proceede Doctor in Cambridge, because he preached Christes descending into hell, and the Puritans in their second admonition to the Parliament, pag. 43. cry out against the po∣litike Caluinists, for that in the Creede of the Apostles (made in English meeter, and song openly in their Churches, in these wordes: His spirite did after this descend, into the lower partes, to them that long in darkenesse were, the true light of their hartes,) they fauour his descending into Hell very much, and so consequently may thereby build Limbus Patrum, and Purgatorie. And the Puritans in their second replie against M. Whitgifts defense, pag. 7. reprehend one of their chiefest Caluinisticall martyrs, for affirming (as they terme it) a grosse descending of our Sauiour Christ into Hell. Thus the Puritans confesse plainly their hereticall doctrine, a∣gainst Christes descending into Hell.

FVLK. 5. By confessing in our Creede, that Christ descended into hell, you might knowe, but that you had rather be ignorant, that you might maruell still, that we purposed not in translating this place, to denye that arti∣cle, as you falsely slaunder vs: but because this place might seeme vnto the ignorant, to confirme the er∣rour of Christes descending into Limbus patrum, as it doth not, if it be rightly vnderstoode, it was thought good of some translatours, (that seeing this verse must haue the same sense in the Greeke Sermon of Peter, that it hath in the Hebrewe Psalme of Dauid, and the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vsed by the Euangelist, in steede of the Hebrewe worde Sheol, may beare to signifie a* 1.373 graue, as the Hebrew worde doth moste vsually,) by translating it the graue, to shewe that this verse in Greeke, maketh no more for that errour of descending into Limbus, than the same doth in Hebrewe. As for your distinction of grosse Caluinistes and Puritans, it

may be packed vppe among the rest of your quarrells, and slaunders. What Maister Whitaker hath written in his aunswer, to Frier Campion, he is able to explane vnto you him selfe, if you doe not vnderstand him. That the Bishoppe of Saint Asaph did once fauour your er∣rour in some parte, and for that was misliked of the V∣niuersitie of Cambridge, it is as true, as that afterward reforming his iudgement at Oxford, where he procee∣ded, he was also incorpored Doctor at Cambridge. The Englishe meeter vppon the Creede, except it be drawen to an allegorie, in my iudgement, can not be defended, which iudgement I declared openly at Paules crosse foureteene or fiueteene yeares agoe. Maister La∣timers errour of Christ suffering torments in hell, af∣ter his death, is iustly reprehended, by whome soeuer it be. By all which, I knowe not what may be rightly ga∣thered, but that we flatter not one another in errours, but if any among vs be deceiued, of what account or credite soeuer he be, we spare not to reproue his errour, preferring Gods truth before all worldly and priuate re∣spects of friendship, countenaunce, credite, and whatso∣euer.

MART. 6. The truth is, howsoeuer the politike Calui∣nists speake, or write in this point, more plausibly and couertly to the people, and more agreeably to the article of our faith, than either Caluine, or their earnest brethren, the Puritans, doe, which write and speake as fantastically and madly, as they thinke: yet neither doe they beleeue this Article of the Apostles Creede, or interpret it, as the Catholike Church, and auncient holy fathers alwayes haue done, neither can it stand with their newe profession so to doe, or with their English translations in other places. It can not stand with their profession: for then it would followe that the Patriarches, and other iust men of the olde Testament, were in some third place of rest, called Abra∣hams bosome, or Limbus Patrum, till our Sauiour Christ descended thither, and deliuered them from thence, which they deny in their doctrine, though they sing it in their meeters. Nei∣ther

can it stand with their English translations: because in o∣ther places where the holy Scriptures euidently speake of such a place, calling it Hell, (because that was a common name for e∣uery place and state of soules departed, in the olde Testament, till our Sauiour Christ, by his Resurrection and Ascension, had opened heauen) there, for Hell, they translate Graue.

FVLK. 6. The truth is, howsoeuer you slaunder vs with odious names of schisme, and diuerse interpretati∣ons, we al agree in the faith of that article, and in the true sense and meaning thereof. As also we consent against your errours of Limbus patrum, or any descending of Christ into that fantasticall place. As for Abrahams bosome, we account it no place of descent, or going downe, but of ascending, euen the same that our Saui∣our Christ vpon the crosse, called Paradise, Luc. 23. say∣ing to the penitent theefe, this daye thou shalt be with me in Paradise, which of Saint Paule is called the thirde heauen, 2. Cor. 12. saying, that he was taken vp into the thirde heauen, whether in the bodye, or out of the bo∣dye, he knewe not, (but he was taken vp into Paradise, and there heard wordes that could not be vttered, which it is not lawefull for a man to speake. And that Abra∣hams Bosome is a place farre distant from hell, that onely text where it is named, Luc. 16. doth euidently declare. First the Aungels carry the soule of Lazarus into Abrahams bosome, he might as well haue sayde Hell, if he had meant Hell. But Aungels vse not to goe downe into Hell. Secondly, it is a place of comfort, for Lazarus was there comforted. Thirdly, there is a great Chaos, whiche signifieth an infinite distance be∣twene Abraham and the riche glutton, which vtterly ouerthroweth that dreame of Limbus, which signifying a border or edge, supposeth that place to be harde ad∣ioyning to the place of torments. Last of all, if the Article of our fayth had bene of Limbus Patrum, or of Abrahams bosome, we shoulde haue bene taught to saye, he descended into Limbo patrum, or he descended

into Abrahams bosome, which all Christian eares ab∣horre to heare. The worde Sheol vsed in the olde Testa∣ment* 1.374 for a common receptacle of all the dead, signifieth properly a place to receiue their bodies, and not their soules: and therefore most commonly in our translati∣ons, is called the graue.

MART. 7. As when Iacob sayth, Descendam ad fili∣um* 1.375 meum lugens in infernum: I will goe downe to my sonne into Hell, mourning: they translate, I wil go downe into the graue vnto my sonne, mourning: as though Ia∣cob thought, that his sonne Ioseph had bene buried in a graue, whereas Iacob thought, and sayd immediatly before, as appea∣reth in the holy Scripture, that a wild beast had deucured him, and so could not be presumed to be in any graue: or as though, if Ioseph had bene in a graue, Iacob would haue gone downe to him into the same graue. For so the wordes must needes import, if they take graue properly: but if they take graue unproperly, for the state of deade men, after this life, why doe they call it graue, and not Hell, as the word is in Hebrew, Greeke, and La∣tine?* 1.376 No doubt they doe it, to make the ignorant Reader beleeue, that the Patriarch Iacob spake of his bodie onely, to descend in∣to* 1.377 the graue, to Iosephes bodye: for as concerning Iacobs soule,* 1.378 that was by their opinion, to ascend immediatly after his death to heauen, and not to descend into the graue. But if Iacob were to ascend forthwith in soule, how could he say, as they translate, I will goe downe into the graue, vnto my sonne? As if according to their opinion, he should say, My sonnes bodie is de∣uoured of a beast, and his soule is gone vp into heauen: well, I will goe downe to him into the graue.

FVLK. 7. A proper quidditie you haue found out of Iacob, supposing his sonne to be deuoured of wilde beastes: yet sayth, I wil goe downe vnto him mourning, which you thinke can not be into the graue, because he did not thinke he was buried. But you must remember, it is the common manner of speech, when men saye in mourning, they will goe to their friendes departed, they meane, they will dye, although their friendes

perhaps were drowned in the sea, or their bodies bur∣ned, or perhaps lye in desolate places vnburied: So Ia∣cobs descending to the graue, signifieth no more, but death, by which he knewe he shoulde be ioyned to his sonne in soule, though he were not in bodie. The name of graue is vsed, because it is vsuall, that dead men are buried, though it be not vniuersall. And that the graue is taken commonly for death, it appeareth by that phrase, so often vsed in the Scriptures. He slept with his fathers. and was buried, which being spoken indifferently of good men, and euill, can not be vnderstood of one place of their soules, but of death, which is common to all, and is proper to the bodie, not vnto the soule, for the soules of the departed sleepe not. The like is to be sayde of the phrase vsed in Gen. of Ismael, as well as of the godly Pa∣triarkes, he was laid vp to his people. And lest you should please your selfe too much in your childish conceit of Iosephes being deuoured, whereof yet his father was not certaine. You shall heare howe Isydorus Clarius transla∣teth the same place, in his Bible censured by the Depu∣ties of Trent Councell, Descendam ad filium meum, lugens in sepulchrum. I will goe downe to my sonne, mourning, into the graue. This is one of the places which he thought meere to be corrected, according to the He∣brew, and in other places, where he is content to vse the old word Infernus, he signifieth in his notes, that he mea∣neth thereby Sepulchrum, the graue. And in deede this word Infernus signifieth generally any place beneath, as the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Greeke translators v∣sed for Sheol, the Hebrue worde, signifieth a place that is darke, and obscure, where nothing can be seene, such as the graue or pitte is in which the dead are layde, which therefore of Iob is called the land of darkenesse, and the* 1.379 shadow of death.

MART. 8. Gentle Reader, that thou mayst the better conceiue these absurdities, and the more detest their guilefull corruptions, vnderstand (as we began to tell thee before) that

in the old Testament, because there was yet no ascending into heauen, the way of the holies (as the Apostle in his epistle to* 1.380 the Hebrues speaketh) being not yet made open, because our sauiour Christ was to dedicate and begin the enteraunce in his* 1.381 owne person, and by his passiō to open heauen: therfore (we say) in the old Testament the common phrase of the holy Scripture is, euen of the best men, as well as of others, that dying they went downe ad inferos, or ad infernū: to signifie that such was the state of the old Testament before our sauiour Christs Resurre∣ction and Ascension, that euery man went downe, and not vp: descended, and not ascended: by descending I meane not to the graue, which receiued their bodies only: but ad inferos, that is, to hel, a common receptacle or place for their soules also depar∣ted, as wel of those soules that were to be in reste, as those that were to be in paines and torments. All the soules both good and bad that then died, went downeward, and therefore the place of both sortes was called in all the tongues, by a worde answereable to this worde, hel, to signifie a lower place beneath, not onely of torments, but also of rest.

FVLK. 8. Where you reason that there was no ascē∣ding into heauen, because the way of the holies was not yet made open, when the firste tabernacle was standing, you abuse the Reader, and the Scripture. For the Apo∣stles meaning is, in that verse, to shewe that to the great benefite of Christians, that firste tabernacle is fallen, because that nowe we haue more familiar accesse vnto God, by Iesus Christ. For whereas the High Priest one∣ly, but once in the yeare, and then not without bloud, entred into the second moste holye Tabernacle, because the way of the Holyes, that is vnto the Holyest, or san∣cta sanctorum, was not then opened, nowe our Sauiour Christ hauing once entred into the holiest place, by his owne bloud, and founde eternall redemption, we haue* 1.382 by him without any ceremonies, sacrifices, or mediati∣on of any mortall Priest, free accesse vnto the throne* 1.383 of grace, euen into the holye place, by the newe and li∣uing waye, which he hath prepared for vs. But all this

is to be vnderstoode of the cleare reuelation of the mer∣cie of God in Christ, which was obscurely set forth vn∣to the fathers of the olde Testament, and not of the ef∣fect & fruite of his passion, which was the same for their saluation, that it is for ours. Neither haue the soules of the faithfull, since the cōming of Christ, any other place of rest, than the fathers had before his incarnation, God* 1.384 prouiding most wisely, that they without all the rest of their brethren, that shall be vnto the worldes ende, shall not be made perfect. And whereas you saye, that all the soules of good and badde, then went downeward, you are controlled by the wise man, Eccles. 3. Where he speaketh in the person of the carnall man, doubting of that which is not comprehended by reason, but belee∣ned by faith: who knoweth whether the spirite of man ascende vpwarde. And more plainely in the last chapter of that booke, where he exhorteth to repen∣taunce, shewing in the ende that though dust returne to the earth from whence it was, yet the spirite returneth to God that gaue it. It returneth to God therefore, it goeth not downe. For who woulde abide to heare this speache, the soules of the faithfull went downewarde to God, yea went into hell to God. Nay returned downe∣ward into hel to God that gaue them. That common re∣ceptacle therefore of the dead was the receptacle of their bodies, which all first or last, returned to the earth from whence they were taken. And where you say that place was called in all tongues, by such a word, as signifieth a lower place beneath, it is true of the common recepta∣cle of their bodies, but not of their soules. For the soule of Lazarus was not carried by the Angells into hell, but into Abrahams bosome, which was not onely a place of rest, but also of ioy, and comfort, contrarie to tormentes: betwene which and hell, was an infinite di∣staunce. Who woulde call that a common receptacle, when there was an infinite distance, vnpassable from one to the other.

MART. 9. So wee say in our Creede, that our sauiour Christ him selfe descended into hel, according to his soule: So* 1.385 S. Hierom speaking of the state of the old Testament, saith: Si Abraham, Isaac, Iacob in inferno, quis in caelorum re∣gno, that is, If Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob were in hell, who was in the kingdome of heauen? And againe, Ante Christum, Abraham apud inferos: post Christum, latro in Paradiso, that is, before the comming of Christ, Abra∣ham was in hell: after his comming, the theefe was in Paradise. And least a man might obiect, that Lazarus being* 1.386 in Abrahams bosome, saw the riche glott••n a farre of in hel, and therefore bothe Abraham and Lazarus seeme to haue bene in heauen: the saide holy doctour resolueth it, that Abraham and* 1.387 Lazarus also were in hell, but in a place of great rest and refre∣shing, and therefore verie farre off from the miserable wretched glutton that lay in tormentes.

FVLK. 9. We say in our Creede, that Christ de∣scended into hell, which being an article of our faith, must haue relation to suche benefite, as we receiue by his descending, namely, that thereby we are deliuered from the paines of hell. But that he should descend into Limbus patrum, to fetche out the fathers, which before you sayd were in prison, nowe you say in rest, we neither say it in our Creede, neither doth it pertaine vnto vs. But Hierome is cited as a fauourer of your opinion, who, I confesse in some parte held as you doe, but not altogi∣ther. For thus he writeth in Epitaph. Nepos. After he hath giuen thanks to Christ for our redemption by his death.

Quid ante miserius homine, qui aeternae mortis terrore prostra∣tus viuendi sensum ad hoc tantum acceperat vt periret, &c. What was more miserable than man before, which be∣ing cast downe with terrour of eternall death, receiued sense of liuing for this ende only, that he might perishe. For death raigned from Adam vnto Moises, yea vpon those which haue not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam. If Abraham, Isaak, and Iacob in hell, who in the kingdome of heauen? If thy friendes

were vnder the punishment. If Adam and they which sin∣ned not, were held guiltie by other mens sinnes, what is to be thought of them which said in their harte there is no God &c. And if Lazarus be seene in the bosome of Abraham and in a place of rest, what like hath hell and the kingdome of Heauen? Before Christe Abraham in hell, after Christ the theese in Paradise. In these wordes Hierome after his Rhetoricall manner,

amplifying the benefite of our redemption by Christ, doth rather touch this errour, than plainely expresse it. For first hee ma∣keth all men miserable before Christe, and cast downe with terror of eternall death, which is true, if yee consi∣der them without Christ, in which state are all men since Christe, but of all men that liued before the time of Christes death, and yet embraced their redemption by him, it is not true. As also that there are some which haue not sinned. But that al this is to be vnderstood, spe∣cially of the death of their bodies, and allegorically of their soules, he addeth immediately,

Et id••••rco in resurre∣ctione eius multa dor••••ntium corpora, &c. And therefore at his resurrection, many bodies of them that slept arose, & were seene in the heauenly Ierusalem. See you not how he turneth all into an Allegorie,

to set foorth the vertue of Christes redemption? who brought all his elect by his death, from hell, and the power of darkenesse, into the kingdome of heauen. Furthermore you bidde vs see Augustine in Ps 85. v 13. Where in the beginning he professeth his ignoraunce in discussing the question of the nethermost hell. First supposing this world in which we liue, to be Infernum superius, and the place whether the dead goe Infernum inferius, from which God hath deliue∣red vs, sending thether his sonne, who to this Infernum or* 1.388 lower place came by his birth, to that by his death: he* 1.389 addeth an other opinion.

Fortassis enim apud ipsos inferos est aliqua pars inferior &c. Peraduenture euen in hell it selfe there is some parte lower, in which the vngodly, which haue much sinned are deliuered. For whether

Abraham had bene now in certaine places in hell we can not sufficiently define. And afterward whē he hath spokē of the diuerse places of Lazarus, and the rich glutton, he concludeth as vncertainly as he began. Ergo inter ista for∣tasse duo inferna, quorum in vno, &c. Therefore peraduen∣ture betweene these two hels, in one of which the soules of the righteous rested, the soules of the wicked are tor∣mented,

one attending prayeth in the person of Christ, &c. Here you may see, what an article of beliefe this was with S. Augustine, when he hath nothing to define, but onely bringeth his coniecturall opinions and peraduen∣tures. Also how he taketh Infernum for any lower place, in so much that he calleth this worlde, Infernum. Where∣fore much more may Infernum signifie the graue, and be so sometimes translated.

MART. 10. His wordes be these in effect: If a man wil say vnto me, that Lazarus was seene in Abrahams bosome, and a place of refreshing euen before Christs comming: true it is, but what is that in comparison? Quid simile infernus & re∣gna caelorum? What hath hell and heauen like? As if he should say, Abraham in deede and Lazarus (and consequently many other) were in place of rest, but yet in hel, till Christ came, and in such rest, as hath no comparison with the ioies of heauen. And S. Augustine disputing this matter sometime, & doubting* 1.390 whether Abrahams bosome be called hel in the Scripture, and whether the name of hell be taken at any time in the good parte (for of Christes descending into hel, and of a third place where the Patriarches remained vntil Christs cōming, not heauen, but called Abrahams bosome: he doubted not, but was most assured) the same holy doctour in an other place, as being better resolued, doubted not vpon these wordes of the Psalme. Thou hast deli∣uered* 1.391 my soule from the lower hell, to make this one good sense of this place, that the lower hel is it, wherin the damned are tormented▪ the higher hell is that, wherein the soules of the iust rested, calling both places by the name of hell.

FVLK. 10. I haue set downe his very words in deed, which being well weighed, make nothing so clearly for

your phātasied Limbus, as you wold haue mē weene. You say Augustine doubteth whether Abrahams bosome, in the Scripture be called hell, Ep. 99. & de gen. ad lit. lib. 12. ca. 33. But there he doth vtterly denie it, & in Ps. 85. as by his wordes cited before appeareth, he doubteth. So that where he flatly denieth, with you he doubteth, & where he doubteth, with you he is better resolued. Wherefore this matter of Abrahā, & the faithful being in hell, is no article of faith, except you will say that S. Augustine was not resolued in the articles of our faith, who touching the thirde place, whatsoeuer at diuerse times he speaketh doubtingly in his Hypognosticon, he affirmeth reso∣lutely, that he findeth in the scriptures, that there is none.

MART. 11. And surely of his maruelous humilitie and wisedome, he would haue bene much more resolute herein, if he had heard the opinion of S. Hierom, whom he often consulted in such questions, and of other fathers, who in this point speake most plainely, that Abrahams bosome or the place where the* 1.392 Patriarkes rested, was some part of hell. Tertullian, (Li. 4. ad∣uers. Marcion.) Saith, I knowe that the bosome of Abra∣ham was no heauēly place, but only the higher hel, or, the higher part of hell. Of which speach of the fathers, rose af∣terwarde that other name, Limbus patrum, that is the very brimme or vppermost and outmost parte of hell, where the fa∣thers of the olde Testament rested. Thus we see that the Pa∣triarches themselues were as then in hell, though they were there in a place of rest: in so much that S. Hierom saith againe, Ante Resurrectionem Christi notus in Iudaea Deus, & ipsi qui nouerant eum, tamen ad inferos trahebantur. that is, Be∣fore the Resurrection of Christ, God was knowne in Iu∣rie, and they themselues that knewe him, yet were drawen vnto hell. S. Chrysostome vpon that place of Esay,* 1.393 I will breake the brasen gates, and bruse the yron barres in pieces, and will open the treasures darkened, &c. So he calleth hell, saith he, for although it were hell, yet it* 1.394 helde the holy soules, and pretious vessels, Abraham,* 1.395 Isaac, and Iacob. Marke that he saith, though it were hell,

yet there were the iust men at that time, till our sauiour Christ came to deliuer them from thence.

FVLK. 11. As wise & humble as he was, he was not readie to yeeld to euery opinion of Hierom, as his Epi∣stles writtē to Hierom do declare. Neither was Hierome sore solute in this matter, whereof he speaketh vnder a cloude▪ and in an Allegorie, as it is playne, where he saith the bodies that were raised at the resurrection of Christ, were seene in the heauenly Ierusalem, whereas it is cer∣taine they were seene only in the earthly Ierusalem actu∣ally. But he meaneth, the effect of Christes redemption, was acknowledged either in the Catholike Churche, which is Ierusalem aboue in one sence, or else that they shal be seene in the new Ierusalem & blessed felicitie of the godly at the worldes end: whereof a testimonie was giuen in that sight of their appearing and particuler re∣surrection knowen at Ierusalem on earth. But you cite an other place out of Tertullian lib. 4. aduersus Marcionē, and in the margent you say, Loco citato, but I wote not where. And these be Tertullians wordes, if you be an honest man. I knowe that the bosome of Abraham was no heauenly place, but onely the higher hell, or the higher parte of hell. I see you will bee as bolde with the auncient doctours workes, as you are with my poore writinges, whome you make to saye euen what you liste. In the last Section before you sayde S. Augustine Epistol. 99. & de gen. ad lit. Lib. 12. Cap. 33.

Doubted whether Abrahams bosome were called hell. Quod si nusquam &c. If it bee neuer reade in the holy Scriptures (scili∣cet that hell is taken in the good parte) verily that bosome of Abraham that is the habitation of a cer∣taine secrete reste, is not to bee beleeued, to be any parte of hell.

And againe by reason of the infinit Chaos, Satis vt opinor appareat, It may appeare as I thinke suffi∣ciently, that the bosome of that so greate felicitie, is not a certaine parte, and as it were a member of hell. In the other place he speaketh to the same effect, & vpon

the same ground, that he neuer findeth in the Scriptures hell, taken in good parte, and cap. 34. where he proueth that paradise is heauen, he sayth:

Quanto magis ergo. How much more then, may that bosome of Abraham, after this life be called paradise?

This sayth Augustine, and much more to this purpose, wherein I thought to haue forborne you, but that you come vpon vs still with newe forgeries. Tertullian in the booke by you quoted, pag. 274 of Frob. printed 1550 thus writeth.

Sed Marcion ali∣orsum cogit, &c. But Marcion driueth it another way, so forsooth, that he determineth both the rewardes of the Creator, either of torment, or of refreshing, to be layd vp for them in hel, which haue obeyed the law and the Pro∣phets. But of Christ, and his God, he defineth an heauen∣ly bosome, and heauen. We will answer and euen by this selfe same Scripture, conuincing his blindnesse, which a∣gainst hel discerneth this Abrahams bosom, to the poore man. For one thing is hell, (as I thinke) and Abrahams bosome, an other thing. For a great depth he saith, is be∣twene those regions, and that doth let the passage to and fro. But neither should the riche man haue lifted vp his eyes, and that truely from a farre of, but into higher pla∣ces, and that of an exceeding height, by that infinite di∣stance of height and depth. Whereof it appeareth to eue∣ry wise man, that hath euer heard of the Elysian fieldes, that there is some locall determination, which is called Abrahams bosome, to receiue the soules of his sonnes, euen of the Gentiles, he being the father of many na∣tions, to be accounted of Abrahams familie, and of the same faith, by which Abraham beleeued God, vnder no yoke of the lawe, nor in the signe of circumcision. That region therefore I call the bosome of Abraham, and if not heauenly, yet higher than hel, which shall giue rest in the meane season, to the soules of the iust, vntill the con∣summation of thinges doe finish the resurrection of all, with the fulnesse of reward. This is as much as I can find in Tertullian,

touching Abrahams bosome, which is

cleane contrarie to that you affirme him to speake. For by this saying it is manifest, that your opinion is Mar∣cions heresie. Secondly, that Abrahams bosome is not hell, but higher by an infinite distance, although not in full perfection of heauenly glorie. Thirdly, that it is not Limbus patrum, but the receptacle of all the iust soules, to the ende of the worlde. Tertullians authoritie there∣fore doth you small pleasure, and lesse honestie, vnlesse you did cite him more truely. But I am vnwise to looke for plaine dealing, and sinceritie, at your handes. Well, your Limbus patrum, the very brimme, or vppermost, or outmost part of hell, wherein all the Patriarches should rest, we haue now found from whence it came, euen from your olde acquaintance, the Mouse of Pontus, Marcion the abhominable Heretike. The other saying of Hie∣rome, but that the opinion of the fathers in hell, had by that time taken some strength, might be vnderstood of the mortalitie, wherevnto they were subiect, and neuer shoulde haue bene raysed, but by the resurrection of Christ, as it seemeth by that which he opposeth of all na∣tions, since the passion and resurrection of Christ, ac∣knowledged to speake like Philosophers, of the immor∣talitie of the soule, and reioycing in the resurrection of the dead, as the fathers mourned at their death. Chryso∣stoms place is more apparant for your errour, although he also may be vnderstood to speake allegorically of the effect of Christs death and resurrection, by which all the Patriarches were deliuered from death, and hell was spoyled: not that they were in prison there, but that the iustice of God had condemned them thether, if Christes death had not redeemed them: but I will not stande to cleare Chrysostome of this errour, which it is sufficient for me to haue foūd that Marcion the old Heretike, was the firste author thereof, by Tertullians confession, howsoeuer it came to passe, that many good men after∣ward deceiued by the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & Infernus, did hold it.

MART. 12. Therefore did Iacob say, I wil goe downe* 1.396

to my sonne vnto Hell. And againe he sayth: If any mis∣fortune happen to (Beniamin) by the way, you shal bring my gray head with sorrow vnto Hell, which is repeated a∣gaine twise in the Chapter 44. by which phrase the holy Scrip∣ture will signifie, not only death, but also the descending at that time of all sortes of soules into hell, both good and badde. And therefore it is spoken of all sortes in the holye scripture, both of* 1.397 good and of bad. For all went then into hell, but some into a place there, of rest, others into other places there, of torments. And therefore S. Hierom sayth, speaking of hell, according to the olde Testament, Hell is a place wherein soules are included:* 1.398 either in rest, or in paines, according to the qualitie of their deserts.

FVLK. 12. Iacob sayde he would be ioyned to his sonne by death, as in the other text you bring, it is more manifest, than the Sunne at noone dayes. For Iacob speaking of his graye head, must needes meane of his bodie, and therefore of the graue, and not of Hell. So in the 3. Reg. 2. which you quote, Dauid chargeth Sa∣lomon, that he suffer not the gray head of Ioab, to goe downe to the graue in peace, and that he shall cause the hoare heade of Shemei to goe downe to the graue with bloud, which by no meanes can be vnderstoode of his soule going to hell, which goeth not with bloude, al∣though it is plaine enough by the word hoare head, that he meaneth his bodye in age, or his olde bodye. And this text Pagnine, in his Dictionarie, thought necessarie to be vnderstoode of the graue, although he make the worde Sheol indifferent to signifie Hell, and the Graue. That all went to Hell, some to reste, and some to tor∣mentes, it was firste deuised by Marcion, the Here∣tike. But Saint Hierome is once againe cited in O∣seam cap. 13. where he sayth, that Hell is a place where∣in soules are included, &c. by which you see that he speaketh not of Limbus, wherein soules were included before Christ, but of suche a place wherein they are nowe included, taking the worde Infernus, generally

for any place▪ that receiueth the soules of the departed, as he sayth most plainely him selfe, in the same place: Quicquid igitur separat sratres, infernus est appellandus. Whatsoeuer doth separate brethren▪ is to be called hell. Augustine is quoted, to multiply a lye, and for nothing else, as I haue shewed before.

MART. 13. And in this sense it is also often sayd in the holy Scriptures, that such and such were gathered, or layde ••o* 1.399 their fathers though they were buried in diuerse places, and di∣ed no: in the same state of saluation, or damnation: In that sense Samuel being raysed vp, to speake with Saul, sayd, To morow thou and thy sonnes shall be with me. That is, dead, and in hell, though not in the same place or state there: in this sense all such places of the holy Scripture as haue the word Inferi, or Infernus, correspondent both to the Greeke and Hebrew, ought to be, and may be most conueniently translated by the word, Hel. As when it is sayd, Thou hast deliuered my soule from the* 1.400 lower hell, Psal. 85. v. 13. that is, as S. Augustine expoundeth it, Thou hast preserued me from mortall sinnes, that would haue brought me into the lower hel, which is for the damned. Which place of holy Scripture, and the like, when they translate graue, s••e how miserably i•• soundeth: Thou hast deliuered my soule* 1.401 from the lowest graue. Which they would neuer say for very shame, but that they are afraid to say in any place (be the holy Scriptures neuer so plaine) that any soule was deliuered or re∣turned from hell, lest thereof it might follow by and by, that the Patriarches, and our Sauiour Christ, were in such a Hell.

FVLK. 13. That which is spoken indifferently of the elect, and reprobate, must needes be vnderstoode of that which is common to both, that is, corporall death. How can it be verified of their soules, that they were laid to the fathers, when betwene the godly, and the wicked, there is an infinite distance: but the earth, the graue, or pitte▪ is a common receptacle of all dead bodies. That Samuel, which being raysed vppe, spake to Saul▪ might truely say of his soule, though not of all his sonnes, that he should be with him in hell, for it was the spirite of

Satan, and not of Samuel, although counterfaiting Sa∣muel, he might speake of the death of Saule, and▪his sonnes. As for that verse of the eighty and fiue Psalme, whereupon you do falsely so often alleage S. Augustines resolution, what absurditie hath it, to translate it, from the lowest graue, or from the bottome of the graue: whereby Dauid meaneth extreame daunger of death, that he was in, by the malice of his persecuting ene∣mies Saule and his complices. But we are afrayed to say in any place, that any soule was deliuered and retur∣ned from hell. We say that the soules of all▪ the faith∣full, are deliuered from hell: but of any which after death is condemned to hell, we acknowledge no re∣turne. And these wordes are spoken by Dauid while he liued, and praised God, for his deliueraunce, which might be not onely from the graue, but also from hell, sauing that here he speaketh of his preseruation from death.

MART. 14. And that this is their feare, it is euident, be∣cause that in al other places where it is plaine that the holy scri∣ptures speake of the hel of the dāned, from whence is no returne, they translate there the verie same worde Hell▪ and not graue. As for example, The way of life is on high to the prudent,* 1.402 to auoide from Hell beneath. Loe, here that is translated Hell beneath, which before was translated the lowest graue. And againe, Hell, and destruction are before the Lorde, howe muche more the harts of the sonnes of men? But when in the holy Scriptures there is mention of deliuery of a soul* 1.403 from Hell, then thus they translate: God shal deliuer my soul from the power of the graue: for he will receiue me. Can you tell what they would say? doeth God deliuer them from the graue, or from tēporall death, whom he receiueth to his mercie? or hath the graue any power ouer the soule? Againe when they say,* 1.404 What man liueth and shall not see death? shall he deli∣••er his soule from the hand of the graue?

FVLK. 14. I haue shewed before diuerse times, that although the Hebrue word Sheol doe properly signifie a

receptacle of the bodies after death, yet when mention is of the wicked, by consequence it may signifie hell, as the day signifieth light, the night darkenesse, fire heate, peace signifieth prosperitie, and an hundreth suche like speaches. But where you say that Prouerb. 15. v. 24. that is translated hell beneath, which before was translated the lowest graue, Psalm. 85. v. 13. You say vntruly, for al∣though in both places there is the worde Sheol, yet in that Psalme there is Tachtyah, in the Prouerbes Mattah,* 1.405 for which if it were translated the graue, that declineth, or is downewarde, it were no inconuenience. In the o∣ther textes, you trifle vpon the worde soule, whereas the Hebrewe worde signifieth not the reasonable soule, which is separable from the bodie, but the life, or the whole person of man, which may rightly be said, to be deliuered from the hande or power of the graue, as the verse. 48. doth plainely declare, when in the later parte is repeated, the sense of the former, as it is in many places of the Psalmes.

MART. 15. If th••y take graue properly, where mans bo∣die is buried: it is not true either that euerie soule, yea or euery bodie is buried in a graue. But if in all such places, they will say they meane nothing else but to signifie death, and that to goe downe into the graue, and to die, is all one: we aske them why they followe no•• the wordes of the holy Scripture to signifie the same thing, which call it, going downe to Hell, not going downe to the graue? Here they must needes open the mystery of An∣tichrist working in their translations, and say, that so they shoulde make Hell a common place to all that departed in the olde Testament, which they will not▪ no no•• in the most impor∣tant places of our beleefe concerning our Sauiour Christes de∣scending into Hell, and triumphing ouer the same. Yea, therefore of purpose they will not, onely for to defeate that parte of our Christian Creede.

FVLK. 15. We can not alwaies take the word graue properly, when the Scripture vseth it figuratiuely. But if we say, to goe downe to the graue, and to die is all

one, you aske vs why we followe not the wordes of the holy Scripture. I aunswere, we doe, for the Scri∣pture calleth it graue. and not hell. Where is then your vaine clattering of the mysterie of Antichrist, that we must open? Because we will not acknowledge that he∣reticall common place, inuented by Marcion the here∣tike, we purpose to defeate the article of Christes de∣scending into hell. A monstrous sclaunder, when we doe openly confesse it, and his triumphing ouer hell in more triumphant manner than you determine it. For if he descended into that hell onely, in which were the soules of the faithfull, which was a place of rest, of com∣fort, of ioy, and felicitie, what triumphe was it to ouer∣come suche an hell, which if you take away the hatefull name of hell by your owne description, will proue ra∣ther an heauen than an hell. But we beleeue that he tri∣umphed ouer the hell of the damned, and ouer all the power of darkenesse, which he subdued by the vertue of his obedience and sacrifice. so that it should neuer be able to claime or holde any of his elect, whome he had redeemed.

MART. 16. As when the Prophet first, Osee. 13. and afterward the Apostle, 1. Cor. 15. in the Greeke, s••y thus▪ Ero* 1.406 mors tua ô mors, morsus tuus ero inferne. Vbi est, mors stimulus tuus? vbi est, inferne, victoria tua? O death,* 1.407 I will be thy death: I will be thy sting▪ ô Hell. Where is, ô death, thy sting? where is, ô hell, thy victorie? They tran∣slate* 1.408 in both places, O graue, in steede of, ô Hel. What else can be their meaning hereby, but to draw the Reader from the com∣mon sense of our Sauiour Christs descending into hell, & con∣quering the same, and bringing out the fathers and iust men triumphantly from thence into heauen? which sense hath alwaies bene the common sense of the Catholike church & holy Doctors,* 1.409 specially vpon this place of the Prophet. And what a kinde of speach is this, and out of all tune, to make our Sauiour Christ say, O graue I will be thy destruction? as though he had triumphed ouer the graue, & not ouer hell: or ouer the graue,

that is, ouer death: and so the Prophet should say death twise, and Hell not at all.

FVLK. 16. S. Hierom whom you quote in the mar∣gent, to proue that all the Catholike Doctors vnder∣stoode this text of Osee, of Christes descending into hell, and thereby reproue our translation, which for hell sayeth graue, after he hath repeated the wordes of the Apostle 1. Cor. 15. vpon this text, thus he concludeth. I∣taque quod ille in resurrectionem interpretatus est Domini, no•• aliter interpretari nec possumus nec audemus. Therefore that which the Apostle hath interpreted of our Lordes resur∣rection, we neither can, nor dare interprete otherwise. You see therefore by Hieromes iudgement, that in this text, which is proper of Christes resurrection, it is more proper to vse the word of graue, than of hell. How vain∣ly the same Hierome interpreteth the last wordes of this chapter, of spoiling the treasure of euerie vessell that is desireable▪ of Christs deliuering out of hel the most pre∣cious vessells of the Saincts, &c. I am not ignoraunt, but we speake of translation of the 14. verse, which being vn∣derstoode of Christes resurrection, it argueth, that the graue is spoken of, rather than hell. As for the repetition of one thing twise for vehemencie, and certainties sake, is no inconuenient thing, but commonly vsed in the Scriptures.

MART. 17. Why, my Maisters, you that are so wonder∣ful precise translatoures, admit that our sauiour Christ descen∣ded not into Hel beneath, as you say, yet I thinke you will grant that he triumphed ouer Hell, and was conquerer of the same. Why then did it not please you to suffer the Prophet to say so at the least, rather than that he had conquest only of death and the graue? You abuse your ignorant reader very impudently, & your owne selues verie damnably, not onely in this, but in that you make graue, and death, all one, and so where the holy Scri∣pture often ioyneth togither death and Hell▪ as things diffe∣rent and distinct: you make them speake but one thing twise, idly and superfluously.

FVLK. 17. For our faith of Christs triumphing o∣uer hell, I haue spoken alreadie sufficiently, but of the Prophetes meaning beside the wordes them selues, the Apostle is best expounder, who referreth it to the resur∣rection, and his victorie ouer death, which he hath gay∣ned not for him selfe alone, but for all his elect. Where you say we make graue and death all one, it is false. We knowe they differ, but that one may ••e signified by the other, without any idle or superfluous repetition in one verse. I referre me to a whole hundred of examples, that may be brought out of the Psalmes, the Prophetes, and the Prouerbes, where wordes of the same, like, or neere significatiō, are twise togither repeated, to note the same matter, which none but a blasphemous dogge, will say to be done idly, or superfluously.

MART. 18. But will you know that you should not con∣found them, but that Mors, & Infernus, which are the wordes of the holy Scripture in all tongues, are distinct: heare what S. Hierome sayth, or if you will not heare, because you are of them which haue stopped their eares, let the indifferent Chri∣stian Reader harken to this holy Doctor, and great interpreter of the holy Scriptures according to his singular knowledge in all the learned tongues. Vpon the foresaid place of the Prophet, af∣ter he had spoken of our Sauiour Christes descending into hell, and ouercomming of death, he addeth: Betwene death and* 1.410 hell, this is the difference, that death is that whereby the soule is separated from the body: Hell is the place where soules are included, either in rest, or else in paines, according to the qualitie of their deserts. And that death is one thing, and Hell is another: the Psalmist also de∣clareth,* 1.411 saying: THERE IS not in death, that is mind∣full of thee, but in Hell who shall confesse to thee? And in another place. Let death come vpon them, and let them goe downe into Hell aliue. Thus farre S. Hierom.

FVLK. 18. He that by the graue vnderstandeth a place to receiue the bodies of the dead, and figuratiuely death, doth no more confound the wordes of death, and

the graue, then he that by a cup, vnderstandeth a vessell to receiue drinke properly, and figuratiuely, that drinke which is contayned in such a vessell. Therefore that you cite out of Hierome, maketh nothing against vs, for hee him selfe, although deceyued by the Septuagintes, or rather by the ambiguitie of the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which they vse, in the signification of the Hebrue worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet by Infernus vnderstandeth them that be In in∣ferno, and the dead, as wee doe by the worde graue of∣tentimes. As for his opinion of the godly soules in hap∣pie hell before Christes death, or his interpretation of a∣ny other parte of Scripture, wee professe not to followe in our translations, but as neere as wee can the true sig∣nificatiō of the words of holy Scripture, with such sence (if any thing be doubtfull) as the proper circumstances of euery place will lead vs vnto, that wee may attayne to the meaning of the holy Ghost.

MART. 19. By which differences of death and Hell, (whereof wee must often aduertise the Reader) are meant two things: death, and the going downe of the soule into some recep∣tacle of Hell, in that state of the olde Testament, at what time the holy Scriptures vsed this phrase so often. Now, these impu∣dent translators in all these places, translate it graue, of purpose* 1.412 to confound it and death togither, and to make it but one thing, which S. Hierom sheweth to be different, in the very same sense that we haue declared.

FVLK. 19. The difference of Mors & Infernus which Hierome maketh, can not alwaies stand, as I haue shewed of the hoare heades of Iacob, Ioab, and Shemei, which none but madde men will say, to haue descended into a receptacle of soules, beside other places of Scripture, where Sheol must of necessity signifie a place for the bo∣die. And euen those places of the Psalmes, that S. Hierom calleth to witnesse, do make against his error. For where Dauid sayth, Psal. 6. In hell who shall confesse vnto thee? How can it be true of the soules of the faithfull being in that holy hell Abrahams bosome? Did not Abraham

confesse vnto God, & acknowledge his mercie? Did not Lazarus the same, did not all the holy soules departed confesse God in Abrahams bosome? Were all those blessed soules so vnthankefull, that being carried into that place of rest, and comfort, none of them would cō∣fesse Gods benefits? It is plaine therefore, to the confu∣sion of your error, that Sheol in that place of Dauid must nedes signifie the graue, in which no man doth confesse, praise, or giue thanks vnto God, of whom in death there is no remembraunce. Therefore he desireth life and re∣storing of health, that he may praise God in his Church or congregation. Likewise in the Psal. 54. where he pro∣phesieth vnto the wicked a sodaine death, such as befell to Chore, Dathan, & Abiram, which went downe quicke into the graue. Not into hell, whether come no bodies of men liuing, but the soules of men that are dead.

MART. 20. But alas, is it the very nature of the Hebrew,* 1.413 Greeke, or Latine, that forceth thē so much to English it graue, rather than hel? we appeale to all Hebricians, Grecians, & La∣tinists in the world: first, if a man would aske, what is Hebrew,* 1.414 or Greeke, or Latine for Hell: whether they would not answer, these three words, as the very proper words to signifie it, euen as panis signifieth bread: secondly, if a man would aske, what is* 1.415 Hebrew, or Greeke, or Latine, for a graue: whether they would answer these words, and not three other which they know, are as proper words for graue, as lac, is for milke.* 1.416

FVLK. 20. The very nature of the Hebrew worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is most properly to signifie a graue, or receptacle of dead bodies, as all that be learned in that tongue, doe knowe. About the Greeke and Latine termes, is not our question, and therefore you deale deceitfully, to handle them all three togither. Although neither 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor Infer∣nus are so proper for hel, but that they may be taken also sometimes for the graue, and so perhaps were meant by the Greeke and Latine translators in diuerse places. You speake therefore as one voyd of all shame, to say they are as proper for hell, as panis, for breade. Where you aske

what is Hebrew, Greeke, or Latine, for hell: you must vnderstand, that if you speake of a proper word, for those inuisible places, wherein the soules departed, are either in ioy or torments, I answer, there is no proper word for those places▪ either in Hebrew, Greeke, or Latine. For that which of all these tongues is translated heauen, is the proper word for the sensible skye, in which are the Sunne, Moone, and Starres, and by a figure is transferred to signifie the place of Gods glorie, in which he reigneth with the blessed spirits of Angels, and men, aboue this sensible world. Paradise and Abrahams bosome, who is so childish, not to acknowledge them to be borrowed wordes, and not proper. So fo••▪ 〈…〉〈…〉 of the re∣probate soules in the Hebrue tongue T••phe•••• or Gehin∣nom which properly are the names of an abhominable place of Idolatry, are vsed, & Sheol somtimes figuratiuely may signifie the same. In Greeke & Latin G••henna is vsed for the same, which is borrowed of the Hebrue. Some∣times also the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greeke is taken for the place of the damned, and the kingdome of darkenesse. The Latine word Infernus is any lowe place. Wherefore I can not maruaile sufficiently at your impudencie, which af∣firme these three words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Infernus, to be as proper for our English worde hell, as Panis is for bread. That there be other wordes beside these in all the three tongues to signifie a graue, I maruaile to what purpose you tell vs, except you would haue ignorant folke sup∣pose, that there cannot be two Hebrue, Greeke, or Latine wordes for one thing.

MART. 21. Yea, note and consider diligently what wee will say. Let them shewe me out of all the Bible one place, where it is certaine and agreed among all, that it must needes signifie graue▪ let them shewe me in any one such place, that the holy Scripture vseth any of those former three wordes for graue. As when Abraham bought a place of burial, whether he bought Infernum: or when it is said the kings of Israel were buried in* 1.417 the monuments or sepulchers of their fathers, whether it say, in

infernis patrum suorum. So that not onely Diuines by this obseruation, but Grammarians also and children may easily see, that the proper and naturall signification of the said wordes, is in English Hel, and not graue.

FVLK. 21. We note wel your foolish subtiltie, that will haue vs to shewe you one place, where it is oertaine and agreed among al, that, sheol muste needes signifie graue I am perswaded that you and such as you are, that haue sold your selues to Antichrist, to maintaine his he∣resies with all impudencie, will agree to nothing that shall be brought, though it be neuer so plaine and cer∣taine, that it must needes so signifie. I haue already shew∣ed you three places, where the hoare head is sayd to goe down into sheol, that is into the graue For whether shold the hoare head goe but into the graue? Nothing can be more plaine to him that will agree to truth, that sheol in all such places is taken for the graue. But to omit those places, because I haue spoken of them all readie: what say you to that place, Numb. 16? where the earth opened her mouth, & swallowed vp the rebelles with their tents, and all there substaunce of cattaile, and what soeuer they had: where the text sayeth. They went downe, and all that they had aliue sheolah into the pitte or graue. God made a great graue or hole in the earth, to receiue them all. Where no man will saie that evther the bodies of these men or their substaunce of Tentes, cattaile, and stuffe went into hell, as it is sure their soules wente into torment. And if authoritie do way more with you than good reason, heare what S. Augustine writeth vpon the same texte▪

and how he taketh your inferos or infernum, which in the Hebrue is sheol, Quest. super Num. lib. 4. c. 29. Et descenderunt ipsi & omnia quaecunque sunt eis viuen∣tes ad inferos. Notandum secundum locum terreni••m dictos es∣se inferos, hoc est, &c. And they themselues descended, and all that they had aliue vnto Inferas, the lower partes. It is to be noted, that Inferi are spoken of an earthly place, that is in the lowe partes of the earth. For diuersly and

vnder manifold vnderstāding euen as the sense of things which are in hand requireth, the name of Inferi is put in the Scriptures, & especially it is wont to be taken for the dead. But for asmuch as it is saide that those descended aliue ad inferos, & by the very narration it appeareth suf∣ficiently what was done: it is manifest, as I said, that the lower partes of the earth are termed by this word inferi, in comparison of this vpper part of the earth in which we liue. Like as in comparison of the higher heauen, where the dwelling of the holy Aungels is, the Scripture saith, that the sinful Angels being thrust downe into the dark∣nesse of this ayre, are reserued as it were in prisons of a lower part or hel, to be punished.

S. Augustine here doth not only vnderstand this place of the graue or receptacle of bodies: but also sheweth that the Latin word inferi or infernus, doth not alwaies signifie hel, as you made it of late, as proper for hel, as Panis for bread. But bicause you shal not complaine of the singularitie of this exāple, al∣though you require but one, I wil adde out of the Psalme 141. where the Prophet saith, our bones are scattered at the very brinke or mouth of sheol the graue. Howe can you vnderstand him to speake of hel? For the graue and not hell is a place for dead mens bones: as he speaketh of the faithfull, by the wicked compted as good as dead & rotten, consumed to the bones. By these and many other examples, it is manifest, that the proper signification of sheol in English, is a graue and not hell.

MART. 22. And therefore Beza doth strangely abuse* 1.418 his Reader, more than in one place, saying that the Hebrue word doth properly signifie graue, beyng deduced of a verbe that signifieth, to craue or aske, because it craueth alwayes newe coarses. As though the graue craued moe than Hel doth, or swal∣lowed* 1.419 moe, or were more hardly satisfied and filled than Hell. for in all such places they translate graue. And in one such place they say, The graue and destructiō can neuer be ful.* 1.420 Whereas them selues a litle before, translate the very same wordes, Hel & destructiō: and therefore it might haue pleased* 1.421

them to haue said also, Hel and destructiō can neuer be ful, as their powfellowes do in their translation, and againe, We shal* 1.422 swalow them vp, like Hel. The Diuel (we reade) goeth a∣bout continually like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may de••ou••. Who is called in the Apocalypse, Abaddon, that* 1.423 is, destruction. And so very aptly Hel and destruction are ioyned togither, and are truly said neuer to be filled. What mad∣nesse and impudencie is it then for Beza to write thus: Who* 1.424 is ignorant that by the Hebrue worde, rather is signified a graue, for that it seemeth after a sorte to craue alwaies new c••rcasses?

FVLK. 22. Beza doth not abuse his reader, to tel him that sheol is deriued of a verbe that signifieth cra∣uing, or asking: but you doe vnhonestly abuse Beza, as you doe euery man, when you take in hand, to affirme that he standeth onely vpon the etymologie of sheol, to proue that it signifieth the graue.

MART. 23. And againe, cōcerning our Sauiour Christs descending into hell▪ and deliuering the fathers from thence, it* 1.425 is maruel, f••i••lr Be••a, that the most parte of the auncient fathers were in this errour, whereas with the Hebrues the word SHEOL, signifieth nothing else but GRAVE. Be∣fore, he pleaded vpon the etymologie or nature of the worde, now also he pleadeth vpon the authoritie of the Hebrues themselues. If he were not knowen to be very impudent and obstinate, wee woulde easily mistrust his skill in the Hebrue, saying that among the Hebrues, the worde signifieth nothing else but* 1.426 graue.

FVLK. 23. Beza sayth that the worde Sheol proper∣ly signifieth nothing but the graue, neuerthelesse hee saith, it is taken figuratiuely, for tribulation, whiche is neere to extreeme destruction, yea and sometime for the bottomlesse pitte of hell.

MART. 24. I would gladly knowe, what are those He∣brues: doth not the Hebrue text of the holy Scripture best tell vs the vse of this word? Do not themselues translate it Hel ve∣ry often? do not the Septuaginta alwaies? If any Hebrue in

the world, were asked, how he would turne these wordes into He∣brue, Similes estis sepulchris dealbatis: you are like to whited graues: And, Sepulchrum eius apud vos est: His graue is among you: would any Hebrue I say translate it by this Hebrue worde which Beza saith among the Hebrues signi∣fieth* 1.427 nothing else but graue▪ Aske your Hebrue Readers in this case, and see what they will answere.

FVLK. 24. The best of the Hebrues, that either in∣terpreted Scriptures, or made Dictionaries, Iewes, or Christians, do acknowledge that sheol doth properly sig∣nifie the graue. That the Septuaginta do alwaies trāslate it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it proueth not that it alwaies signifieth hel, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth not alwaies hell, as in the place of Nūb. 16. As for the turning of Latin into Hebrue, is not our cō∣trouersie, but of translating Hebrue into English, sheol may signifie the graue, the hole, the pit, as F••••ea, though it be not all one with the Latine worde Sepulchrum. And yet Rabbi Salomon whome you boldly cite in the 27. Section, saith plainely that the true and proper interpre∣tation* 1.428 of Sheol is Keber, whiche you say, is as proper for graue, as Lac is for milke.

MART. 25. What are those Hebrues then, that Beza* 1.429 speaketh of? forsooth certaine Iewes or later Rabbines, which, as they doe falsely interprete all the holy Scriptures agaynst our Sauiour Christ in other points of our beleefe, as against his Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection: so do they also falsely in∣terprete the holy scriptures against his descending into Hell, which those Iewish Rabbines deny, because they looke for ano∣ther Messias that shal not die at al, and consequētly shal not af∣ter his death go downe into Hel & deliuer the fathers expecting his comming as our sauiour Christ did. And therfore those Iew∣ish Rabbines hold as the heretikes do, that the fathers of the old Testament were in heauen before our sauiour Christs Incarna∣tion: & these Rabbines are they which also peruert the Hebrue word to the significatiō of graue, in such places of the holy scri∣ptures as speake either of our Sauiour Christes descending in∣to hel, or of the fathers going downe into Hell, euen in like maner

as they peruert other Hebrew wordes, of the holy scripture, as* 1.430 namely, alma, to signifie a young woman, not a virgin, against our Sauiours birth of the B. Virgin Marie.

FVLK. 25. Beza speaketh of the holy men of God, which did write the Scriptures, and so vse that word She∣ol, as it can not be taken to signifie any thing properly, but the graue or pit. And as for the Iewish Rabbīs, what reason is there, why we should not credite them in the interpretatiou of wordes, of their owne tongue, rather than any auncient Christians ignorant of the Hebrewe tongue? And although they doe sometimes frowardly contend about the significatiō of a word or two, against the truth of the Gospell, that is no sufficient cause why they should be discredited in all words. But beside them. Beza hath also the best Hebritians that haue bene in this laste age, among the Christians, not onely Protestants, but Papistes also, namely Pagninus, and Masius, in their Dictionaries.

MART. 26. And if these later Rabbines be the He∣brewes that Beza meaneth, and which these gay English tran∣slators followe, we lament that they ioyne themselues with such companions, being the sworne enemies of our Sauiour Christ. Surely the Christian Hebrewes in Rome, and elsewhere, which of great Rabbines are become zealous Doctors of Christianiti••, and therefore honour euery mysterie and article of our Christi∣an faith, concerning our Sauiour Christ, they dispute as vehe∣mently against those other Rabbines, as we doe against the He∣retikes, and among other things, they tell them, thus Saul sayd,* 1.431 Raise me vp Samuel, and that the woman sayd, I see Gods ascending out of the earth, and, An olde man is ascended or come vp, and that Samuel sayd, Why hast thou disquie∣ted me, that I should be raysed vp? and, To morow thou and thy sonnes shall be with me. And the booke of Eccle∣siasticus* 1.432 sayth, that Samuel died, and afterward lifted vp his voice out of the earth, &c. All which the holy Scripture would neuer haue thus expressed, (whether it were Samuel in deede o•• not) if Saul and the Iewes then had beleeued, that their

Prophets and Patriarches had bene in heauen about. And as for the Hebrew worde, they make it (as euery boye among the Iewes doth well know) as proper a word for Hell▪ as panis is for bread, and as vnproper for a graue (though so it may be vsed by a figure of speech) as Cymba Charontis is Latine for death.

FVLK. 26. If we followed the Iewes in exposition of the Scriptures against Christ, we were not so much to be pitied, as to be abhorred: but if we be content to learne the proprietie of Hebrew wordes of the learned Rabbinsi, as Hierom was glad to doe of his Rabbin, who as it appeareth by his scholler in some places, was not excellently learned, there is no cause why any man should pitie vs, but them rather, that to cloke their ig∣norance in the Hebrewe tongue, pretende as if it were more vnlawfull to learne Hebrew of the Hebrew Rab∣bins, than Latine of Quintilian or Priscian, and Greeke of Gaza, Suidas, and such like. That you tell v•• of the Romishe Rabbins conuerted from Iudai••me, to Papi∣strie, is not worth a straw. For their argument of Saules and a witches opinion, that the deade might be raysed, proueth nothing in the worlde, that they were in Hell. And the sonne of Syrach sheweth him selfe not to be directed by the spirite of God, which affirmeth, Sa∣muel did lift vp his voice after his death▪ out of the earth, contrarye to the iudgement of Catholike Doctors of the Church. For that the Scripture speaketh of Samu∣el raysed by the witche, is meant of a wicked spirite counterfetting the shape and similitude of Samuel. For the soules of the faithfull, and holy Prophets, be not at the commaundements of witches, but at rest with God, where they can not be disquieted. As for the authoritie of those vnknowen authors, that teach boyes to say, Sheol is as proper for hell, as panis for bread, we may esteeme it to be of as good credit, as Charons boate, Plutoes pallace, and Cerberus three heads, &c.

MART. 27. But what speake I of these? doe no: the grea∣test

and most auncient Rabbines (so to call them) the Septu∣aginta* 1.433 alwayes translate the Hebrew word, by the Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is properly hell? doe not the Talmudistes, and Chaldee paraphrases, and Rabbi Salomon Iarhi, handling these places of the Psalmes, He will deliuer my soule from the hande of Sheol, interprete it by Gehinum, that is, Gehenna, hell? and yet the Caluinists bring this place for an example that it signi∣fieth graue. Likewise vpon this place, Let all sinners be tur∣ned into SHEOL: the foresayde Rabbines interprete it by Gehinum, Hell. Insomuch that in the Prouerbs, and in Iob, it* 1.434 is ioyned with Abaddon. Where Rabbi Leui according to the opinion of the Hebrewes, expoundeth Sheol, to be the lowest re∣gion of the world, a deepe place opposite to heauen, whereof it is written, If I descended into Hell, thou art present: and so doth Rabbi Abraham expounde the same worde in chap. 2. Ion••.

FVLK. 27. Although the Septuaginta doe alwayes translate Sheol by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet doe they not thereby alwayes vnderstand hel: as it is manifest in all those pla∣ces, where the Scripture speaketh of a receptacle of dead bodies. But now you will beare vs downe with Rabbins, Talmudists and Chaldee paraphrases. And firste you saye that all these, handling that verse of the 49. Psalme. He will deliuer my soule from the hand of Sheol, interprete it by Gehinnom, that is, hell. I graunt that Rabbi Ioseph vsing the libertie of a Paraphrast, rather than a translator, interpreteth the worde by Gehinnom, that signifieth hell fire, and so the sense is true. For God deliuered Dauid from eternall damnation. But Rabbi Dauid Chimchi, ex∣pounding the same place according to the proper signi∣fication of Sheol, sayeth. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c.

The Prophet sayde when he sawe the destruction of the soules of the wicked in their death: In the day in which my bodie shall goe downe to (Sheol) the graue, God shall deliuer my soule from the hande of (Sheol) the graue, that my soule shall not perishe with my bodie.

You see therefore that all the Rabbines be not of your

side, no nor Rabbi Salomon Iarchi, whom you cite. For vpon 37. of Genesis, verse 35. where Iacob sayth, he will goe downe to the graue, mourning,

thus he writeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Mourning to Sheol, according to the plaine and literall sense the inter∣pretation thereof is the grane, in my mourning I will be buried, and I will not be comforted, all my dayes: but after the Midrash, or exposition, not according to the let∣ter, it is hell. This signe was deliuered by handes, or by tradition, from the mouth of his power, (that is from a diuine oracle) if not one of my sonnes shall dye in my life time, I had confidence, that I should not see hell.

By this saying, it is manifest, that this Rabbine acknowled∣ged the true and proper translation of this worde Sheol, was to the graue, although after figuratiue, and some∣times fond expositions, it was interpreted for hell. Like∣wise you say, but vntruly, of this verse, Psal. 9. v. 18. Let all sinners be turned to Sheol, for there the Chaldee Para∣phrast retaineth the worde Sheol, and doth not giue any other word for it. Dauid Chimchi interpreteth it accor∣ding to the literall sense, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let the wic∣ked be turned into the graue, which is so straung with you to be aunswerable to Sheol, although as R. Salomon he sayth, it may be vnderstoode of their buriall in hell. That Sheol in the Prouerbs, & Iob is ioyned with abaddō,* 1.435 it hindreth it not to signify the graue, where is the destru ction and consumption of the body.

And Prou. 15. v. 11. the Chaldee Paraphrast retaineth Sheol, which Kabuena∣ki expoundeth thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. It is sayd of Sheol, and A∣baddon, that Sheol is the graue, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Abaddon is hell, which is deeper than the graue, &c.

And although in Iob Rabbi Leui, and others expound Sheol for a secret place about the center of the earth, which should seeme to be* 1.436 hell: yet they say not that this is the proper signification of the word Sheol. For in the 21. of Iob. v. 13. the Chaldee Paraphrast for Sheol, interpreteth Kebureta, the graue, and in the 14. verse. 13. beith kebureta, the house of the graue,

and 17. v. 12. and 15. the graue. In both which places Rab∣bi Abraham Peritsol ioyneth Sheol, and Keber togither, both signifying the graue, and in the later verse, he ma∣keth Iob to say to his friends 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The barres of* 1.437 lies with which you comfort me into the middest of the pit of the graue shall go downe with me when I dye. By all which testimonies it is manifest, that Sheol is not the proper for hel, the receptacle of soules, but for graue, the common dwelling house of mens bodies.

But you will presse vs yet further, with the authoritie of Rabbi Abraham vpon Ionas. 2. In deede in Abraham Aben Ezra, I reade as you say, but this is onely his opi∣nion of the figuratiue sense of that place.

for vpon Ho∣see cap. 13. v. 14. he expoundeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thus, I haue bene a redeemer of thy fathers, nowe I will be a destru∣ction of death which is to thee.

And so doe R. Shelomo Iarchi, and Rabbi Dauid Chimchi: yea, so doth Saint Paule, more worth than all the Rabbins that euer were, expound it.

MART. 28. This being the opinion and interpretation of the Hebrues, See the skill or the honestie of Beza, saying that Sheol, with the Hebrues signifieth nothing but graue. Where∣as in deede (to speake skilfully, vprightly, and not contentious∣ly) it may signifie graue sometime secondarily, but Hell, prin∣cipally and properly, as is manifest, for that there is no other worde so often vsed and so familiar in the Scriptures to signifie Hell, as this, and for that the Septuaginta doe alwaies interprete it by the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

FVLK. 28. The opinion of the Hebrues being as I haue rehearsed out of their owne wordes, see the skill or honestie of Martin, which dare open his mouth against Beza in this matter, and tell vs that Sheol may secunda∣rily signifie a graue, whereas it doth first and principally so signifie, howe soeuer the Septuaginta doe inter∣prete it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth an obscure darke place vnder the earth, and not hell properly.

MART. 29. The which Greeke worde is so notorius and

peculiar for Hell, that the Paganes vse it also for Pluto, whom they feigned to bee God of hell, and not God of graues: and and if they woulde stand with vs in this point, wee might beate them with their owne kinde of reasoning, out of Poetes and profane writers, and out of all Lexicons. Vnlesse they will tel vs (contrarie to their custome) that wee Christians must attende the Ecclesiasticall vse of this word in the Bible, and in Christian writers, & that in them it signifieth graue. For so Beza seemeth* 1.438 to say, that the Greeke Interpreters of the Bible translated the Hebrewe worde aforesayed by this Greeke worde, as signi∣fiyng a darke place: whereas the Greeke Poetes vsed it for that which the Latines called Inferos, that is, Hell. Which ambiguitie (sayeth he) of the worde, made ma∣ny erre, affirming Christes descending into Hell. So was LIMBVS builded, whereunto afterward Purgatory was laide.

FVLK. 29. That Pluto of the Poets is faigned to be the God of Hell, it was heere of that they imagined Hell to bee a place vnder the earth, which was his pallace, as earth was his kingdome: or els what becommeth of the triple diuision of all the worlde, if Iupiter hauing hea∣uen, Neptune the Sea, Pluto should not haue the earth? who had his name of the riches inclosed in the earth, and was also called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as in Homer Il. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Iupiter and I, and Pluto the thirde that ruleth ouer the dead. Whereof it is put in the Genetiue case; after such prepositions as gouerne an Accusatiue or Datiue, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the house of Pluto is to bee vnderstoode. I might heere cite diuers pla∣ces out of Nonius the Christian Greeke Poet, who see∣meth to vse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the graue, speaking of the re∣surrection of Christ, Ioan. 2. & of Lazarus cap. 11. But of the trāslation of the Greke word is not our questiō, but of the Hebrewe worde Sheol, which the septuaginta tur∣ning into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meane a place generally to receiue the dead, which somtimes is the graue of the bodies, some∣times hell of the soules.

MART. 30. I see Beza his wilinesse verie well in this pointe. For heere the man hath vttered all his harte, and the whole mysterie of his craftie meaning of this corrupte translation: that to auoyde these three things, Christes de∣scending into Hell, Limbus patrum, and Purgatorie, he and his companions wrest the foresayd wordes of the holy Scriptures to the signification of graue, But let the indifferent Chri∣stian reader onely consider Beza his owne wordes in this place, point by point.

FVLK. 30. Beza vseth no wilinesse or craft at all, for he doeth alwayes openly detest the dreames of Lim∣bus and Purgatorie, and whatsoeuer may depende vpon them. But let vs see what you can gather out of his wordes.

MART. 31. First he sayeth, that the Greeke Poetes were wont to vse the Greeke worde for Hell: secondly, that they which interpreted the Bible out of Hebrewe into Greeke, vsed the verie same worde for that Hebrewe worde where∣of wee haue nowe disputed: thirdlye, that the aunciente fathers (for of them he speaketh, as a litle before he ex∣presseth) vnderstoode the sayed Greeke worde for Hell, and* 1.439 thereby grewe to those errours (as he impudently affirmeth) of Christes descending into Hell, and of the place in Hell where the fathers rested expecting the comming of our Sauiour, &c. Whereby the Reader doeth easily see, that both the pro∣fane and also the Ecclesiasticall vse of the word is for Hell, and not for graue.

FVLK. 31. I looked for some great matter, when you beganne to consider so diligently from point to point: but I see we shall haue nothing, but this colde collection, that both the prophane and Ecclesiasticall vse of this worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is for hell, and not for the graue. That it is vsed for hell, no man denieth: but that it is vsed onely for hell. Beza sayeth not, and I haue proued that it is not. As also it may be proued by diuerse o∣ther places out of the Apocriphall writings, namely Sap. 16. v. 13. where it is translated for death by your

owne Latine translatour, being the same verse, that is in the songe of Anna 1. Sam. 2. where Sheol is vsed, and is re∣peared in that signification Tob. 13. v. 12. Likewise Sap. 2. v. 1. where the vngodly that professe the mortality of the soul say, that none was knowen to returne from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word can signifie nothing but graue. For hell it can not signifie in their speach, that beleue no hell, & say plainly that their soules shall vanishe like smoke, or light ayer. Likewise in Baruch. 2. it is taken for the graue, where he sayeth the deade which are in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall not giue honour to God, where it is certaine, that by that worde is meant the graue, seeing the soules of the righteous that were in Abrahams bosome, did praise God, and moreouer, he maketh it plaine that he speaketh of the deade bodies, when he sayth their spirite is taken out of their bowels.

MART. 32. And for the Latine worde, it is the like* 1.440 case for all the worlde: and if a man will aske but his childe that commeth from the Grammar, what is Infernus, he will say Hell, and not graue: what is Latine for graue? He will aun∣swere Sepulchrum, or monumentum. But neuer Infer∣nus, vnlesse one of these Caluinisticall translatours taught him so, to deceiue his father.

FVLK. 32. I hope they that be wise will beleeue S. Augustine, rather than you, that the worde Inferi, which is the same that Infernus, hath diuerse and manifolde vnderstandings in the Scripture, as I haue declared be∣fore sect. 21. But with the Latine word Infornus, we haue litle to doe, which translate not out of Latine, but out of Hebrue or Greeke.

MART. 33. Nowe then, to drawe to a conclusion of this their corruption also in their Englishe translation: whereas the Hebrue, and Greeke, and Latine wordes doe most properly and vsually signifie Hell: and both Greeke, and Latine inter∣preters precisely in euerie place vse for the Hebrue worde, that one Greeke worde, and that one Latine worde, which by all cu∣stome of speaking & writing▪ signifie Hell: c 1.441 it had bene the part of

sincere and true meaning translatours, to haue translated it al∣so in English alwayes by the word Hell: and afterward to haue disputed of the meaning thereof, whether and when it is to be ta∣ken for Hell, or graue, or lake, or death, or any such thing. As i•• one place they haue done it very exactly & indifferently, name∣ly when Ionas sayth (c. 2. v. 2.) out of the Whales belly. Out of the belly of hell, cryed I, and thou heardest my voice. So all translate it, and well, whatsoeuer it signifie in this place. They thinke that Hell, here signifieth nothing else but the Whales belly, and the affliction of Ionas, and so the worde may signifie by a Metaphoricall speech, as when we say in English, It* 1.442 is a hell to liue thus: and therefore no doubt they did here translate it so, to insinuate that in other places it might as well signifie graue, as here the Whales belly.

FVLK. 33. Your conclusion is as good as your premisses, because the Greeke and Latine Interpretors had before vs translated amisse, which gaue occasion to diuerse errours, therefore we also knowing the true sig∣nification of the worde, muste haue followed them in wrong and doubtfull translation, and afterward debated the meaning of the seuerall places. But in the margent, you tell vs, that such Catholikes as haue translated the word Sheol▪ for a graue, haue also done amisse. Pardon vs M. Martin, we take you for no such learned Hebritian, that you should controll Pagninus, Isidorus Clarius, and all other Hebritians of this time vpon suche slender sleeuelesse reasons, as you haue brought hetherto. And you shewe an intollerable proude stomake, that being a man so litle seene in the Hebrue tongue (as you shewe your selfe to be) you should condemne such graue and learned persons of your owne side, of rashnesse, or igno∣rance. For you make them in the case of chaunce med∣ley, that haue translated sheol a graue. Thinke you the de∣puties of the Councell of Trent had no more discretion in perusing Isidorus Clarius correctiō of the Bible, than to suffer him to chaunge life & safetie into chance med∣ly and manslaughter? you may in time to come if you

apply your studie, proue learned in that language wher∣in as yet you are but a smatterer not worthy to be heard against so many, so learned, so famous professors of the Hebrew tongue, Iewes, and Christians, Protestants, and Papistes, authors of Grammars, Dictionaries, and translations. But in the second of Ionas, it pleaseth you well, that our Geneua Bible translateth this word Hell, out of the bellie of hell, &c. but you like not that they shoulde interprete it a metaphoricall Hell, or the extre∣mitie of affliction, whereinto the Prophet was brought: where you make it no doubt what they would insinu∣ate, you shew your selfe more bold to affirme, than ready or able to proue.

MART. 34. But then they shoulde haue translated it also hell in other places, as they did in this, and afterward haue interpreted it graue in their commentaries, and not presumptu∣ously to straiten and limite the word of the holy Ghost, to their priuate sense and interpretation, and to preiudice the auncient & learned holy fathers, which looke farremore deepely and spi∣ritually* 1.443 into this prophecie, than to Ionas, or the Whale, our Sauiour himselfe also applying it to his owne person, and to his being in the hart of the earth three dayes and three nights. And therefore S. Hierome sayth, This belly of Hell, according to* 1.444 the storie, is the Whales bellye, but it may much better be referred to the persō of Christ, which vnder the name of Dauid singeth in the Psalme▪ Thou shalt not leaue my* 1.445 soule in Hell: Who was in Hel aliue, and free among the dead. And that which our Sauiour saith. The Sonne of man shall be in the harte of the earth, he doth interprete of his soule in hell. For as the hart is in the middes of the body, so is Hel said to be in the middes of the earth.

FVLK. 34. They haue in other places trāslated it ac∣cording to the proprietie of the word. & if in this place they had done so likewise, I see not what faulte they had committed. Certaine it is that the whales belly, did ra∣ther resemble a graue, wherein Ionas seemed to be bu∣ried, than hell the receptacle of separated soules. It is the

office of a translator not so much to regarde what other haue written vpon the place he translateth, be they aun∣cient, be they godly, be they learned, as what sense the interpretation of the wordes will beste beare. Without preiudice therefore of any mans credite, the truth in this case must be sought out.

That you report out of Hierom vpon this place, shew∣eth that both the Hebrue word sheol, and the Latin infer∣nus, are not proper & peculiar for hel, as in other places you tell vs. That S. Hierom interpreteth the saying of Christ, Math. 12. v. 40. of his being in the harte of the earth, to be meant of his being in hel, which is said to be in the middest of the earth, it is confuted by the wordes of our Sauiour Christ, who sayeth, that he shall be there three dayes, and three nightes, that is, all the time of his death, which is true of his bodie in the graue, but not of his soule in hell: for both he sayde he would be that day in Paradise, and you your selues holde, that he made no tariaunce in hell. Beside that it is a phantasticall opinion to limit hell into the middest of the earth, which is ra∣ther a place without the sensible worlde, than any dun∣geon within the earth.

MART. 35. Thus then presupposing (as we must) that Ionas speaketh in the person, of our Sauiour Christ, the princi∣pall sense is not of the whales belly, but of that hell whether our Sauiour Christ descended, and from whence he deliuered the fa∣thers of the old Testament, him selfe ascending into heauen, as their King and generall capitaine before them, and opening the way of heauen vnto them, as is signified in an other Prophet:* 1.446 and was the first that entred heauen.

FVLK. 35. That which Ionas spake, was first true of his owne person, and then of Christ, as Ionas was in this a resemblaunce of him. But by this similitude of Christ remaining so many daies and nightes in the harte of the earth, as Ionas did in the whales bellie, it is manifest that he speaketh of his bodie remaining in the graue, not of his soule tarying in hell. Wherfore the descending of

Christ into Limbus patrum, hath no manner of hold, ey∣ther of the saying of Christ in the Gospell▪ Math. 12. or of Ionas in his praier, Ion. 2.

MART. 36. Against all which truthes and euery point thereof, these translatours are so watchefull and warie, that where the Apostle saith, Christ began, and dedicated vnto vs* 1.447 the way into heauen, they say, in their English translations with* 1.448 full consent nothing else bus, He prepared. Why are they fal∣s••••* 1.449 here than their Maisters, Caluin, Beza, Illyricus, who reade, Dedicauit? Is there nothing in the Greeke word, but bare pre∣paration? where be these etymologistes now, that can straine* 1.450 and wring other wordes to the vttermost aduantage of their he∣resie, and here are content for the like aduantage, to dissemble the force of this word, which by all vse and propertie signifieth, to make new, to begin a thing, to be the first author, to dedicate: as S. Augustine might haue taught them, and their Lexicons,* 1.451 and the Scriptures in many places. This translation (no doubt) is not done sincerely and indifferently of them, but for their owne deceitfull purpose, as is all the rest. When Sainct Paule speaketh of preparation onely, they knowe right well that he vseth the vsuall word to prepare: as, He hath prepared them* 1.452 a city: and wheresoeuer is signified preparation onely, let them* 1.453 bring vs one example where it is expressed by the other Greeke word, which now we speake of.

FVLK. 36. I graūt the translations had bene more proper, and agreable to the Greeke worde, to haue said, which he hath dedicated, or by dedication prepared. But here is no fraude, against any trueth or errour of yours. For the Apostle speaketh not of the way by which we ascend immediatly to heauen, but of the way by which we haue free accesse to God through faith, without the vailes and ceremonies of the law, as it is manifest by his exhortation. And whereas you said before, that Christ a∣scending into heauē, to those whom he had brought out of hell, you must tell vs then, where they remained all those fortie dayes that were betwene his resurrection and ascention, except you will make two ascensions of

Christ into heauen, one in soule alone, the other in bo∣die & soule: which hath not bene heard of in the church before. For that his soule was first receyued into hea∣uen or Paradise immediatly after his death, it proueth not an ascension: seeing the same was common to him, with other saincts. Againe, seing the mysterie of our re∣dēptiō is diuided into the death, & resurrectiō of Christ, and that by his death wee are deliuered from sinnes, by his resurrection wee are iustified: if you will not allowe his death to haue purchased equall redemption to the fa∣thers of the old Testament and vs, but measure the ver∣tue therof by the instance of time, in which it was actu∣ally performed: you must stay your prisoners from en∣tring into the kingdome of heauen, at least vntill his re∣surrectiō. For none can enter into the kingdome of hea∣uen, but iustified persons. Seing therefore that iustifi∣cation dependeth vpon his resurrection, you must eyther graunt, that it was communicated to the fathers in their time before his incarnation, or else you must stay them from entring into heauen before they were iustified by his resurrection. The place of Micha 2 that you quote▪ is nothing to the purpose of Christes ascending For there the Prophete threateneth the Israelites with the violence of their enimies the Chaldees, whome God him selfe would prosper against them, to haue the victorie, and to driue them into captiuitie.

MART. 37. But it is of more importaunce, which fo∣loweth, and appart••yning altogither to this controuersie Hebr. 5. v 7. your trauslation is thus, in the very English Bible that* 1.454 nowe is reade in your Churches: Which in daies of his flesh* 1.455 offered vp prayers with strong crying, vnto him that was able to saue him from death, and was heard in that which he feared. Is the Greeke here, In that whiche he* 1.456 feared? You know that no Grammar nor Lexicon doth al∣lowe you this translation. But eyther thus for reuerence, or as one of your owne English Bibles hath it, because of his re∣uerence.

FVLK. 37. Your first quarrel against the truest tran∣slation of that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heb. 5. is that it say∣eth in that which he feared, whereas the Greeke is from feare or out of feare: which afterwarde you confesse though distant in worde, yet to be agreeable in sense. The second, that in the margent, our trāslation is against Christes descending into hell. How so I pray you? doe you according to your translation expound that worde of Christes descending into hell? no verily. But we doe expounde it of his descending into hell, therefore our translation is to proue Christes descending into hell: and if our exposition were not true, yet euen your o∣pinion of Christes descent were nothing hindred there∣by: you wil say, that by our expositiō, we exclude his de∣scent after his death: we do in deede in such sort as your errour teacheth, altogither without the Scripture. For if there had bene an historie of Christs going into hell, & deliuering the Patriarkes and others the faithfull from thence, al the Euāgelists would not haue omitted so no∣table a matter, and that also an article of our beleefe.

MART. 38. Howe is it then, that in your later English* 1.457 Bibles you chaunged your former translation frō better to worse? or who taught you so to translate it? for sooth the Heretike Be∣za, whose translation you folow for the most parte in your later Bibles, though here, in sense rather than in worde. And who taught Beza? he saith, Caluin was the first that euer found out this interpretation. And why? surely for defense of no lesse blas∣phemie* 1.458 than this, that our Sauiour IESVS Christe vpon the Crosse was horribly afraid of damnation, that he was in the very sorrowes and torments of the damned, and that this was his des∣cending into Hell, and that otherwise he descended not. Let the Reader note these newe teachers vpon this place, and iudge to what wicked end this translation tendeth.

FVLK. 38. If we haue in the later reformed an er∣rour escaped in the former, what skilleth it, by whom we were admonished, so to correct it? But Beza you say affir∣meth, that Caluine was the first that euer foūd out this

interpretatiō. It appeareth you were neuer wel beaten for lying, it is such a cōmon fault with you. Beza speaking of the interpreters of this age, saith that Caluin (as he thin∣keth) was the first that shewed the true & naturall inter∣pretatiō of this place. He saith not, the first that euer foūd it. Yea cleane contrarie wise he saith, Denique vt non du∣bium sit, &c. Finally that it should not be doubtfull, but that some of the auncient fathers also haue interpreted this place euen so, Nazianzenus Conc. de fil. 2. doth plain∣ly number 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this feare among the infirmities of Christes manhood. As for that whiche you call a blas∣phemie, is a holy and comfortable true doctrine, that Christ for the redēption of our soules, suffered the wrath of God in his soule, as those teares, and that strong crie declareth, in which hee complayned according to the sense of his humanitie, that he was forsaken of God.

MART. 39. A wonderfull thing: when all antiquitie with a general, and full consent hath in that place of the holy Scripture read thus, that Christ was heard (of his father) for* 1.459 his reuerence (according as our Sauiour him selfe also saith in the raising of Lazarus, and signifieth in his long praier Io. 17:) how a blasphemous and presumptuous Heretike should be so ma∣lapert thus to alter it, that he was heard in that which he feared, that is, that he was deliuered from damnatiō and the e∣ternal paines of hel, which he was sore afraid of. To the mainte∣nance of which blasphemie, Beza will seeme to force the Greeke thus. First (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not here signifie reuerence or* 1.460 pietie, but feare, and such a feare which he calleth pauorem & consternationem animi, that is, dreadfulnesse and astonish∣ment of minde, and other like wordes, to insinuate an exceeding horrour and feare in our Sauiour Christ. For confutatiō whereof, we might easily bring the common vse of this Greeke worde in the holy Scriptures to signifie not euery feare, but that religious feare which is in the best men, ioyned with godlinesse, holinesse, and deuotion, as when in the Actes they that buried S. Steuen,* 1.461 are called Viri timorati, deuout men, such as feared God.* 1.462

FVLK. 39. How know you, that al antiquitie hath so

redde? if we had the commentaries of many of the aun∣cient fathers vpon this text, we might perhaps proue vn∣to you, that they reade otherwise. Nazianzenus as I shewed before among Christes infirmities, reckeneth this feare. Primasius although he expoundeth it of reue∣rence, yet alledgeth out of Cassiodorus that the worde is taken sometime for loue, sometimes for feare. Theo∣doretus also interpreteth this place of Christes feare, ac∣cording to his humane nature, shewing that hee feared death, which S. Paule feared not, both to shewe him selfe a man, and to haue experience of all our infirmities without sinne. But where you say, that Caluine maketh him to feare damnation, and the eternall paynes of hell, it is false. Caluine saith plainely, his feare came not of distrust, but of the sense of his humane nature, forbea∣ring the iudgement of God, which without vehement endeuour, coulde not be ouercome. Therefore was the astonishment, the teares, the strong crie, the droppes of bloud, the Angell needefull to comfort him, the laste extreeme conflict, in which he cried, my God my God why hast thou forsaken me. As for the signification of the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 although it be so often taken for pietie and religion, yet it is also taken for feare. As Actes 23. Where S Luke saith the Tribune was greatly afrayed, least Paule shoulde haue bene rente in peeces, betweene the Pharizees and Saducees, hee vseth this worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for beyng afrayed, which was of no pie∣tie or religious feare in him, that was a Pagane, but a na∣turall and ciuill feare, least a prisoner being a Romane, of whom he had charge, should be violently murdered amongst them.

MART. 40. But we neede not goe farre, for Beza will helpe vs him selfe, who telleth vs in an other place the very same. His wordes be these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 significat non quemuis* 1.463 timorem, sed cum reuerentia potius quàm cum animi trepidatione coniunctum latini religionē vocant. That is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not signifie euery feare, but that which

is ioyned with reuerence, rather than with astonishment of minde, the Latines doe call it religion, or religious feare. If this be the true signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Beza him selfe confesseth, why doth he not so translate it in the foresayde place to the Hebrewes? Why forsaketh he the olde approued Latine translation, and generall consent of all auncient Inter∣preters, and translateth it, that feare or astonishment of mind, which he sayth the word doth not signifie?

FVLK. 40. You haue great leysure thus to trifle, or rather intollerable malice thus to cauill. Beza in the place by you cited, speaketh of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when it is taken for religion, for then it is rather ioyned with re∣uerence, than with astonishment.

MART. 41. And marke that in his foresayd annotation vppon Saint Luke, he telleth not a peculiar signification of the Greeke worde in that place, as though in some other places it might haue an other signification, but he telleth generally what the very nature of the Greeke word is, that is, that it signifieth not euery feare, but a feare ioyned with reuerence. And he sayd truely: and they shall hardly giue an instance, where it signifi∣eth that feare of astonishment, which both he and they translate in the foresayd place of S. Paule. Such a force hath heresie to leade a man euen contrary to his owne knowledge, to falsifie gods holy word.

FVLK. 41. Any reasonable man reading the note vpon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, religious, vsed by S. Luke of Sy∣meon, will vnderstand Beza to speake of the significati∣on of that worde, as it is taken in that place, for he spea∣keth against the barbarous word Timoratus, vsed by the vulgar Interpreter, which signifieth, if it haue any signi∣fication, one made afraid, rather than fearing God, with loue and reuerence. But where you saye, we shall hardly giue an instance, where the worde signifieth that feare of astonishment, which they translate, if you would haue taken paines to reade Bezaes annotations your selfe, vp∣on this text in question, you should haue found, that he bringeth many instances out of Aristotle, Sophocles,

Plutarch, Nazianzen, and S. Luke, Act. 23. If you had re∣membred what S Marke writeth of our Sauiour Christ, Mar. 14. v. 33. it should not haue bene so straunge a mat∣ter vnto you, to heare that our Sauiour Christ with great astonishment, and terrour of mind, was afraid of death, where he vseth the wordes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which was not for bodilye paine or bodily death. (which not onely thousands of holy Martyrs haue ioyfully em∣braced, but infinite wicked persons haue contemned) but for the feeling of Gods wrath, which was infinitely more heauy vpon his soule, than any torments were vp∣on his bodie.

MART. 42. Yea Beza sayth further to this purpose (much more against his skill in the Greeke tongue, if he had a∣ny at all) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the preposition can not beare this sense, For which, or in respect whereof, and therefore he translateth the Greeke into Latine, thus. Exauditus est ex metu, he was heard from feare: not, for feare, or, for his reuerence. And because from feare, is a hard speech, and darke, that seemeth to be the cause why our English translators say, In that which he feared, farre from Beza in word, but agreeably in sense.

FVLK. 42. When Beza hath shewed his skill in the Greeke tongue, not onely in his translation, and annota∣tions, but also in diuers Greeke Epigrams, which he hath set forth, who but one starke mad with malice, & blind with conceit of his owne slender skil, would doubt whe∣ther Beza had any skill at all in the Greeke tongue. As for that he sayth of the signification of the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ he speaketh in respect of the propertie of the Greeke tongue, for yet you bring no examples, but Hebraisms out of the Scripture, for that signification of the prepo∣sition.

MART. 43. But for this matter we send them to Flaccus* 1.464 Illyricus, a Captaine Lutherane, who disputeth this very point against the Caluinistes: and teacheth them that no thing is more common, than that signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For proofe where∣of,* 1.465 we also referre them to these places of the holye scripture.

Mat. 13. Luc. 22. and 24. Act. 12. Psal. 87. And Machab. 5.* 1.466 21. where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a genitiue, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with an accusatiue, sig∣nifie all one, which Beza denieth. Gentle Reader, beare with these tedious grammatications, fitter to be handled in Latine, but necessary in this case also, good for them that vnderstand, & for the rest an occasion to aske of them that haue skill in the Greeke tongue, whether we accuse our aduersaries iustly or no, of false translating the holy Scriptures.

FVLK. 43. And we by the same authoritie, sende you to Bezaes answer, in his last edition of his annota∣tions. And yet the Reader must know that Beza did not simply deny, that the preposition might haue such sense. But he sayde, Non facile mihi persuaserim, I can not easi∣ly perswade my selfe, that any example can be brought, wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so vsed. And in all these examples that you haue brought, it signifieth rather prae, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, than propter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as your vulgar translator obserueth the difference, 2. Mac. 5. verse 27. translating prae superbia, and propter elationem mentis. But Beza requireth an ex∣ample of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, taken for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that may aun∣swer to the vulgar Latine, pro reuerentia. For who would translate in Saint Mathew, 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pro gaudio, prop∣ter gaudium, or secundum gaudium, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pro do∣lore, and so of the rest, but of these, let Beza him selfe giue account. As for these tedious grammatications, which you confesse to haue bene fitter to be handled in Latine, it seemeth you vttered in English, for that of many ignorant, you might be thought to bringe some great learning out of the Hebrewe and Greeke tongues against vs, whereas the learned, if you had written in Latine, of other nations, as well as ours, might haue bene witnesses of your fonde trifling, and quarrelling against our translations. As for the necessarye cause you pretende, that the vnlearned may aske them that haue skyll in Greeke, is very ridiculous. For neyther can they haue at hande al∣wayes such as be able to resolue them, neither if they be

of your faction▪ wil they aske any indifferent mans iuge∣ment, but onely such as will auouch before the igno∣rant, that all which you write, is good and perfect.

MART. 44. And we beseech them to giue vs a good rea∣son, why they professing to followe precisely the Greeke, doe not obserue truely the Greeke points, in such place as concerneth this present controuersie. For the place in the Apocalypse, which they alledge of our Sauiour Christes suffering from the begin∣ning (thereby to inferre that the iust men of the olde Testa∣ment might enter heauen then, as well as after his reall and a∣ctuall death) according to the Greeke points, sayth thus, All that dwell vpon the earth, shall worship him▪ (the beast) whose names haue not bene written in the booke of life of the Lambe slayne, from the beginning of the worlde. Where it is euident, that the Greeke text sayth not, the Lambe slaine from the beginning, but that the names of those Antichri∣stian Idolaters were not written in Gods eternall booke of prede∣stination, from the beginning, as it is also most plaine without all ambiguitie, in the 17. chapter, v. 8. If in a place of no contro∣uersie they had not bene curious in pointes of the Greeke, they might haue great reason sometime to alter the same.

FVLK. 44. How faine would you obscure the light of that excellent testimonie, euen contrarye to your owne vulgar Latine translation? that you might not haue such a faithfull witnesse against your Limbus pa∣trum? You require a reason, whye wee keepe not the Greeke pointes, Apoc. 13. I aunswer, we keepe those pointes, which the most auncient written copies haue, which the Complutensis Edi••i•• hath, and which the beste Greeke printes nowe haue. If you would knowe a rea∣son why we followe not them that point otherwise▪ I aunswer you, the composition of the wordes, is against that pointing. For except Saint Iohn had meant that the Lambe was slayne from the beginning of the world, he would not haue placed those wordes, from the begin∣ning of the worlde, next to those wordes, the Lambe which is slayne, but next the worde written. And there∣fore

Aretus that could not vnderstande howe the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world is forced to imagine Hyperbaton in this text, where none needeth, the sense being good and plaine without it, as the wordes doe lye.

Whose names are not written in the booke of life of the lambe, that hath bene slaine since the begin∣ning of the worlde. And although it be true, that the names of the Antichristian Idolaters,

were not written in Gods eternall booke of predestination, from the begin∣ning, as it is said Apoc. 17. v. 8. Yet is that no reason, why this also shoulde not be true, that the lambe was slaine since the beginning of the worlde, seeing without vio∣lence you can not distract 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the lambe slaine whom it doth immediatly follow.

MART. 45. But if in points of controuersie betweene vs, they will say, diuers pointing is of no importance, they knowe the contrarie by the example of auncient heretikes, which vsed this meane also to serue their false hereticall purpose. If they say, our vulgar Latine sense pointeth it so, let them professe before God and their conscience, that they doe it of reuerence to the saide auncient latine text, or because it is indifferent, and not for any other cause, and for this one place we wil admit their answere.

FVLK. 45 We say that wrong pointing may great∣ly alter the sense, but good composition and placing of wordes in a sentence is a good rule to direct pointing, where it is either lacking, or falsly signed. Wee refuse ••ot the testimonie of the vulgar Latine, where it agreeth with the truth of the Greeke or Hebrewe, yea before God & our consciences, we reuerence it, as a monument of some antiquitie, from which wee neither doe, nor are willing to dissent, except the same dissent from the ori∣ginall text. Otherwise the truth of this assertion, that Christ was slaine from the beginning of the world, hath not only testimonie of the ancient fathers, but also may bee confirmed out of the Scripture. For by the obedi∣ence of Christ Saint Paule Rom. 5. teacheth that ma∣ny

are iustified, meaning all the elect of God, who ex∣cept Christes death had bene effectuall to them, before he suffered actually on the crosse, must haue gone, not into Limb•• patrum, but into hell Diabolorum, which is the place appointed for all them that are not iustified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption of Christ Iesus, whom God before hath set foorth, to be a propi∣tiatorie in his bloud, Rom. 3. v. 24. &c. The title of this chapter threatneth a discouerie of heretical translations against Purgatorie especially: but in the whole discourse thereof, which is shamefull long one, containing 45. sections, there is not one place noted against Purgato∣rie, Amphora coepit institui, curren••e rota cur vrceus exit?

CHAP. VIII.

Hereticall translation concerning IVSTIFICATION.

Martin.

ABout the article of iustification, as it hath* 1.467 many branches, and their errours therein bee manifolde, so are their English transla∣tions accordingly many wayes false and he∣reticall. First, against iustification by good workes and by keeping the commaun∣dements, they suppresse the very name of iustification in all such places where the woorde signifieth the commandements or the Lawe of God, which is both in the olde and newe Testament most common and vsuall, namely in the bookes of Moses, in the Psalme 118. that beginneth thus, Beati immaculati: in the Psalme 147. ver. 19. 1. Mach. 1. ver. 51. and cap. 2. v. 21. Luke. 1. v. 6. Rom. 2. v. 26. In all which places and the like, where the Greeke signifieth iustices

and iustifications most exactly, according as our vulgar latine* 1.468 trāslateth, iustitias & iustificationes: there the English tran∣slations say iointly & with one cōsent, ordinances, or, statuts. For example, Rom. 2. If the vncircumcision keepe the OR∣DINANCES* 1.469 of the lawe, shall it not bee counted for cir∣cumcision? And Luc. 1, 6. They were both righteous be∣fore* 1.470 God, walking in all the commaundementes and ORDINANCES of the Lord, blamelesse. Why trans∣late* 1.471 you it ordinances, and auoide the terme, iustifications? is it because you would followe the Greeke? I beseech you is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, iust, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be iustified, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, iustifications or iustices? In the old Testament you might perhappes pretend, that you follow the Hebrue word, and therefore there you trans∣late,* 1.472 statutes, or ordinances. But euen there also, are not the seuentie Greeke interpreters sufficient to teache you the signifi∣cation of the Hebrue word: who alwaies interprete it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in English, iustifications?

Fulke.

THese matters were driuen so thinne in* 1.473 the first chapter, that you shall sooner presse out bloud, than any more pro∣bable matter. For the olde Testament, which we translate out of the Hebrue, you your selfe doe set foorth our aun∣swere, that we giue the Englishe of Chukim, when we say, ordinaunces, or statutes, and not* 1.474 of the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which of the Septua∣ginta is vsed in the same sense for preceptes, and com∣maundementes, as you your selfe confesse cap. 1. sect. 50. that verie often in the Scripture it signifieth com∣maundementes. But the Septuaginta, you say, are suf∣ficient to teache vs the interpretation of the Hebrewe worde, who alwaies interprete it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If they had alwayes interpreted it so, it is not sufficient to teache vs:

then there needed none other translation, but according to theirs, then must you depart from your vulgar transla∣tion, which in many things departeth from them. But where, you say they alwaies interprete the Hebrue word Chukim, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is false. For Exod. 18. v. 20.* 1.475 they translate it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Praecepta, which your vul∣gar translation calleth Ceremonias, ceremonies, as it doeth also Gen. 26. v. 5. where the Septuaginta translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: by which you see, that iustification, is not alwayes the Englishe for the Greeke worde, which the Septuaginta doe vse. Also Num. 9. v. 3. for Chukoth they translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the lawe, which the vulgar Latine calleth* 1.476 Ceremonias, ceremonies, and for the Hebrewe worde Misphatim, they giue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, comparation, the vulgar* 1.477 Latin iustification, by which you may see, how your trās∣latour vseth euen the Latin word, that you make so much a do about. Likewise in the foureteenth verse of the same Chapter, the Septuaginta translate Chukath, twise togea∣ther* 1.478 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that which the vulgar Latine calleth iu∣stification of the passeouer, the Greeke calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the order of the pascall, Deut. 4. your vulgar Latine turneth Chukim, thrise Ceremonias, ceremonies. And* 1.479 Deut. 5. twise, and Deut. 6. twise, Deut. 7. once, and so commonly almost in euerie chapter. But in the chap. 11. v. 32. the Greeke for Chukim hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where* 1.480 as in the beginning of the chapter, he had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Latine in both Ceremonias, ceremonies. By which it is euident what the Greekes and Latines meant by those wordes. chap. 20. for this Hebrue word, and in an other the Greeke hath nothing but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 commaundementes. So hath he 1. Reg. 2. v. 3. for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cōmandements. Also 1. Reg. 8. v. 58. for Chukim, he hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and* 1.481 for Misphatim, he hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as he hath it twise in the nexte verse, where Salomon prayeth that God will defende his cause, and the cause of his people Is∣raell, as the cause shall require. More examples might I bring, but for tediousnesse, to conuince the bolde

rashnesse of this quarreller, but these may suffice all indifferent Readers: and aunswere sufficiently for vs, within the newe Testament, we translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ordinaunces, or statuts, seeing it is proued, both by the Septuaginta which calleth the same Hebrewe worde, not onely iustifications, but often commaunde∣ments, statuts, precepts, iudgements, & by the vulgar La∣tine Interpretor, which commonly calleth it ceremonies or precepts.

MART. 2. But be it, that you may controll them in the Hebrew, which none but fooles will graunt vnto you: in the newe Testament, what pretense haue you? doe you there also translate the Hebrew worde, or rather the Greeke? the Greeke vndoubtedly you should translate. What reason then can you haue, why you doe not? none other surely, than that which Beza giueth for him selfe▪ saying, that he reiected the word, iustifica∣tions, (notwithstanding it expressed the Greeke, worde for worde, notwithstanding the seuentie Greeke Interpreters, v∣sed it to signifie the whole lawe, and in Latine it be com∣monly translated, iustificationes,) notwithstanding all this, for* 1.482 this onely cause (sayth he) did I reiect it, to auoide the cauilla∣tions that might be made by this word, against iustification by faith. As if he should say, This word truly translated, according to the Greeke, might minister great occasion to proue by so ma∣ny places of scripture, that mans iustification is not by faith on∣ly, but also by keeping the law, and obseruing the commaunde∣ments, which therefore are called according to the Greeke and Latine, iustifications, because they concurre to iustification, and make a man iust, as by S. Lukes wordes also is well signifi∣ed, which haue this allusion, that they were both iuste, because they walked in all the iustifications of our Lord. Which they of purpose suppresse by other wordes.

FVLK. 2. None but fooles considering what I haue brought of the vsage of that worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wil iudge that it signifieth onely iustifications: and all wise men may see that we haue good warrant to translate it other∣wise in the Greeke Testament, where it must needes haue

an other signification. The concurrence of workes with faith to iustificatiō before God, which the Apostle doth exclude. Rom. 3. we may not admit. But iustification by workes, as Saint Iames teacheth, we doe acknowe∣ledge. I hope you will not saye, that your Latine tran∣slator against iustification by workes, translated the worde so often ceremonies, or that ceremonies of the lawe doe concurre to iustification by faith. The com∣maundements in deede are called iustifications, because the workes of the lawe, if a man keepe it wholy, are able to iustifie. Not that euery ceremonie or obseruation of any peece of the law, is a iustification, ••or maketh a man iust: which you may better say, vpon the etymologie of the worde, than that euery particular obseruation of the lawe, or good worke, doth concurre with faith vnto iu∣stification.

MART. 3. And hereof also it riseth, that when he can not possibly auoyd the word in his translation (as Apoc. 19. 8.* 1.483 Bissinum enim iustificationes sunt sanctorum, The silke is the iustifications of Sainctes:) there he helpeth the mat∣ter with this cōmentarie, That iustifications, are those good* 1.484 workes which be the testimonies of a liuely faith. But our English translatours haue an other way to auoyd the worde euen in their translation. For they say here, the righteöusnes of Sainctes: because they coulde not saye, ordinances of Saincts: and they would not say, iustifications of Saincts: knowing very well (by Bezaes owne commentarie) that this word includeth the good workes of saincts: which workes if they should in translating call their iustifications, it would goe sore against iustification by onely faith. Therefore doe they tran∣slate in steede thereof, ordinances, and, statutes, where they can, which are termes furthest of from iustification: and where they can not, there they say, righteousnesse, making it also the plurall number, whereas the more proper Greeke worde for rightuousnesse is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Dan. 6, 22.) which there some of them translate vngiltinesse: because they wil not translate ex∣actly, if you would hire them.

FVLK. 3. When 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Apoc. 19. are translated iustificationes, they signifie iuste works, as I haue already proued the significatiō of the word to beare, beside that it is so vsed by Aristotle in his Ethicks, who of iustificatiō before God (whereof wee speake) vnderstoode neuer a whit. Therefore, if in steede of rightuousnesse, which is the singular number, it were translated rightuous or iust workes, it were not amisse in mine opinion. Although by rightuousnesse in that place, is nothing meant, but good or rightuous workes, as Bezaes note doth tel you.* 1.485

MART. 4. And therefore as for, iustice, and, iustifica∣tions, they say righteousnesse: so for, iuste, they translate, righteous. and by this meanes, Ioseph was a righteous mā,* 1.486 rather than a iust man: and Zacharie and Elisabeth were* 1.487 both righteous before God, rather than iust: because when a man is called iust, it soundeth that he is so in deede, and not by imputation onely: as a wise man, is vnderstoode to be wise in deede, and not only so imputed. Therefore doe they more gladly and more often say, righteous men, rather than, iust men, & when they doe say, iust men, as sometime they doe least they might s••eme wilfull inexcusably: there they vnderstande, iust by imputation, & not in deede, as is to be seene in Bezaes An∣notations vpon the Epistle to the Romanes. Note also that they put the word, iust, when faith is ioyned withall, as Rom. 1. The iust shal liue by faith, to signifie that iustification is by faith. But if workes be ioyned withall, and keeping the commaunde∣mentes, as in the place alleaged Luc. 1. there they say, righte∣ous, to suppresse iustification by workes.

FVLK. 4. This is a maruelous difference, neuer heard of (I thinke) in the English tōgue before, betwene iust & righteous, iustice & righteousnes. I am sure there is none of our translatours, no nor any professer of iusti∣fication by faith onely, that esteemeth it the worth of one haire, whether you say in any place of Scripture iust or righteous, iustice or righteousnesse: and therefore freely they haue vsed sometimes the one worde, some∣times the other. Therefore, it is a monstrous falshoode,

that you fain them to obserue this distinction, that they ioyne iust with faith, and righteous with workes. Doe they not translate Rom. 2. ver. 13. the hearers of the lawe are not righteous before God, but the doers of the lawe shall bee iustified. Haue you not again, the righteous∣nesse of God is made manifest without the law &c. by the faith of Iesus Christ. And where you reade the iust shall liue by faith, haue you not immediatly, the righ∣teousnesse of God is reuealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the iust shall liue by faith? Who then but the Diuell, which hath his name of sclaundering, woulde here inuent a distinction of iust and righteous?

MART. 5 And certaine it is, if there were no sinister meaning, they would in no place auoide to say, iust, iustice, iusti∣fication,* 1.488 where both the Greeke and Latine are so, woorde for word, as for example. 2. Tim. 48. In all their Bibles▪ Hence∣forth there is laid vp for me a crowne of RIGHTEOVS∣NES, which the Lorde the RIGHTEOVS iudge shall GIVE mee at that day. And againe 2. Thess. 1. Reioyce in tribulation which is a token of the RIGHTEOVS IVDGEMENT of God, that you may be counted wor∣thie of the kingdome of God for which yee suffer. For it is a RIGHTEOVS THING with God, to recom∣pence tribulation to them that trouble you: and to you that are troubled, rest with vs, in the reuelation of our Lorde IESVS from heauen. And againe Heb 6. 10. God is not VNRIGHTEOVS to forget your good woorke and labour, &c. These are very pregnant places to discouer their false purpose in concealing the worde, iustice, in all their Bibles. For if they will say, that iustice is not an vsuall Eng∣lish word in this sense, and therefore they say, righteousnesse: yes I trow, iust, and vniust, are vsuall and well knowen. Why thē would they not say at the least, in the places alleadged, God the IVST iudge, A token of the IVST IVDGEMENT of God, It is a IVST thing with God, God is not VN∣IVST to forget &c? Why is it not at the least in one of their English Bibles, ••eeing so both in Greeke and Latine?

FVLK. 5. Certaine it is, that no Englishman know∣eth the difference betweene iust and righteous, vniust & vnrighteous, sauing that righteousnesse & righteous are the more familiar English wordes. And that we meane no fraude betweene iustice and righteousnesse, to apply the one to faith, the other to workes, reade Rom. 10. v. 34. 5. and 6. of the Geneua translation, where you shall see, the righteousnesse of the law, & the righteousnesse of faith. Reade also against this impudent lie, in the same translatiō Luc. 1. Zacharie and Elizabeth were both iust. Cap. 2. Simeon was iust. Mathew the firste, Ioseph a iust man; and else where often times, and without any diffe∣rence in the worlde, from the worde righteous. Who euer heard a difference made, betweene a iuste iudge and a righteous iudge, this trifling is too too shameful abu∣sing of mens patience, that shall vouchsafe to reade these blotted papers.

MART. 6. Vnderstand gentle Reader, and marke well,* 1.489 that if S. Paules wordes were truely translated thus, A crowne of IVSTICE is laid vp for me▪ which our Lord the IVST iudge will RENDER vnto me at that day, and so in the other places: it would inferre, that men are iustly crowned in heauen for their good workes vpon earth, and that i•• is Gods iustice so to do, and that he wil do so because he is a iust iudge, and because he wil shew his IVST IVDGEMENT, and he wil not forget so to do, because he is not vniust: as the auncient fathers (namely the Greeke doctors S. Chrysostom, Theodorete,* 1.490 and Oecumenius vpon these places) do interprete and expound. In so much that Oecumenius saith thus vpon the foresaid place to the Thessalonians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. See here, that to suffer for Christ procureth the kingdome of heauē according to IVST IVDGEMENT, and not according to grace.* 1.491 Which least the Aduersarie might take in the worse parte, as though it were onely Gods iustice or iuste iudgement, and not his fauour or grace also. S. Augustine excellently declareth how it is both the one and the other: to witte, his grace and fa∣uour and mercie, in waking vs by his grace to liue and beleeue

well, and so to be worthy of heauen: his iustice and iust iudge∣ment, to render and repaye for those workes whiche him selfe wrought in vs, life euerlasting. Which he expresseth thus: How should he render or repay as a iust iudge, vnlesse he* 1.492 had giuen it as a merciful father? Where S. Augustine vr∣geth the wordes of repaying as due, and of being A IVST IVDGE therefore. Both which the said translatours corrupt, not onely▪ saying, righteous iudge, for, iust iudge: but, that he will giue a crowne, whiche is of a thing not due, for that* 1.493 which is in the Greeke, He will render or repay: whiche is of a thing due and deserued, and hath relation to workes go∣ing before, for the which the crowne is repaied. He saide not (saith Theophylacte vpon this place) hee will giue, but, hee will render or repay, as a certaine de••te. For he being iust, will define and limite the reward according to the labours. The crowne therefore is due debte, because of the iudges iustice. So saith he.

FVLK. 6. What so euer you may cauill vpon the wordes iuste and iustice, you may doe the same, with as great aduauntage, vppon the wordes righteous and righteousnesse. That God as a iust iudge rewarde•••• good workes, of them that are iustified freely by his grace, by fayth without workes, with a crowne of iustice, it proueth not eyther iustification by workes, or the merite or worthinesse▪ of mennes workes, but all dependeth vppon the grace of God, who promi∣seth this rewarde of his meere mercie, and of the wor∣thinesse and merites of Christe, whiche is our iustice, whereby wee beyng iustified before God, our workes also, whiche hee hath giuen vs, are rewarded of his iustice, yet in respecte of Christes merites, and not in respecte of the worthinesse of the workes. Againe, God is not vnmindefull of his promise, to rewarde our workes, for then he should be vniuste: he is iuste there∣fore to performe what so euer he hath promised, though wee nothing deserue it. Neyther hath Chrysostome, or Theodorete, any other meaning. That you cite out of

Oecumenius a late writer in comparison, is blasphemous against the grace of God, neyther is S. Augustine, that liued 500. yeares before him, a sufficient interpreter of his saying, to excuse him. With Augustine we say, God* 1.494 crowneth his giftes, not our merites. And as he acknow∣ledgeth Gods mercie, and also his iustice, in rewarding our workes, so do we. Where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is translated he wil giue, I confesse it had bene more proper, and agreeable to the Greeke, to haue saide, hee will render, or re∣paie, which yet is wholy of mercie in respecte of vs, or our deseruing, but of iustice in respecte of his promi∣ses, and of Christes merites, vnto which is rendred, and repayed, that whiche hee deserued for vs. The crowne therefore is due debte, because it is promised to vs for Christes sake, not because any workes of ours are able to purchase it.

MART. 7. Whiche speaches beyng moste true as beyng the expresse wordes of holy Scripture, yet wee know howe odiously the Aduersaries may and doe misconster them to the ignoraunt, as though wee chalenged heauen by our owne workes, and as though wee made God bounde to vs. Whiche wee doe not, God forbidde. But because he hath pre∣pared good workes for vs (as the Apostle saith) to walke in* 1.495 them, and dothe by his grace cause vs to doe them, and hath promised lyfe euerlasting for them, and telleth vs in all his holy Scriptures, that to doe them is the waye to heauen▪ therefore not presuming vpon our owne workes as our owne or as of our selues, but vpon the good workes wrought through Gods grace by vs his seely instruments, wee haue great confi∣dence (as the Apostle speaketh) and are assured that these* 1.496 workes proceeding of his grace, be so acceptable to him; that they are esteemed and be worthie and meritorious of the king∣dome of heauen. Against which truth, let vs see further, their hereticall corruptions.

FVLK. 7. If you would abide by your first protesta∣tion▪ we should not neede to contend much aboute this question. But after you haue in the beginning magnified

the grace and mercy of God, and abased your owne me∣rites, you come backe againe with a subtill compasse, to establish your owne free will, the worthinesse of your workes, and your merite of the kingdome of heauen. First, you say God telleth vs in all his holy Scriptures, that to doe good workes, is the way to heauen. In deede to fulfill the lawe, is to deserue heauen. But who so euer is guiltie of sinne, must seeke an other way, than by good workes to come to heauē, namely to Iesus Christ, who is the onely way to heauen, the truth, and the life, by whose bloud, when he is purged from his sinne, and reconciled vnto God, and the kingdome of heauen pur∣chased for him, then he hath the way of good workes appointed him to walke in, towarde the same. Second∣ly, you say you presume not vpon your owne workes, as your owne, or as of your selues, but vpon the good workes wrought by Gods grace, by you his seely instru∣mentes, you haue great confidence. Thus while you would seeme to flie from Pelagia••isme, you fall into flatte Pharisaisme. For you trust that you are righteous in your selues, though not as of your selues. Suche was the Pharisee of whom Christe telleth the parable, which* 1.497 ascribing all his workes to the grace of God, had confi∣dēce in them, that he was iust before God by them. God I thāke thee (saith the Pharisee). He acknowledgeth the grace of God, as author of all his workes: yet against such as he was, Christe telleth that parable. And whereas you call the Apostle, Heb. 10. to witnesse of your errour, you doe him great wrong, for he speaketh not of any confidence to bee had vpon good workes, wrought by the grace of God by vs: but in the newe couenant of re∣mission of sinnes, by the sacrifice of Christes death, by whom we haue accesse to God, that we may be accepta∣ble to him, not for any meritorious workes wrought by vs, but by the only oblation of his bodie once for all, by which he hath made perfect for euer, those that are sanctified.

CHAP. IX.

Hereticall translation against MERITES, or ME∣RITORIOVS WORKES, and the RE∣VVARDE for the same.

Martin.

WHen they translate (Rom. 8. 18.) thus, I* 1.498 am certainly perswaded, that the affli∣ctions of this time, ARE NOT VVORTHIE OF THE GLORIE which shall be shewed vpon vs: doe they not meane to signifie to the Reader, & must it not needes so sound in his eares, that the tribulations of this life, be they neuer so great, though suffered for Christ, yet doe not merite nor deserue the heauenly glorie? but in the Greeke it is farre otherwise. I will not stand* 1.499 vpon their first wordes, I am certainely perswaded, which is* 1.500 a farre greater asseueration, than the Apostle vseth, and I maruell how they could so translate that Greeke worde, but that they were disposed, not onely to translate the Apostles wordes falsly against meritorious workes, but also to auouch and af∣firme the same lustily, with much more vehemencie of wordes, than the Apostle speaketh. Well, let vs pardon them this fault, and examine the wordes following. Where the Greeke* 1.501 sayth not, as they translate with full consent in all their English Bibles, The afflictions are not worthy of the glorie, &c. but thus, The afflictions of this time, are not equall, cor∣respondent, or comparable to the glorie to come. be∣cause the afflictions are short, the glorie is eternall: the affli∣ctions small and few, in comparison, the glorie great and aboun∣dant aboue measure.

Fulke.

ALthough an inuincible argument a∣gainst* 1.502 merites, and desert of good workes, may be drawen out of this text, yet the meaning of the transla∣tors is to shewe, no more, than the Apostle saith, that the heauenly glo∣rie is incomparably greater, than all the tribulations of this life. And this the Apostle speaketh, not doubtīgly, as our english word (I suppose) doth signifie, when a man may be deceaued in his supposel, but he auoucheth it cōstantly, as a thing, which being wel considered, with the reasons thereof, he concludeth of it with certaintie. And so doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 si∣gnifie in this place, and in diuerse other, by the iudge∣ment of better Grecians, than Gregorie Martin will be these seuen yeares, as Rom. 3. 28. where the Apostle ha∣uing discussed the controuersie of iustification by faith, or workes, concludeth, as of a certaintie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. we determine therefore, that a man is iustified by fayth, without the workes of the lawe. Likewise, Rom. 6. v. 11. after he hath proued, that sanctification is necessary to all them that shal▪ or haue put on the iustice of Christ, he sayth with great asseueration vnto the Romanes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Make you ful account therefore, that you are dead to sinne, & not vncertainly thinke or suppose it so to be. Therefore for the translation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this place, we wil accept no pardon of you, it is better translated than your wit or learning serueth you to vnderstand. Now let vs come to the other wordes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are not worthy of the glorie. Where you say, it should be not equall, correspondent, or comparable, to the glorie. Verily those words we vse, haue none other sense in this place, than the wordes which you supply vs withall, but our wordes doe expresse the moste vsuall signification

of the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, euen as your vulgar Latine doth, calling it in the same sense condignae, which you in your owne translation dare not render, equall, correspon∣dent, or comparable, but condigne: lest following the sense, you might be accused to forsake the word, euen so we thinke it best, where the vsuall signification of the word will beare the sense in our English, to reteine the same, and not to change it.

MART. 2. This is the Greeke phrase and the Apostles meaning, which we neede not greatly to proue, because their owne Doctors Caluin, and Beza, doe so interprete it, and there∣fore wonder it were, that the Geneua English Bibles also should forsake their maisters, and follow the errour of the other English Bibles, but that they thought the more voices the better. In the meane time, the people s••eth no other translation, and thinketh it is the Apostles very wordes. But Beza himselfe ••elleth them the contrary, translating thus: Statuo minimè esse paria quae praesenti tempore perpetimur, futurae gloriae nobis reuelandae, that is, I am of this opinion, that the thinges which we suffer in this present time, are not equall to the glorie that shall be reuealed to vs. And in his commentarie, thus, S. Paules discourse and matter handled in this place, declare, that he speaketh not of the valure or price of the afflictions which we suffer for Christ, but rather by com∣paring their qualitie, and quantitie, with life euerlasting, he gathereth that we shall be infinitely more happye with Christ, than we are miserable here. Therefore did he vse the ▪ Greeke worde rightly, and properly, which* 1.503 the Grammarians saye is spoken of such thinges, as be∣ing poysed or weighed, are found of one weight. Thus farre Beza.

FVLK. 2. We contend not, as it seemeth at this time, about the meaning of the place, but about the true translation of the words. If you can proue therefore, that the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth not signifie worthy, or that this English word worthie, can not expresse the meaning of the Apostle in this text, your accusation is iust, but

if you can proue neither of both, you multiply words, as your maner is, without matter, to no purpose, but to weary the Reader. And wisely you translate▪ Bezaes Latine word Statuo, I am of opinion, which signifieth more truly, I determine, or as our translation hath, I am certainely perswaded, and not, I am of an opinion, wher∣of there is no certaine knowledge, for an opinion may be false, and is of vncertainties.

MART. 3. If then a comparison onely be signified, why doe they not so translate it in English, that it may be taken for a comparison in our English phrase? For they know very well that if a man shoulde saye in English, according as they translate, Good workes are not worthy of heauen, this man is not wor∣thy of my fauour, he is not worthy of such a liuing, of so great praises: euery English man vnderstandeth it thus, that they deserue not heauen, and that such a man deserueth not this or that. Euen so must the Reader needes take it in this place, & they must needes haue intended that he should so take it. For* 1.504 though the Greeke phrase may signifie a comparison, being so* 1.505 vttered, yet not the English. And if it might, yet obscurely, and ambiguously: and if it might, yet here they doe falsly translate so, because here the Greeke phrase is otherwise, and therefore should otherwise be englished▪ For it is not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is, as they translate, worthy of the glorie: but, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which can not be so translated. For if it might, then these Greeke phrases were alone, and might be vsed indifferently. And then I must desire them to turne me this into Greeke, He is not worthy of thankes. And if they turne it by the Apo∣stles phrase in this place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to all Grecians they shall be ridiculous. And yet this is as well turned out of English into Greeke, as they haue turned the other out of Greeke into English.

FVLK. 3. Verily I can not see, nor any wise man else, I thinke, what this English worde, worthines, doth signifie, but a comparison of equalitie in price, valour, goodnes, excellencie, or such like. And euen in those En∣glish phrases, that you bring for example: Good works

are not worthie of heauen, the meaning is. There is not an equalitie of excellencie in good workes and heauen: or good workes compared to heauen, are not equall in valure. And euen so: this man is not worthie of my fa∣uour. The goodnesse of this man, is not so great, as the goodnesse of my fauour. And so of the rest. And where you say, euerie English man vnderstandeth it thus: that they deserue not heauen, and suche a man deserueth not this, &c. I graunt they may of worthinesse gather desert, in such as may deserue, and so may they of the compari∣son of equalitie, conclude desert in the like case. For to deserue, is by doing, to make him selfe equall in good or euill to that rewarde, or punishment which is valued with such doing. Therefore whether you say worthie, or equall, it is all one. And in this text▪ by either of both, merite or desert is necessarily excluded. For if the hea∣uenly glorie be incōparably greater, than the afflictions of this life, it followeth of necessitie, that the afflictions of this life deserue not, that is, make not an equalitie of excellencie with heauenly glorie. But the Greeke phrase (you say) is otherwise, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not ioyned with a Ge∣nitiue case, but with an Accusatiue, and a Preposition: In deede this later construction of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not so vsuall, and doeth more fully set foorth the comparison, but the same also is set foorth by the Genitiue case, as you your selfe can not deny. Now our Englishe phrase would not beare, that we should say, worthie to the glory, & there∣fore we said worthie of the glory. But if that were good, you say, the Greeke phrases were all one, and might be vsed indifferently. I see no great difference betwene the Greeke phrases, and yet it followeth not, that they may be vsed indifferently. For vnusuall phrases are not to be vsed as indifferently, as common phrases. And therefore your example of turning English into Greeke, is not all one, with turning Greeke into English. If I translate our of Greeke into Englishe, I must obserue the Englishe phrase, as neare as I can, and so if I translate into Greeke,

must I haue respect to the vsuall Greeke phrase. And to speake of your ridiculous translation, out of English in∣to Greeke. I thinke he that shoulde say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for worthie of thankes, shoulde deserue no great commen∣dation. But he that should say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for worthy of the kings fauor, though it be no v∣sual phrase▪ I see not why he should be ridiculous. And if you should translate these wordes into English, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Woulde you not, or might you not translate it thus? Nero was not worthie of the king∣dome. Therefore we haue not done amisse, to translate, worthie of the glorie.

MART. 4. Marie, if they would expresse a comparison of equalitie or inequalitie betwene thing and thing, then this is the proper Greeke phrase thereof, and muche more proper for this purpose, than by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and a Genitiue case. Which not∣withstanding* 1.506 is often so vsed in Scriptures by way of compari∣son, as Prouerb. 3. concerning the praise of wisedom. Where S. Augustine to expresse the comparison, readeth thus, Omne pretiosum non est illi dignum: and S. Hierome according to the Hebrue thus, Omnia quae desiderantur non valent* 1.507 huic comparari. or, adaequari. and Eccles. 26. we haue the verie like speache proceeding of the sayed Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Omnis ponderatio non est digna continentis animae. Which the Englishe Bibles thus, There is no weight to be compared vnto a minde that can rule it selfe. or, with a continent minde.

FVLK. 4. You can not vse the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but it will include a comparison, whether it be with a Genitiue case, as in the examples you bring, or with an Accusa∣tiue, as in this text of S. Paule. And euen so the Englishe word (worthie) doth comprehende an equalitie in good or euill. Wherefore the sense is all one, whether you say in this text equall or worthie: but that the vsuall signi∣fication of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is worthie, as no man will deny, that is not past all shame.

MART. 5. And if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a genitiue case signifie a

comparison, and them selues so translate it in all their Bibles,* 1.508 should not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Apostles phrase much more be so trans∣lated? I appeale to their owne consciences. Againe, if here in Ecclesiasticus they say not according to the Greeke wordes, There is no weight worthie of a continent mind, because* 1.509 they would by an Englishe phrase expresse the comparison: is it not more than euident, that when they translate the Apostle by the very same wordes, Worthie of the glorie, &c. they know it can not, and they meane it should not signifie a comparison? I can not sufficiently expresse, but only to the learned & skilful reader, their partiall and hereticall dealing. Briefly, I say, they translate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Not to be compared with a continent mind, being in Greeke word for word. Not wor∣thie of a continent minde: and contrariwise they trans∣late in S. Paule, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Not wor∣thie of the glorie to come, being in the Greeke, Not to be compared to the glorie to come. according to the verie like Latine phrase by dignus, Eccl. 6. Amico fideli nulla est comparatio, & non est DIGNA ponderatio auri & ar∣genti CONTRA BONITATEM FIDEI, that is, ac∣cording to their owne translation, A faithfull friende hath no peere, weight of golde and siluer is not to be compared to the goodnesse of his faith.

FVLK. 5. If the Englishe word (worthy) did not si∣gnifie a cōparison▪ as wel as the Greke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it were somwhat that you say, but seeing one signifieth as much as the other, there is no more sauour in your disputatiō, than in an egge without salt. When we say, there is no weight of gold to be cōpared to a continent minde, it is all one, as if we said, worthy of a continent minde, for we meant, to be compared in goodnes, price, excellency, &c. And therefore you speake out of measure falsely, & im∣pudentlye, when you say, we meane not that the worde (worthie) in this text of S. Paule, should signifie a com∣parison, for it is not possible that it shoulde signifie o∣therwise. Doth not the Geneua note in the margent say, or of like valure. If you be so blinde, that you can not

see a comparison in the worde worthie, at the least shore vp your eyes, and beholde it in those wordes of like or equall value. For all comparison is either in quantitie or qualitie. And where you say, that you can not ex∣presse your conceite, but onely to the learned, there is none so meanely learned, but they may well laugh at your foolish and vnlearned trifling.

MART. 6. Nowe if they will say, though their trans∣lation of Sainct Paules words be not so exact and commodious,* 1.510 yet the sense and meaning is all one (for if these present affli∣ctions be not equall or comparable to the glorie to come, then neither are they worthie of it, nor can deserue or merite it) let the Christian Reader marke the difference. First their Beza and Caluine telleth them that the Apostle speaketh of the one, and not of the other. Secondly, the passions and afflictions that Christ our Sauiour suffered all his life, were not comparable to the eternall glorie which he obtained thereby: yet did he there∣by deserue and merite eternall glorie, not only for him selfe, but for all the worlde: yea by the least affliction he suffered, did he deserue all this. Vnlesse you will deny also that he merited and deserued his glorie, which your opinion a man might verie well gather by some of your false translations, but that you would * 1.511 thinke vs too suspicious, which perhappes we wil examine here∣after. Thirdly, the present pleasure of aduoutrie during a mans life, is not comparable to the eternall tormentes of hell fire: and yet it doth merite and deserue the same. Fourthly, the Apostle by making an incomparable difference of the glorie to come with the afflictions of this time, doth (as Sainct Chrysostom sayth)* 1.512 exhort them the more vehemently and moue them to sustaine all things the more willingly: but if he sayd as they trāslate, The afflictions are not worthie of heauen, you are neuer the nearer heauen for them, onely beleeue: this had not bene to exhorte* 1.513 them, but to discourage them. Fiftly, the Apostle when he will else where encourage them to suffer, sayeth plainely, Our tri∣bulation which presently is for a moment and light, WORKETH aboue measure exceedingly, an eternall* 1.514 weight of glorie in vs.

FVLK. 6. We say our translation, both in word, and sense, is the same in Englishe, that S. Paule did write in Greeke. As for the argument, against merite, or desert which doeth followe thereof, we affirme that it is as ne∣cessarily gathered of the wordes equall, or comparable, or correspondent, as of the word, worthie. But to ouer∣throw this argument, you haue fiue reasons. The first is of the authoritie of Beza, and Caluine, which you say telleth vs, that the Apostle speaketh of the one, and not of the other. To this I aunswere, that they both affirme the consequence against merits out of this text, although it be not the Apostles direct purpose, to abase the me∣rite of workes, by comparison of the excellencie of the glorie. To your seconde argument, I aunswere, that though the afflictions that Christ our Sauiour suffered, were not comparable in respect of the length of time, with the eternall glorie that he obtayned thereby: yet in respecte of the excellencie of his person, and the perfection of his obedience, they were comparable, and of equall value tó deserue eternall glorie according to the iustice of God, by which one mans disobedience was sufficient, to eternall condemnation, Rom. 5. What the least of his afflictions, separated from all the rest, was in valure, I haue not learned out of the Scripture, onely I thinke, he suffered nothing superfluously, ▪nor lesse than was needefull to aunswer the iustice of God. Your other fonde surmises, I omitte, vntill you expresse them. To your third argument, I saye, that one acte of a∣dulterie is worthy of damnation, and deserueth eternall torment, not by comparison of the short pleasure, with infinite paine: but because it is a sinne committed a∣gainst the maiestie of the eternall God: and therefore is worthy of eternall punishment. For the sinne is to be measured after the excellencie of the person, against whome it is committed. Therefore that word▪ which be∣ing spoken against a poore man, is a light fault, as to say he is a knaue, the same being spoken against a Lorde, is

an hainous offence, and deserueth the pillorie, hut be∣ing spoken against a King, is high treason, and is worthy of death. Seeing therefore the eternall maiestie of God is contemned in euery sinne, that sinne doth iustly de∣serue eternall torments. Fourthly, it is true, that the A∣postle doth exhort vs cheerefully to abide the small and momentarie afflictions of this life, in respect that they shall be rewarded with incomparable glorie. But here∣of it followeth not, that the glorie is deserued, by short and small sufferings, but is giuen of the bountifull libe∣ralitie of God, to them that for his sake patiently suffer such small afflictions. Therefore, if it be an incourage∣ment for a man to labour, to heare that he shall be payd his hyre, as much as his worke deserueth: it is a much greater incouragement for him to heare, that he shal re∣ceiue a thousand times more, than his labour deserueth. The words you adde, (you are neuer the nearer heauen, onely beleeue) are yours, and none of ours: for we say with the Apostle, we must suffer with Christ, if we will reigne with him, and the patient suffering of the faithful, is nothing repugnant to the iustification before God, by faith onely. To the last argument of the Apostles autho∣ritie, I aunswer, our patient suffering worketh infinite weight of glorie, not by the worthinesse, merite, or de∣sert of our suffering, but by the bountifull liberalitie of God, who hath promised so incomparable rewarde, to small tribulation, suffered for his sake. Wherefore all your fiue reasons notwithstanding, our translation is sounde and true.

MART. 7. See you not a comparison betwene short and eternall, light tribulation, and exceding weightie glorie: and yet that one also worketh the other, that is, causeth, purcha∣seth, and deserueth the other? For, like as the litle seede being not comparable to the great tree, yet causeth it and bringeth it forth: so our tribulations and good workes otherwise incompa∣rable to eternall glorie, by the vertue of Gods grace working in vs, worketh, purchaseth, and causeth the sayd glorie. For so

they knowe verie well the Greeke worde importeth: though here* 1.515 also they translate it most falsely, prepareth. Bib. an. 1577.

FVLK. 7. We see the comparison well, but we see not, that worketh or causeth, is all one with purchaseth and deserueth. Your comparison of seede, and tribula∣tion, is not like. For in the seede is the formall cause of the greate tree, so is not the formall cause of eternall glorie in our tribulation. But as if an Emperour for one dayes valiant seruice in warre, doe giue vnto his sonne one of his kingdomes, we may truly say, that dayes ser∣uice wrought him this great rewarde, or caused him to be aduaunced to this kingdome: but we can not say truely, it purchased or deserued a kingdome: for then euery one that serued as well as he deserued the like re∣warde: so is the rewarde of eternall life, whiche is the gift of God, incomparably greater than our tribulatiō, not by the desert of the sufferer, but by liberalitie of the giuer. That translation, that vseth the worde of prepa∣ring, is not so proper, according to the worde, but it dif∣fereth not muche in sense, shewing howe those afflicti∣ons do worke, or cause, namely by preparing, & making vs conformable to the sufferings of Christ.

MART. 8. Lastly, for moste manifest euidence, that these present tribulations and other good workes are meritorious and worthie of the ioyes to come, though not comparable to the same: you shal heare the holy Doctors say both in one passage or sentence. S. Cyprian thus: O what maner of day shal come,* 1.516 my brethren, when our Lord shal recoūt the MERITES of euery one, and paie vs the rewarde or stipend of faith and deuotion? Ep. 56. here are merites and the rewarde for the same. It foloweth in the saide Doctor, What glorie shall it be, and how great ioie, to be admitted to see God, so to be honoured that thou receiue the ioy of eternall life with Christe thy Lorde God, to receiue there that which neither eie hath seen, nor eare hath heard, nor hath ascended into the hart of man, for, that we shall receiue greater things, than here eyther wee doe, or suffer, the

Apostle pronounceth, saying, The passions of this time are not condigne or comparable to the glorie to come. Here we see, that the stipend or reward of the merits aforesayd, are incomparably greater than the sayd merits.

FVLK. 8. For lacke of Scriptures, you flye to the Doctors, to finde merits, in whome neuerthelesse being Catholike, and sound Doctors, you shall sooner find the word Meritum, than your meaning of it. The place of Cyprian, I maruell why you geld, except it be to ioyne the reward that he speaketh of, with the worde merites, which he vseth, either generally for workes, as it is often vsed in the auncient writers: or if he meane thereby de∣serts, he speaketh but of examination onely of all mens deserts, that he may giue to the wicked that they haue deserued,

and to the godly that which he hath promised, therefore he calleth it the rewarde of their faith and de∣uotion. His wordes are these: O diesille qualis & quantus aduenies, fratres dilectissimi, cum caeperit populum suum domi∣nus recensere, & diuinae cognitionis examine singulorum me∣ritum recognoscere, mittere in gehennam nocentés & persecu∣tores nostros, flammae paenalis perpetuo ardore damnare, nobis verò mercedem fidei & deuotionis exoluere. O that day what manner a one and how great shall it come, my deerest beloued brethren, when the Lorde shall beginne to re∣count his people, and by examination of his diuine knowledge consider the merites of euery one, to sende into hell fire the guiltie, and to condemne our persecu∣tors with perpetuall burning of penall flame? but vnto vs to pay the reward of faith and deuotion.

The rewarde of faith is not that which beliefe deserueth: but which it looketh for, according to Gods promise, wherevnto it leaneth.

For in respect of deserte of Gods fauour, he saith, and bringeth diuerse textes for proofe: Fidem tan∣tum prodesse & tantum nos posse quantum credimus. That* 1.517 faith only doth profite, and that so much wee can doe, how much we beleeue.

Wherfore, we see not in Cyprian the incomparable glory to be a reward of desertes.

MART. 9. Likewise S. Augustine: The exceeding* 1.518 goodnesse of God hath prouided this, that the labours should soone be ended, but the rewardes of the ME∣RITES* 1.519 should endure without ende: the Apostle testi fying, THE PASSIONS OF THIS TIME ARE NOT COMPARABLE &c. For wee shal receiue greater blisse, than are the afflictions of all passions what soeuer. Thus wee see plainely, that short tri∣bulations are true merites of endlesse glorie, though not compa∣rable to the same: which truth you impugne by your false and hereticall translation. But let vs see further your dealing in the selfe same controuersie, to make it plainer that you bende your translations against it, more than the text of the Scripture doth permit you.

FVLK. 9. A man may see you are driuē to extreme shiftes, when you will seeke Praemia meritorum, in S. Au∣gustine, & can finde it no where, but among the Sermones de sanctis, which beare no credite of Augustines workes: but of some later gatherer. The true Augustine in Ps. 70. Con. 1. thus writeth.

Nihil es per te, deum inuoca, tua peccaia sunt, merita dei sunt, supplicium tibi debetur▪ & cum praemium venerit, sua dona coronabit non merita tua▪ Thou art nothing by thy selfe, call vpon God, thine are the sinnes, the me∣rites are Gods, to thee punishment is due, and when the rewarde shal come, he will crowne his giftes not thy merites. Finally Augustine in nothing is more earnest than in denying the reward which is of grace,

to be due in respect of merite or worthinesse of workes.

MART. 10. In the booke of wisedome, where there is honorable mention of the merites of Saincts and their rewardes in heauen, you translate the holy Scripture thus: God hath* 1.520 proued them, and findeth them MEETE FOR HIM SELFE. To omitte here that you vse the present tense, where∣as in the Greeke they are preter tenses (God knoweth why, on∣ly this wee knowe, that it is no true nor sincere translation) but to wincke at smaller faultes, why say you here in all your Bibles, that God findeth his Saincts and holy seruants meete

for him selfe, and not, worthie of him selfe? See your par∣tialitie, and be ashamed.

FVLK. 10. The booke of wisedome writtē by Phi∣lo the Iewe, as S. Hierome thinketh, is no holy Canoni∣cal Scripture, to cōfirme the credite of any article of be∣liefe. Therefore whether he thought that mens merites were worthy of the fauour and grace of God, & the re∣ward of eternall life, or no, it is not materiall. But some∣what it is that you say, that our translators for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 haue not translated worthie, but meete. For my parte, I wishe they had reteyned the vsuall signification of that worde, and said worthie of him selfe, onely to take away your cauill. For otherwise in the sense, there is no difference, if that he saith be true, none is meete for God, but they that are worthie of him, which are not meete or worthie of thē selues, but made such by grace, not for merite of their workes, but by the righteousnesse of Christe, im∣puted to them by faith. This if the wiseman meaneth not, but that their vertues were such as deserued Gods fauour and eternall life, we may boldely reiect him, as going against the wisedome of God reuealed in the Ca∣nonicall Scriptures.

MART. 11. In the Apostles places before examined, you saide negatiuely, that the afflictions of this time were NOT WORTHIS OF the glorie to come, the Greeke not bearing that translation: but here, when you should say affirmatiuely, and that word for word after the Greeke, that God found them WORTHIE OF HIM SELFE, there you say, MEETE* 1.521 FOR HIM SELFE, auoiding the terme, worthie, because merite is included therein. So that when you will in your tran∣slatiō denie merites, then condignae ad, signifieth worthie of: * 1.522 when you should in your translation affirme merites, then Di∣gnus with an ablatiue case doth not signifie, worthie of. No* 1.523 maruell if such wilfulnesse wilnot see the worde merite, or that whiche is equiualent thereto, in all the Scripture. For when you do see it, & should trāslate it, you suppresse it by another word. But this is a case worthie of examination, whether the Scripture* 1.524

haue the worde, merite, or the equiualent thereof▪ For we will force them euen by their owne translations, to confesse that it is founde there, and that they should translate it accordingly often when they doe not, yea, that if wee did not see it in the vulgar Latine translation yet they must needes see it and finde it in the Greeke.

FVLK. 11. In the Canonicall Scripture it seemeth the translators had a religious care, to keepe bothe the propertie of the wordes, and the true meaning of the holy Ghost. In the Apocryphall bookes, they had a wise consideration, to translate them according to the beste meaning, that their wordes would beare. Now whether you say, worthie of God, or meete for God: you must vnderstand this meetenesse, or worthinesse, to be of grace, and not of merite: or else the saying is blas∣phemous against the grace of God. For merite is not necessarily included in worthinesse. The Kings sonne is worthie to succeede his father▪ by right of inheritance, not by merite of vertue alwayes. A straunger may bee worthie of the kinges seruice▪ which neuer deserued the kings entertainement but for such good qualities, as are in him. But after this tedious trifling, it would som∣what awake our spirites▪ if you could (as you threaten in the margent) proue the merite of good workes plaine∣ly by the Scriptures: eyther by the worde merite, which you can neuer doe, or by any thing that is equiualent vnto it: and to force vs by our owne translations to cō∣fesse, that it is founde there, if not in the vulgar Latine yet in the Greeke.

MART. 12. First when they translate the foresaid place thus, The afflictions of this time are not worthie of the* 1.525 glorie to come: they meane this, deserue not the glorie to come, for to that purpose they do so translate it, as hath bene declared. Againe, when it is said, The workemā is worthy of* 1.526 his hire or wages: What is meant, but that he deserueth his* 1.527 wages? And more plainely Tob. 9. they translate thus: Brother* 1.528 Azarias, if I should giue my self to be thy seruaunt, I shal

not DESERVE thy prouidence. And such like. If then in these places, both the Greeke and the Latine signifie, to be worthie of, or, not to be worthie of▪ to deserue, or, not to deserue: then they must allow vs the same signification and vertue of the same wordes in other like places. Namely Apoc. 5. of our Sauiours merites, thus: The lambe that was* 1.529 killed, IS WORTHY to receyue power, and riches, &c. What is that to say, but, DESERVETH to receiue? For so I trust they will allowe vs to say of our Sauiour, that he in deede deserued. Againe, of the damned, thus: Thou hast giuen them bloud to drinke, for they ARE WOR∣THY,* 1.530 or, THEY HAVE DESERVED. is it not all one?* 1.531 lastly of the elect, thus: They shall walke with me in white, because they are worthie, Apocal. 3. that is, because they deserue it. And so in the place before by them corrup∣ted,* 1.532 God founde them worthie of him: that is, such as deserued to bee with him in eternall glorie. Thus by their owne translation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and dignus, are plainely de∣duced, worthinesse, desert, and merite of saincts, out of the Scriptures.

FVLK. 12. Your first foundation is false, therefore all your building falleth to the groūd. For when we trā∣slate that text thus: The afflictions of this time, are not worthy of the glory to come, we meane not thus: deserue not the glory to come, but euen as you do, they are not equal or comparable: but thereof it followeth, that they deserue not, for to deserue, is to doe a thing equall vnto the reward: the afflictions be not equal, therefore they deserue not. But when it is said the workeman is wor∣thy of his hyre, wee acknowledge that he deserueth his wages, yet we should not doe well to translate it, that he deserueth his hyre: because worthinesse may be where there is no desert. Gold is worthy to be esteemed before siluer, and yet there is no merite, or deserte of golde, if we speake properly. That of Tob. 9. is not in the Greeke, but in some Bibles translated out of Latine accor∣ding to the vsuall phrase of Englishe, rather than to

the propertie of the worde, where it is sayd Apoc. 5. The Lambe, that was killed, is worthye to receiue power, and riches, though we will not contende of the de∣serts of Christ, yet we may be bold to say, that in respect of the godhead, he was worthy of all honour and glorie from euerlasting, before he had created any thing: and therefore worthines doth not alway import desert, as no worthines doth no desert. Likewise, when it is said of the wicked, Apoc. 16. they are worthy to drinke bloud, it is true, that they deserued that plague, because their cruell workes were iustly recompensed with that punishment: but yet some may be worthy of their punishment, that haue not deserued it. The sonne of a traytor, is worthy to beare the punishment of his fathers attainder; yet he hath not alwayes deserued it by his owne deedes. There∣fore it is not all one: they are worthy, and they haue de∣serued. The infants of the reprobate, as soone as they haue life▪ are worthy of eternall damnation, and yet they haue not deserued the same, by their owne deedes. Ther∣fore where it is sayd of the elect, They shall walke with me in white, because they are worthy, it is not meant, that they haue deserued by their owne workes, to walke with Christ: but because they are made worthye by Christ, who hath giuen them grace, not to defile their garments, who also shall giue them the rewarde of white garments, that is, of innocencie, which no man can de∣serue, because no man is cleare from sinne, but onely by forgiuenes of sinnes, in the bloud of Christ. Therefore you haue performed nothing lesse, than your promise, which was to proue the equiualent of merite, out of the Scripture, and to force vs, by our translation, to confesse the same. Fos worthines doth not alwayes argue or en∣force desert▪ as desert doth worthines, worthines being a more generall word, than merite or desert.

MART. 13. But to proceede one steppe further, we proue* 1.533 it also to be in the Scriptures, thus. Them selues translate thus, Heb. 10. 29. Of howe much sorer punishment shall he be

worthy, which treadeth vnder foote the sonne of God? though one of their Bibles of the yeare 1562. very falsly and corruptly, leaueth out the wordes, worthy of, saying thus. How much sorer shall he be punished▪ &c: Fearing no doubt by translating the Greeke word sincerely, this consequence that now* 1.534 I shall inferre, to wit, If the Greeke worde here, by their owne translation, signifie to be worthy of, or, to deserue, being spoken of paines and punishment deserued: then must they graunt vs the same worde so to signifie elsewhere in the newe Testament, when it is spoken of deseruing heauen, and the king∣dome of God. as in these places, Luc. 21. Watch therefore▪ all* 1.535 times praying, that you MAY BE WORTHIE to stande before the sonne of man. and, c. 20. THEY THAT ARE WORTHY to attayne to that worlde, and to the resurrection from the deade, neyther marye, nor are maried. and, 2. Thess. 1. That you may BE WOR∣THYE* 1.536 of the kingdome of God, for which also ye suffer.

FVLK. 13. You thinke to haue great aduauntage at our translation of the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heb. 10. shall be worthye: which is true according to the sense, but not so proper for the worde, which signifieth ra∣ther to be iudged, or accounted worthye, whether he be worthye in deede, or not. And so it shoulde haue bene translated, if the nature of the worde had bene exact∣ly weighed. But the translators looked rather to the purpose of the Apostle, which is by all meanes to ter∣rifie such contemners and backeslyders, of whome he speaketh. The Greeke worde therefore doth not signi∣fie to deserue, but to be iudged worthye, although it is true, that those of whome the Apostle there speaketh, deserued extreame paynes of damnation. And euen so it signifieth in all other places, as Luc 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they that shall be counted worthye to attayne to that worlde. and, Luc. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that you may be counted worthye and, 2. Thess. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that you may be counted worthye. And so the word doth signi∣fie

in other places, without controuersie, as Luc. 7. the Centurion sayd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I accounted not my selfe worthye. and, 1. Tim. 5. The Elders that gouerne well, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let them be counted worthy of double honour. For it is the imperatiue mode, therefore it is a fault in our translations, to make it the indicatiue. For we can not saye, let them be worthye, or let them be made worthy: but let them be iudged, reputed, or ac∣counted worthy.

MART. 14. Thus you should translate in all these pla∣ces, according to your translation of the former place to the He∣brewes: or at the leastwise you should haue this sense & mea∣ning, as the olde vulgar Latine hath, translating in all these places, counted worthy, but meaning worthy in deede: as when* 1.537 it is sayd, Abraham was reputed iust, it is meant, he was iust in deede. If you also haue this meaning in your translations, which here follow the vulgar Latine: then we appeale to your selues, whether, to be counted worthy, and to be worthy, and to deserue, and to merite, be not all one: and so here also Merite is dedu∣ced. But if you meane according to your heresie, to signifie by translating. counted worthy, that they are not in deede wor∣thy: then your purpose is hereticall, and translation false, and re∣pugnant to your translating the same word in other places, as is declared, and now further we will declare.

FVLK. 14. I haue shewed you howe we shoulde translate that word in any place▪ wheresoeuer it is redde, euen as the vulgar Latine hath in the places by you noted▪ and in those three textes, Luc. 20. 21. 2. Thess. 1. We meane not falsely counted worthye, but wor∣thye in deede, as when it is sayde, that Abraham was reputed iust, we acknowledge that he was truely so reputed, and that he was iuste in deede. But where you appeale to our consciences, whether to be counted worthy, and to be worthy, and to deserue, and to merite, be not all one. I answer you plainly▪ and according to my conscience, they be not. But euen as Abraham was re∣puted iuste, and was iuste in deede, not by deserte,

but by faith, so in those three texts, the faithful are coū∣ted worthy, and are worthy in deede, not by their merit, and desert, but for Iesus Christes sake. For herein your heresie is greatly deceaued, to imagine, that he which is iust by Christ, by faith, or by imputation, is not truely iust, or not iust in deed. For Christ, faith, and imputation, are not contrary, or opposed to truth, but to merit or de∣sert of the party, that is iust by Christ, by faith, or by im∣putation, and so we say of them that are accounted wor∣thy for Christes sake, and not for their owne merits.

MART. 15. They whome God doth make worthy, they* 1.538 are truely and in deede worthy: are they not? but by your owne translation of the same word in the actiue voice, God doth make them worthy. Therefore in the passiue voice it must also signifie to be made, or to be in deede worthy. For example, 2. Thess. 1, 11. You translate thus, we also praye for you, THAT OVR GOD MAY MAKE YOV VVORTHY of this cal∣ling. According to which translation, why did you not also in the selfe same chapter, a litle before, translate thus: That you MAY BE MADE VVORTHY (and so be worthy) of* 1.539 the kingdome of God, for which also you suffer? You knowe the case is like in both places, and in the Greeke Doctors you specially▪ should knowe (by your ostentation of reading them in Greeke) that they according to this vse of holy Scripture, ve∣ry often vse also this word, both actiuely and passiuely, to make* 1.540 worthy, and, to be made, or, to be worthy. See the Greeke Liturgies.

FVLK. 15. They must needes be worthye, whome God maketh worthy: but then are they not worthye by their merits or deserts, but by his grace in Iesus Christ, & so our translators meane, when they say, 2. Thess. 1. 11. that our God may make you worthy of this calling, al∣though the clearer translation had bene, that God may account you worthy, as the vulgar Latine hath, vt digne∣tur. For dignor is not to make worthy, but to vouchsafe, or to account worthy. Wherefore, you doe vainely here snatch at a word, contrary to the meaning, both of the

translator, and of the text. For those whom God maketh worthie, are not worthie by their desert, but by his grace accepting them. How the Greeke Doctors vse the word, it is not now the question, but how it signifieth in the Scripture: although I see not how you proue that the do∣ctors vse it, to make worthye, or to be made worthie by desert.

MART. 16. Which Sainct Chrysostome, to put all out* 1.541 of doubt, explicateth thus in other wordes, That he make vs worthie of the kingdome of heauen. Ser. 1. de orando Deo. And vpon the Epistle to Titus cap. 3. in the same sense passiuely, God graunt we may all BE MADE VVOR∣THY* 1.542 (or be worthie) of the good things promised to thē that loue him. And in an other place of the sayed Doctor it must needes signifie, to be worthie▪ as when he sayeth, In Co∣los. 1. No man liueth such a trade of life, that he is wor∣thie* 1.543 of the kingdome, but all is his gift. For to say thus, No man so liueth that he can be counted worthie of the kingdom of heauen: is false, is against the Protestants owne opinion, which say they are coūted worthy, that are not. Againe, to say, No man so liueth that he can be made worthie: is false, because God can make the worst man worthy. It remaineth then to say, No man so liueth that he is worthie. Which a litle before he declareth thus, No man by his owne proper* 1.544 merites obtaineth the kingdom of heauen, that is, as his owne, and of him selfe without the grace of God. And yet we must shewe further out of the Scriptures, that God maketh vs worthie, and so we are in deede worthie, and here also we must conuince you of false and partiall interpretation.

FVLK. 16. Sainct Chrysostome putteth not the matter any whit out of doubt, for your side. For he doth not expound this text of 2. Thess. 1. But only in the later end of his Sermon prayeth, that God hauing mer∣cie vpon vs all, will make vs worthie of his kingdome. Where you might haue seene, if you had not bene blind with frowardnesse, that God maketh vs worthie, by his mercie, not by our merites. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his prayer

vpon the 3. to Titus is taken to be made worthie, ra∣ther than to be accounted worthie, you haue no proofe, but your owne authoritie: although for God to make worthy by his mercy, & to account worthie, is all one in effect. The third place▪ in Epist. ad Col. cap. 1. is altogither against you. Where he sayth, no man liueth such a trade of life, that he may be iudged or accounted worthie of that kingdome, but all is the gift of God. Is not his mea∣ning plaine, that no man can be accounted worthie by workes or merites, but altogither by the grace and gift of God?

With this distinction therefore which is plaine, euen by those wordes which you cite, that Chrysostome ma∣keth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without any inconuenience▪ may signifie in this place, to be accounted worthie. No man by his owne proper merites obtaineth the kingdom of heauen (saith he) but euen as a lot is rather by happe & chaunce, so it is here: meaning that God giueth his kingdome no more according to mans desertes, than lottes doe fall to men by chaunce, which yet God disposeth, as it plea∣seth him. Finally, the whole discourse of the Doctor be∣ing against mans merites, vsing the worde in the same place so often of Gods dignation, vouchsafing or ac∣counting worthie, you had great scarsitie of examples out of the Doctors, that bring this place to proue that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to be made worthie by merit, and not by meere mercie.

MART. 17. The Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (I pray you) what doth it signifie •• you must aunswere that it signifieth not onely, meete, but also, worthie. For so Beza reacheth you, and so you* 1.545 translate Mat. 3. 11. & cap. 8. & 1. Cor. 15. 9. I am not wor∣thie, in all three places. And why (I pray you) did you not like∣wise followe the olde Latine interpreter one steppe further, say∣ing, Giuing thankes to God the father THAT HATH MADE VS VVORTHIE, but translating rather thus,* 1.546 Which hath made vs meete to be partakers of the inhe∣ritance of the Saincts in light. Here was the place where you

should haue shewed your sinceritie, & haue said that God ma∣keth vs worthie of heauenly blisse. Because you know if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be worthie, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to make worthie. But you are like to Beza your Maister, who (as though all interpretation of wordes were at his commaundement) sayeth, here and here and so forth I haue followed the old Latine interpreter, trans∣lating* 1.547 it, worthie: but in such and such a place (meaning this for one) I choose rather to say, MEETE. But that both he &* 1.548 you should here also haue translated, worthie, the Greeke fa∣thers shall teache you, if we be not worthie▪ or able to controule so mightie Grecians, as you pretend to be when you crowe vpon your owne dunghill, otherwise in your translations shewing small skill, or great malice.

FVLK. 17. If you be not able to draw merit out of word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which properly signifieth worthie: you shall haue somewhat a doe to wring it out of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which properly signifieth, apt, or meete, and sometime sufficient, according to which later signification, Beza in three places translateth dignus, because sufficiens is no La∣tine worde in that sense to be vsed. But nowe you aske, why we went not a steppe further▪ to translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Collos. 1. v. 12. which hath made vs worthy. I aunswere you, first there is no reason that a worde which hath di∣uerse significatiōs, should alwaies be translated after one. Secōdly, when a word hath one most vsuall signification, and two or three other significations not so vsuall: by translating it once or twise according to the sense of the place, after one of the best vsuall significations, we are not bounde to giue ouer the most common and vsuall signification, when the sense of the place requireth it. Thirdly, when a verbe is deriued of a nowne that hath diuerse significations, it signifieth most commonly af∣ter the most vsual signification, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sometime signi∣fieth cheape, we must not thereof conclude, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 si∣gnifieth to make cheape. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifieth sometime greate, or muche, you may as well say, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signi∣fieth to magnifie, to make greate, or to multiplie:

which none but a madde man woulde say: and yet you thinke you haue made a great argument, when you say, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be worthie, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to make worthie. It remaineth therefore, that seeing the most vsuall signifi∣cation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is apt or meete, the true and best signi∣fication of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is to make apt or meete, which we haue followed in our translation. But if you will still contende that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, then you must tell vs, as you require vs often, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be as good Greeke, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if you woulde say, worthie of death. Beza therefore fol∣loweth not his pleasure, where he chooseth to say, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Idoneum, but the nature of the worde, and the v∣suall signification thereof▪ compared with the sense of the place. And if we shoulde followe your vulgar La∣tine translation, and say, that God hath made vs wor∣thie to be partakers of the inheritaunce of the Sainctes in light, you are neuer the narre for your merites. For God maketh vs worthie by his grace, and by the righ∣teousnesse and holinesse of Christ, which is imputed to vs being incorporated to him, and made liuely mem∣bers of his mysticall bodie. Howe vainely you charge the translatours, with bragging, vnskilfulnesse, and malice, they that are learned can iudge, and God will one day reuenge it.

MART. 18. The Greeke fathers (I say) interprete the* 1.549 Apostles word here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. that is, hath made vs worthie, and giuen vs the grace to be worthie. And S. Basil in orat. Liturg. making both Greeke wordes all one, saith, THOV HAST MADE VS* 1.550 VVORTHIE to be ministers of thy holy altar. And a∣none after, MAKE VS VVORTHY for this ministe∣rie. And Sainct Chrysostome vpon the Apostles place. God doeth not onelye giue vs societie with the Sainctes, but maketh vs also worthie to receiue so greate digni∣tie. And here is a goodly consideration of the goodnesse of God towarde vs, that doeth in deede by his grace make•• vs

worthy of so great thinges, who otherwise are most vnworthy, vile, and abiect. Which making of vs worthy, is expressed by the sayd Greeke wordes, more than by the Latine, mereri, because it declareth whence our merite and worthines proceedeth▪ to wi••, of God. Both which S. Chrysostom expresseth excellently, thus:* 1.551 When he brought in Publicans to the kingdom of hea∣uen, he defamed not the kingdom of heauen, but mag∣nified it also with great honours, shewing that there is such a Lord of the kingdom of heauen, which hath made* 1.552 euen vnworthy persons to be so much better, that they should deserue euen the glorie of that dignitie. And Oe∣cumenius sayth, that it is Gods glorie, * 1.553 TO MAKE HIS SERVANTS VVORTHY of such good things: and that it is their glorie, * 1.554 TO HAVE BENE MADE VVORTHY of such things, in 2. Thess. 1.

FVLK. 18. If the Greeke fathers did so interprete the Apostles wordes, yet your merit is to seeke, as I haue sayd. For I will not contend, whether God make vs wor∣thye, but whether he make vs worthye by desert of our good works, or by his mercie, & grace, in the redēption of his sonne. But let vs see what the fathers saye to the matter. First Oecumenius words are flat against you, if they be truely translated, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he hath counted vs worthy, and hath freely graunted vnto vs to be meete. See you not, that all our worthines and meetenes dependeth of his grace, and free acceptation? The Liturgie intitu∣led of Basill, although it haue a much younger author, maketh neuer a whit more for you. The minister prayeth that God would accoumpt him worthy, or make him meete for the ministerie. And if you should in both pla∣ces translate, that God maketh worthy, you cā not proue merite thereby: but contrarywise it soundeth against merite, for God maketh vs not worthy by our desertes, but by the worthinesse of Christ. Chrysostome also, as I haue shewed before vpon this place, doth vtterly con∣demne your opinion of merites, for he saith,

Suche are the things that are giuen, that he hath not onely giuen

them, but also made vs able to receiue them. Againe, he hath not onely giuen vs the honour, but also strength to embrace it. What is our strength? what is our abilitie, to receiue the giftes of God, but fayth in the merites of Christ?

The place of Chrysostome, Hom. de cruce & latrone, is not be be vnderstoode of deseruing by works, but by the grace of God, and remission of their sinnes, which maketh men meete and worthye of his glorye: as the example of the Publican, iustified onely by re∣mission* 1.555 of his sinnes, and of the harlot saued by faith, which he vseth, doth plainely declare. And yet sanctifi∣cation, and the fruites of good life, are not excluded from the persons iustified, and saued, but onely me∣rite or desert of workes, according to which, as the same Chrysostome sayth, in ep. Col. 1. we must saye, we are vnprofitable seruaunts, when we haue done all that is commaunded vs. But this is no place, to handle con∣trouersies of religion, but translations of the Scrip∣ture. The worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, except you bring vs better e∣uidence, than yet we see any, in all places where we reade it, we may translate it dignari, which is to vouchsafe, or account worthy.

MART. 19. Thus we see howe the holye Scripture v∣seth equiualent wordes to signifie, merite, which you sup∣presse as much as you can. So likewise we might tell you of o∣ther words and phrases that do plainely import and signifie me∣rite. As when it is saide Ecclesiastici 16. Euery man shall finde according to his workes. Budee both your Maister* 1.556 and ours in the Greeke tongue, telleth vs that the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (to finde) is proprely to receyue for that which a man hath giuen or laboured. And to require you with some pro∣fane authoritie, (because you delight much in that kinde,) the whole oration of Demosthenes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, will tell you the same. Now, to receyue for that which a man hath laboured or wrought, what doth it else presuppose, but merite and desert?* 1.557 It is a common phrase of the Scripture, that God will iudge and reward or repay according to euery mans workes. Doth not this

include merite and demerite of workes? but I wote not howe, nor wherefore, in this case you translate sometime, deedes, for workes, saying▪ Who will rewarde euery man ac∣cording* 1.558 to his deedes. And againe, You see then howe that of deedes a man is iustified, and not of faith onely.

FVLK. 19. We doe not yet see, that the holy Scri∣ptures vsed any worde aequiualent to merite, whereby it might be gathered, that wee are iustified or saued by merite of good workes. But you haue other wordes and phrases, that doe plainely importe and signifie merite, as in Ecclesiasticus 16. euery man shall finde according to his workes. Where you put vs in minde, what our Maister Budee writeth of the proper signi∣fication of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, to deserue, bringing ex∣ample therefore, out of Demosthenes oration 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But I pray you, doeth our saide Maister af∣firme this to be the onely signification of that verbe? Where he bringeth you the example out of Grego∣rie, of Saule, whiche seeking his fathers Asses 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 founde a kingdome, doeth he meane that by seeking his fathers Asses, he deserued a king∣dome? Againe, the example he bringeth out of Sainct Luke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thou hast founde fa∣uour or grace with God: doeth he vnderstande, that the virgine Marie deserued the grace of God? But you obiect, that it is a common phrase of the Scripture, that God will iudge or rewarde, or repay to euerie man ac∣cording to his workes. It is true, but not to euerie one according to his merites, for then all shoulde bee damned, for all haue deserued death: and no man shoulde bee saued, for no man meriteth saluation. But God rendereth to the faithfull according to their workes, when he freely giueth for Christes sake eternall life to them, that by perseueraunce of good workes (as the Apostle sayeth) seeke glorie, honour, and incorru∣ptiō. Their workes therfore, are the fruites of his grace.

not the merites or desertes of his grace by which wee are saued: Eph. 2. But here againe you quarrell, that for works, we saie sometimes deedes, as though they were not all one. Or if they be not, why doe you, 1. Cor. 5. translate Qui hoc opus fecit, that hath done this deede.

MART. 20. I know you will tell vs that you vse to say deedes or workes indifferently, as also you may say, that you put no difference betweene iust and righteous, meete and worthie, but vse both indifferently. To the ignorant this is a faire answere, and shall soone persuade them: but they that see further, must needes suspect you, till you giue a good reason of your doing. For, the controuersie being of faith and workes, of iustice and iustification by workes, of the worthinesse or va∣lure of workes: why do you not precisely keepe these termes per∣taining to the controuersie, the Greeke wordes beeing alwayes pregnant in that signification? Why shoulde you once translate the Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, deedes, rather than, workes. You know it is properly, workes, as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, deedes. It were very good in mat∣ters of controuersie to be precise. Beza maketh it a greate faulte* 1.559 in the olde vulgare Latine translatour, that he expresseth one Greeke worde in Latine diuers waies. You choppe & chaunge significations here and there as you liste, and you thinke you satisfie the reader maruellous wel, if sometime you say idol, & not alwayes, images: sometime iust, and not alwayes righte∣ous: and if in other places you say workes, or if one Bible hathe workes, where an other hath deedes, you thinke this is very wel, and wil answere all the matter sufficiently. God and your cons∣cience be iudge herein, and let the wise reader consider it depe∣ly. The least thing that we demaunde the reason of, rather than charge you with al, is, why your Church Bible saith in the places before alleaged. The righteous iudgement of God, which* 1.560 wil reward euerie man according to his deedes. and, man is iustified by deedes, and not by faith only. Whereas you know the Greeke is more pregnant for vs than so, & the matter of controuersie woulde better appeare on our side, if you saide thus: The IVST iudgement of God▪ which will re∣warde euerie man according to his WORKES, and,

Man is iustified by workes, and not by faith only.

FVLK. 20. If you could tell vs what aduauntage our doctrine might haue, by translating deedes rather than workes, it might bee suspected why some transla∣tions vse the one, rather than the other: but seeing you can not imagine, nor any man else, what it shoulde a∣••••ile vs, to vse the one rather than the other, it may be reasonably thought, that the translators meante no sub∣tiltie, especially when in places of like apparāce for our assertion, they vse the worde deedes also. As Gal. 2. v. 16. A man is not iustified by the deedes of the lawe, but by faith of Iesus Christ, where the Greeke worde is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as well as in S. Iames. But where you say that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is proper for deedes▪ you were beste call the seconde booke of S. Luke, The deedes of the Apostles. The faulte that Beza findeth with the vulgar Latine transla∣tion is, that in diuerse places, hee translateth one worde diuerse wayes, and them differing. For otherwise to translate for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes Gladius, & sometimes En∣••i••, it were no faulte, no more than it is in vs to vse the wordes iustice and righteousnesse▪ workes and deedes, fayth and beliefe, truste and confidence, &c. And you your selues in suche wordes doe often vse the same li∣bertie.

MART. 21. But will you not yet see merite and meri∣torious workes in the Scripture? I maruell your skill in the Greeke teacheth you nothing in this point. S. Iohn saith: Looke* 1.561 to your selues, that you lose not the things which you haue wrought, but that you may receiue a full reward. Me thinketh, in these wordes the equiualent of merite is easily seene of any man that is not wilfully blinde. But you should see* 1.562 further thā the cōmon sorte. For you know that the Greeke here signifieth▪ not only that which we worke, but that which we worke for. At in the Greeke phrase of working for a mans liuing, and as you translats Io. 6. v. 27. LABOVR NOT FOR THE MEATE that perisheth, but for that meate which endu∣reth vnto life euerlasting. Such * 1.563 labourers God hired to* 1.564

worke in his vineyard, & * 1.565 the workeman is worthie of his hire. So that the Apostle in the former wordes exhorteth to per∣seuerance,* 1.566 that we lose not the reward or pay, for which we worke and which by working we merite and deserue.

FVLK. 21. You fare with vs, as a mery fellow did with his friendes, of whom Erasmus telleth, who affir∣ming that he sawe in the skie a fiery dragon, with often asking them if they did not see it, he induced them at length, euery one to cōfesse they saw it, least they should haue bene thought to be purblind. But in good earnest, & in my conscience, I see no more merite in the Scrip∣tures, than I did before. Yea I haue this argument more, to persuade mee that it is not founde in the Scriptures, because the chiefest patrones thereof, hauing taken such paynes to finde it, are nowe as farre from it, as euer they were. But to the matter, I say there is no merite in∣cluded in the saying of S. Iohn, although you rehearse it in the seconde person, after the vulgar Latine tran∣slation, and not after the Greeke, whiche is in the firste person, and may be referred to the rewarde of the Apo∣stles, which shall be full, if they whom they haue con∣uerted to the faith, doe perseuere vnto the ende. But make it as strong for your parte as you can, the full re∣warde is giuen according to the moste bountifull pro∣mise of God, to our good workes, of his meere mercie and grace, and not by deserte of our workes. And the parable of the labourers, whom God hired into his* 1.567 vineyarde, declareth moste euidently, that the rewarde is of grace, not of merite. For if it were of merite, they that came first earely in the morning, should haue receyued more, as their labour was greater, than they whiche came at the laste houre. Where our Sauiour Christe sayeth▪ the workeman is worthie of his hire, hee* 1.568 teacheth his Disciples, that they maye lawfully take meate and drinke of them to whome they preach, ac∣cording to that common saying, or Prouerbe. But thereof it followeth not, that euery one which worketh

in Gods vineyarde, is worthie for his workes sake, and by deserte of his labour, of eternall glorie, for he promiseth greater rewarde to his workemen, a thou∣sande folde and more, than their labour doth deserue▪ So that yet wee see not, that wee merite and deserue by working, although we receyue rewarde for our work▪ or according to our workes. Vnde mihi tantum meriti* 1.569 (saith a godly father) cui indulgentia est pro coron••? whence should I haue so greate merite when pardon or mercie is my crowne.

MART. 22. Againe Beza telleth vs, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifieth* 1.570 mercedem quae meritis respondet, that is, a re∣warde* 1.571 answereable to the merites. And wee finde many wordes in the Scripture like vnto this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.572 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Which are on Gods parte, who is the rewarder▪ and recompenser. And on our parte wee haue (as the Apo∣stle* 1.573 saith, Hebr. 10. and 4.) greate confidence, confi∣dence (saith Photius a notable Greeke father) of our works, confidence of our faith, of our tentations, of our pa∣tience, &c. Yea wee haue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Scripture, whiche muste needes signifie as much as Bezaes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 By the one, is said, In keeping thy commaunde∣mentes is greate rewarde. Againe▪ You shall receyue THE RETRIBVTION of inherimunce. Col. 3. v. 24. And 2. Thessal. 1. v. 6. Gods repaying iust and reiribution of* 1.574 Hell or Heauen for good and euill deser••es▪ is expressed by the same worde. And by the other, is said, I haue inclined my hart to keepe thy iustifications (or commaundements) al∣waies FOR REWARD.* 1.575

FVLK. 22. If you can finde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Scrip∣ture, you conuince vs of merite by Bezaes iudgement. Therefore, tell vs I pray you, in what booke and chap∣ter wee shall finde it. First you tell vs, that you finde many wordes like vnto it. Yea, but neyther the same, nor any that is aequiualent. For rendring of rewarde▪ which all your wordes doe signifie, may be according to promise by grace: and not by desert. The confidence of

our workes, that Photius speaketh of, muste be vnder∣stood as they are testimonies of Gods sanctifying spirit, or else it is contrary to the Scripture. The parable tolde* 1.576 against them that trusted in themselues, that they are righteous, whereas we must confesse, that we are vnpro∣fitable seruants in all our obedience, and beste workes that we doe. Yea but you haue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Scripture, which must needes signifie as much as Bezaes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Who will yeelde to this necessitie? If a man promise a laborer 20. shillings for euery dayes worke, the rendring of this wages may be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and yet no man will say, that a daies labour deserueth twentie shillings. That there is great rewarde promised for them that keepe Gods cō∣maundements, wee confesse: but this rewarde is ey∣ther of merite, if they perfectly keepe all Gods com∣maundements, which no man doth: or of mercie, if be∣ing iustified by faith through remission of their sinnes, they endeuour according to the measure of Gods grace, giuen vnto them, to keepe Gods commaundements in some parte, as God giueth strength. In the testimonie of S. Paule, the worde of inheritaunce following imme∣diatly* 1.577 after the worde of rewarde, or retribution, exclu∣deth merites: for the inheritaunce dependeth of Gods free adoption, by which he maketh vs his sonnes, that he may giue vs that inheritāce, which we can neuer deserue. In the other place the Apostle promiseth reward of glo∣ry, to them that suffer for Christes name: which God ha∣uing promised of his meere mercie to giue vs, and the same being purchased for vs by the merites of our Saui∣our Christ: it is as iust before God to render vnto vs, as to repay the wicked with eternall condemnation, accor∣ding to their merites. So that the merites of Christ, and his satisfaction, pleade for vs in all rewardes, and not the merites of our good workes, which yet are not ours, but Gods gifts in vs. That you alledge out of the Psalme, fol∣loweth afterward to be considered.

MART. 23. But all this will not suffice you. For where∣soeuer you can possibly, you will haue an euasion. And therefore in this later place you runne to the ambiguitie of the Hebrewe word, and translate thus: I haue applyed my hart to fulfill* 1.578 thy statuts alwayes, EVEN VNTO THE ENDE. Alas my maisters, are not the Seuentie Greeke Interpreters sufficient to determine the ambiguitie of this word? is not S. Hierom, in his translation according to the Hebrew? are not all the aunci∣ent fathers both Greeke and Latine? It is ambiguous (say you) and therefore you take your libertie. You doe so in deede, & that like Princes. For in an other place, where the Greeke hath de∣termined, you follow it with all your hart, saying, fal downe be∣fore his footestoole, because he is holy: whereas the am∣biguitie* 1.579 of the Hebrew, would haue borne you to saye, as in the vulgar Latine, because it is holy, and so it maketh for holi∣nes of places, which you can not abide.

FVLK. 23. You neede not be halfe so earnest, for the word of reward, in that verse of the Psalme, which we translate vnto the ende: for if it were graunted vnto you, that for which you make so much of it, the merite of good workes will neuer be established by it. For re∣warde, as I haue often sayd, and plainly proued, doth not of necessitie import the merite or desert of him that is rewarded: but often tymes the liberalitie & bountiful∣nesse of the rewarder, which for small labour giueth wonderfull great rewarde. Nowe concerning the tran∣slation of this word yekebh, the Seuentie Interpreters, nor* 1.580 yet S. Hierom, are sufficient to determine the ambigui∣tie in this place, more than in an hundred other places, where our translations depart from their iudgement. But it is still free for men of euery age, to vse the gifte of knowledge, and interpretation of tongues, vnto the exact finding out of the true meaning of the holy Ghost in the Scriptures. Neyther doe we ioyne with them, one∣ly for aduantage, as you fondly charge vs, but as I haue shewed you reason in the example you bring, so is there reason also to be shewed, wheresoeuer we eyther ioyne

with them, or depart from them. Where you say, we can not abide holinesse of places, it is false, for we doe ac∣knowledge the holinesse of all places, which you can proue, that God hath sanctified, as he did the Arke, the temple, the tabernacle, &c.

MART. 24. But you vse (you say) the ambiguity of the Hebrew. Take heede that your libertie in taking all aduanta∣ges, against the common and approued interpretation of the whole Church, be not very suspicious. For if it doe signifie also reward, as (you know) it doth very commonly, and your selfe so translate it, (Psal. 18. v. 11.) when you can not choose: and if the Septuaginta do here so translate it in Greeke, and * 1.581 S. Hie∣rome in his Latine translation, according to the Hebrew, & the auncient fathers in their commentaries: what vpstart new mai∣sters are you that set all these to schoole againe, and teach the world a new translation? If you will say, you follow our owne great Hebrician, Sanctes Pagninus. Why did you follow him in his translation, rather than in his Lexicon called The saurus, where he interpreteth it as the whole Church did before him? Why did you follow him (or Benedictus Arias either) in this place, and doe not follow them in the selfe same case, a litle before transla∣ting that very Hebrew word, which is in this place, propter re∣tributionem,* 1.582 for reward? So that you followe nothing, ney∣ther* 1.583 iudgement, nor learning, in Hebrew or Greeke, but onely your owne errour and heresie, which is, that we may not doe well in respect of reward, or, for reward, and therefore because the ho∣ly Prophet Dauid sayde of him selfe the contrary, that he did bende his whole hart to keepe Gods commaundements for re∣ward, you make him say an other thing.

FVLK. 24. If Sanctes Pagninus, Benedictus Arias, and Isidorus Clarius, be vpstart newe Maisters in your iudgement, because they depart here from the Septua∣ginta, and Saint Hierome, we poore men must looke for small fauour at your handes. But because you say we fol∣lowe nothing, neither iudgement nor learning, in He∣brew or Greeke, but onely our owne errour and here∣sie: I will set downe the iudgement of Isidorus Clarius,

vpon this place, who translateth it, as all the Hebritians of this age doe, and yeldeth his reasons in these wordes. Inclinaui cor meum.\]

Accommodaui animum meum, vt opere praestem praecepta tua, &c. I haue inclined my hart.\] I haue applied my minde, that in worke or deede, I might per∣forme thy commaundements, euen vnto the ende of my life. For that worde, propter retributionem, for reward, the Hebrew wordes haue not: and truely it is to be taken a∣way, for it is too seruile a thing, and not worthy of so great a Prophet, to giue diligence to Gods commaun∣dements for reward, and hope of retribution. For that is the part of an hyreling, and of him which is vnworthye the name of a sonne: neyther can he be worthily called a Christian man, that serueth Christ with this minde. For what? if God should say so, that he would not rewarde vs with any other retribution, seeing for this one thing, that we are created by him, we can neuer satisfie this debt, shal we refuse to serue him. Therfore we are bound to serue him with our whole minde, although he had decreed to thrust vs into hell fire, both for that which we owe him, and for that we liue onely that time which we bestow in well doing, for they which giue ouer them selues to all wicked works, by no meanes can be sayd to liue. Yet there may be an interpretation of the Hebrew wordes, without such offence, so that it may be sayde, for euer is the rewarde, as else where we reade, in kee∣ping of them is great rewarde. For by this meanes it is signified, that the fruite in deede of keeping Gods law is very great, but yet that retribution is not the ende and scope, but the loue of God. Let all indifferent Readers iudge by this,

what iust cause you haue thus to rayle, not only vpon our translators, but also vpō al learned Pa∣pistes, that haue translated euen so. And let the ignorant iudge, what knowledge you haue in the Hebrewe tongue, which vrge the false translation of the Seuen∣tie, against the opinion and translation of all the learned Hebritians of this age, both Papistes and Protestantes:

although it were no hard thing to proue, that the Greeke text of the Psalmes, which nowe we haue, is none of the Seuenties translation, as euen Lindanus might teach you, de opt. gen. l 3. ••. 6.

MART. 25. And to this purpose perhaps it is, (for other cause I can not gesse) that you make such a maruelous transpo∣sition of wordes in your translation, (Mat. 19.) saying thus: When the sonne of man shall sit in the throne of his ma∣iestie, ye that haue followed me in the regeneration, shal sit also vpon twelue scates. Whereas the order of these wordes both in Greeke and Latine, is this: You that haue followed me, in the regeneration, when the Sonne of man shall sit in his maiestie, you also shall sit vpon twelue seates. To follow Christ in the regeneration, is not easily vnderstood what it should meane: but to sit with Christ in the regeneration, that is, in the resurrection, vpon twelue seates, that is familiar and e∣uery mans interpretation, and concerneth she great reward that they shall then haue, which here followe Christ, as the Apostles did.

FVLK. 25. You looke for faultes very narrowly, that can espye but a comma wanting, although it be no impious sense to follow Christ in the regeneration; for the worlde by Christ was after a sort renewed, when the cause of the restauration thereof was performed, as for the reward, of which you haue such a seruile care, is ex∣pressed in sitting vpon twelue seates, to iudge the tribes of Israell. Wherefore there was no neede, that you shoulde feare the losse of your rewarde, by this transpo∣sition.

MART. 26. The like transposition of wordes is in some* 1.584 of your Bibles (Heb. 2. v. 9.) thus. We see IESVS crowned with glorie and honour, which was a litle inferior to the Angels, through the suffering of death. Whereas both in Greeke and Latine, the order of the wordes is thus: Him that was made a litle inferior to Angels, we see IESVS. through the passion of death, crowned with honour and glorie. In this later, the Apostle sayth, that Christ was crowned

for his suffering death, and so by his death merited his glorie. But by your translation, he saith that Christ was made inferiour to Angels by his suffering death, that is (saith Beza) For to* 1.585 suffer death: and taking it so, that he was made inferiour to Angels, that he might die, then the other sense is cleane exclu∣ded, that for suffering death he was crowned with glorie: and this is one place among other, whereby it may very well be ga∣thered that some of you thinke that Christ him selfe did not* 1.586 merite his owne glorie and exaltation. So obstinatly are you set against merites and meritorious workes. To the which purpose also you take away mans free will, as hauing no habilitie to worke toward his owne saluation.

FVLK. 26. Whether we say, Christ was crowned for his suffering, or Christ was made inferiour to the An∣gels through his suffering, the sense of either of both is good and godly, and may stande with the place, neither doth the one of them exclude the other: although but one only can be the sense of the place. And if this be the place, by which you may gather, that some of vs thinke, that Christ merited not his owne glorie, it is not worth a straw. We hold that Christ for him selfe needed not to merite, because he was the Lorde of glorie, but that he merited for vs, to be exalted in our nature, for our sal∣uation, it is so farre off that we deny, that our whole comfort resteth in his merites, and in his glorie, which he hath deserued for vs, we hope to be glorified for euer. When you make your transition to the next chapter, you say, we take away mans free wil, as hauing none abi∣litie to worke, by which it seemeth, that you doe not onely allowe to man the freedome of his will, but also power to worke whatsoeuer he will: so that he shall not only haue a free will, but also a strength by the same to worke towardes his owne saluation.

CHAP. X.

Hereticall translation against FREE VVILL.

Martin.

AGAINST free will your corruptions be* 1.587 these Ioh. 1. 12. where it is said, As many as* 1.588 receiued him, he gaue them power to be made the sonnes of God: some of* 1.589 your translations say, he gaue them prero∣gatiue to be the sonnes of God. Beza, di∣gnitie. Who protesteth that whereas in o∣ther places often he translated this Greke word, power and au∣thoritie, here he refused both, in deede against free will, which he sayeth the Sophistes would proue out of this place, reprehen∣ding* 1.590 Erasmus for following them in his translation. But whereas the Greeke word is indifferent to signifie dignitie, or libertie, he that will translate either of these, restraineth the sense of the holy Ghost and determineth it it to his owne fansie. If you may translate, dignitie: may not we as well translate it, libertie? Yes surely. For you know it signifieth the one as well as the other both in profane and Diuine writers. And you can well call to minde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence they are deriued, and that the Apostle calleth a mans libertie of his owne will, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now then if potestas in Latine,* 1.591 and power in Englishe, be wordes also indifferent to signifie both dignitie and libertie, translate so in the name of God, and leaue the text of the Scripture indifferent as we doe: and for the sense whether of the two it doth here rather signifie, or whe∣ther it doth not signifie both (as no doubt it doth, & the fathers so expounde it) let that be examined otherwise. It is a common fauls with you and intolerable, by your translation to abridge the sense of the holy Ghost to one particular vnderstanding, & to defeate the exposition of so many fathers, that expounde it in

another sense and signification. As is plaine in this example al∣so folowing.

Fulke.

SEeing you confesse that the Greeke* 1.592 worde signifieth not onely power, but also dignitie, and that in this place it signifieth both, it can be no corruptiō, but the best and truest interpretation, to translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dignitie, for that in∣cludeth power, whereas power may be seuered from dignitie. Where you woulde haue vs vse a word, that is ambiguous, whē the sense is cleare by your owne confession, you bewray your owne corrupt affe∣ction, which desire to haue the Scriptures so ambiguous∣ly or doubtfully translated, that the ignorant might re∣ceiue no benefite of certaine vnderstanding by them. When a worde hath diuerse significations, a wise transla∣ter must weigh, which of them agreeth with the text in hand, & that to vse: but not to seeke ambiguous words, that may bring the matter in doubt, when the meaning to him is certaine. As here you say, there is no doubt but it signifieth both, and yet you quarrell at our transla∣tion, which comprehendeth both, and vrge the word of power, from which dignity may be seuered, whereas frō dignity, power or ability or licence can not be diuided.

MART. 2. The Apostle (1. Cor. 15. 10.) sayth thus: I la∣boured* 1.593 more aboūdantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of god with me. Which may haue this sense, not I, but the grace of God which is with me, as S. Hierome somtime expoundeth it: or this, not I, but the grace of God which la∣boured with me. And by this later is most euidently signified, that the grace of God & the Apostle, both laboured togither, & not only grace, as though the Apostle had done nothing, like vnto a blocke, forced only: but that the grace of God did so cōcurre as

the principall agent with all his labours, that his free will wrought withall. Against which trueth and most approued in∣terpretation of this place, you translate according to the former sense onely, making it the verie text, and so excluding all other senses and commentaries, as your Maisters Caluine and Beza taught you, who should not haue taught you if you were wise, to doe that which neither they nor you can iustifie. They reprehend first the vulgar Latin interpreter for neglecting the Greeke ar∣ticle, and secondly them that by occasion thereof, would by this place proue free will. By which their commentary they do plain∣ly declare their intent and purpose in their translation, to be directly against free will.

FVLK. 2.

S. Hierome fauouring this translation of ours, as he doth in diuerse places, lib. 2. aduers. Ioui. Gra∣tia dei quae in me est, & lib. 2. aduers. Pelag. & ad Principē. Gratia dei quae mecū est.

The grace of god which is in me, or which is with me. I maruell why you count it among heretical corruptions, except you take S. Hierome for an heretike. By the later, you say it is signified, that y^e grace of God, & the Apostle both labored togither, although it be no proper speech to say, the grace of God laboreth, yet that you woulde haue, is expressed before, where S. Paul sayth, I haue labored more than they al, which none but a blocke would vnderstande, that he was forced like a blocke. The grace of God vseth no violence, but fra∣meth the will of man to obedience and seruice of God. But that S. Paule had of him selfe no free will to per∣forme this labour, but that it was altogither of the grace of God, which gaue him this will, he confesseth more plainly, than that it can be denied, where he sayth, Not I. Whereby he meaneth, not that he was onely helped by the grace of God, and did it not alone: but that he did nothing by his owne strēgth, but altogither by the grace of God, which made him willing, which of nature was vnwilling to set forth the Gospell, yea by froward zeale became a blasphemer and a persecuter thereof. Which grace gaue him not only a will to promote the Gospell,

but inspired him also with diuine knowledge, by reue∣lation, without studie or hearing of other men: which gaue him also strength to ouercome so many difficul∣ties, that no labour, nor trauaile, nor persecution, nor continuance of time, did make him weary, or faint in his labour. All this (I saye) he doth ascribe wholy vnto the grace of God. And this sense doth not make Paule a blocke, nor enforced by violence, but a willing, prompt, & painefull labourer. But if you meane, that S. Paule had a free will, and strength of him selfe, which onely was holpen by the grace of God, then is your sense abhomi∣nable Pelagianisme, heresie, worthy to be troden vnder feete, by all Christians, and of Caluin, and Beza moste iustly reprehended, who are vtter enimies to free will, that derogateth any thing frō the grace of Christ, with∣out whome we can doe nothing: which text alwayes* 1.594 choked the Pelagians, and so doth it their halfe faced brethren, the Papistes.

MART. 3. But concerning the Greeke article omitted in* 1.595 translation, if they were but Grammarians in both tongues, they might know that the Greeke article many times can not be ex∣pressed in Latine, and that this is one felicitie and prerogatiue of the Greeke phrase, aboue the Latine, to speake more briefly, commodiously, and significantly, by the article. What neede we goe to Terence, and Homer, as they are w••nt? Is not the Scrip∣ture full of such speaches? Iacobus Zebedaei, Iacobus Al∣phaei, Iudas Iacobi, Maria Cleophae, and the like. Are not all these sincerely translated into Latine, though the Greeke ar∣ticle be not expressed? Can you expresse the article, but you must adde more than the article, and so adde to the text, as you do ve∣ry boldly in such speaches through out the new Testament, yea you doe it when there is no article in the Greeke: as Io. 5. 36.* 1.596 and 1. ep. Io. 2, 2. Yea sometime of an hereticall purpose: as Eph. 3. By whom we haue boldnesse and entraunce with* 1.597 the confidence which is by the faith of him, or, in him, as it is in other your Bibles. You say, confidence which is* 1.598 by faith, as though there were no confidence by workes: you

know the Greeke beareth not that translation, vnlesse there* 1.599 were an article after, confidence, which is not, but you adde it to the text heretically. as also Beza doth the like (Rom. 8. 2.) and your Geneua English Testaments after him, for the here sit of imputatiue iustice: as in his annotations he plainly dedu∣ceth, saying confidently, I doubt not but a Greeke article* 1.600 muste be vnderstoode, and therefore (for sooth) put into the text also. He doth the same in S. Iames, 2. v. 20. stil debating the case in his annotations why he doth so, and when he hath con∣cluded in his fansie, that this or that is the sence, he putteth it so in the text, and translateth accordingly. No maruell now, if they reprehend the vulgar Latine Interpreter, for not translating the Greeke article in the place which we began to treate of, when they finde articles lacking in the Greeke text it selfe, and boldly adde them for their purpose in their translation. Whereas the vulgar Latine interpretation is in all these places so sincere, that it neither addeth nor diminisheth, nor goeth one io••e from the Greeke.

FVLK. 3. Concerning the omission of the Greeke article, which Caluine and Beza reproue in the olde tran∣slator, you make many wordes to no purpose: for they reproue him not for omitting it, where either it can not, or it neede not be expressed, but in this place, where both it may, and meete it is, that it should be expressed. But we (you say) to expresse the article, doe adde more than is in the text: yet in truth we adde nothing, but that which is necessarily to be vnderstoode, as when wee say Iames the sonne of Zebedee, where you had rather say Iames of Zebedee, as though you were so precise, that for necessarie vnderstanding, you would not adde a word to the text, & yet you do verie often, yea sometimes where no neede is. As Act. 8. where the Latine is Curauerunt Ste∣phanum, you translate it, they tooke order for Stephans funerall. Doth Curare signifie to take order for a fune∣rall? So likewise Luc. 10. Paeniterent, they had done pe∣naunce. But to answere for our owne doings. Io 5. v. 36. where Christe saith, I haue a greater witnesse, than Iohns

witnesse, why may not the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be referred rather to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is of necessitie to be vnderstood, than to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the other place 1. Iohn. 2. v. 2. the worde sinnes, muste needes be vnderstoode in the pronoune adiectiue ours. In the thirde texte, where you accuse the transla∣tors of hereticall purpose, the sense is all one, whe∣ther you adde the article or no. For when the Apo∣stle sayeth, by Christe we haue boldnesse and entrance with confidence, by faith, howe can you vnderstand con∣fidence by workes, and whether there be confidence by workes or no, there can none be proued by this place. Where Beza vnderstandeth an article, Rom. 8. whom our English translation doth follow, it is only to make that plaine, which otherwise is necessarily to be vnderstoode. For there is no differēce betwene these sayings. The law of the spirit of life in Christ Iesus, & this, The lawe of the spirit of life which is in Christ Iesus, hath deliuered me from the lawe of sinne and death. The article or relatiue therefore declareth no more, but that the lawe of the spirit of life, is in Christ Iesus, which deliuereth vs. For both the text sayth, in Christ Iesus, and it can not be in any other to deliuer vs. For he sayeth not, The lawe of the spirite of life in vs, but in Christe Iesus, and the nexte verse following doeth manifestly confirme the same, as euerie man may see that will consider it. Like∣wise Iames the seconde, wilt thou knowe O thou vaine man, that faith without workes is deade? If you say, the faith which is without good workes is deade, is not that the meaning of the Apostle? Where he addeth im∣mediatly, that Abraham was iustified by such a faith, as was fruitefull of good workes. And when he bringeth example of Deuils faith, is it not manifest he speaketh of suche a faith, as is vtterly voyde of all good workes? Where you say that Beza putteth the article into the text, and translateth it accordingly, you do most shame∣fully belye him. For to the original text, he addeth none of his owne collection, but in his translation onely,

where he iudgeth that according to the sense of the place, it must of necessitie be vnderstood: which if it be a fault in articles, it must be so in other wordes also, for like cause added. Then answere to your owne translati∣ons, where beside those that I haue noted before, which seeme to proceede of some Popish purpose, you haue added to your Latine authenticall texte. As in these ex∣amples, Mat. 8. Quid nobi•• & tibi? what is betweene vs? Cap. 9. Confid••, haue a good hart. Cap. 22. Mal•• p••rdet. he wil bring to naught. Marc. 2. Post dios, after some dayes. Accumberet, he satte at meate. Luc. 17. Ab illo, more than he. Io. 12. Discumbentibus, them that satte at the table. Non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum, not because he cared for the poore. Act. 9. Ecce ego Domine. Loe here I am Lorde. cap. 10. gustare, to take somewhat, cap. 17. colentibus, that serued God. Nobiliores eorum qui sunt Thessalonicae, more noble than they, that are at Thessalonica, Rom. 1. Vocatis sanctis, called to be Saincts, &c.

MART. 4. But you will say in the place to the Corin∣thians,* 1.601 there is a Greeke article, & therfore there you do well to expresse it. I aunswere first, the article may then be expressed in translation, when there can be but one sense of the same: second∣ly, that not onely it may, but it must be expressed, when we can not otherwise giue the sense of the place. as Mat. 1, 6. Ex ea* 1.602 quae fuit Vriae. Where you see the vulgar interpreter omitteth it not, but knoweth the force and signification thereof very well. Mary in the place of S. Paul which we now speake of, where the sense is doubtfull, and the Latine expresseth the Greeke suffi∣ciently otherwise, he leaueth it also doubtful and indifferent, not abridging it as you doe, saying, the grace of God which is* 1.603 with me: nor as Caluin, gratia quae mihi aderat: nor as Illy∣ricus, gratia quae mihi adest. Which two later are more ab∣surd thā yours, because they omit & neglect altogither the force of the preposition, cum, which you expresse saying, with me But* 1.604 because you say, which is with me: you meane heretically as they doe, to take away the Apostles cooperation and labouring togither with the grace of God, by his free will: which is by the

article and the preposition most euidently signified.

FVLK. 4. You take vpō you to prescribe rules of trā∣slatiō, as though you were Prince of the Critici or Aerop••∣gitae. But al reasonable men will cōfesse that the article is so oftē to be expressed, as it may, & maketh any thing to the sense, and vnderstanding of the place. But as for your rule, that it is not to be expressed in trāslatiō, when there may be more senses than one of the same, is so good a rule, that by the same reason, and by equitie thereof, when so euer any worde commeth in the text, that may haue more senses than one, we must skippe it ouer, and not translate it at all, and so wee shal leaue out fiue hun∣dred wordes in the new Testament. A better rule I take it to be, in all such cases, to examine what is most agree∣able to the common phrase of the tongue, and the scope of the text in hand: according to which I say, the verbe substantiue is both more vsuall, and also more probable to be vnderstoode in this text 1. Cor. 15. than the parti∣ciple 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

MART. 5. And here I appeale to all that haue skill in Greeke speaches and Phrases, whether the Apostles wordes in Greeke sounde not thus: I laboured more aboundantly* 1.605 than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God (that la∣boured) with mee. Vnderstanding not the participle of Sum, but of the verbe going before, as in the like case when our Sauiour saith, It is not you that speake, but the ho∣ly Ghost that speaketh in you. If he had spoken short thus, but the holy Ghost in you, you perhaps would translate as you doe here, the holy Ghost WHICH IS IN YOV. But you see the verbe going before is rather repeated, Not you speake, but the holy Ghost THAT SPEAKETH IN YOV. Euen so, Not I laboured, but the grace of God labouring with me, or, WHICH LABOVRED WITH ME. So praieth the wise man Sap. 9, 10. Sende wisedome out of thy holy heauens, that she may be with me, and labour with* 1.606 me as your selues translate. Bib. 1577.

FVLK. 5. And I likewise appeale not onely to all

that haue skill in Greeke speaches and phrases: but to al them whose eares are accustomed to reasonable speachs, whether it be like that the Apostle would vnderstande that participle, whereof (perhaps) there is no verbe, for where shall we reade 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? Secondly whether hee would vnderstand the participle of an other verbe adie∣ctiue, than wēt before, for before he said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Third∣ly, whether hee were so desirous to set forth his owne cooperation with the grace of God, that he woulde ex∣presse it with two prepositions, one in apposition, the o∣ther in composition. Fourthly, whether he meant to at∣tribute any thing to him selfe, whē, as it were correcting that which he saide of labouring, he saith, yet not I, but the grace of God. Fifthly, whether he purposed to chal∣lenge any merite of the labour to him selfe, or make his labour any thing separate or separable frō the grace of God, when he said before, by the grace of God I am that I am. Laste of all whether his wordes being resolued, if this participle be added, they conteyne not a ridiculous tautologie, or vaine repetition. I haue laboured more than they all, vet not I, but the grace of God which la∣boured togither with mee hath laboured. To con∣clude in your example which you faine. Because you can finde none to answere your fansie: if the wordes were as you suppose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wee would and muste if wee did well, translate it thus. It is not you that speake but the holy Ghost. which is in you, and so vnderstand, spea∣keth. The saying of Philo, or what so euer eloquent Iewe that was, whiche gathered that booke of wise∣dome, is not of such importaunce, that wee neede to seeke any interpretation thereof, although it is cer∣taine, that by wisedome, hee meaneth not the Sonne of God, the wisedome of the Father, but diuine know∣ledge and vnderstanding, which is a gifte of his spirite, whereof hee speaketh by a rhetoricall Prosopopoea, or fi∣ction of person.

MART. 6. And so the Apostle calleth him selfe and his felow preachers, Gods coadiutors, collabourers, or such as* 1.607 labour and worke with God, which also you falsely translate, Gods labourers, to take away all cooperation, and in some of your Bibles moste foolishly and peeuishly, as though you had sworne not to translate the Greeke, Wee togither are Gods labourers. as well might you translate (Ro. 8, 17.) that we to∣gither* 1.608 be Christs heires: for that, which the Apostle saith coheires, or ioynt heires with him: the phrase and speach (as you know) in Greeke being al one. So doth Beza most false∣ly* 1.609 translate, Vna viuificauit nos per Christum, for that which is plaine in the Greeke, He hath quickned vs togither with Christ, Where the English Bezites leaue also the Greeke, and* 1.610 folow our vulgar Latin translation rather than Beza, who goeth so wide from the Greeke, that for shame they dare not folow him. Fie vpon such hypocrisie and pretensed honour of God, that you will not speake in the same termes that the holy Scripture spea∣keth, but rather will teach the holy Ghost how to speake, in not translating as he speaketh. As though these phrases of scripture, men are Gods coadiutors, coworkers with his grace, raised with Christ, coheirs with him, compartakers of glorie with him, were all spoken to the dishonour of God and Christe, and as though these being the speaches of the holy Ghost him selfe, needed your reformatiō in your English translatiōs. Otherwise if you meane well, and would say as we say, that what so euer good we doe, we doe it by Gods grace, and yet worke the same by our free will togither with Gods grace as the mouer and helper and directer of our will: why do you not translate in the foresaide place of S. Paul accordingly?

FVLK. 6. S. Paule saith 1. Cor. 3, 9. that hee and Apollo are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ioyned togither in the worke and businesse of God, he saith not that they are helpers of God, for God needeth no helpe. A helper is of him that lacketh strength, which is blasphemous to say of God. Therefore euen Faber Stapulensis (as Beza telleth you) reproueth that terme adiutores, which your vulgar tran∣slator vseth, and you your selfe in fauour of your he∣resie

of freewill, doe not translate, but flie to the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and say Coadiutors, which if you would expresse in English, signifieth fellow helpers of God. The word Cooperarij, which S. Augustine vseth (as Beza al∣so telleth you) may bee referred to the ioynt labour of the ministers, in seuerall offices of planting and wate∣ring. And although it be referred to God, that he as the Lorde and Maister, and they as the seruauntes, altogi∣ther by his grace and strength, doe worke togither, the sense is not euill, yet not proper for this place. Be∣cause the Apostle doth not here sette out the dignitie of the ministers, but abaseth their labour and sub∣mitteth all to God. For hee had to doe with them, that did attribute too much vnto the ministers worke, with whome it was vnseasonable, to extoll their la∣bours, and make them coadiutors or fellow helpers of God. But contrariwise hee ascribeth the fruite of all their labours to God, and to take away the Schismes that were among them, by depending of one minister more than an other, declareth that they altogither are Gods labourers, Gods husbandmen, &c. In the other place 2. Cor. 6. v. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is more proper to say; that the Apostles ioyned their labours vnto Christe of∣fering his grace, that it shoulde not bee receyued in vayne. Where neuerthelesse the strength of mans free will, is not auouched, but the grace of God, who wor∣keth by his ministers, giuing them strength to labour, and fruite to their labours. Nexte followeth an open outcrie against Beza, for false translation, & our transla∣tors, for being ashamed to follow him. If we mislike Be∣zaes translation, are wee by and by ashamed to followe him? And if his translation be false, as you affirme, and we ashamed to folow him in falsehood: do we deserue to be defied as hypocrits, because we prefer the truth before the credite of our maister, as you call him. O how glad you are, when you haue neuer so small an occasion to set abroad the sailes of your railing, & reuiling oration.

But let vs see, whether Beza deserue so much blame, as you charge him withall. Beza hauing translated (as he thought) most neare to the Apostles meaning, Eph. 2. v. 5. in his annotation vpon the place, thus writeth: Conuiui∣ficauit, &c. The vulgar, and Erasmus translate, he hath quickened vs togither with Christ, which sense I doe in no wise reprehend. But yet nothing shall be detracted from the selfe same matter, and perhaps it may be sayde more aptly, that the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this place, is vsed rather to declare the vniting togither of the Gentiles and Iewes in one Christ: after which maner, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth to be builded togither, is af∣terward vsed, verse 22. This is Bezaes iudgement, not cō∣trary to the common translation, and ours, but agreeing in the sense thereof, and comprehending a further mat∣ter, whereof the Apostle in that chapter speaketh. But our translators thought best to followe the plaine and com∣mon vnderstanding, not for shame of Beza, or his tran∣slation, but for desire of sinceritie and plainenesse. Con∣trariwise, where your vulgar translator is sometimes so barbarous, that his phrase hath no sense according to the text, it may wel be thought you were ashamed to follow him, lest you should haue bene ridiculous to all men. As you translate Timoratus, religious oftētimes. Non quia de* 1.611 egenis pertinebat ad eum, which in English is, not because of the poore it pertained to him, but you haue, trāslated, not because he cared for the poore. Vna sabbathi, the first* 1.612 of the Sabboth. Sabbati habens iter, hauing the iourney of a Sabboth, you translate, distant a Sabbats iourney. Yea you are bold to correct your text, and for Italia, to* 1.613 say Attalia. Ad abluenda crimina, which is, to washe away the crimes you say, to cleare him selfe of the crime. Cum multa ambitione, which is, with much ambition, you saye, with great pompe. Exhortentur, which is a deponent, you* 1.614 translate, may be exhorted: ad reuerentiam vobis, which is, for reuerence to you, you saye, to your shame: and such like. I doe not blame you that you are ashamed to fol∣low

your vulgar Latine text in these phrases, but that you are not ashamed to allowe that translation, as the onely authentical text, which no man for shame will follow in many places. To conclude, our meaning for free will, is, that we confesse it at all times, to be free from cōstreint, but neuer free to embrace that which is good in deede, but only when it is reformed by the grace of God: who also in all good thinges that we take in hande, doth not onely make vs willing, but also giueth all the strength we haue to performe them. If this be your meaning (as I am afrayde it is not) by your termes of working and helping, and directing, (as though it coulde goe a∣lone with a litle helpe and direction) we ioyne with you: but if you thinke you can doe any thing that good is, without the grace of God, like to Pelagius Celesti∣us, and other like Heretikes of the deuils blacke gard, we leaue you.

MART. 7. You saye moreouer in some of your Bibles,* 1.615 thus: So lyeth it not then in a mans will or running, but in the mercie of God. Whatsoeuer you meane, you knowe this translation is very dissolute, and wide from the Apostles wordes, and not true in sense. for saluation is in willing and running: according to that famous saying of Saint Augustine,* 1.616 He that made thee without thee, will not iustifie thee without thee: that is, against thy will, or, vnlesse thou be willing. and the Apostle sayth, No man is crowned, vnlesse* 1.617 he fight lawefully. and againe, So runne THAT YOV MAY obtayne. and againe. The doers of the Lawe shall* 1.618 be iustified. And our Sauiour, If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commaundements. We see then, that it is in wil∣ling, and running, and doing: but to will, or runne, or doe, are not of man, but of Gods mercye. and so the Apostle spea∣keth, It is not of the willer, nor runner, but of God that hath mercie. And it is much to be marueled, why you sayde not, It lyeth not in the willer, nor in the runner: which is neare to the Apostles wordes, but so farre of, in a mans will and running.

FVLK. 7. The translation you reprehend, I graunt is not proper for the words, and therefore is reformed in the later translations, yet in sense it is all one: for salua∣tion lyeth not in the will, or running of man, but in the mercie of God:

euen as S. Iohn saith, the children of God are not made of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but they are borne of God.

But thus you reason a∣gainst it. We are not saued, except we will, and runne, er∣go, saluation lyeth in willing and running. I denye your argument, which is as good as this; we are not saued from sinne, except we haue committed sinne, ergo, salua∣tion from sinne, lyeth in committing sinne. The famous place of Augustine, is a famous corruption of Papistes, to establish the strēgth of free will, cleane cōtrary to S. Au∣gustines minde, where a point interrogatiue is chaunged into a periode: for in auncient written copies, it is redde with interrogation. Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustifica•• sine te? He therefore that made thee without thee, doth he not iustifie thee without thee? And the whole dis∣course of that father, both before and after, requireth that reading.

For thus he writeth. Si hominem te fecit De∣us, & iustum tu te facis, melius aliquid facis, quam fecit Deus, sed sine te fecit Deus. Non enim adhibuisti aliquem consensum, vt te faceret Deus. Quo modo consentiebas qui non eras. Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustificat sine te? Ergo fecit nescientem, iustificat volentem. tamen ipse iustificat, ne su iustitia tua. If God haue made thee a man, and thou makest thy selfe a iust man, thou makest some better thing than God hath made: but God made thee with∣out thee. for thou gauest no consent, that God shoulde make thee? howe diddest thou consent which wast not. He therefore that made thee without thee, doth he not iustifie thee without thee? Therefore he hath made thee not knowing, but he iustifieth thee being willing, yet it is he, that doth iustifie thee, that it should not be thy iustice.

The meaning of Saint Augustine is, that we haue no

more free will to be iustified, before we be preuented by the grace of God, than we had will to be created. For it is Gods grace, that maketh vs willing to be iustified, and saued, not the strength of mans free will, as he pro∣ueth at large throughout the whole Homilie. Nowe to the textes of Scripture, which you cite, I aunswere, there is not one, that proueth any strength or swaye of mans free will, towarde the true goodnesse, before, of an vngodlye man, and enimie of God, he be reconci∣led by the grace and mercie of God, and made an obe∣dient childe in some parte, willing to doe the will of his father. First, those textes of fighting, and running, proue, that fighting and running is necessary for them, that are exhorted thereto, but not that fighting or run∣ning are in the free will of man, or that saluation ly∣eth in them. Eating and drinking are necessarie for the life of man, yet the life of man lyeth not in eating and drinking. Where the Apostle sayth, the doers of the lawe shall be iustified, he meaneth them that full∣fill the lawe, and doth our Sauiour Christ, aunswe∣ring to the question of him that asked, what she should doe to obtaine life, declare, that there is no way to en∣ter into life by doing, but onely by doing of Gods commaundements. For the man that doth them shall liue by them. But if he were asked which is the way to eternall life, as he was by Thomas, he will aunswer, I* 1.619 am the way, the truth, and the life. Those textes ther∣fore declare not, howe a man, that is a transgressor of the lawe, may be saued, but that to obtayne saluation by workes, it is necessary for a man to keepe the whole lawe and commaundements of God, or else he is ac∣cursed.

MART. 8. Againe, touching continencie and the chast single life you translate thus: All men can not receiue this* 1.620 saying. Mat. 19. v. 11. Now you wot well, that our Sauiour sayth not, All men can not, but, all men doe not receiue it: and that therefore, (as S. Augustine sayth) because all will not. But

when our Sauiour afterward sayeth, He that CAN receiue* 1.621 it, let him receiue it: he addeth an other Greeke word to ex∣presse that sense. Whereas by your fonde translation he might haue said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And againe by your translation, you should translate these his later wordes thus: He that can or is able to receiue it, let him be able to receiue it. For so you translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before, as though it were all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Doe you not see your follie, and fashoode, and bold∣nesse, to make the reader beleeue that our Sauiour shoulde say, Euerie man can not liue chast, it is impossible for them, and therefore no man should vowe chastitie, because he knoweth not whether he can liue so or no?

FVLK. 8. The Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signifie to be able to hold, or containe, and so it is vsed Mar. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which you translate, so that there was no place, no not at the dore. Doe you not meane, that the place about the dore, was not able to hold that multitude? Your vulgar Latin is. Ita vt non ca∣peret neque ad ianuam, in barbarous words, but in sense as I haue sayd before. So Iohn. 2. the sixe pottes, when they were emptie are sayed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, able to receiue euerie one of them two or three measures. Likewise, Iohn. 22. where the worde is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you your selues translate not able to containe. Seeing the worde therefore signifieth not onely to receiue, but also to be able to receiue, it is rightly translated, Matth. 19. and according to the mea∣ning of our Sauiour Christ, all men can not receiue this saying, but they to whom it is giuen, which he doth af∣ter euidently confirme, when he addeth the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he that is able to receiue it, let him receiue it. Which were vainly said, if all men were able that would, and if it were giuen to all that would: for then he should say, all men doe not receiue this saying, but they that will, let them receiue it. Where you call Augu∣stine to witnesse of your foolishe glose, you doe him shamefull iniurie, for he sayeth not all men doe not, be∣cause all will not:

but these are his wordes in the place

by you quoted: Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed qui∣bus datum est: quibus enim non est datum, aut nolunt, aut non implent quod volunt, quibus autem datum est, sic volunt vt impleant quod volunt. All men receiue not this word, but they to whom it is giuen, for they to whom it is not gi∣uen, either they will not, or else they fulfill not that which they will: but they to whome it is giuen, doe so will, that they fulfill that which they will.

Augustine is plaine to the contrarie, that it is not in euerie man that wil, to be continent, but it is the speciall gift of God that any both will, and be able to performe it, for which he citeth also the saying of the wise man Sap. 8.

which with you is Canonicall Scripture. When I knewe that otherwise I coulde not be continent, except God should giue it, and this same was wisedom to know whose gift it is, I went vnto the Lorde and prayed to him.

These things considered, our translation is iustified, both ac∣cording to the word, which signifieth sōetime to be able to receiue: and according to the sense, which here must needes require, that it shoulde be so translated. Where∣fore it is vnpossible for any man to liue chast▪ except he haue the gift of God, whereof vnlesse a man be cer∣tayne, he doeth foolishly, and presumptuously to vowe that, which he knoweth not, whether he shall be able to performe.

MART. 9. Againe in some of your Bibles (Gen. 4.* 1.622 v. 7.) where God saith plainely, that Caine should receiue ac∣cording as he did well or euil, because sin was subiect vnto him, and he had the rule and dominion thereof, euidently declaring his free will: you translate it thus, If thou doest well, shalte thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not wel, sinne lieth at the doore: and also vnto thee HIS desire shall be subiecte, and thou shalt rule ouer HIM. By which re∣latiues falsly put in the masculine gender, you exclude the true antecedent sinne, and referre them to Abel Caines brother. as though God had saide, not that sinne should be in his dominion or subiect vnto him, but his brother Abel. But that this is most

false and absurd, we prooue many waies. Firste S. Augustine saith directly the contrarie: Tu dominaberis illius: nunquid* 1.623 Fratris? absit. cuius igitur nisi peccati? Thou shalte rule (saith he) ouer what? ouer thy brother? Not so. ouer what* 1.624 then but sinne? S. Hierome also explicateth this place thus: Because thou haste free wil, I warne thee that sinne haue not dominion ouer thee, but thou ouer sinne. Moreouer, the text it selfe, if nothing else, is sufficient to conuince this ab∣surditie. For where this worde, sinne, goeth immediately before in the same sentence, and not one worde of Abel his brother in that speach of God to Cain, howe is it possible, or what coherence can there be in saying as you translate, Sin lyeth at the dore, and thou shalt haue dominion ouer him, that is, thy bro∣ther? But if we say thus, Sinne lieth at the dore, and thou shalte haue dominion thereof: it hath this direct and plaine sense, If thou doest ill, sinne lyeth at the dore readie to condemne thee, because it is in thee to ouer rule it.

FVLK. 9. The relatiues be the masculine gender in the Hebrue tongue, and therefore referred to Abel, and not to sinne, which is of the foeminine gender. Againe, sinne hath no appetite to Cain, but rather Cain to it, therefore euen as it was sayed to Eue, thy appetite shall be to thy husbande, so it is sayed of Abel, his appetite shall be to thee. Sainct Augustine followeth the cor∣rupt translation of the Septuaginta, which for appetite reade conuersion, and therefore there is the lesse account to be made of his authoritie, being also ignoraunt in the Hebrue tongue, and not regarding the Greeke rela∣tiue to be also of the masculine gender. Hierome also in that place, interpreteth not appetite, but societie, and fantasie, ththat chataoth is the masculine gender, and not* 1.625 the foeminine. Whereas it is neuer read but in the foe∣minine gender, out of this place of controuersie. But the text it selfe (you say) is sufficient▪ to conuince this ab∣surditie, because in this speache of God to Cain, there is no word of Abel. It is somwhat that you say, if this that Moises reporteth were all that God sayd to Cain, but

seeing it is certaine, that God at large discoursed wyth him, of the cause of his enuie againste his brother, wee may easily vnderstande in this speach, two arguments to reproue Caines enuie, the one of the person of God, the other of the person of Abel. For God doth reprooue his enuie by his owne iustice, and by Abels innocencie. Which latter argumēt your false translation doth vtter∣ly suppresse. But that a Relatiue is referred to an Antece∣dent, whiche in the same verse is not expressed, it is no strange thing, to them that reade the scripture. Examples I will giue you, Iob 26. v. 6. 11. & 12. and cap. 27. v. 9. & 10. yea it is verye vsuall, when the antecedent maye bee easily vnderstoode, as heere, both by the gender, and also by manner of speache, whiche beeing the same that was spoken of Eues infirmitie & subiection to hir husband, must needes here haue the same sense of Abel towarde Caine his elder brother.

MART. 10. Now if against the coherence of the texte, and exposition of the holy Doctours, and of the whole Churche of God▪ you pretend the Hebrewe grammar forsooth, as not bea∣ring such construction: not to trouble the common reader that cannot iudge of these things, and yet fully to satisfie euerye man euen of common vnderstanding, we request here the Aduersa∣ries themselues to tel vs▪ truely according to their knowledge & skill, whether the Hebrewe construction or point of grammar be* 1.626 not al one in these wordes, Sinne LYETH at the doore? and in these, the desire THEREOF shall be subiect to thee, and thou shalt rule ouer IT. If they say (as they must nedes) that the Hebrewe construction or Syntaxis is al one, then wil it folow that the Hebrewe beareth the one as wel as the other: and therefore when the selfe same translation of theirs maketh no scruple of Grammar in the former, but trāslate as we do, Sinne lieth at the doore: a blinde man may see that in the latter wordes also, the Hebrue is but a foolishe pretence, and that the true cause of translating them otherwise, proceedeth of an he∣reticall humour, to obscure and deface this so plaine and eui∣dent Scripture for mans free wil.

FVLK. 10. I haue shewed before, the cause of the* 1.627 change of the gender in the worde robets to be, for that by sinne is meant here the punishment of sinne. Sanctes Pagninus taketh the worde sinne, for an oblation for sinne. And for the punishment of sinne, it is taken, Zach. 14, 19. The Septuaginta also doe plainly referre these re∣latiues vnto Abel, and therefore they are in the mascu∣line gender, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the cōuersion of him pertaineth to thee, and thou shalt rule ouer him.

MART. 11. And as for the Hebrewe grammar in this point, were it not for troubling the Reader, we could tell thē that the word, sinne, in Hebrew is not here of the foeminine gender, (as they suppose) but of the masculine. so sayth S. Hieror. ex∣presly* 1.628 vpon this place, who had as much knowledge in the He∣brew tongue, as all these new Doctors. Aben Ezra also the great Rabbine, in his Hebrew commentaries vpon this text, sayth, it is a meere forgerie and fiction, to referre the masculine relatiue o∣therwise than to the word, sinne: which, though elsewhere it be the feminine gender, yet here it is a masculine, according to that* 1.629 rule of the Grammarians, that the doubtfull gender must be dis∣cerned by the verbe, adiectiue, pronoune, or participle, ioyned with the same: as the sayd Hebrew Doctor doth in the word, pa∣radise, Gen. 2. which there by the pronounes he pronounceth to be a feminine, though elsewhere a masculine. Lastly, if the worde sinne, were here, and alwayes only a feminine, and neuer a mas∣culine: yet they haue litle skill in the Hebrue tongue, that thinke it straunge to matche masculines and feminines togither in very good and grammaticall construction. Whereof they may see a whole chapter in Sanctes Pagninus with this title, Foeminea masculeis iuncta. that is, Feminines ioyned with masculines.

FVLK. 11. Not only the Hebrue Grammar, but the same phrase vsed before, maketh plainely for our transla∣tion. That S. Hierome saith, the Hebrue is of the mas∣culine gender, as great an Hebritian as he was, he may not carrie the matter away with his authoritie, except he bring an instance, where it is of the masculine gender.

The Iewish Rabbins, patrones of free will, as ignorant of the grace of God, erre in this place, as they doe in a thou∣sand more, and are forced to inuent straunge applicati∣ons of the worde, appetite, to make their sense probable. How the gender of Hebrew wordes may be found out, we are not now to learne, which because you haue but lately learned, you thinke all men ignorant thereof, but your selfe. By the chapter of Pagninus, where he sheweth that feminines are ioyned to masculines, you might learne that chataoth is the feminine gender, although it be ioyned with a participle of the masculine gēder. Who* 1.630 also might haue taught you, the difference of nounes en∣ding in he, praecedente camets, to be this, that feminines haue the accent in the last syllable, masculines in the last* 1.631 saue one, and therefore chataoth in this place, hauing the accent in the last syllable, notwithstanding the par∣ticiple, which is masculine, must needes be of the femi∣nine gender.

MART. 12. Now for the last refuge, if they will say all this needed not, because in other their Bibles, it is as we woulde haue it: we tell them, they must iustifie and make good all their translations, because the people readeth all, and is abused by all, and al come forth with priuiledge, printed by the Queenes Printer, &c. If they will not, let them confesse the faultes, and call them in, and tell vs which translation or translations they will stand vnto. In the meane time they must be content to heare of all indifferently, as there shall be cause and occasion to touch them.

FVLK. 12. We tel you that wee may not iustifie a∣ny fault committed in our translations, but we haue re∣formed them (if any were espied) in the later. Neuerthe∣lesse those faults are not so great, that we neede call in al the Bibles in which is any fault, it is sufficiēt that we ad∣monish the reader in our later editions of such faults as are escaped in the former: especially when the faults, are such about which mē are not agreed, as in this place you should rather cōmend our equity, that suffer such trāsla∣tions

to be in the peoples handes, in which is some co∣lour of maintaining your errors against vs. But if you be so rigorous, that a booke of Scripture may not be red, in which there is any fault, I charge you call in your translation of the new Testament, for therein are shame∣full faults, and such as you can not defend or excuse, ex∣cept it be by the fault of the Printer, whereof yet you haue not admonished the reader. I will giue you a tast of some, and let all men iudge whether they be not intole∣rable faultes. For they are no lesse than detracting and taking away from the word of God. As 1. Cor. 14. v. 38. where both the Greeke and the Latine is, If they will learne. Your translation is: If they learne any thing. Likewise Actes 5. v. 4. where bothe the Greeke and La∣tine is: Festus answeared that Paule is kepte at Caesa∣rea: you translate. Festus answered that Paule is in Caesarea: leauing out the worde (kepte) as before you lefte out the worde (will) or (desire) whiche alte∣reth the sense very much. But in a place of greater moment, and in a matter of some controuersie, of Gods particuler preordination, and fore appointment, you leaue out a whole clause Act. 10. v. 41. For where it is bothe in the Greeke and in the Latine, that God made the resurrection of his sonne manifest: not to all the people, but to the witnesses chosen before of God, to vs which did eate and drinke with him, &c. Your En∣glish translation hath no more but thus: Not to all the people, but to vs, who did eate and drinke with him, &c. Leauing cleane out that which is in your Latine text, Testibus praeordinatis à Deo. Also in the Epistle to the Hebrues cap. 7. v. 28. where bothe the Greeke and your vulgar Latine hath. The law appointeth Priests, men that haue infirmitie, your translation is, the lawe appointeth Priests them that haue infirmitie, leauing out Homines, a word very material in this place▪ to obserue the opposi∣tiō betweene the Priesthood of mē & the Priesthood of the sonne of God. These faultes in the new Testament

being some of them whiche I by no diligent reading haue obserued, nowe you be admonished of them, we shall see whether you will call in your translation, or cō∣maunde your disciples to burne their bookes: If you will not, I pray you be good maister to vs, and let our Bibles goe abroad stil, for any faults we haue our selues amended, and admonished all diligent Readers thereof by our later translations. And because you cracke so much of the exposition of the Doctors and of the whole Churche of God against vs: I muste let the Reader vn∣derstand that the whole Greeke Churche which for the most parte knewe none other text but the Septuaginta, must needes expound the place of Abel as we do, because the Greeke text is manifestly in the Masculine gender. And so doth Chrysostome in Gen. Hom. 18. expound the place in these words.

Ne putes inquit licet tuum auersatus sim sacrificium ob prauam mētem, fratris{que} oblationem acceptam habuerim ob sa∣nam intentionem, quod ideo primatu te destituam, & primoge∣niturae dignitatem à te auferam. Nam licet honore ego illum prosecutus fuerim, accepta{que} fuerint illius dona, &c. Thinke not (sayeth he) that although I haue refused thy sacrifice, for thy naughtie minde, and haue receiued thy brothers oblation, for his good and sound meaning, that there∣fore I will depriue thee of the primacie, and take away from thee, the dignitie of the birthright. For although I haue vouchsafed him of honour, & that his gifts haue bene receiued, yet vnto thee belongeth his conuersion, and thou shalt rule ouer him. And this I permit after thy sinne, that thou mayest enioy the priuiledges of thy birthright, and I commaund him to be vnder thy power and dominion.

You were best now to rayle vpon Chry∣sostome and charge him with heresie, and schismaticall exposition, contrarie to the holy Doctors, and the whole Church of God, against freewill of man. Which because it is your quarrell, you haue S. Ambrose also your enemie, De Caine & Abel, lib. 2. cap. 7. Who although

as he redde it in Latine,

did thinke it must be referred to him, and not to his brother, yet he expoundeth it not of the strength of free wil, but chargeth Came to be author of his owne errour, Culpae ipsius ad ••e conuersio est. The cō∣uersion of the fault it selfe is vnto thee. For his brother is not added to him, but errour is ascribed, whereof he him selfe is author to him selfe. The crime (sayth he) will returne vpon thee, which began of thee. Thou hast not whereby to accuse necessitie more than thyne owne minde. The wickednesse is retorted backe vpon thee, thou art Prince of it. He sayth well, thou art Prince of it, for impietie is the mother of sinnes, &c

You see there∣fore, that if you could obtaine that these relatiues were referred to him, yet your free will were not by and by to be builded vpon the place, and that all be not heretikes, which drawe that text to an other exposition, than stan∣deth with your good liking.

MART. 13. Againe they translate in some of their Bi∣bles* 1.632 agaynst free wil, thus, Christ, when we were yet OF NO STRENGTH, died for the vngodly, Rom. 5. v. 6. The* 1.633 Apostles word doth not signifie that we had nostrength, but that we were weake, seeble, infirme. Man was wounded in free will, by the sinne of Adam (as he that in the Gospell went downe from* 1.634 Hierusalem to Iericho, which is a parable of this thing) he was not slayne altogither. But I stande not here, or in any place to dispute the controuèrsie, that is done else where. This onely I say, because* they falsely holde, that free will was altogither loste* 1.635 by Adams sinne, therefore they translate accordingly, When we had no strength. But the Greeke worde is well knowen, both in profane authors, and Ecclesiasticall, and specially in the newe Testament it selfe, throughout, to signifie nothing else, but, weake, feeble, sicke, infirme. Looke me through the newe Te∣stament,* 1.636 wheresoeuer infirmitie, feeblenesse, languishing, and the like are spoken of, there is founde this Greeke worde to ex∣presse it. What Grecian knoweth not (be he but simply ac∣quainted with phrases, and nature of wordes.) what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doe signifie. When the Apostle sayth, Quis

infirmatur, & ego non vror? Who is weake and infirme,* 1.637 and I am not much grieued? shall we translate, who is of no strength, &c. or let them giue vs an instance, where it is certaine that this word must needes signifie, of no strength.* 1.638 Will they pretend the etymologie of the word? a ridiculous and absurd euasion. we aske them of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a worde of the very same signification, which being compounded in like maner as the o∣ther, what doth it signifie? any thing els but infirmitie and feeblenes? Yea it is so farre from signifying, no strength, that the greatest Grecians say, it is not spoken properly of him that for weakenes keepeth his bed, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but of him that is il disposed, and distempered in body. Yet the etymologie is all one with that worde which these men will haue to signifie him that hath no strength. And if they will needes vrge the etymologie, we tell them, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifie, robur, that is, great strength, such as is in the strongest and stoutest champions. and so the etymologie may take place, to signifie a man of no great strength, not, of no strength. But M. Whitaker putteth vs in good* 1.639 hope, they will not stand vpon etymologies.

FVLK. 13. This cauill is fully aunswered, cap. 1. sect. 26. therefore I wili not spende many wordes here about it. The worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we knowe signifieth weake, that is of small strength, and sometimes so weake, that there is no strength. As Gal. 4. where Saint Paule, calleth the ceremonies of Moses lawe, nowe exspired, the weake and beggerly elements, that is voyd of all strength and riches. Likewise the Apostle to the Hebrewes, cap. 7. saith, the commundement of the Aaronicall priesthood is abolished, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it was weake and vn∣profitable without Christ, as vnprofitable is void of pro∣fit, so is weake voyd of strength. S. Paule, 1. Cor. 15. saith, our dead bodie is sowed in weaknes: Is there any strēgth of a dead body? Moreouer Rom. 8. that which was vn∣possible by the law, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by meanes it was weake, is not that voide of strength to saue vs, which hath no possibilitie to doe any thing? These instances may serue to proue, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signifie that which is so weake,

that it hath no strength. Vpon the etymologie alone we stand not, But where you say, that man was wounded in free will, by the sinne of Adam, not slayne altogither, (grounding your assertion vpon a fond & false allegorie of him that fell among theeues, which is no parable of a man in this case, but of man in necessitie to be helped by right of neighbourhood) I praye you, howe came man to be dead altogither in sinnes? Eph. 2. Col. 2. & in ma∣ny other places of the Scripture. Beside, is there any free∣dom of wil to godlines, remaining in them that are al∣togither dead in sinne? But we are not now to handle cō∣trouersies, but translations, as you doe wel admonish vs.

MART. 14. When they haue bereaued and spoyled a man of his free will, and left him without all strength, they goe so* 1.640 farre in this point, that* they saye, the regenerate them selues haue not free will and abilitie, no not by and with the grace of God, to keepe the commaundements. To this purpose they tran∣slate, (1. Io. 5. 3.) thus: His commaūdements are not grie∣uous,* 1.641 rather than thus, His commaūdements are not hea∣uye, for in saying, they are not heauye, it would followe, they might be kept and obserued: but in saying, they are not grie∣uous, that may be true, were they neuer so heavy or impossible, through pacience. As when a man can not doe as he would, yet it grieueth him not, being pacient & wise, because he is content to doe as he can, & is able. Therefore doe they choose to translate, that the commaundements are not grieuous, where the Apostle sayth rather, they are not heauy. much more agreeably to our* 1.642 Sauiours wordes, My burden is light! & to the wordes of God by Moyses, Deut. 30. This commaundement which I com∣maund thee this day, is not aboue thee (that is, beyond thy reache) but the word is very neare thee, in thy mouth, & in thy hart, that thou mayst doe it: and to the common sig∣nification of the Greekeword, which is, heauy. Beza would saye somewhat in his commentarie, howe the commaundements are heauy or light, but his conclusion is against free will, and that there can be no perfection in this life, in••cying against them that woulde proue it out of this place: which is as much to

say (but he is ashamed to speake plainely) that we can not keepe the commaundements: which the holy Doctors haue long since condemned and abhorred, as most absurd, that God should com∣maund that, vnder paine of damnation, which is impossible to be done.

FVLK. 14. Seeing our English word grieuous, cō∣meth of the Latine word graue, which is not only weigh∣tie, but also troublesom, It better aunswereth both the Greeke and the Latine, than heauye, which is properly that which is of great weight, and the same worde being both in Greeke and Latine, 2. Cor. 10. you your selues* 1.643 translate sore: his epistles are sore and vehement: but in effect there is no great difference. We acknowledge that his commaundemēts are not heauy to him that is borne of God, which ouercometh the world by faith, otherwise the yoke of the lawe, as the Apostle confesseth, is such a burthē, as neither we, nor our fathers were able to beare, but beleeue to be saued by the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ, who hauing taken away the curse of the lawe, and satisfied for our transgressions of the law, hath also giuen vs grace to loue the law, and commaundements of God, and in some weake measure to obserue them. So that the curse being taken away, our transgressions aunswe∣red in Christ, and our harts framed by his grace, to loue his commaundements, and some strength giuen vs to keepe them, they are not heauy, they are not burdenous, or grieuous. That which God speaketh, Deut. 30. is of the knowledge of the law, which was plainely reuealed, and not of the strength that men haue to keepe it, and there∣fore is by the Apostle referred vnto faith, for the obser∣uation thereof, Rom. 10. for by faith in Christ, which hath fulfilled the lawe for vs, we are accounted to haue fulfilled it in him. Beza speaketh plainely enough, if you had grace to vnderstand him, and therefore is nothing ashamed to saye, that we can not keepe the commaun∣dements of God, not onely without the grace of God, but neyther hauing the grace of God in such measure,

as God giueth it to no man but that he sinneth. Other∣wise, what grace God is able to giue, we doubt not, but what he doth, and will giue to any man in this life wee speake. That God should commaunde vnder paine of damnation, that which is impossible to be done, is no absurditie: seing for them whom God will haue to be saued, he prouided an other way of their saluation, than by keeping the lawe, namely the redemption of Christ. As for the reprobate voyde of Gods grace, say you (if you dare) that they are able to keepe the lawe without grace, or without grace haue so much as any will to de∣sire to haue grace.

MART. 15. Thus hauing taken away free will to doe good, and possibilitie to keepe the commaundementes, and all merite or valure and efficacie of good workes, their nexte con∣clusion is, that we haue no true iustice or righteousnesse in vs, but an imputatiue iustice, that is, Christes iustice imputed to vs, be wee neuer so foule and filthie in our soules, so that wee beleeue onely, and by faith apprehend Christes iustice. For this purpose they corrupt the Scriptures in their English Bibles, thus.

FVLK. 15. The iustice whereby wee are accomp∣ted iuste in the sight of God, is not inherent in vs, but in Christe, which is the Lord our righteousnesse. Ierem. 23. Not withstanding it is the onely true iustice, and we are truely iuste by it. And yet wee are not voyde of the spirite of sanctification, whiche is a fruite, and conse∣quent of iustification, by which we haue grace to with∣stand sinne, and to worke righteousnesse, not whereby we should be made righteous before God, but where∣by wee are declared to be righteous in parte, vntill the body of sinne being abolished, wee shall be wholy re∣newed according to the image of God.

CHAP. XI.

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

Martin.

ONE place might suffise, in steede of many,* 1.644 where Beza doth protest, that his adding or alteration of the texte, is, specially a∣gainst the execrable errour of inherent* 1.645 iustice, which (he saith) is to be auoided as nothing more. His false translation, thu•• our English Bezites and Caluinists folowe in their Bibles. Likewise then as by the offense of one▪* 1.646 the faulte came on all men to condemnation: so by the iustifying of one, the benefite abounded, towarde all men to the iustification of life. Where there are added to the text of the Apostle, sixe wordes: and the same so wilfully and voluntarily, that by the three first, they make the Apostle say, sinne came on all men by Adam, and they were made sinners in deede: by the three later, they make him say, not that iustice or righteousnesse came likewise on all men by Christe, to make them iust in deede, but that the benefite of Christes iustice a∣bounded towards them, as being imputed forsooth vnto them. Whereas, if they woulde needes adde to the texte (whiche yet is intollerable, so muche, and in so doubtfull a case) they shoulde at the least haue made the case equall, as the A∣postle him selfe teacheth them to doe, in the very nexte sen∣tence, saying thus, For as by one mans disobedience ma∣ny were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many also be made righteous. So they translate, rather than, be made iust. For they are the lothest men in the world to say that we are made iust, for feare of iustice inherent in vs, though the Scripture be neuer so plaine. As here wee see the

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

Fulke.

THis one place is deliuered from your* 1.647 vaine cauillation, Cap. 1. Sect. 23. when the sentence is ecclipticall or defe∣ctiue, they that will translate to haue it vnderstoode, muste needes supply the woordes that are wanting. And where shall they finde what wordes are lac∣king, but in the same place, and in the treatie of the same matter? It appeareth you had rather the texte had no sense, than that it mighte seeme to make against your blasphemie of iustice inherent. As for that fonde quar∣rell of yours, that they be not iust in deede, to whom the iustice of Christe (whiche you like an helhound doe scorne at) is imputed, deserueth no answere. For who is such a blocke, to say or thinke, that those whom God doth iustifie, are not made iuste in deede? Was not A∣braham iust in deede, when God imputed his faith vn∣to iustice? Is not he made riche in deede, which is made rich by an other mans gifte? Christe is giuen vnto vs of God to be iustice, wisedome, sanctification, & in him we are iust, wise, and holie, not in our owne righteousnesse, wisedome, or holinesse. As for adding to the text, God knoweth how we abhorre it, but adding of words which do explicate the sense of the holyghost, is no additiō for∣biddē, for then all preaching were accursed, which is, or ought to be nothing els, but an explaining & settīg forth of the worde of God, in more words, the matter wherof (though in fewerwords) is cōteined in the scripture. And if we speake of adding of wordes in translation, haue I not shewed before, that you haue added many? some in deede vpon necessarie cause, & some without necessitie.

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

MART. 2. And it is a worlde to see, how Beza shifteth from one signification of the word iustified, or, made iust, to an other. Sometime to be iustified, is to be pronounced qui••••e from* 1.648 all sinne, or declared iust before Gods indgement seate: and so ••e ••rāslateth it in the text Act. 13. v. 39. and as though his guil∣ty conscience were afraide of a blowe, he saith he fleeth not the terme of iustifying or iustification, because he vseth it in other places. He doth so in deede, but thē his cōmentarie supplieth the ••urne: as Ro. 2. v 13. Not y^t hearers of y^e law are RIGHTE∣OVS before God (so they delight to translate, rather than, IVST before God) but the doers of the Lawe shall be* 1.649 IVSTIFIED, that is (saith Beza) shal be pronoūced iust. The Apostle must needes say by the coherence and consequence of his words, no•• the hearers are iust, but the do••rs shall be iuste or iustified. Beza wil in no case haue it so, but either in text or cōmētarie make the Apostle say as him self imagineth. Yet in an* 1.650 other place he protesteth very solemnely, that to be iustified, is

not to be pronounced or accounted iuste, but rather to be iuste in deede: and that, he prooueth out of S. Paule. Ro. 5. v. 19.* 1.651 who maketh it all one, to be iustified, and, to be made iust. And againe by this reason, that it shoulde bee manifestly re∣pugnant to Gods iustice, to account him for iuste, that is not iuste, and therfore that man in deede is made iust. Thus Beza. Woulde you not thinke, hee were come to bee of our opinion? but hee reuolteth againe, and interpreateth all these goodly wordes in his olde sense, saying, Not that any qualitie is in∣wardly* 1.652 giuen vnto vs, of which wee are named iust: but because the iustice of Christe is imputed to vs by faith freely. By faith then at the least we are truly iustified. Not so neither, but faith (sayth he) is an instrument wherewith* 1.653 we apprehende Christ our iustice. So that we haue no more iustice in vs, than we haue glorie: for glorie also we apprehend by faith.

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

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

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

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

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

MART. 3. For this purpose bothe hee and the En∣glishe* 1.654 Bibles translate thus: Abraham beleeued God, and it was reputed to him FOR IVSTICE, Rom. 4. v. 3. & 9. Where he interpreateth, for iustice, to be nothing else but. in* 1.655 the steede & place of iustice: so also taking away true inhe∣rent iustice euen from Abraham himselfe. But to admit their translation (whiche notwithstanding in their sense is moste false) must it nedes signifie, not true inherent iustice, because the Scripture saith, it was reputed for iustice? Do such spea∣ches import, that it is not so in deede, but is onely reputed so? Then if wee say, This shall be reputed to thee for sinne: for a greate benefite, and so foorth: it shoulde signifie, it is no sinne indeede, nor great benefite. But let them call to mind,* 1.656 that the Scripture vseth to speake of sinne and of iustice alike. It shal be sinne in thee, or, vnto thee, as they translate Bibl.* 1.657 1577: or as S. Hierome translateth, It shall bee reputed to thee for sinne, Deut. c. 23. & 24. & (as themselues translate) it shall be righteousnesse vnto thee, before the Lord thy God. And againe, Deut. c. 6. This shall bee our righteous∣nes before the Lord our God, if we kepe al the com∣maundements, as he hath commaunded vs. If then iustice onely be reputed▪ sinne also is onely reputed: if sin bee in v•• in∣deede, iustice is in vs indeede.

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

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

MART. 4. Againe the Greeke fathers make it plaine,* 1.658 that to be reputed vnto iustice, is to be true iustice in deede, interpreating S. Paules worde in Greeke, thus: Abraham ob∣tained iustice, Abraham was iustified. For that is, say they: It was reputed him to iustice. Doth not S. Iames say the like (cap. 2. verse. 23.) testifying, that in that Abraham was iustified by faith and workes, the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, it was reputed him to iustice? Gen. Cap. 15. verse. 6. In whiche wordes of Genesis, where these wordes were firste written by Moyses, in the Hebrewe, there is not, for iustice, or in steede of iustice, (whiche Beza pleadeth vppon, by the Hebrewe phrase) but thus, He (God) reputed it vnto* 1.659 him, iustice, though heere also the Englishe Bibles adde, for. Whiche precisely translating the Hebrewe they shoulde not do, specially when they meane it was so counted or reputed for iu∣stice, that it was not iustice indeede.

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

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

MART. 5. But as for either the Hebrew or Greeke word, that is here vsed, to repute or account, they are then vsed, whē it must needes signifie, that the thing is so in deed, and not one∣ly so reputed. as Psal. 118. octonario SAMEC. I haue repu∣ted or accounted all the sinners of the earth, preuarica∣tors or transgressors. praeuaricantes reputaui. So did the* 1.660 Septuaginta take the Hebrew word, and read it. And S. Paule, So let a man repute or account vs as the Ministers of Christ. Let them goe now and say, that neyther they, were sinn••rs in deede, nor these, Christes ministers in deede, because they were reputed for such. let them saye the children of the promise were not the seede of Abraham, because the Apostle sayth, Rom.* 1.661 9. v. 8. they are reputed for the seede. But howsoeuer it be, the Protestants will haue it so to be taken, at the least in the matter of iustification.

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

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

5. That wee mighte bee made the iustice of God in him: they in their firste translations, intolerably corrupte i•• thus: That wee by his meanes should bee that righte∣ousnesse,* 1.662 which BEFORE GOD IS ALLOW∣ED. Who ••aught them to translate so dissolutely, Iustitia Dei, the righteousnesse which before God is allow∣ed? did not their errour and heresie, which is, that God re∣puteth and accounteth vs for iuste, though wee bee in deede moste foule sinners, and that our iustice beyng none at all in vs, yet is allowed and accepted before him for iustice and righteousnesse?

FVLK. 6. There is no texte in all the Bible more cleare against iustification by iustice inhae••ent. than this 2. Corinth. 5. wherein not altogither causelesse you reproue our firste interpreters to translate dissolutely. There it is certaine they had no suche purpose as you ascribe vnto them. For their translation dothe rather obscure than sette out our iustification by the iustice which is not in vs, but in Christ. The texte is there∣fore playne: him that knewe no sinne, he made sinne for vs, that wee might become the iustice of God in him, that is in Christ, and not in our sel••es. For though we be in deede most foule sinners, and all our iustice be (as the Prophete saith) as a menstruous cloth: yet in Christe he washeth and cleanseth vs from our sinnes, and reputing his iustice as ours, he maketh vs truly iuste before him, not hauing our owne iustice whiche is of the lawe, but the iustice which is by faith of Iesus Christe, the iustice* 1.663 which is of God through faith. Where you charge vs to affirme, that our iustice being none at all in vs, yet is allowed and accepted before hym for iustice and righteousnesse, it is no assertion of ours, but a dogged slaunder of your owne.

MART. 7. Againe to this purpose: they make S. Paul* 1.664 saie that God hath made vs accepted, or freely accepted in his beloued sonne as they make the Angel in S. Luke say to our Lady, Haile freely beloued: to take away all grace inherent* 1.665

and resident in the B. Virgin, or in vs: whereas the Apostles worde signifieth, that wee are truely made gratious or gratefull and acceptable, that is to say, that our soule is inwardly endued and beautified with grace and the vertues proceeding thereof, and consequently is holy in deede before the sight of God, and not only so accepted or reputed, as they imagine. If they know not the true signification of the Greeke worde, and if their he∣resie will suffer them to learne it, let them heare S. Chrysostome not only a famous Greeke Doctor, but an excellent interpreter of all S. Paules epistles: who in this place putteth such force and significancie in the Greeke worde, that he saith thus by an allusion and distinction of wordes: He said not, WHICH* 1.666 HE FREELY GAVE VS, but, WHEREIN HE MADE VS GRATEFVL, that is, not onely dely∣uered vs from sinne, but also made vs beloued and ami∣able, made our soule beautiful, grateful, such as the An∣gels and Archangels are desirous to see, and such as him∣selfe is in loue withal, according to that in the Psalme, THE KING SHALL DESIRE, or BE IN LOVE WITH THY BEAVTIE. So S. Chrysostome, and after him Theophylacte, who with many moe wordes and similitudes explicate this Greeke worde, and this making of the soule gra∣tious and beautifull inwardly, truely, and inherently.

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

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

MART. 8. And I would gladly knowe of the aduersaries, if the like Greeke wordes be not of that forme and nature, to sig∣nifie so much as to make worthy, to make meete: & whe∣ther* 1.667 he whome God maketh worthy, or meete, or gratefull, iust, and holy, be not so in very deede, but by acceptation onely▪ if not in deede, then God maketh him no better than he was before, but only accepteth him for better: if he be so in deede, then the A∣postles word signifieth not, to make accepted, but to make such an one as being by Gods grace sanctified and iustified, is worthy to be accepied, for such puritie, vertue, and iustice, as is in him.

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

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

MART. 9. Againe, for this purpose (Dan. 6. 22.) they* 1.668 will not translate according to Chaldee, Greeke, and Latine, Iu∣stice was founde in me. but they alter it thus, My iustice was found out. and other of them, My vnguiltinesse was found out. to draw it from inherent iustice, which was in Da∣niel.

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

Greeke, and Latine, but out of the Chaldee. But in good sadnes, are you so deepely seene in Chaldee, that you will auouch the proper signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be in me. A hū∣dreth boyes in Cambridge knowe, that it signifieth as well in Chaldee, as in Hebrew, to me, rather than in me. But moste properly haue our translators expressed the phrase in English, saying, my iustice, or vnguiltines was found out: for of a vertue inherent, Daniel speaketh otherwise, Dan. 2. v. 30. to the king 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.669 not by wisedome, which is in mee. So that heere your quarrell bewrayeth more spite than wit, more malice than learning.

MART. 10. Againe, it must needes be a spot of the same infection, that they translate thus, As Dauid DESCRI∣BETH* 1.670 the blessednes of the man, vnto whome God imputeth righteousnes. Rom. 4. 6. as though imputed righte∣ousnes were the description of blessednes. They knowe▪ the Greeke doth not signifie, to describe. I woulde once see them precise in following the Greeke, and the Hebrew▪ if not, we must looke to their fingers.

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

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

CHAP. XII.

Hereticall translation for SPECIAL FAITH, vaine securitie, and ONELY FAITH.

MARTIN.

AL other meanes of saluation being thus taken away, their* 1.671 onely and extreme refuge is, Only faith, & the same not the Christian faith of the articles of the creede, & such like, but a speciall faith & confidence, wherby euery man must assuredly beleeue, that himselfe is the Sonne of God, and one of the elect, and praedestinate to saluation. If he bee not by fayth as sure of this as of Christes incarnation, he shall neuer be saued.

FVLK.

AL other meanes of saluation being taken away,* 1.672 and only faith apprehending the mercie of God in the redēption of Iesus Christ, being left, we haue great & sufficient cause, to account our selues happy, and assu∣red of eternall life, because he that hath promised, is faithfull also to performe. But where you saye that our only faith, is not the Christian faith of the articles of the creede, you lye without measure impudently: for that faith, and none other doe we beleue, teach, and professe. And that faith is a speciall faith and confidence in the mercie of God, whereof euery man that beleueth, doth make a singular confession for himselfe, saying, I be∣leeue in God, &c. And of all thinges contained in that profession of faith (that is, of forgiuenesse of sinnes, resurrection of our bodies, and life euerlasting, by beliefe and trust in God the Father Almightie, maker of heauen and earth, and in Iesus Christ his only Sonne our Lorde, conceiued, borne, suffered, crucified, deade,

buried, descended into hell; risen againe, and ascended into heauen, and in God the holy Ghost, by whose gra∣cious and mightie working we are incorporate into the bodie of Christ, and made members of his holy Catho∣like Church, which is the communion of Saincts) euery Christian man ought to be as certainely persuaded, as the things are most true, being inwardly taught by the spirite of truth, that he is the childe of God, and conse∣quently elect, & predestinate vnto eternall saluation. But that a man s••••••l neuer be saued, except he haue such cer∣tentie of this faith, as the truth of Gods promises doth deserue, none of vs doth teach, none of vs doth thinke. For we know our owne infirmitie, we knowe the temp∣tation of Satan, neuerthelesse wee acknowledge in our selues, and so seeke to persuade all men, that these things standing vpon the immoueable pillers of Gods pro∣mises, who can neyther deceiue nor be deceyued, ought to be most certaine vnto vs, and for dayly confirmation and increase of this faith all those meanes are of vs dili∣gently to be vsed, that God for this purpose in his holy Scripture hath appointed.

MART. 2. For this heresie, they force the Greeke to ex∣presse the very word of assurance and certaintie, thus: Let vs* 1.673 drawe nighe with a true hart, IN ASSVRANCE OF FAITH. Heb. 10. v. 22. and Beza, Certa persuasione fidei,* 1.674 that is, with a certaine & assured persuasion of faith: in∣terpreting him selfe more at large in another place, that he mea∣neth thereby such a persuasion and so effectuall, as by which we know assuredly without all doubt, that nothing can separate vs from God. Which their hereticall meaning maketh their trāsla∣tion the lesse tolerable, because they neither expresse the Greeke precisely, nor intend the true sense of the Apostle, they expresse* 1.675 not the Greeke, which signifieth properly the fulness and cōple∣ment of any thing, and therfore the Apostle ioyneth it sometime with faith, els where (Hebr. 6. v. 11.) with hope, with knowledge, or (a 1.676 Col. 2. v. 2.) vnderstāding, to signifie the fulnes of all three, as the vulgar Latin interpreter most sincerely (b 1.677 Ro. 4. v. 21.)

alwaies translateth it: & to Timothee, (* 1.678 2. Tim. 4.) he vseth it to signifie the full accomplishment & executiō of his ministe∣rie in euery point. Where a man may wōder that Beza to main∣taine his conceiued signification of this word, translateth here al∣so* 1.679 accordingly, thus: Ministerij tui plenā fidem facito: but their more currant Church English Bibles are cōtent to say with the vulgar Latine interpreter, fulfil thy ministerie: or, fulfil thine office to the vtmost. And the Greeke fathers do finde no other interpretation. Thus, when the Greeke signifieth ful∣nesse of faith, rather than assurance or certaine persuasion, they translate not the Greeke precisely. Againe in the sense they erre much more, applying the foresaid wordes to the certaine & assured faith that euery man ought to haue (as they say) of his* 1.680 owne saluation. Whereas the Greeke fathers expound it of the full and assured faith that euery faithfull man must haue of al such things in heauen as he seeth not, namely that Christ is as∣cended thither, &c. adding further and prouing out of the A∣postles* 1.681 wordes next folowing, that the Protestants* only faith is not sufficient, be it neuer so speciall or assured.

FVLK. 2. Hauing nothing to impugne this cleare interpretatiō of the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but the vn∣perfect translatiō of your vulgar Latine interpreter, who was both an vnperfect grecian, & a very barbarous Lati∣nist, you are not ashamed to say, we force the Greeke, to make it signifie assurance: whiche all men that are but meanly learned in the Greeke tongue, may know, that it signifieth assurāce, or ful & certaine persuasiō. Although for the question in controuersie, the fulnesse of faith wil proue the certeintie, as much in a māner, as the assurāce. But that the Greeke signifieth a full and certaine per∣suasion, I report me not only to the best Greeke Dictio∣naries of this time, but also to Budeus, who citeth Iso∣crates out of Trapezuntius for proofe, that it is so vsed, & also interpreteth that of S. Paule Rom. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let euery man be certaine of his owne minde. But you haue a doughty argument, that it is not onely ioyned with faith, but also with hope, knowledge,

and vnderstanding, as though there could not be a cer∣taine persuasion and assurance of hope, knowledge, and vnderstanding: yea the assurance of hope dependeth vpon the assuraunce of faith, and the assuraunce of faith vpon the certaine persuasion of knowledge and vnder∣standing. Yea your vulgar interpretor translating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rom. 4. v. 21. Plenissimè sciens, knowing most ful∣ly, may teach you, that it signifieth more than fulnesse, for else he should haue saide being fulfilled. And better doth Beza expresse the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2. Tim. 4. than some of our English interpreters, whiche say, fulfil thy ministry: wheras the Apostles meaning is, that he should approue the credite and dignitie of his ministerie, vnto other men. But the Greeke fathers (you say) find none o∣ther interpretation of it, and for proofe you cite Ignatius ep. ad Smyr. which although it be not authenticall, yet I see no cause why we may not interprete 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being certainly persuaded in faith & loue, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the assurance of faith. And so is it transla∣ted in Bibliotheca sacra Margarini de la Bigne, Plenè in∣structae in fide & charitate, & cognoui vos absolutè perfectos in fule stabili, fully instructed in faith and charitie, and I haue knowen you absolutely perfect in a stedfaste faith. Chrysostome and Theodoret, because you vouch at large, I know not what you would shew out of them. In Theophylact I finde, that he speaketh against all hesi∣tation & doubtfulnesse of faith, but against the certaine persuasion thereof neuer a worde.

Ne aliquam inducas in animum tuum haesitationem, neque pendeas animi, dubij quid∣dam cogitans. Bring not into thy minde any staggering, neither be incertaine of thy mind, thinking any doubt∣full thing.

But for the signification of the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, S. Basil may bee a sufficient witnesse, who com∣monly vseth it for assured and certaine persuasion. •••• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 26. Euery worde and deede must be proued by•••••• testimonie of the holy Scripture,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the full and certaine persuasion of the go••••••▪ &

to the shame of the wicked.

Againe desin. 80. what is the propertie of a faithfull man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. By such assured persuasiō to be disposed, &c. Euē so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the cer∣taine persuasiō of godlinesse &c. and so in other places. And you your selfe confesse as much, where you say, the Greeke fathers expound it of the full assured faith &c. which is enough to iustifie our trāslation. Now if the fa∣thers vnderstood this full assured faith only of an histo∣ricall faith (as you say) & not of trust and confidence in God, it is an other controuersie. Our translation is not false, although we had a false meaning, if it be answere∣able to the words. Neither doth Chrysostome speake of an historicall faith only, by certaintie whereof we haue accesse vnto God: but also of cōfidence, which remissiō of our sinnes doth cause, and that we are made coheires with Christ, & that we enioy so great loue,

neither doth he proue that the Protestāts only faith is not sufficient to iustisie. But the Apostle sheweth (saith he) that not faith alone, but also a vertuous life is required, & that a man be not guiltie to him self of malitiousnes. For these ho∣ly places doe not receiue those men, with certaine assu∣rāce, which are not made such.

This iudgmēt of Chryso∣stome the Protestants do allow of better thā the Papists: for we know, that a godly life is necessarie in them that beleeue to iustification, without which they can haue no assurance of faith, no nor faith in deede, but that which is by aequiuocation called faith, such saith as the Deuil and the reprobate may haue.

MART. 3. Yet do these termes please them exceedingly, in so much that for the chosen gift of faith, Sap. 3. 14. they* 1.682 translate, THE SPECIAL gift of faith: and Rom. 8. 38. ••••ni sure, that nothing can separate vs from the loue of God. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 though the Apostle were certaine and assured not onely of h〈…〉〈…〉wne saluation, but of other mens. For to this sense they doe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 translate here, whereas in other places out of contro∣uersie they translate the same worde as they should doe, I am

persuaded, they are persuaded, &c. For who knoweth not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 importeth onely a probable persuasion? They will say that I am sure, and I am perswaded, is al one. Beeing well meant, they may indeede signifie alike, as the vulgare Latine interpreter doth commonly translate it, but in this place of con∣trouersie, whether the Apostle were sure of his saluation or no, whiche you saye he was, yea without reuelation, we say he was not: here why woulde you translate, I am sure, and not as in o∣ther places, I am perswaded, but in fauour of your errour, by insinuating the termes of sure, and assurance, and such like: as elsewhere you neglect the termes of iuste and iustification.* 1.683 In which your secrete things of dishonesties & craftinesse (as the Apostle calleth it) we cānot alwaies vse demonstratiōs to conuince you: but yet euen in these things we talke with your cō∣science, and leaue the consideration thereof to the wise reader.

FVLK. 3. Seeing they accompt the booke of Wis∣dome to be of no authoritie to establish the certaintie of doctrine, it is not like they coulde haue any such res∣pecte, as you malitiously surmise. And yet the translati∣on good and true. For what is the choice gifte of faith, but a speciall gift? Or dare you say, that faith is not a spe∣ciall gift of God? They say not a special faith, but a spe∣ciall gift of faith. The other quarrel of the translation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I am sure, is so brutish, that when you confesse the vulgare Latine interpreater commonly to translate it, Certus sum, and that in the end, you can vse no demon∣stration to conuince vs, yet stil neuerthelesse you charge our conscience with the secreate thinges of dishonestie. That the Apostle was sure of his owne saluation, by the testimonie of Gods spirite which is giuen to al his chil∣dren, wee doubt not, and that he was sure of the saluati∣on of all Gods elect, of whiche it is vnpossible, that any should perish. And seing the same spirit of adoptiō is gi∣uē to al the children of God, which is the earnest of the heauēly inheritance, we cā not affirme without blasphe∣mie against Gods truth, that any mā ought to discredite the promises of God, or the testimonie of his spirite.

MART. 4. You holde also in this kinde of contronersie, that a man must assure himself that his sinnes be forgiuen. but in the booke of Eccle. c. 5. v. 5. We reade thus, Of thy sin for∣giuē, be not without feare. or (as it is in the Greke) Of for∣giuenes* 1.684 & propitiation bee not without feare, to heape sin vpon sins. Which you translate falsly, thus: Because thy sin is forgiuen thee, be not therfore without feare. Is that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because thy sin is forgiuen thee? You knowe it is not: but that wee shoulde bee afraid of the very forgiuenes thereof, whether our sin be forgiuen or no, or rather, whether our sinne shall be forgiuen, or no, if we heape one sinne vppon an o∣ther. Whiche seemeth to bee the truest sense of the place, by the wordes following▪ as though he should say, Be not bold vpon for∣giuenes to heap sin vpō sin, as thogh God wil easly forgiue, &c.

FVLK. 4. We hold, that a man, when he is truly pe∣nitent, ought to assure himself, that his sins bee forgiuen him, because God hath so promised, in an hūdred places, without iniurie of whose credit, we cannot doubt of the performance of his promise. But that which the sonne of Syrach speaketh of propitiatiō, is meant of the shadowie propitiation by the sacrifices of the lawe, which can not assure anie man of the forgiuenesse of his sins by them∣selues, much lesse them that heape sin vpon sin, which are neuer truely repentant. For vnto true repentaunce is re∣quired an hatred of sin, & a desire, & purpose of amend∣ment. Our translation is (as your vulgar Latine) not pre∣cise to the words of the Greeke, but iuste vnto the mea∣ning, for the words are, concerning propitiation, be not without feare: and your Latin is, De propitiato peccato, of sin forgiuen. And if you wil reprooue your Latin, aswel as our English, and say, we must be afraid of the very for∣giuenes, I haue told you, that the forgiuenes of God te∣stified by the sacrifices, pertained vnto them that be tru∣ly penitent, and not to hypocrites. And where you make it a doubt, whether sin shall bee forgiuen, or no, in them that heape one sin vpon an other: we are out of doubte, that sin shall neuer bee forgiuen to suche, as so continue

without true conuersion vnto God.

MART. 5. I touched before vpon another occasion, how* 1.685 you adde to the text, making the Apostle say thus, Ephes. 3. By whom we haue boldnes and entrance with THE CON∣FIDEHCE WHICHE Is by the faith of him, or* 1.686 (as in an other Bible, which is al one) in the confidence by faith of him. The learned and skilful among you in the Greke tong, know that this translation is false for twoo causes, the one is, because the Greeke in that case shoulde be thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. an other cause is, the point after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. so that the very simple & sincere translation is this, wee haue affiaunce and accesse with confidence, by the faith of him. euen as elsewhere it is said, wee haue confidence,* 1.687 if our hart reprehend vs not: we haue confidence by keping the commaundements, by tribulations and afflictions, and al good* 1.688 workes. hope also giueth vs great confidence. Against all which, your translation is preiudiciall, limiting and defining our confi∣dence toward God, to be faith, as though wee had no confidence by workes, or otherwise.

FVLK. 5. For vnderstanding of the article, I haue answered alreadie, & meane not here to repeate it. The point you misse, in the Bible 1577. is obserued in that boke which I haue of Richard lugs printing. By whom we haue boldenesse and entrance in the confidence, by faith of him. But it cannot be, the confidēce (you think) but, confidence: because the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not put before the worde, that signifieth confidence. But al Englishe∣men know that our English (the) may be put, and some∣time must be put before nounes, without any article ei∣ther in Greeke or Latine. And in this place, I would not giue a rush to choose, whether it be in or out, for anye sense that it chaungeth. What confidence we haue by a good conscience, by suffring tribulation, and by al good workes, it skilleth not for this question, so it be deter∣mined, that we haue no confidence in the merites of a good conscience, of suffering, of al good works that we can do▪ to haue boldenesse and entrance vnto God. But

of merites we haue spoken before in their proper place.

MART. 6. For this confidēce by faith only, Beza tran∣slateth so wilfully & peruersly, that either you were ashamed to folow him, or you lacked a cōmodious English word correspondēt to his Latine. If I haue all faith (saith the Apostle) and haue not charitie, I am nothing▪ totam fidem (saith Beza) I had* 1.689 rather translate, than, omnem fidem, because the Apostle meaneth not al kind of faith. to witte the faith that iu∣stifieth: but he meaneth, that if a man haue the faith of Christs omnipotencie, or of any other article of the Creede, or of al wholy & entirely & perfectly, that is nothing without charitie. This is Bezaes tota fides, whole faith, thinking by this translation to exempt frō the Apostles words, their special iustifying faith, and wrastling to that purpose in his annotatiōs against Pighius and other Catholike Doctours. Whereas euery man of smal skil may see, that the Apostle nameth al faith, as he doth al knowlege and al mysteries: comprehending al sortes of the one and of the other: al kinde of knowledge, al kind of mysteries, al faith what∣soeuer, Christian, Catholike, historical, or special, which two la∣ter, are Heretical termes newely deuised.

FVLK. 6. When your spightfull and dogged ma∣lice cannot reprooue our English translation, then wee muste aunsweare for Bezaes Latine, who hath sufficient∣ly aunswered for himselfe, to them that vnderstande, and liste to reade him. In the place mentioned by you, hee chooseth to say totam fidem, rather than omnem, because it apeareth by the effects, that he speaketh of faith, as it was a speciall gift of working of myracles, of which effectes he nameth one, remouing of mountaines. And that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so taken, namely for the perfection of one kynde, not the vniuersall comprehension of al kindes, he brin∣geth you example, Ro. 7. v. 8. and elsewhere oftentimes. But if it shoulde be taken (as you say) all knowledge, & all mysteries is generally to be taken, yet he telleth you, this separation is but vppon an impossible supposition, for iustifying faith can neuer bee separated from chari∣tie, but if it might be separated, it shoulde not profite

to iustifie. The Angels of heauen can not preach an o∣ther gospel: but if they did preach an other gospel, they should be accursed. A great argument I promise you a∣gainst iustification by faith onely, that a solitarie, dead, or barraine faith doth not iustifie.

MART. 7. And I woulde haue anye of the Bezites giue me a sufficient reason, why hee translated, totam fidem, and not also, totam scientiam: vndoubtedly there is no cause, but the heresie of speciall and onely faith. And againe, why he translateth Iaco. 2. 22. Thou seest, that faith was (admini∣stra) a helper of his workes: and expoundeth it thus, Faith was an efficient cause and fruitful of good workes. Wheras the Apostles wordes be plaine, that faith wrought* 1.690 togither with his workes, yea and that his fayth was by workes made perfecte. This is impudent handling of Scripture, to make workes the fruite onely and effecte of fayth, which is your he∣resie.

FVLK. 7. If you dare draw foorth your pen against Beza, and demande an answere of himselfe, although he hath already giuen you a sufficiēt reason to induce, that the Apostle speaketh not of faith, as generally as of knowledge, because by an example of remouing moun∣taines, he restraineth it to one kinde of faith. As for the other question, why he translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Iam. 2. v. 22. was an helper; me thinke you should make best answere your selfe, who not long since, by force of that word, woulde needes prooue, that men were helpers of God, chap. 10. sect. 6. Haue you so soone forgotten your own voice? and is this impudent handling of the scripture, to translate, as you your selfe in an other case thoughe im∣pertinently did contend the word to signifie? But works you wil not haue to be the fruit only and effect of faith: because the Apostle saieth that faith wrought togither with his workes, and by workes his faith was made per∣fite, as thoughe apples are not the fruite of the tree, be∣cause the tree doth beare them, and by them, if they be good, the tree is made a good tree.

MART. 8. Which heresie also must needes be the cause, that, to suppresse the excellencie of charitie (which the Apo∣stle giueth it aboue faith, or any other gift whatsoeuer, in these wordes, And yet I shew you a more excellent way, 1. Cor. 12. v. 31.) he in one edition of the new Testament (in the yeare* 1.691 1556.) translateth thus, Behold moreouer also I shew you a way most diligently. What cold stuffe is this, & howe im∣pertinent? In an other edition (an. 1565.) he mended it thus: And besides I shew you a way to excellencie. In neither of both expressing the comparison of preeminence & excellencie, that charitie hath in the Apostles words, and in all the chapter following. Wherein you did well (for your credite) not to followe him (no not your Bezites them selues) but to translate after our vulgar Latine interpreter, as it hath alwayes bene read & vnderstoode in the Church.

FVLK. 8. The rarenesse of the phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. as al indifferēt men wil iudge, rather than any mind to suppresse the excellencie of charitie, caused Beza to giue dyuerse interpretations of that place, of whiche yet the latter more commendeth the excel∣lencie of charitie, than the vulgar Latin, or our Ea∣glishe translation, whiche expoundeth it as the La∣tine doth: for if charitie be the way to excellencie, it is a greater commendation thereof, than to saye, it is a more excellent waye than other giftes, whereof he spake last, as of healing, of tongues, of interpretations, &c.* 1.692

MART. 9. Luther was so impudent in this case, that, because the Apostle spake not plàinely ynough for onely faith, he thrust (only) into the text of his translation, as himself wit∣nesseth, you durst not hitherto presume so farre in this question of onely faith, though in other controuersies you haue done the like, as is shewed in their places. But I wil aske you a smaller matter, which in words & shew you may perhaps easily answer, but in your conscience there wil remaine a gnawing worme. In so many places of the Gospell, where our Sauiour requireth the

peoples faith, when he healed them of corporall diseases only, why* 1.693 do you so gladly translate thus, Thy faith hath saued thee, ra∣ther than thus, thy faith hath healed thee, or made thee whole? is it not, by ioyning these wordes togither, to make it sound in English eares, that faith saueth or iustifieth a man? in so much that Beza noteth in the margent thus, fides saluat: that is, faith saueth. & your Geneua Bibles, in that place where it can not be taken for faith that iustifieth, because it is not the parties faith, but her fathers that Christ required, there also trā∣slate thus, Beleeue only, & she shall be saued. Which tran∣slation,* 1.694 though very false and impertinent for iustifying faith, as you seeme to acknowledge by translating it otherwise in your other Bibles: yet in deede you must needes mainteine and hold* 1.695 it for good, whiles you alleage this place for onely faith, as is e∣uident in your writings.

FVLK. 9. That which Luther might wel do as an in∣terpretor, or expounder, it was much boldnesse for him to doe, as a translator: but seeing he him selfe hath re∣dressed his owne offence, wee haue lesse to say for him, and you against him. For our additions, except suche as the necessitie of our English phrase dothe require for vnderstanding, you slaunder vs to say, that wee haue in any controuersies done the like. The question you aske, is not worthy any answere, why wee translate, thy faith hath saued thee, &c. seing wee vse all these wordes in∣differently, healing, making safe, and making whole, as in S. Iames we say, Can faith saue him? And it is al one, to say, thy faith hath saued thee, and thy fayth hath made thee whole. But you say, wee alledge this place for onely faith iustifying, citing the answeres of Maister Gough, & M. Tomson, against Feckenham. I thinke you lie, as in other places very commonly. And yet an argu∣ment, though not a plaine testimonie, may be taken out of these places for only faith iustifying. Seing Christ was not a phisition for the body, but to teach mē that he was a Physition for the soule, and as he healed the diseased in

bodie onely by faith, so hee cureth the sickuesse of the soule by the same instrument of faith onely, which by o∣ther places may be more directly prooued, and here also in some sorte is insinuated.

MAR. 10. This then you see is a fallacie, whē faith only is required to the helth of the body, as in many such places (thogh not in all) there by translation to make it sounde a iustifying faith, as thogh faith only were required to the helth of the soule. Wheras that faith was of Christes omnipotencie onely and po∣wer, which Beza confesseth may be in the diuels themselues, and* 1.696 is farre from the faith that iustifieth. If you saye, the Greeke signifieth as you translate: it doth so in deede, but it signifieth also very commonly to bee healed corporally, as (by your owne translation) in these places, Marc. 5. v. 28. Marc. 6. v. 36. Luc.* 1.697 8. v. 36. & v. 51. Where you translate, I shal be whole. They were healed. Hee was healed. She shal bee made whole. And why do you here translate so? because you know, to be sa∣ued, importeth rather an other thing, to wit, saluation of the soule: and therefore when faith is ioyned withall, you translate rather saued, than, healed, (though the place be meant of bo∣dilie health onely) to insinuate by all meanes your iustification by only faith.

FVLK. 10. It is no fallacie: from the health of the bodie, to ascende higher to the health of the soule, but that direct and plaine way, by whiche Christe himselfe would be knowne to be sauiour of the worlde, not of the bodie onely, but of the bodie and soule togither. And commonly his bodily cures were ioyned with for∣giuenesse of sinnes, whych are causes of al maladies, and with health of their soules, whose bodies were made safe. As for iustification by faith only, we meane none o∣therwise to insinuate it in this place, than Christ him self doth, by doing miracles, in giuing health of the bodie, to testifie that he is the onely authour of the saluation of mens soules.

CHAP. XIII.

Heretical translation against PENANCE and SATISFACTION.

Martin.

VPon the heresie of onely faith iustifying,* 1.698 and sauing a man, followeth the deniall of all penance and satisfaction for sinnes. Which Beza so abhorreth, (Annot. in Mat. 3. v. 2) that he maketh protesta∣tion, that he auoydeth these termes, Poe∣nitentia,* 1.699 and, Poenitentiam agere, of purpose: and that he will alwayes vse for them in translating the Greeke wordes, resipiscentia, and, resipiscere. Which he doth obserue perhaps, but that sometimes he is worse than his promise, translating most falsely and heretically, for resipis∣centia,* 1.700 resipiscentes: so that your English Bezites them selues are ashamed to translate after him. Who otherwise followe his rule for the most part, translating resipiscentia, amende∣ment of life: and, resipiscite, amende your liues. and the other English Bibles when they translate best, say, repentance, and, repent: but none of them all once haue the wordes, pe∣nance, and, doe penance. Which in most places is the very true translation, according to the verye circumstance of the text, and vse of the Greeke word, in the Greeke Church, and* 1.701 the auncient Latine translation thereof, and all the fathers rea∣ding thereof, and their expositions of the same. Which foure pointes I thinke not amisse, briefly to proue, that the Reader may see the vse and signification of these wordes, which they of purpose will not expresse, to auoyd the termes of penance, and, doing penance.

Fulke.

IF by penance you meane satisfaction* 1.702 for sinnes, by any suffering of ours, we abhorre your penance, as an horrible blasphemy against the bloud of Christ. And for that cause, Beza, as hath bene shewed before, vseth the worde resipis∣centia, rather than poenitentia: because the Greeke word signifieth, not onely a sorow for sinne, but also a purpose of amendment of life. We in English vse the worde repentance, or amendment of life, which worde of repentance, you vse also sometimes, when it pleaseth you, or when you can not for shame vse your popish terme of doing penance,

The cause why we neuer vse that word penance, is, for that you meane not thereby that which the Scripture calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but a certaine punishment taken vpon men, for satisfaction of their sinnes vnto God, which is abhominable for all Christian eares to heare, which ac∣knowledge that the bloud of Christ onely purgeth vs from all sinne. But in foure pointes you will proue, (if you can) that we should translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to do penance.

MART. 2. First, that the circumstance of the text doth* 1.703 giue it so to signifie, we reade in S. Mathew, cap. 11. v. 21. If in Tyre and Sidon had bene wrought the miracles that haue bene wrought in you, they had done penance in hairecloth, or sackecloth and ashes long agoe. And in S. Luke, cap. 10. v. 13. they had done penance, fitting in sack∣cloth and ashes. I beseech you, these circumstances of sacke∣cloth and ashes adioyned, doe they signifie penance and afflicti∣on of the bodye, or onely amendement of life, as you would haue the word to signifie? S. Basil sayth, in Psal. 29. Sackcloth ma∣keth* 1.704 for penance. For the fathers in olde time sitting in sackcloth and ashes, did penance. Vnlesse you will translate S. Basil also after your fashion, whome you can not any way

translate, but the sense must needes be, penance, and, doing* 1.705 penance. Againe S. Paule sayth, You were made sorie to penance, or, to repentance, say which you will: and, The so∣rowe which is according to God, worketh penance, or, repentance vnto saluation. Is not sorow, and bitter mour∣ning, and affliction, partes of penance? Did the incestuous man* 1.706 whome Saint Paule excommunicated, and afterward absolued him▪ because of his exceeding sorow and teares, for feare lest he* 1.707 might be ouerwhelmed with sorow, did he, I say, change his mind onely, or amend his life, as you translate the Greeke worde, and interprete repentance? did he not penance also for his fault, en∣ioyned of the Apostle? when Saint Iohn the Baptist sayth, and* 1.708 Saint Paule exhorteth the like, Doe fruites worthy of pe∣nance, or as you translate, meete for repentance: Doe they not plainly signifie penitentiall workes, or the workes of penance? which is the very cause why Beza rather translated in those* 1.709 places, Doe the fruites meete for them that amend their liues. or, giue vs some other good cause Oye Bezites, why your maister doth so fo••ly falsifie his translation.

FVLK. 2. Such is your malicious frowardnes, that you will not vnderstande resipiscentia, repentance, or a∣mendement of life, a sorow or griefe of mind for the life past: which is testified sometimes by outward signes of sackcloth and ashes, fasting and humbling of mens bo∣dies, as in the texts of Math. 11. and Luc. 10. and diuerse other, is expressed. But shew vs that the wearing of sack∣cloth and ashes, is a satisfaction for the life past, or any part of amends to Gods iustice, or else you do but trifle, and waste the time. But S. Basil sayth, that sackcloth ma∣keth for penance, &c. I maruell whether you redde that saying in Basil, and durst for sinne & shame alledge it for your popist•• penance: where he plainly sheweth the vse & ende of sack cloth.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sackecloth is an helper vnto repen∣tance, being a signe of humiliation, for of olde tyme, the Fathers repented sitting in sackeclothe

& ashes. This signe of humbling, or of submission, you haue cleane omitted.

Thus you vse to gelde the Doctors sayings, when you rehearse them. Sackecloth therefore serueth to repentance, as a testimonie of sorrow, and humbling of our selues before God, not as any satis∣faction or amendes for our sinnes. The rest of the pla∣ces that you cite, to proue, that sorrowe is a part of re∣pentance, are altogither needelesse, for we also doe ac∣knowledge the same. Our question is not of sorrow, but of satisfaction, to be a part of repentance. Like∣wise the workes worthy, or meete for repentance, doe argue the repentance to be vnfained, and vndissembled, but they proue not that by them a satisfaction is made for the sinnes committed before repentance. For a newe life, newe maners, newe fruites, must follow a mind, that is truely turned vnto God; and chaunged from delight in sinne, to hate and abhorre sinne, and to studye vnto a∣mendment of life.

MART. 3. Secondly, for the signification of this Greeke word, in all the Greeke Church, and Greeke fathers, euen from S. Denys the Areopagite S. Paules scholler, who must needes deduce it from the Scriptures, and learne it of the Apostles: it is most euident, that they vse this word for that penance which was done in the Primitiue Church, according to the penitenti∣all Canons, whereof all antiquitie of Councels and Fathers, is* 1.710 full: in so much that S. Denys reckoning vp the three sortes of persons that were excluded from seeing and participating of the diuine mysteries of Christes bodie and bloud, to wit, Catechu∣mens, Poenitents, and the possessed of ill spirits: for, Poenitents, he sayth in the Greeke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. that is, such as were in their course of penance, or had not yet done their full pe∣nance. Which penance S. Augustine declareth thus: (Ho. 27. inter. 50. ho. and ep. 108.) Est poenitentia grauior, &c. There is a more grieuous & more mournefull penance, whereby properly they are called in the Church, that are Poenitentes: remoued also from partaking the sacramēt of the altar. And the Greeke Ecclesiastical history thus: In the

Church of Rome there is a manifest & known place for* 1.711 the POENITENTS, & in it they stand sorowfull, & as it were mourning, & when the sacrifice is ended, being not made partakers thereof, with weeping and lamentation they cast them selues flat on the grounde: then the By∣shop weeping also with compassion lifteth them vp, and after a certain time enioined, absolueth them from their penaunce. This, the Priests, or Bishops of Rome kepe frō the verie beginning euen vntil our time.

FVLK. 3. Although Denis, whose bokes are now extant, were no more S. Paules disciple, than hee was S. Paule himselfe: yet I will grant, that the publique testi∣fication of repentance, in suche as hadde openly fallen, was in the primitiue church, not onely called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by a metonymie, but also, that the worde of satisfaction was vsed, not that they had anye meaning to satisfie the iu∣stice of God by suche externall works, but that by those outwarde trials of their repentaunce, the Churche was satisfied, which by their fal was offended, and the gouer∣nours of the Church by suche signes of true sorrow, and amendment, were persuaded to receiue them againe in∣to the congregation, from whence, vntill sufficient trial had of their repentance, they were separated and exclu∣ded. But this prooueth not, that the inward repentaunce which God giueth, when he turneth vs vnto him, hath in it any satisfaction for our sinnes, which no sacrifice was able to make, but onely the lambe of God, whiche ta∣keth away the sinnes of the worlde. The places you cite, as well out of Denis, as of S. Augustine, and Sozomene, do prooue this that I say, to be vnderstoode of publique signes of repentaunce, without that any satisfaction vn∣to Gods iustice, in those times by such penaunce, was intended.

MART. 4. In these wordes and other in the same* 1.712 Chapter, and in Socrates Greeke historie likewise when they speake of Poenitents, that confessed and lamented theyr sinnes, that were enioyned penaunce for the same, and

did it: I woulde demaunde of oure Englishe Grecians, in what Greeke wordes they expresse al this. Doe they it not in the wordes whiche wee nowe speake of, and whyche therefore are prooued moste euidently to signifie penaunce, and dooing penaunce? Againe, when the moste auncient Councell of Laodicea. can. 2. saith, That the time of penance should* 1.713 bee giuen to offenders according to the proportion of the fault: And againe, can. 9. That such shal not cōmuni∣cate till a certaine time, but after they haue doone pe∣naunce, and confessed their faulte, then to bee recey∣ued: And againe, can. 19. After the Catechumens are gone out, that praier bee made of the Poenitentes, or them that are in dooing penaunce. And when the firste Councel of Nice saith, can. 12. about shortening or prolonging the dayes of penaunce, that they muste well examine their purpose and manner of dooing penaunce. that is, wyth what alacritie of minde, teares, patience, humilitie, good workes, they accomplished the same, and accordingly to deale more mercifully with them, as is there expressed in the Councel: when Saint Basil, Can. 1. ad Amphiloch. speaketh after the same sorte: when Saint Chrysostome calleth the sackecloth, and fasting of the Niniuites for certaine dayes, tot dierum poenitentiam, so many dayes penaunce: in all these pla∣ces, I woulde gladly knowe of our Englishe Grecians, whe∣ther these speaches of penaunce, and dooing penaun••ce, are not expressed by the saide greeke wordes, which they wil in no case so to signifie.

FVLK. 4. A matter of great waight I promise you, to enquire of our Englishe Grecians, in what Greeke wordes they expresse all this. Verily, in the same Greke wordes which signifie repentaunce, or repenting, and so may be expressed in Englishe: neyther is there anie thing in any of the Councels or Doctors, by you cited or quoted, that hathe anie other intention, than I haue before expressed. The words of penaunce, and doing pe∣naunce, if you meant the same by them, that we and you do by repenting and repentaunce, wee would not striue

with you for termes: but that you haue an other mea∣ning in them appeareth by this that you translate the same word poenitentia, commonly penance, as when it is agere poenitentiam, but when it is saide that God doth, da∣re poenitentiam, then you translate it repentance. Where∣by it appeareth, you meane the penaunce whiche you woulde haue men to doe, is not that repentance whiche is the gift of God. Else why saye you not, Acts. 5. that God hath exalted Christ to be Prince and Sauiour, to giue penaunce to Israel, and remission of sinnes, if pe∣naunce and repentance were al one? But you saye repen∣tance. Also, Act. 11. God then to the Gentiles hath giuen repentance to life, where the word is poenitentia in both places. As also, 2. Tim. 2. where you say: least sometyme God giue them repentance to knowe the truth. Of thys repentance which God giueth vnto life, and remission of sinnes withal, satisfaction is no parte: of publike repen∣tance so called, when indeede it was a publike testificati∣on, that God had giuen inward repentance, we acknow∣ledge satisfaction to the Church, and to the iudgement of the gouernoures thereof to bee a parte.

MART. 5. Or, I would also aske them, whether in these places they will translate, repentaunce, and amende∣ment of life, where there is mentioned a prescript time of satisfaction for their fault by suche and suche penal meanes: whether there be any prescript times of repentaunce or amend∣ment of life, to continue so long, and no longer: if not, then muste it needes bee translated, penaunce, and dooing pe∣naunce, which is longer or shorter according to the faulte, and the maner of dooing the same▪ I maye repent in a moment, and amende my life at one instant, and this repentaunce and amendement oughte to continue for euer. but the holie Councels and Fathers speake of a thing to be done for certaine yeares or dayes, and to be released at the Bishoppes discreation: this therefore is penaunce, and not repentance on∣ly or amendment of life, and is expressed by the foresaid Greeke wordes, as also by * an other equiualent there vnto.* 1.714

FVLK. 5. I haue aunswered before, we may in all these places vse the worde of repentaunce, as well as this worde repent, the noune as well as the verbe. And if we woulde vse the same figure, whych they doe, that cal suche externall testimonies of repentaunce, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wee might vse the worde of amendment of life also. The pre∣scripte time of satisfaction, I haue said was to the church, which was offended and slaundered by their open offen∣ces, and to the iudgement of the Byshoppe and Elders whyche hadde the appointing or releasing of suche time of repentance. The other Greeke word which you say is aequiualent to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, namely, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifieth to fal downe vnder, or knele before one, as Tertullian expres∣seth the phrase, praesbyteris aduolui, aris dei adgeniculari,* 1.715 for one to be caste downe in humble manner before the* 1.716 Elders, to kneele before the altars of God. Herof 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is vsed, for that submission whiche publique peni∣tents did shewe to testifie their inward humilitie, and by a metonymie of the signe, is taken for that which it doth signifie, namely, humble and hartie repentaunce, whiche is approued before men, by such outward gestures, and tokens of inwarde griefe and humilitie of minde. So is publique fasting in token of repentaunce, by Tertullian called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it is a signe & token of hu∣miliation* 1.717 and submission of minde, whiche must of ne∣cessitie accompany true repentance. Wherefore it is vn∣truly said, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is equiualent with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth to change the minde frrm euil to good, wher∣as the other expresseth but an outwarde gesture, to sig∣nifie inward repentaunce, and that in open repentaunce onely.

MART. 6. I omit that this very phrase, to do penance, is word for word expressed thus in Greeke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And* 1.718 Ausonius the christian Poet (whom I may as wel alleadge once, & vse it not, as they do Virgil, Terence, & the like very often) vseth this Greeke worde so euidently in this sense, that Beza saith, he did it for his verse sake, because another worde would

not stande so well in the verse. But the reader (I trust) seeth the vse and signification of these Greeke wordes, by the testi∣monie of the Greeke fathers them selues, moste auncient and approued.

FVLK. 6. You may well omit that which beareth no credite of antiquitie. The Liturgie is not so aun∣cient, as he whose name it beareth, the Rubrike muche lesse. That Beza saith of Ausonius, vsing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the sense you meane, it seemeth you doe not vnderstande him. For he saith, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is neuer vsed but in good parte. So that in my iudgement, Ausonius would haue said rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that his knowen E∣pigram, if the measure of his Pentametre verse would haue borne it.

MART. 7. Thirdly, that the auncient Latine Interpre∣ter doth commonly so translate these wordes through out the newe Testament, that needeth no proofe, neyther will I stande* 1.719 vpon it (though it be greater authoritie than they haue any to the contrary) because the Aduersaries know it and mislike it, and for that and other like pointes it is belike, that one of them saith it is the worst translation of all, whereas Beza his Maister* 1.720 saith it is the best of all. So well they agree in iudgement, the Maister and the man.

FVLK. 7. The Latine interpretor as it appeareth in many places, had no perfect vnderstanding of the Greeke tongue: but in the Latine it is manifest, that hee was very rude, in so much that Lindanus thinketh, hee was a Grecian, rather than a Latinist. Yea hee hath a whole chapter thus intituled: That the Autors of the* 1.721 vulgar translation of the Psalter, and the newe Testa∣ment, were Grecians, Nec latine satis eruditos, and not sufficiently learned in the Latine tongue. By whiche testimonie it may bee gathered, what credite is to bee giuen to the Latine termes that he vseth, differing from the Latine phrase, vsed by them that are learned in that tongue. I could bring example of many termes and phrases, that you your self are ashamed to follow, which

pretende so precise a translation out of the vulgar La∣tine. What my mislike is of that translation, and howe contrarie to that which Beza saith thereof, I haue ope∣ned else where to your shame. Onely here I muste tell you, that albeit in respect of learning, I disdaine not to acknowledge my selfe Bezaes scholler (of whom neuer∣thelesse I haue learned very litle) yet I would you should know, I am no strangers man, though you, and such trai∣tors as you are, had rather be the Popes men, than true seruants to the Queene of England.

MART. 8. I come to the fourth proofe, which is, that all the Latine Churche and the glorious Doctors thereof haue al∣waies reade as the vulgar Latine interpreter translateth these wordes, and expound the same of penance, and doing penance. To name one or twoo for an example, S. Augustines place is ve∣ry* 1.722 notable, which therefore I set downe, and may be translated thus: Men doe penance before Baptisme, of their former* 1.723 sinnes, yet so that they be also baptized, Peter saying thus, DOE YE PENANCE, AND LET EVERY ONE BE BAPTISED. Men also doe penance, if af∣ter Baptisme they do so sinne, that they deserue to be ex∣communicated and reconciled againe, as in al Churches they doe which bee called, POENITENTES. For of* 1.724 such penance spake S Paule. 2. Cor. 12. 21. saying, THAT I LAMENT NOT MANY OF THEM WHICH BEFORE HAVE SINNED, AND HAVE NOT DONE PENANCE FOR THEIR VNCLEAN∣NESSE. We haue also in the Actes, that Simon Magus* 1.725 being baptized, was admonished by Peter TO DO PE∣NANCE* 1.726 for his grieuous sinne. There is also in ma∣ner a dayly Penance of the good and humble beleeuers, in which wee knocke our breasts, saying, FORGIVE VS OVR DETTES. For these (veniall and dayly offen∣ces) fastes and almes and praiers are watchfully vsed, and humbling our soules we cease not after a sort to do* 1.727 dayly penance.

FVLK. 8. That all the Latine Church and the glo∣rious

doctors thereof haue alwaies redde as the vulgar Latin interpretor translateth: you proue by an example of S. Augustine. In which also it is manifest, that S. Au∣gustine vnderstādeth the phrase, not only for the exercise of publike poenitentes, but also for the inwarde repen∣tance of the hart. But because you challenge all the do∣ctors of the Latin Church, for the vse of this word poeni∣tentia, I pray you cōsider what Tertullian writeth against Marcion, who cauilled about the repenting ascribed in Scripture to God. In Graeco sono, &c. In the Greeke sounde the name of repentance, is made not of confes∣sion of an offence, but of changing of the mind. And in his booke De Poenitentia, where hee treateth euen of publike repentance, citing the testimonie of Iohn Ba∣ptiste, hee saith,

Non tacet Iohannes, poenitentiam inito∣te* 1.728 dicens. Iohn holdeth not his peace, saying beginne repentaunce.

Hilarius also sheweth what Poenitentiae dothe signifie, when hee saith, Peccati poenitentia est ab eo quod poenitendum intellexeris destitisse. Repentance of sinne is to haue ceased from that, whiche you haue vnderstoode that it muste bee repented of. Like∣wise agaynste the Nouatians that denie repentance,

* 1.729

Cum ad Poenitentiam per quam à peccatis desistitur, when vnto repentance by whiche menne cease from sinnes, the doctrine of the Lawe, Prophetes, Gospels, Apo∣stles, exhorteth them that haue sinned. And euen your vulgar interpreter in Sainct Marke sayth Poenitemini,

for that hee saith in Mathew, Agite poenitentiam, by whiche it is certaine, that hee meaneth one thing in bothe, namely repentance of harte, and no satisfaction of worke.

MART. 9. In these wordes of S. Augustine it is plaine that hee speaketh of painefull or penitentiall workes for sa∣tisfaction of sinnes, that is, penance: againe, that there are three kindes of the same, one before Baptisme, an other after Baptisme for great offences, greater and longer: the other dayly for com∣mon and litle veniall saultes which the best men also commit in

this fraile nature. Againe that the two former are signified and spoken of in the three places of Scripture by him alleaged. Where we see, that he readeth altogither as the vulgar interpre∣ter translateth, and expoundeth all three places of penance for sinne, and so approueth that signification of the Greeke worde. Yea in saying that for veniall sinnes we knocke our breast, fast, giue almes, and pray, and so cease not Quotidianam agere poenitentiam: what doth he meane but daily penance and sa∣tisfaction? Reade also S. Cyprian (beside other places) epist. 52. num. 6. Where his citatiōs of Scripture are according to the old Latin interpreter, and his exposition according, of doing penāce, and making satisfaction for sinnes committed. But I neede not proceede further in alleaging either S. Cyprian or other aunci∣ent fathers for this purpose, because the Aduersaries graunt it. Howbeit in what termes they graunt it, and how malapertly they accuse all the auncient fathers at once for the same, it shall not be amisse here to put downe their wordes.

FVLK. 9. S. Augustine speaketh nothing of satis∣faction for sinnes, but as I haue said, of such exercises as were appointed by the Church, to testifie their repētāce. The occasion of all these wordes, was of one that was a Nouatian, who said that Peter was not baptized, whē he was receyued into repentance after his deniall. And where he vsed this worde Egisse poenitentiam, S. Augu∣stine denieth, that he did open penance,

as they that we properly called poenitentes: Quod autem dicitur Petrum egisse poenitentiam. But where it is saide that Peter did penance, wee muste beware that hee bee not thought so to haue done it, as they do it in the Church, which are properly called Poenitentes. And who can abide this, that wee shoulde thinke, that the chiefe of the A∣postles is to be numbred among such poenitents? For it repēted him that he denied Christ, which thing his tears doe shewe.

These words declare, that Agere poenitentiam with Augustine, signifieth to be inwardly repentant, as well as to doe those externall workes, which are tokens of repentance. Also that teares, fastings, and such like,

are arguments, and signes of repentance before God, and not any parte of that repentance in deede and much lesse any satisfaction for sinnes. Of this penance or repen∣tance of S. Peter, S. Ambrose saith, Lachrymas eius lego, satisfactionem non lego, I reade of his teares, I reade not of* 1.730 his satisfaction. In that Augustine vseth the wordes of the olde interpretor, it is no matter, for he vseth also his meaning. But this vsage of his, proueth not the anti∣quitie of the vulgar Latine translation, but contrari wise, it is certaine that S. Augustine followed an other tran∣slation, for in the text, 2. Cor. 12. where your vulgar La∣tine hath, Super immunditia & fornicatione & impudicitia quam gesserunt. S. Augustine readeth, Super immunditia & luxuria & fornicatione quam egerunt. That S. Cyprian vseth the terme Agere poenitentiam, and satisfaction also, spea∣king of publike repentance, it shall be easily graunted, but in none other sense, than I haue often declared. But where you say, that his citations are according to the La∣tine interpretor, it is false. For Apoc. 2. your vulgar text is, Memor esto itaque vnde excideris, & age poenitentiam & prima opera fac. But Cyprians citation is, Memento vnde cecideris, & age poenitentiam, & fac priora opera. Likewise Psalm. 88. you reade in your vulgar Latine, Visitabo in virga iniquitates eorum, & in verberibus peccata eorum. But Cyprian citeth thus. Visitabo in virga facinora eorum, & in flagellis delicta eorum. But that his exposition is of any other penance, than of open penance, or of any other sa∣tisfaction, than of satisfaction to the Church, your ad∣uersaries will not graunt you, although they may graunt you, that he ascribed too much vnto such externall to∣kens of repentance.

MART. 10. Whereas the reuerend, godly, and learned Father, Edmund Campion, had obiected in his booke, the Pro∣testants accusation of S. Cyprian, for the matter of penance: the good man that aunswereth for both Vniuersities, sayth thus* 1.731 to that point: But whereas Magdeburgenses (Lutheran writers of that citie) complaine that he depraued the do∣ctrine

of repentance, they doe not feine or forge this* 1.732 crime against him, but vtter or disclose it. For all men vnderstand that it was too true. Neither was this Cypri∣ans fault alone, that he wrote of repentance many thing••* 1.733 incommodiously, and vnwisely, but all the most holy fa∣thers almost at that time, were in the same errour. For whiles they desired to restraine mens maners by seuere lawes, they made the greatest part of repentance to con∣sist* 1.734 in certaine externall discipline of life, which them selues prescribed. In that they punished vice seuerely, they were to be borne withall: but that by this meanes they thought to paye the paines due for sinnes, and to satisfie Gods iustice, and to procure to them selues assured im∣punitie, remission, and iustice, therin they derogated not a litle from Christes death, attributed too much to their owne inuentions and finally depraued repentance. Thus farre the Answerer.

FVLK. 10. If Campion was such a reuerend, god∣ly, and learned father among you, whose leuitie, treason, and ignorance in diuinitie, hath bene so lately tried a∣mong vs, we knowe how to esteeme of the whole packe of you. Whose learning if it had bene neuer so great, as by the time of his studie in diuinitie, & the trade of his trauailing life, since he gaue him selfe thereto, no wise man can esteeme that it was great: yet being so lately at∣taynted of high treason against the Prince, and the state, none that is honest, and dutifull, would haue bestowed vpon him the commendation of godlinesse. As for that which M. Whitaker hath answered against him although not in the name of both the Vniuersities, by whom hee was neuer authorised to be their aduocate, yet so, as nei∣ther of both the Vniuersities neede be ashamed of his doing: for as much as I know he hath cōfuted your quar∣rels already, I will leaue you in this matter, wholy to cō∣tend against him. Assuring you of my credite, (which I know is but small with you) that he shall be found suf∣ficient to match with as strong and aduersarie as the Se∣minary

of Rhemes can make out against him.

MART. 11. Marke how he accuseth the fathers in ge∣nerall of no lesse crime, than taking away from Christ the merits of his Passion, attributing it to their owne penance and disci∣pline. Which if they did, I maruell he should call them in this very place where he beginneth to charge thē with such a crime, sanctissimos patres, most holy fathers. The truth is, he might as well charge S. Paule with the same, when he saith, wee shall* 1.735 Be the heires of God, and coheires with Christ, yet so, if we suffer with him, that wee may also be glorified with him. S. Paul saith, our suffering also with Christ, is necessarie to saluation: Maister Whitakers saith, it is a derogation to Christs suffering. Christ fasted for vs, therfore our fasting ma∣keth nothing to saluation. He prayed for vs, was scourged, and dyed for vs: therefore our prayer, scourging, and emprisonment, yea and death it selfe for his sake, make nothing to life euerla∣sting, and if we should thinke it doth, we derogate from Christes passion. Alas, is this the diuinitie of Englande now a dayes? to make the simple beleeue that the auncient fathers and holie men of the primitiue Church by their seuere life and volunta∣rie penaunce for their sinnes, and for the loue of Christe, didd•• therein derogate from Christes merites and passions?

FVLK. 11. If the fathers at some time, by attributing too much to externall discipline, were carried somwhat too farre, whereby not a little was derogated from the merits of Christs death▪ yet they are not charged direct∣ly to haue impugned the dignitie thereof, whyche, when theyr eyes were attentiuely bent vpon it, they did wor∣thily magnifie and extoll. That we must be conforma∣ble to the suffering of Christe, if we wil bee made parta∣kers of his glorie, it is the diuinitie that is now taught in England: but that any sufferings, or any good works of ours whatsoeuer, do merite any part of eternall glorie, the diuinitie preached in England doth most iustly ab∣horre. But that the holie men of the Primitiue Chur∣che, by theyr seuere lyfe, and heartie repen∣taunce for theyr synnes, testified by teares, fasting, and

other chastising of their flesh, for the loue of Christ, did derogate from Christes merits and passion, it is a lewde slaunder out of Fraunce, from the trayterous seminarie at Rhemes, but no part of the diuinitie of England, al∣lowed by the Vniuersities of Cambridge, and Oxford, as you would make simple men beleeue that it is.

MART. 12. I may not stand vpon this point; neither neede I. the principall matter is proued by the aduersaries con∣fession, that the holy Doctors spake, wrote, and thought of pe∣nance, and doing penance as we doe, in the same termes both Greeke, and Latine: and with Catholikes it is alwayes a good argument, and we desire no better proofe, than this. The Prote∣stants graunt, all the auncient fathers were of our opinion, and they say it was their errour. For, the first parte being true, it is madnesse to dispute, whether al the auntient fathers erred, or ra∣ther the newe Protestants, as it is more than madnesse to thinke that Luther alone might see the truth more than a thousande Augustines, a thousand Cypriās, a thousand Churches. Which, notwithstanding the palpable absurditie therof, yet M. Whita∣kers* 1.736 auoucheth it very solemnly.

FVLK. 12. The confession you charge the aduer∣saries to make, is of your own forgerie, not of their con∣cession. But for want of other proofe, it was the beste you could do, to faine our graunt, but you are not able to shew our deedes thereof in writing. As neither of the rest that the antient fathers were all of our opinion, by the Protestants graunt, that Luther might see more of himselfe alone, than, &c. but whatsoeuer M. Whitaker hath aduouched, I leaue to himselfe to answere.

MART. 13. And yet againe (that the reader maye see howe they play faste and loose at their pleasure) this is the man, that when he hath giuen vs al the fathers on our side, not onely in the matter of penaunce, but also in inuocation of Saincts,* 1.737 and in diuers other errours, as he calleth them: the very same man (I say) in the very next leaues almoste, renueth Maister* 1.738 Iewels olde bragge, that we haue not one cleare sentence for vs of any one father within sixe hundred yeares after Christe, and

againe, that the same faith reigneth nowe in England, which these fathers professed. What fayth, M. Whitakers? not their faith concerning penance, or inuocation of Saincts (as your self confesse) or other such like errours of theirs, as you terme them. Why are you so forgetfull, or rather so impudent, to speake con∣traries in so litle a roome? Such simple aunswering will not serue your aduersaries learned booke, which you in vaine goe about by foolish Rhetorike to disgrace, when the world seeth you are driuen to the wall, and either can say nothing, or doe say that, which confuteth is selfe with the euident absurditie there∣of.

FVLK. 13. Maister Whitaker is not so inconside∣rate, to play fast and loose, as you are intemperate and vntrue, in accusing him. Howbeit, there is no doubt, but he will meete you, and handle you, according to your vertues. But seeing you giue such high commendation to Campions pamphlet, as that you call it a learned booke, (wherein beside a litle ranke Rhetorike, more meete for a boye, that learneth to practise his figures, than for a graue Diuine, to vse in so serious a cause, there is nothing that any learned man may thinke worthy of any aunswere). we may well perceiue what you count learning, & what be the pillers of your popish religion. The bookes are both in print, let the worlde iudge of both indifferently.

MART. 14 But to leaue M. Whitakers (who is a simple companion, to sit in iudgement vpon all the auncient Doctors, and to condemne them of hainous errour in the matter of pe∣nance). I trust the Reader seeth by the former discourse, the v∣suall Ecclesiasticall signification, and consequently both the true and false translation of the foresayd Greeke wordes. Not that* 1.739 they must or may alwayes be translated, penance, or doing pe∣nance. For in the scriptures God is sayd Poenitentiam agere, who can not be sayd to doe penance, no more than he can be said to amend his life, as the Protestants commonly translate this word. Therefore I conclude, that this word being spoken of God, in the Scriptures, is no more preiudice against our translation

of doing penance, than it is against theirs, of amendment of life. Likewise when it is spoken of the reprobate and damned in hell: who as they can not doe penance properly, so much lesse amende* 1.740 their liues.

FVLK. 14. Maister Whitaker taketh not vpon him to sit in iudgement of all the Doctors, although he may note some errour or other, in euery one of them, whose writings of any substance, doe remaine with vs. But after all this brabling about poenitentiā agere, you come home, and confesse, that it must not alwayes be translated, do∣ing of penance: because God him selfe after your vul∣gar translation, is sayd, agere poenitentiam, which with the Septuaginta, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. No man could better haue con∣futed your vaine quarreling▪ than you haue done your selfe: for by this it is manifest, that the vulgar Interpre∣ter, did not meane by agere poenitentiam, any more, than we doe by repentance. And therefore the best, and the most simple translation is, to vse the wordes repent, and repentance. And the Greeke word, as Tertullian telleth you, signifieth changing of mind, which may be without acknowledging of errour. Although it can not vet be properly said of God, that he changeth his mind, when he is sayd to repent. As likewise it is not necessary, that they which be in hel, should amend their liues, when it is said they repent. Neither doe we translate the worde simply, amendment of life, but shewe that amendement of life must necessarily follow in them that truely repent, as the Scripture teacheth vs.

MART. 15. Moreouer, it is purposely against penance, that they translate amisse, both in Daniel, and Esdras, whose vo∣luntary* 1.741 mourning, fasting, afflicting of them selues for their owne sinnes, and the peoples, is notoriously set forth in their bookes. There they make the Angell say thus to Daniel. From* 1.742 the first day that thou didst set thyne hart TO HVMBLE thy selfe. What is this humbling him selfe? can we gather any penance thereby? none at all. but if they had sayd according to the Hebrew, Greeke, and Latine, from the first day that thou* 1.743

didst set thine hart TO AFFLICT thy selfe, we shoulde* 1.744 easily conceiue workes of penance, and it would include Daniels mourning, fasting from flesh, wine, and other meates, abstai∣ning from ointments, the space of the dayes, mentioned in the be∣ginning of the same chapter.

FVLK. 15. The word humbling, doth as wel com∣prehende all those exercises of fasting, and mourning, which the holy men did vse, to testifie their repentance, & to prouoke them selues to hartie repentance for their sinnes, & the sinnes of the people, as the word afflicting. Another translation calleth it chastening, the Hebrewe word signifieth to bring lowe, or cast downe, therefore it is spoken of women, that are carnally knowne, which is without affliction. But when it is vsed of such godly exercises, it declareth for what ende they serue, namely to humble and bring low our proude rebellious nature, and to be signes of humiliation, as S. Basil sayth of sack∣cloth and ashes, not to be by punishment, satisfaction for our sinnes. Your owne vulgar Latine interpretor trā∣slateth the same word, Gen. 16 v. 19. humiliare▪ humble thy selfe, or submit thy selfe vnder thy mistres hand, and of∣ten times in that sense. And euen in this sense of hum∣bling▪ by signes of repentance, he vseth the word humili∣a••us, speaking of Achab, 2. Reg. 21. v. 29. where the He∣brew word is otherwise. And Psalme 35. v. 13. the same worde ••innethi he translateth, humiliaham, And in their* 1.745 sickenes. I put on sackcloth▪ and humbled my soule with fasting So doth he often times, when such bodily cha∣stisement is signified thereby. Wherefore this, as all the rest is a false and vnreasonable quarrell▪ against our tran∣slation, as though by it we meant to denye the vse of af∣flicting, or chastening the body, with fasting, mourning, and other like exercises of repentance.

MART. 16. Againe, in all their Bibles of the yeares 1562. 1577. 1579. they make Esdras, c. 9. 5. after his exceeding* 1.746 great penance, say onely this, About the euening sacrifice I arose vp from my HEAVINESSE. neither translating the

Hebrew, which is the same word that in Daniel, nor the Greeke,* 1.747 which signifieth affliction, and humiliation.

FVLK. 16. First your Greeke text of Esdras, con∣firmeth our translation of Daniel. Secondly, I say, that by this heauines, they meane, all that humiliation and af∣fliction, whereof he spake before, which is easie for eue∣ry man to vnderstand, that is not blinded with malice, and what other thing is affliction, but heauines, griefe, and sorow, whereof the holy man spake twice before, I thinke no wise man can tell.

MART. 17. Againe, in the Prophet Malachie, (c. 3. 14.) they translate thus: Ye haue sayde, It is but vaine to serue God, and what profit is it that we haue kept his commaundements, and walked HVMBLY before his face? What is this same, humbly? when we say in English, he goeth humbly: we imagine or conceiue no more but this, that he is an humble man, and behaueth him selfe humbly▪ but they know very well, the Prophet speaketh of an other thing: and if* 1.748 it had pleased them to haue translated the Hebrew word fully, and significantly, in the sense of the holy Ghost, they might haue learned by conference of other places, where the same Hebrewe word is vsed, that it signifieth such heauines, sadnes, sorowful∣nes, and affliction, as men expresse by blacke mourning garmēts, the nature of the word importing blacknesse, darknesse, low∣ring, and the like. Which is farre more than walking humbly, and which is wholy suppressed by so translating. See the Psalme 34. v. 14. Ps. 37. v. 7. Ps. 41. v. 10. Where the Prophet* 1.749 vseth many wordes and speeches, to expresse sorowfull penance: and for that which in Latine is alwayes, contristatus, in Greeke a word more significant, in Hebrew it is the same kind of worde that they translate, humbly. Whereas in deede this word hath no signification of humilitie properly, no not of that humilitie I meane, which is rather to be called humiliation, or affliction, as the Greeke wordes implye. But it signifieth properly the very* 1.750 maner, countenance, gesture, habite of a pensiue or sorlorne man: & if they will say, that they so translate it in other places, the more is their fault, that knowing the nature of the worde,

they wil notwithstanding suppresse the force and signification thereof in any one place, and so translate it, that the reader must needes take it in an other sense, and can not possibly conceiue that which the worde importeth. for, to walke humbly, soun∣deth in all English eares, the vertue of humilitie, whyche thys worde doth neuer signifie, and not humilitie or humiliation by affliction, which it may signifie, though secondarily, and by de∣duction onely.

FVLK. 17. What a many of vaine words are here spent, to make a vaine cauil seeme to be of some value? what the etymologie of the Hebrewe word is, the tran∣slatours knewe beefore you were borne. But what the worde signifieth heere, Pagnine is sufficient to teache bothe you, and them, who thus interpreateth it in obscu∣ro, id est, obscurè, id est, humiliter. In the darke, that is dark∣ly, that is humbly. Your vulgare Latine translatour cal∣leth it, tristes, whiche is as farre from your pretended pe∣naunce, as humilitie. The Septuaginta translate the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whyche signifieth seruile or seruauntes. Benedict Arias expoundeth it, supplices, humble. And to put al out of quarrelling, the Antithesis or opposition of the proud and arrogant, in the next verse following, proueth, that in this verse, they speake of humilitie, whych is contra∣rie to pride, and not of the tokens of repentaunce, which are mourning apparell, and such like.

MART. 18. Againe, what is it else but against penance and satisfaction, that they deface these vsual and known words* 1.751 of Daniel to the king, Redime eleemosynis peccata tua, Redeeme thy sinnes with almes: altering and translating* 1.752 it thus, Breake off thy sinnes by righteousnesse. Firste, the Greeke is against them, whiche is worde for worde according to the vulgare and common reading: Secondly, the Chaldee worde whiche they translate, Breake off, by Munsters owne iudge∣ment* 1.753 in lexico Chald. signifieth rather, and more principally, to redeeme. Thirdely, the other worde whiche they translate, righteousnesse, in the Scriptures signifieth also, eleemosy∣nam, as the Greke interpreaters, translate it, Dent. 6. & 24 &

it is most plaine in S. Mathew, where our Sauiour saith (Mat. 6.* 1.754 v. 1.) Beware you do not your iustice before men▪ Which is in other Greke copies, your almes. And S. Augustine proo∣ueth it by the very text. For (saith he) as though a mā might aske, what iustice? he addeth. WHEN THOVDOST AN ALMES DEEDS. He signified therefore, that almes are the works of iustice. And in the Psalme they are made one,* 1.755 He distributed he gaue to the poore, his iustice remay∣neth for euer and euer▪ Which Beza translateth, his bene∣ficence or liberalitie remaineth, &c. Againe, S. Hierome, a sufficient Doctour to tel the signification of the Hebrue or Chal∣dee words, both translateth i••so, and expoundeth it so in his cō∣mentarie. Moreouer, the wordes that immediatly folow in Da∣niel, interprete it so vnto vs, And thy iniquities with mer∣cies* 1.756 to the pore. Lastly, Beza himself saith, that by the name of iustice with the Hebrues, is also signified beneficence or beneficialnes to the pore yea, and that in this place of* 1.757 Daniel it is specially taken for almes. So that wee see there is no impediment, neither in the Chaldee, nor Greeke, why they might not haue saide, as the Church of God alwayes hath saide, Redeeme thy sinnes with almes, and thy iniquities with mercies to the poore▪ but their heresie wil not suffer them to speake after the Catholike maner, that almes & mercifull deeds are a redemption, ransome, and satisfaction for sinnes.

FVLK. 18. Againste popishe penaunce and sa∣tisfaction, there is no doubte, but the translatours were vehemently affected, yet in this translation they haue vsed no preiudice againste repentaunce, and the true fruites thereof, but rather more straightly haue vrged the same. For firste, whereas in the vulgare Latine texte there is no worde of repenting from sinnes, or forsaking of sinnes, our translatour v∣sing the terme of breaking off his sinnes, signifieth that all almes, and other apparant good deedes without repentaunce and breaking off the cause of the for∣mer sinfull lyfe, are in vaine and vnprofitable. Se∣condly, where the vulgare translatour vseth the worde

of redeeming, or buying out, whiche mighte bring the King into vaine securitie, to thinke he might satisfie for his sinnes, without repentance, by giuing of almes, whi∣che is a small penaunce for a King: our translatours tell him, that, he must break off his sinnes, before any thing that he doth be acceptable to God. Thirdly, whereas the vulgare interpretour requireth of him nothing but almes, and mercie to the poore, whiche was a verie easie thing for him to performe: our translators enioine him righteousnesse, which comprehendeth all vertues, and is a thousande folde harder penaunce for suche a mightie monarch, than giuing of almes, and that to poore folks which he shoulde neuer feele. Fourthly, the wordes are plaine for our translation: for pherak the Chaldee* 1.758 verb signifieth as properly and as principally to dissolue or breake off, as, to deliuer or redeeme. Neither is Mun∣sters iudgement otherwise, although hee giue the other signification firste, whyche is a miserable argument, to proue, that it signifieth rather, and more principallye to redeme. But if any signification were more principall than other, it were more reason to saye, that pherak sig∣nifieth* 1.759 rather & more principally to breake or dissolue, because the word signifieth so in the Hebrewe tongue, from whence the Chaldee is deriued. And indeede de∣lyuering, is a kinde of dissoluing or breaking from him, to whome hee was beefore addicte or bounde. So that the verbe helpeth you nothing, but rather maketh more against you. The other worde, although verye seldome by synecdoche, it be taken for almes, yet euerie boy almoste in Cambridge knoweth, that it signifieth properly and principally, vniuersall iustice, or all righteousnesse: therefore the Chaldee texte is plaine for our translation, and enforced for yours of almes. Being agaynste all reason, that the Pro∣phete shoulde exhorte the Kyng to gyuing almes, be∣fore hee hadde exhorted hym to repentaunce, and forsakyng of hys sinnes. Beside that, it is contrarie

to the whole scope of the scriptures, to teache any other satisfaction or redemption from sinne, than the death and passion of Christe. But where you tell vs of S. Hie∣romes translation, it were somewhat worth, if you could shewe it. The vulgare Latine text wee may not graunte you to bee S. Hieromes, as for his commentarie, teach∣eth not the worde of redeeming, which is the principall worde in controuersie. And indeede it is a very absurde kinde of speach, to say, redeeme thy sinnes, or deliuer thy sinnes, for pherak signifieth none otherwise to redeme,* 1.760 than to deliuer, whereas, if he had meant, as you think, hee shoulde haue saide rather, redeeme thy soule from sinnes. Christ himselfe the author of our redemption, is not saide to haue redeemed our sinnes with his bloud, but to haue redeemed vs from oure synnes by hys bloude.

MART. 19. And what a miserable humour is it in these cases, to slie as far as they can from the auntient receiued speach of holie Scripture, that hath so many yeres sounded in all faithful eares, and to inuent newe termes and phrases, when the original text both Greke and Hebrue fauoreth the one as much or more, than the other▪ as, that they choose to say in the Epistle to Titus (where the Apostle excedingly exhorteth to good works) maintaine good workes, and shewe foorth good works, rather than according to the auncient Latine translation, bo∣nis* 1.761 operibus praeesse, to be chiefe and principall in do∣ing good workes, which is the very true and vsual significa∣tion of the greeke worde, and implieth a vertuous emulation a∣mong good men, who shal doe moste good workes, or excel in that kinde. But they that looke to be saued by faith onely, no maruell if neither their doings, nor trāslatiōs tēd to any such excellēcie.

FVLK. 19. What a miserable humour is it, when the truth is plainly reuealed, by knowledge of the tongs, which was hidden from many of the auntient fathers, to delight rather in error which is old, than in truth which is newly discouered? The worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the epistle to Titus we translate also to excell, and it may signifie,

either to shew forth, to maintaine, or to excell. And ther∣fore your wrangling is vaine and without reason. For that Christian men ought with all diligent labour to ex∣cell in good workes, it is alwaies acknowledged of vs, although they muste not looke to bee saued by their workes no nor by their faith onely, if their faith be not fruitefull of good workes. Such collections as these, and much better, it were no hard matter to make a great number against you, to proue that you are enimies to faith, to repentance, to good workes, & to God him self.

CHAP. XIIII.

Hereticall translation against the holy SACRA∣MENTS, namely BAPTISME and CONFESSION.

Martin.

AN other sequele of their onely faith is, that* 1.762 the Sacraments also helpe nothing towarde our saluation, and therefore they partely take them cleane away, partly depriue them of all grace, vertue, and efficacie, making thē poore and beggarly elements, either worse, or no better than those of the old law.

Fulke.

THat the Sacraments helpe nothing toward* 1.763 our saluation, is an other of Martins slaun∣ders, no assertion of ours. For seeing wee holde that the Sacramentes are seales of Gods promises, to confirme our faith, by which we are iustified before him, how can we affirme,

that they help nothing to saluation? But this is the pro∣pertie of hers and slaunderers, when they haue nothing of truth to charge their aduersaries, then they eyther inuent that which was neuer saide or done by them, or else they violently drawe out of their sayings or do∣ings by deprauing them some colour of matter to serue for a shewe of their slaunders. So dothe our wrangler in this place after a flatte lie solemnely aduouched, a∣gainst vs, of that wee say, the Sacramentes giue no grace, Ex opere operato, of the worke wrought, he frameth his spiders webbe, first that wee depriue them, of all grace, vertue, and efficacie. Because wee doe not include grace, vertue, and efficacie, within the externall Ele∣mentes, or the ministerie of man aboute them, but a∣scribe the same to the mighty working of Gods spirite in his chosen children, which worketh all his giftes in all men according to the good pleasure of his owne will. Secondly that we make the Sacraments poore and beggerly Elements. And thirdly eyther worse or no better than those of the olde lawe. The spirituall mat∣ter in deede of the Sacramentes of both the Testaments wee confesse to bee Iesus Christe of equall power vnto saluation of his people liuing vnder both the states: but the more abundant grace, and truth, according to the reuelation of Christ in the flesh, we acknowledge to be testified, and exhibited in our Sacraments than was in theirs that liued vnder the law.

MART. 2. For this purpose Beza is not content to speake as the Apostle doth, (Ro. 4. v. 11.) that circumcision* 1.764 was a seale of the iustice of faith, but because he thinketh that, to small a terme for the dignitie of circumcision, as him self confes∣seth, he gladly auoideth it (I vse his owne wordes) and for the* 1.765 Nowne putteth the Verbe, so dissolutely & presumptuously, that the English Bezites themselues here also dare not folow him in translation, though in opinion they agree. The cause of his wil∣ful translation he declareth in his Annotations vpon the same place, to wit, the dignitie of circumcision, equall with any Sacra∣ment

of the new Testament. His wordes be these. What (saith he) could be spoken more magnifical of any Sacrament? therfore they that put a real difference betweene the Sa∣craments of the old Testament and ours, neuer seeme to haue knowen how far Christs office extendeth. Which he saith, not to magnifie the old, but to disgrace the newe.

FVLK. 2. There was neuer man that had suche an artificiall coniecture of mens purposes as you pretende your selfe to haue, which not only where there is like∣lihood to fasten a coniecture vpon, but also when all likelyhoods are against you, yet can so confidently pro∣nounce of euery mans purpose. Well let the purpose goe, whiche is knowen best to God, and nexte to them that will iudge of the man according to charitie and good reason. You say Beza is not content to speake as the Apostle doth, that circumcision was a seale of the iu∣stice of faith. Yes verily, his desire is to expresse that which the Apostle saith to the full. The name of seale therefore he auoydeth not, as you falsely slaunder him, but for want of a conuenient Latine worde to expresse the Apostles Greeke worde, hee is content to vse cir∣cumloquution by the verbe, and sayth, Abraham recey∣ued the signe of circumcision, whiche should seale vp, or by seale confirme the iustice of faith, &c. yet are not you ashamed moste impudently to say hee refused the terme of Seale sigillum, and for sigillum hath vsed quod ob∣signaret. Whereas the worde that he saith hee refused, is Signaculum.

Signaculi nomen quod vetus interpres & Eras∣mus vsurpauit libens refugi, partim quod non sit admodum vsitatum, partim quod non satis videatur illam vim obsigna∣tionis declarare. The terme signaculum which the old in∣terpretor and Erasmus hath vsed, I haue willingly refu∣sed: partely because it is no very vsuall worde, partely because it seemeth not sufficiently to declare that ver∣tue or efficacie of sealing

. You see therefore what word he auoydeth, & for what cause, & that vour eies were not matches, or else they were daseled with a mist of malice,

whē you redde that he auoided Sigillum, and placed quod obsignaret for sigillum. The worde sigillum as he vseth not, so doth he make no mention of it, I thinke because it being a diminutiue of signum, and taken sometimes for a litle image, vnde sigillares, &c. it is not proper nor ful to expresse the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That he maketh circumcision equall vnto the Sacramentes of the newe Testament, I haue shewed before, that it is in matter, substaunce, and ende, whiche hee that confesseth not (as Beza saith) seemeth neuer to haue knowen howe farre the office of Christe extendeth: but that hee hath any purpose to disgrace the Sacraments of the new Te∣stament instituted by Christ him selfe, in a more cleare dispensation of grace and truth, you affirme with the same credite by whiche you saide he put quod obsignaret for sigillum.

MART. 3. Which is also the cause why not only he, but the English Bibles (for commonly they ioyne handes and agree togither) to make no difference betweene Iohns Baptisme and Christs, translate thus concerning certaine that had not yet re∣ceiued the holy Ghost: Vnto what then were ye baptized?* 1.766 And they said, vnto Iohns Baptisme. Which Beza in a long discourse proueth to be spoken of Iohns doctrine, and not of his baptisme in water. As though it were said, what doctrine then doe ye professe? and they sayd, Iohns. Whereas in deede the question is this, and ought thus to be translated, In what then or wherein were you Baptized? And they said, in Iohns Baptisme. As who should say, wee haue re∣ceiued Iohns Baptisme, but not the holy Ghost as yet. And therefore it foloweth immediatly, then they were baptized in the name of Iesus, and after imposition of hands the Holy Ghost came vpō thē. Wherby is plainely gathered, that being baptized with Iohns baptisme before, & yet of necessitie bapti∣zed afterward with Christs baptisme also, there must needes be a great difference betweene the one baptisme & the other, Iohns being insufficient. And that this is the deduction which trou∣bleth these Bezites, and maketh them translate accordingly,

Beza (as commonly▪ still he vttereth his griefe) telleth vs in* 1.767 plaine wordes thus. It is not necessarie, that wheresoeuer there is mention of Iohns Baptisme, we should thinke it to be the very ceremonie of Baptisme. Therefore they that gather Iohns Baptisme to haue bene diuers from Christs, because these a litle after are said to be baptized in the name of Iesus Christ, haue no sure foundation. Lo▪ how of purpose he translateth & expoundeth it Iohns doctrine, not Iohns Baptisme, to take away the foundation of this Catho∣like conclusion, that his Baptisme differeth and is farre inferior to Christs.

FVLK. 3. And is Iohns Baptisme now made a Sa∣crament of the old lawe? was Iohn the Baptist a minister of the law, or of the Gospel? Our Sauiour Christ, is suf∣ficient to teach vs that the lawe and the Prophetes pro∣phecied vntill Iohn: but frō the daies of Iohn the king∣dome* 1.768 of heauen suffereth violence. But if you will make Iohns Baptisme a Sacrament of the new Testament, and yet differing frō the Baptisme of Christ, then you make two Baptismes of the newe Testament, contrarie to the Nicene Creede, and Christ him selfe, who was baptised for vs, baptised with the worse. But concerning that place Actes the 19. which hath troubled so many interpreters with the obscuritie thereof, or rather with a preiudicate opinion of a difference in the Baptisme of Iohn and of Christ, I am neither of Bezaes opinion, nor yet of our translators, for the vnderstanding and translation of that place. Neither doe I thinke that mention is made of any second baptisme, the auoyding whereof, hath bred di∣uerse forced interpretations: but that S. Paule enstru∣cteth those Disciples that knew not the grace of the ho∣ly Ghost, that they which heard Iohns preaching to the people, that they should beleeue in Christ Iesus, which was comming after him, were also baptised in the name of Iesus, Christ, who had graunted those visible graces of his holy spirite, to be bestowed vpon them that beleued, by imposition of the Apostles handes. Thus therefore I

am perswaded those verses are to be translated. But Paule sayde, Iohn truely baptised with the baptisme of repentance, saying to the people, that they should beleue in him, that commeth after him, that is in Iesus: & they which heard him, were baptised into y^e name of our Lord Iesus. And after Paule had layd his handes vpon, &c. The argumēt of difference thereof grounded vpō this place, is nothing worth▪ where the baptisme of Iohn is confir∣med by imposition of handes, rather than disgraced by reiteration, which giueth strength to the errour of the Donatists, and Anabaptistes, for rebaptization. Whereas it can not be proued, that any, which were once bapti∣sed by Iohn, were euer baptised againe. But the contrary may easily be gathered: for seeing our Sauiour Christ baptised none him selfe, it shall follow that the Apostles were either not baptised at all, or els baptised onely with Iohns baptisme. And where there is expresse mention of Iohns Disciples, that came vnto Christ, to become his Disciples▪ there is no mention of any other baptisme than they had already receaued.

MART. 4. But doth the Greeke leade him, or force him to this translation, In quid? vnto what? First him selfe* 1.769 confesseth in the very same place, the contrary, that the Greeke phrase is often vsed in the other sense, wherein▪ or, where∣with, as it is in the vulgar Latine, and Erasmus: but that in his iudgement it doth not so signifie here, and therefore he re∣fuseth it. Yet in the very next verse almoste, where it is saide by the same Greeke phrase, that they were baptized in the* 1.770 name of Iesus Christe, there both he and his, so translate is as wee doe, and not, vnto the name of Christe. Is it not playne, that all is voluntarie, and at their pleasure? For (I beseeche them) if it be a right translation, baptized in the name of Iesus: why is it not right, baptized in the baptisme of Iohn? Is there any difference in the Greeke? none. Where then? in their commentaries and imaginations onely, against which wee oppose and set both the texte and the commentaries of all the fathers.

FVLK. 4. The Greeke dothe allow him so to tran∣slate, and to be Baptised in the name of Iesus, and into the name of Iesus is all one: as in the name of the Fa∣ther, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, or into the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, is al one. But if Beza that hath discouered the truthe in so many places, did not see it in this one texte, as neyther you nor any of the fathers whiche haue written vppon it, who are not many: hee is rather to bee pardoned of all reasonable men, than to be rayled vpon by such one who in learning is no more like him, than a Goose to a Swanne in singing.

MART. 5. But no maruell if they disgrace the baptisme of Christe, when they are bolde also to take it awaye altogither:* 1.771 interpreating this Scripture, Vnlesse a man be borne again of water and the Spirite, he can not enter into the king∣dome of God, which a man would thinke were plaine ynough to prooue, that water in baptisme is necessarie: interpreating (I* 1.772 say) this Scripture, Of water, and the spirite, thus: of wa∣ter, that is, the Spirite: making water to be nothing else in this place but the Spirite allegorically, and not materiall water. As though our sauiour had saide to Nicodemus, Vnlesse a man be borne of water, I meane, of the spirite, he can not en∣ter, &c. According to this moste impudent exposition of plaine Scriptures, Caluin translateth also as impudently for the same purpose in the epistle to Titus, making the Apostle to say, that* 1.773 God powred the water of regeneration vpon vs abundantly, that is, the holie Ghost. And leaste wee shoulde not vnderstande his meaning herein, hee telleth vt in his commentarie vppon this place, that whē the apostle saith, water poured out abundāt∣ly, he speaketh not of material water, but of the holy ghost. Now indede the apostle saith not, that water was poured vpon vs, but the holy ghost. neither doth the Apostle make water and the holy ghost al one, but most plainely distinguisheth them, saying that God of hys mercie hath saued vs by the lauer of regene∣ration* 1.774 and renouation of the holy Ghost, whom he hath powred vppon vs abundantly. See how plainely the Apostle

speaketh both of the materiall water, or washing of Baptisme, & of the effect thereof, which is the holy Ghost powred vpon vs. Caluin taketh away water cleane, and will haue him speake on∣ly* 1.775 of the holy Ghost, which Flaccus Illyricus the Lutheran him selfe wondreth at, that any man should be so bold, and calleth it plaine sacriledge against the efficacie of the Sacraments.

FVLK. 5. The Sacrament of Baptisme, howe farre we are from disgracing, or taking it away altogither, when we affirme that the grace of Gods spirite, is not so tied vnto it, but he may worke regeneration with∣out it, in them that by necessitie are depriued of it, let all men of reason and indifferencie, iudge. Our translation of Iohn. 3. v. 5. being such, as he can find nothing to quar∣rell against it, hee beginneth a newe controuersie of our interpretation, by which he might bring in fiue hundred places of scripture, in which wee differ from them in ex∣position. And a great absurditie hee thinketh hee hathe founde out, in that we expound the water and spirite to signifie one thing: as though in Math. 3. v. 11. the holie ghoste, and fire, are not put both for one thing: and hee may as well in the one place, vrge the element of fire in the baptisme of Christe, as by this place prooue the ne∣cessitie of baptisme in water. And yet we take not awaye the sacrament of baptisme, or the water, the externall matter thereof, whiche in other places is expresly com∣maunded, when we say it is not spoken of in this texte, which is of the thing signified in baptisme, rather than of baptisme, as in Iohn. 6. our sauiour Christ speaketh in like termes of the thing represented in the sacrament of his supper, not of the sacrament it selfe. The errour of Caluines translation and exposition of Titus 3 v. 5. wee haue before confessed, neyther doth any of our transla∣tions followe him, and yet his error is no heresie, while he ascribeth wholy to the holie ghoste, that whiche pro∣perly is his, but yet of the apostle is figuratiuely ascribed vnto the outward element, by which he worketh.

MART. 6. And if we shoulde heere accuse the Englishe

translatours also, that translate it thus, by the fountaine of the regeneration of the holy Ghost, WHICH he shed on vs, &c. making it indifferent, eyther which foūtaine, or, which holy Ghost he shedde, &c. they would answere by and by that the Greeke also is indifferent: but if a man should aske the fur∣ther, whether the holy Ghost may be said to be shedde, or ra∣ther a fountaine of water, they muste needes confesse, not the holy Ghost, but water: and consequently that they translating, which he shedde, would haue it meante of the fountaine of water, and so they agree iust with Caluins translation, and leaue Beza, who in his translation referreth it only to the holy Ghost,* 1.776 as wee doe: but in his commentarie playeth the Heretike as Caluin doth.

FVLK. 6. When Aristides could be accused of no crime, he was by his enuious enimies accused of iustice. Euen so this man, who is wonte to prescribe vs a rule, to leaue that in ambiguitie, whiche in the Greeke is ambiguous, nowe blameth vs for translating so, as ey∣ther Caluines, or Bezaes sense may stande with it. And al be it in all other places hee is content to make vs Be∣zaes schollers: yet here because Caluine hath the worse parte, hee will enforce vs to leaue Beza, and sticke to Caluine. Suche a force hath malice when it is settled in mans harte, that it carrieth him oftentimes head∣long against him selfe. But seeing the holy Ghost, as the neerest antecedent is placed nexte before the re∣latiue, why muste wee needes confesse, not the holy Ghost, but water to be shedde vpon vs? Is any man so brutish, to beleeue the bolde surmises, what saide I, sur∣mises? nay impudent, and contentious affirmations of this blind Bayard.

MART. 7. Of the Sacrament of penance I haue spo∣ken before, concerning that part specially which is satisfaction: here I will onely adde of Confession, that to auoide this terme (namely in such a place where the reader might easily gather Sacramentall confession) they translate thus, Acknowledge* 1.777 your faultes one to an other. Iac. 5. It is said a litle before,

if any be diseased, let him bring in Priests, &c. And then it foloweth, Confesse your faults, &c. But they to make al sure, for, Confesse, say, Acknowledge: and for Priestes, Elders. What meane they by this? If this acknowledging of faultes one to another before death be indifferently to be made to all men, why do they appoint in their Cōmunion-booke (as it seemeth out* 1.778 of this place) that the sicke person shall make a special confes∣sion to the Minister, and he shal absolue him in the very same forme of absolution that Catholike Priests vse in the Sacramēt of Confession. Againe, if this acknowledging of faults be special∣ly to be made to the Minister or Priest, why translate they it not by the worde Confessing and confession, as well as by, Acknow∣ledging? and why is not this confessiō a Sacrament, where them selues acknowledge forgiuenesse of sinnes by the Minister? These contradictions and repugnance of their practise and translation, if they can wittily and wisely reconcile, they may perhaps in this point satisfie the reader. But whether the Apostle speake here of Sacramentall confession or no, sincere translators should not haue fledde from the proper and most vsuall word of confession or confessing, consonant both to the Greeke and Latine, and in∣different to what soeuer the holy Ghost might meane, as this word, acknowledge, is not.

FVLK. 7. Of the word of penance, and therevpō to wring in satisfaction, we haue heard more than enough: but that penance is a Sacrament, wee haue heard neuer a worde to proue it. But what say wee against confes∣sion? Forsooth Iames 5. wee translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ac∣knowledge your selfes. Why sir? dothe acknowledg∣ing signifie any other thing than confessing? you want then nothing else, but the sounde of confession, which among the ignoraunt woulde helpe you litle, whiche terme your Popishe acknowledging rather shrifte than confession. It is maruaile then that you blame vs not, because wee say not, shriue your selues one to an other. A miserable▪ Sacrament, that hath neede of the sounde of a worde to helpe it, to bee gathered. But how I pray you, should the reader gather your auricular

shrifte, or Popishe confession if the worde confesse your selues were vsed by vs? I weene because the Priests are called in a little before. It is more than mough, if you might gaine your Sacrament of anealing by their comming in. But shrifte commeth to late after ex∣treeme vnction. Well admitte, the Apostle forgotte the order, and placed it after, which shoulde come before, must wee needes haue Priestly confession proued out of that place? doth not S Iames say, cōfesse your selues one to an other, as he saith, pray one for an other? Then it followeth, that the Lay man muste shriue the Prieste, as well as the Prieste muste shriue the Laye man. And the Priest muste confesse him selfe to the people, as well as the people muste pray for the Prieste. But you haue an obiection out of the Communion booke, to proue confession to be a Sacrament, which appointeth, that the sicke person shal make a speciall confession to the mini∣ster, and he to absolue him, &c. Will you neuer leaue this shamelesse cogging, and forging of matters against vs? The Communion booke appointeth a speciall confessiō only for them that feele their conscience troubled with any waighty matter, that they may receiue counsaile, and comforte by the minister, who hath aucthoritie in the name of God, to remitte sinnes, not only to them that be sicke, but also to them that be whole: and dayly dothe pronounce the absolution, to them that acknowledge & confesse their sinnes humbly before God. But hereof it followeth not, that this confession is a Sacrament, for by preaching, the people that beleeue, are absolued frō their sinnes, by the ministerie of the Preacher: yet is not preaching a Sacrament. A Sacrament must haue an out∣ward element, or bodily creature, to represent the grace of remission of sinnes, as in Baptisme, and in the Lordes supper. But where you conclude, that sin∣cere translators should not haue fledde the proper and moste vsuall worde of confession, you speake your plea∣sure, for the worde of acknowledging, is more proper

and vsuall in the English tongue, than is the worde of confessing. And if you can proue any Sacrament out of that texte, beholde, you haue the Greeke and Latine vn∣touched and the English answereable to both: make your Syllogisme out of that place to proue Popish shrift when you dare.

CHAP. XV.

Hereticall translation against the Sacrament of HOLY ORDERS, and for the MA∣RIAGE OF PRIESTS and VOTARIES.

Martin.

AGAINST the Sacrament of Orders* 1.779 what can they doe more in translation, than in all their Bibles to take away the name of Priest and Priesthood of the new Te∣stament altogether, and for it to say, Elder and Eldership? Whereof I treated more at large * 1.780 in an other place of this booke. Here I adde these fewe obseruations, that both for Priestes and Deacons, which are two holy orders in the Catholike Church, they translate, Ministers, to commend that newe degree deuised by themselues. As when they say in all their Bibles, Feare the* 1.781 Lord with all thy soule, and honour his ministers. In the Greeke it is plaine thus, and honour his Priests, as the word alwayes signifieth, and in the very next sentence themselues so translate, Feare the Lorde and honour the Priestes. But* 1.782 they would needes borowe one of these places for the honour of Ministers. As also in the Epistle to Timothee, where S. Paul* 1.783 talketh of Deacons, and nameth them twise: they in the firste place translate thus, Likewise muste the Ministers be ho∣nest,* 1.784 &c. And a litle after Let the Deacons be the husbāds

of one wife, Loe, the Greeke worde being one, and the Apostle* 1.785 speaking of one Ecclesiasticall order of Deacons, and Beza so interpreating it in both places, yet our English translators haue allowed the first place to their Ministers, and the second to Dea∣cons. and so (because Bishops also went before) they haue found vs out their three orders, Bishops, Ministers, and Deacons. Alas poore soules, that can haue no place in Scripture for their Mi∣nisters, but by making the Apostle speake three things for two.

Fulke.

FOR the names of Priest, and Elder, wee* 1.786 haue spoken heretofore sufficiently, as also for the name of Minister, which is vsed for the same that Elder and Prieste, althoughe the word signifie more generally. That the worde Ministers is put for Priests, I take it rather to bee an ouersight of the firste translatour, whome the rest fo∣lowed, because that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 commeth immediatly after, than any purpose against the order of Priest, or to dig∣nifie the name of Ministers. For, seeing Syrachs sonne speaketh of the Priests and Ministers of the ••awe, his say∣ing can make nothing to or froe, for the names of the Ministers, Priestes or Elders of the new Testament. That some translatiōs in 1. Tim. 3. for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rēder Ministers, it is because they supposed the Greeke word to be taken there, in the generall sense, as it is in manye other places, not to make three degrees of twoo, as you do fondly ca∣uil. For the orders of Bishops, Elders, or as you cal them Priests, and as they be commonly called Priests and Mi∣nisters is all one in authoritie of ministring the word & the Sacraments. The degree of Bishoppes, as they are taken, to be a superiour order vnto Elders or Priestes, is for gouernment and discipline, specially committed vn∣to them, not in authoritie of handling the worde and the sacraments.

MART. 2. There are in the Scripture that are called

Ministers in infinite places, and that by three Greeke wordes, commonly: but that is a large signification of minister, attribu∣ted to al that minister, waite, serue, or attend to doe any seruice ecclesiastical or temporal, sacred or prophane. If the world bee restrained to any one peculiar seruice or function, as one of the Greeke wordes is, then doth it signifie Deacons onely. Whiche if they know not, or wil not beleeue me, let them see Beza himselfe in his Annotations vpon Saint Mathew, who protesteth, that in* 1.787 his translation, he vseth alwaies the word, Minister, in the ge∣nerall signification: and Diaconus, in the speciall and peculi∣ar Ecclesiasticall function of Deacons. So that yet wee can not vnderstande, neither can they tell vs, whence their peculiar calling and function of Minister commeth, which is their second degree vnder a Bishop, and is placed in steede of Priestes.

FVLK. 2. What the general worde of Minister sig∣nifieth, howe it is taken, both generally and specally, we are not so ignorant, that wee neede bee taught of you: And yet al learned men are not agreed, when the greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is restrained to the Minister of the poore, and when it signifieth generally, all the officers in the Churche. As for the name of Minister, by which, El∣ders or Priestes are commonly called among vs, I haue euen nowe, and diuers times before shewed, vppon what occasion it was taken vp, so to be applied, which yet ge∣nerally signifieth all that serue in the Church, and com∣mon wealth also.

MART. 3. Againe, what can bee more against the dig∣nitie of sacred orders and Ecclesiastical degrees, than to make them profane and secular by their termes and translations? For this purpose, as they translate, Elders and Eldershippe, for Priests, and Priesthode, so do they most impudently terme S. Peter and S. Iohn, * 1.788 lay men: they say for Apostle, Embas∣sador and Messenger: Ioh 13. v. 16. and for Apostles of the Churches, Messengers of the same: 2. Cor. 8. for Bishoppes, ouerseers, Act. 20. Why my maisters, doth idiota signifie, a lay man? Suppose a lay man be as wise and learned as any other, is he idiota? or that one of your Ministers be as vnlerned & ig∣norant

as any shepheard, is he not idiota? so then idiota is nei∣ther Clearke nor lay man, but euerie simple and ignoraunt man. They that spake with miraculous tongs in the primitiue church, were they not lay men many of them? yet the Apostle plainely* 1.789 distinguisheth them from idiota. So that this is more ignorant∣ly* 1.790 or wilfully translated, than Neophytus, a young scholler in al your bibles.

FVLK. 3. There can be no greater wrangling, nor more vnprofitable, than about wordes and tearmes. But why, I pray you, shoulde the tearmes of Elder and El∣dershippe be more prophane and secular in English, than they bee in Greeke, yea, than the names of ancients and seniors, which you your selues in your translation vse for the same office? wil you neuer be ashamed of these vani∣ties, which turne alwaies to your owne reproche? yet do they (say you) most impudently terme S. Peter and Iohn lay men. And do not you dishonour them as much, to say in your translation, they were of the vulgare sorte? what signifieth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a lay man, but one of the vulgare sorte, or common people? Againe, were they of that Clear∣gie, whereof Annas and Caiphas were highe Priestes, or were they not as perfectely distincte, from that sacrifi∣cing Priesthode, as any lay man at this day is from the christian cleargie? yet you goe on whether the furie of your malice doth carry you, and say that Idiota, is neither Cleark, nor lay man, but euerie simple and ignorant mā. If it be so, then reforme your translation, as wel in thys place of the Act. 4. as in 1. Cor. 14. where you cal idiota of the vulgar sorte, or the vulgar, and plucke your selfe first by the nose, for false translating, beefore you finde fault with vs. Againe, if the high Priests did take the Apostles for vnlearned and lay men, what impudencie is it, to say, that wee tearme them so? And touching your signifi∣cation of idiota, although the Priests knew, that they had not bin brought vp in studie of learning, as they them∣selues were: yet, hearing their bold & wise answere, they coulde not take them for simple and ignoraunt menne,

therefore it followeth, that they meant they were none of their cleargie, rather than that they were ignoraunt, and foolishe, for simple in the good parte, they woulde not acknowledge them to be. As for the terme, Embas∣sadour, and Messenger, for the Greeke worde, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Io 13 v. 16. may wel be vsed in that place, seeing it is like he speaketh, as generally of the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as he do∣eth of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is a seruaunt. The seruant is not grea∣ter than his Lord, nor the embassadour than he that sent him. And for the messengers of the Churches, whē those are vnderstoode by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whiche are sent on message from the Churches, and not those that are sent by Christe, to preach vnto the Churches, no wise manne can blame the translation, Acts. 20. where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are of vs translated, ouerseers, of you Bishoppes, yet in your note, you say, or Priests, as though the worde maye sig∣nifie, Priestes, whyche all menne of skill doe knowe to signifie ouerseers, although the terme bee giuen to them, whiche beefore are called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, El∣ders or Priestes. But it proceedeth of greate igno∣raunce, that Neophytus is translated in all our Bi∣bles, a young Scholler. O what knowledge haue wee learned of you, to translate Neophytus, a Neophyte. For before, we did take Neophytus, to signify one that is new∣ly planted, or lately ••ngraffed, and by a Metaphor, one that is a young and newe scholler in the mysteries of Christian religion, But because your Pope vseth to make boyes and vnlearned young men Bishoppes, and greate Prelates in your Churche, you can not a∣bide, that a young scholler shoulde by Saint Paules rule be excluded from a Bishopricke, and there∣fore you mocke the reader with a Neophyte. Wee knowe, that in the auntient Churche they were cal∣led Neophyti, whyche were lately baptised: but yet in the same sense, because they were young schollers, and therefore looke in the Homilies that are intituled, ad Neophytos, and you shal see, they are directed and spente

almost or altogither in teaching the principles of Chri∣stian religion plainely, wherein they were but younge schollers, not yet perfectly instructed.

MART. 4. Nowe for changing the name Apostle into Messenger, though Beza doe so also in the foresayd places, yet in deede he controuleth both him selfe, and you, in other places, say∣ing* 1.791 of the same word, Apostles: A man may say in Latine, Legates, but we haue gladly kept the Greeke word (A∣postle) as many other wordes familiar to the Church of Christ. And not onely of the principall Apostles, but also of the* 1.792 other Disciples, he both translateth, and interpreteth, in his commentarie, that they are notable Apostles. and he pro∣ueth that all Ministers of the worde (as he termeth them) are and may be so called. And for your Ouerseers, he sayth, Episcopos, and not, Superintendentes. Which he might as well haue sayde, as you, Ouerseers. But to saye the truth, though he be too too profane, yet he doth much more keepe and vse the Ecclesiasticall receiued termes, than you doe, often pro∣testing it, and as it were glorying therein, against Castaleon* 1.793 especially. As, when he sayth, Presbyterum, where you saye Elder: Diaconum, where you saye, Minister, and so forth. Where if you tell me that howsoeuer he translate, he meaneth as profanely as you, I beleeue you, and therefore you shall goe togither, like Maister, like Schollers, all false and profane translators. for, this Beza (who sometime so gladly keepeth the name of Apostle) yet calleth Epaphroditus legatum Phi∣lippensium, Philip. 2. verse 15. Whereupon the Englishe Bezites translate, your Messenger, for, your Apostle. As if S. Augustine who was our Apostle, should be called, our Messenger.

FVLK. 4. You can not leaue your olde byas, in wre∣sting mens sayings farre beyond their meaning. There∣fore you alledge against vs, the saying of Beza, for the terme of Apostles, to be retained, where mētion is made of the Apostles of Christ, not onely those that are speci∣ally so called, but also all the ministers of the worde. But what is this, to terme them by the honourable name of

Apostles, which are not sent by God, but by men, about some ciuil or Ecclesiastical busines. For both he & we cal Epaphroditus, the Messenger, and not the Apostle of the Philippians, because he was sent by the Philippians vnto Paule, and not by Christ vnto them. As for that Augu∣stine which was sent by Gregorie, might better be cal∣led Gregories Apostle, than our Apostle, for he was not sent by vs, but to vs, not immediatly from God, as an Apostle should, but from Gregorie, and by Gregorie. Touching the termes of Bishops, Elders, Ministers, Priestes, &c. enough hath bene sayd already. Our transla∣tors haue done that, which they thought best to be done in our language, as Beza did in the Latine tongue.

MART. 5. As also, when you translate of S. Matthias the Apostle, that he was by a common consent counted* 1.794 with the eleuen Apostles: Act. 1. v. 26. what is it else, but to make onely a popular election of Ecclesiasticall degrees, as Beza* 1.795 in his annotations, would haue vs to vnderstande, saying, that nothing was done here peculiarly by Peter, as one of more excellent dignitie than the rest, but in common by the voyces of the whole Church. though in an other place vpon this election, he noteth Peter to be the chiefe or Corypheus. And as for the Greeke worde in this place, if par∣tialitie* 1.796 of the cause would suffer him to consider of it, he shoulde finde, that the proper signification thereof in this phrase of speache, is, as the vulgar Latine Interpreter, Erasmus, and Val∣la, (all which he reiecteth) translate it, to wit, He was num∣bred,* 1.797 or, counted with the eleuen Apostles, without all re∣spect of common consent, or not consent, as you also in your other Bibles doe translate.

FVLK. 5. The election of Matthias to be an Apo∣stle, was extraordinarily, and therefore permitted to the lot: the maner whereof, as it is not to be drawen into ex∣ample, so the proper election can not be proued there∣by: yet hath both Beza, and the English translator, faith∣fully expressed the Greeke worde, which S. Luke there vseth: although, neyther Erasmus, nor Valla, beside your

vulgar Interpretor, did consider it. Neither doth that common consent, in accepting Mathias for an Apostle, whome the lotte had designed, more proue a popular election, or derogate from the singularitie of Peter, than that by common consent of the whole brother∣hood, two were chosen and set vp, that the Apostleshippe should be layd vpon one of them.

MART. 6. Which diuersitie may proceede of the di∣uersitie of opinions among you. For we vnderstand by Maister* 1.798 Whitegifts bookes against the Puritanes, that he and his fel∣lowes deny this popular election, and giue preeminence, superio∣ritie, and difference in this case to Peter, and to Ecclesiasticall Prelates▪ and therefore he proueth at large the vse and Ecclesi∣asticall signification of the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not to be the giuing of voices in popular elections, but to be the Ecclesiasti∣call imposing of handes vpon persons taken to the Churches mi∣nisterie. Which he sayth very truely, and needeth the lesse here to be spoken of, specially beeing touched * 1.799 elsewhere in this booke.

FVLK. 6. The diuersitie of the translation, procee∣deth of this, that the former translators did not obserue the nature of the Greeke worde, which Beza hath consi∣dered more absolutely, than any interpretors before him Although it is not vnlike, that Chrysostome did well ac∣knowledge it, when speaking of this election, he vseth* 1.800 these words.

I am & illud considera, quam & Petrus agit om∣nia ex communi discipu••orum sententia, nihil authoritate sua, nihil cum imperio. Now also consider this thing, how Pe∣ter doth all things by common consent of the Disciples, nothing of his owne authoritie, nothing with rule or commaundement. And as for the popular election, if you had redde those bookes, you make mention of, you might perceiue, that neither of both parts, allowe a meere popular election.

And that Maister Whitgift, doth not so much contend, what forme of election was vsed in the time of the Apostles, and of the Primitiue Church, as whether it be necessary that such forme of

election as then was practised, shoulde in all ages of the Church, and in all places, be of necessitie continued, and obserued.

MART. 7. One thing onely we woulde knowe, why they that pleade so earnestly against their brethren the Puritanes, about the signification of this worde, pretending herein onely the primitiue custome of imposition of handes, in making their Ministers, why (I saye) them selues translate not this worde* 1.801 accordingly, but altogither as the Puritanes, thus: When they had ordayned them Elders by election in euerye* 1.802 Church. Act. 14. verse 23. For if the Greeke worde signifie* 1.803 here the peoples giuing of voyces (as Beza forceth it onely that way, out of Tullie, and the popular custome of olde Athens) then the other signification of imposing handes is gone, which Mayster Whitgift defendeth, and the popular election is brought in, which he refelleth: and so by their translation they haue in my opinion ouershotte themselues, and giuen aduan∣tage to their brotherly Aduersaries. Vnlesse in deede they tran∣slate as they thinke, because in deede they thinke as heretical∣ly as the other, but yet because their state of Eccles••asticall regiment is otherwise, they must maintaine that also in their writings, howsoeuer they translate. For an example, They all agree to translate Elder for Priest: and Maister Whitakers* 1.804 telleth vs a freshe in the name of them all, that there are no Priestes nowe in the Church of Christ, that is, (as he inter∣preteth himselfe) This name Prieste is neuer in the New* 1.805 Testament peculiarly applied to the Ministers of the Go∣spell, this is their doctrine. But what is their prastise in the regiment of their Churche? cleane contrarie. For in the order of the communion booke, where it is appointed what the Minister shall do, it is indifferently said, Then shall the Prieste do or say this and that: and, Then shal the Minister, &c. Where∣by it is euident that they make Priest a proper and peculiar calling applied to their Ministers, and so their practise is con∣trarie to their teaching and doctrine.

FVLK. 7. I haue satisfied your desire before, if you list to knowe, our translation must be, as neere as it

can, to expresse the true signification of the originall words, & so it is, in that place of the Acts. 14. v. 23. which being graunted by them, that denie the necessitie of ••at forme of election to continue alwaies, giueth no more aduauntage to the aduersaries, than they woulde take out of the signification of the Greeke word, how so∣euer it were translated. Your example of Maister Whit∣akers denying the name of Prieste to be applied to the ministers of the Gospel, to proue that wee must main∣teine our Ecclesiasticall state, how soeuer we translate, is very fonde and ridiculous: as also the contradiction that you would make betweene him and the seruice booke, touching the name of Prieste there vsed and al∣lowed. Maister Whitakers writing in Latine, speaketh of the Latine terme, Sacerdos, the Communion booke of the English worde Priest, is not this a goodly net for a foole to daunce naked in, and thinke that no body can see him.

MART. 8. Nowe concerning imposition, or laying on of handes, in making their Ministers, (which the Puritans also* 1.806 are forced to allow by other wordes of Scripture, howsoeuer they dispute and iangle againste 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) none of them all make more of it, than of the like Iudaicall ceremonie in the olde Law, not acknowledging that there is any grace giuen withall, though the Apostle say there is, in expresse termes, but they will aun∣swer this text (as they are wont) with a fauourable translation, turning grace, into gift. As, when the Apostle saith thus, Neg∣lect* 1.807 not THE GRACE that is in thee, which is giuen thee by prophecie, with impositiō of the hands of Priest∣hood, they translate, Neglect not the GIFT. and Beza most impudently, for, by prophecie, translateth, to prophecie: ma∣king that onely to be this gift and withall adding this goodly ex∣position, that he had the gift of prophecie, or preaching before, and now by imposition of hands was chosen onely to execute that function. But because it might be obiected that the Apostle sayth, Which was giuen thee with the imposition of handes, or, (as he speaketh in an other place) by imposition* 1.808

of handes, making this imposition of handes, an instrumentall cause of giuing this grace, he sayth that it did onely confirme the grace or gift before giuen.

FVLK. 8. Though we finde that by, or with impo∣sition of handes, many rare and extraordinary giftes of prophecie of tongues, and such like, were giuen in the Apostles time, yet we finde no where, that grace is ordi∣narily giuen by that ceremonie, vsed alwayes in the Church, for ordination of the ministers therof. But whe∣ther there be, or not, our translation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, into gift, is true and proper to the worde. For albeit the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be taken, not onely for the fauour of God, but also for his gracious giftes: yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is neuer taken in the Scripture, but for a free gift, or a gift of his grace. That Beza referreth the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the ende of the gifte, he hath the nature of the worde to beare him out, which may well abide that sense: and yet he doth not reiect the other common interpretation by prophecie, that by appoyntment of the holye Ghost, vttered by some of the Prophets. But where you wran∣gle about the gift of prophecie, as though he were vt∣terly voyde thereof, before he receyued imposition of handes: I knowe not what you meane. Woulde you haue vs thinke, that he was ordayned Prieste, or Elder, or to anye office of the Church, without competent giftes, meete to discharge his office? That the gifte of prophecie as well as of speakinge with tongues, might be giuen by and with imposition of hands, Beza doubteth not. But it is out of doubte, that to an of∣fice, none was chosen or admitted by the Apostle and the reste of the Presbyterie of Ephesus, but such as had sufficient giftes to answere that office.

MART. 9. Thus it is euident that, though the A∣postle speake neuer so plaine for the dignitie of holy Orders, that it giueth grace, and consequently is a Sacrament, they peruert all to the contrarie, making it a bare ceremonie, sup∣pressing the worde grace, which is much more significant to ex∣presse

the Greeke worde, than gifte is, because it is not eue∣ry* 1.809 gifte, but a gratious gifte, or a gifte proceeding of marue∣lous and mere grace. At when it is saide, To you it is giuen* 1.810 not onely to beleeue, but also to suffer for him. The Greeke worde signifieth this much, To you this grace is gi∣uen,* 1.811 &c. So when God gaue vnto S. Paule all that sayled with him, this Greeke worde is vsed, because it was a great grace or gratious gifte giuen vnto him. When S. Paule pardoned* 1.812 the incestuous person before due time, it is expressed by this worde, because it was a grace (as Theodorete calleth it) gi∣uen vnto him. And therefore also the almes of the Corinthi∣ans, 1. Cor. 16. v. 3. are called, their grace, which the Pro∣testants* 1.813 translate, liberalitie, neglecting altogither the true force and signification of the Greeke wordes.

FVLK. 9. Here is no euidence at al, that the order of Priesthoode is a Sacrament, or gyueth grace, but that God, by the ceremonie of laying on of handes, did giue wonderfull and extraordinarie giftes, of tongues, and prophecying, in the beginning and firste planting of the Churche. But, that grace should alwayes follow that ceremonie, there is no proofe to bee made out of the holie Scriptures. And experience sheweth, that hee which was voide of giftes▪ beefore hee was ordered Priest, is as verye an asse and Dogbolte, as hee was beefore, for anye encrease of grace or gratious giftes: althoughe hee haue authoritie committed vnto hym, if hee bee ordained in the Church, though vnworthily, & with great sinne both of him that ordai∣neth, and of him that is ordained. But wee suppresse the worde grace (you say) bicause charisma signifieth, at least, a gratious gift. See how the bare sounde of tearmes de∣lighteth you, that you mighte therein seeke a shadowe for your singlesolde sacrament of popishe orders. The worde signifieth, a free or gratious gifte, and so will euerie man vnderstande it, whiche knoweth, that it is giuen by God. As also in all places, where mention is made of Gods giftes, wee must vnderstande, that it

proceedeth freely from him, as a token of his fauoure and grace. But that the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do the alwaies import the grace or fauour of God, none eyther wise or learned wil affirme, neither doth your vulgar in∣terpretor expresse the word of grace in those places that you bring for example, Phi. 1. v. 29. he saith plainly, dona∣tum est, it is giuen, and so your selues translate it. Why, I pray you do you suppres the word grace, or why do you thus trifle againste vs? When Saint Paule appealed to Caesar, Acts. 25. affyrming, that no manne coulde gyue him into the handes of his aduersaries, he vseth the same worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So, when Festus telleth Agrippa, that he aunswered the Iewes, that it was not the custome of the Romaines, to giue any man to destruction, &c▪ Saint Luke vseth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, were not he a mad tran∣slator▪ or interpretor either, that woulde expounde this worde of the grace of God, which is spoken of the fauor of menne? So, when the Apostle, 1. Cor. 16. calleth the almes of the Corinthians, their grace, is it not better en∣glishe to say, their liberalitie? for althoughe their libe∣ralitie proceeded of Gods gift, yet the Apostle adding the pronoune 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, meaneth the free gifte of the Co∣rinthians, not the grace of God.

MART. 10. But concerning the sacrament of or∣ders, as in the firste to Timothee, so in the seconde also, they suppresse the worde Grace, and call it barely and coldely, Gift, saying: I put thee in remembrance, that thou stirre vp the* 1.814 gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my handes. Where if they had sayd, the grace of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my handes: then were it plaine, that S. Paule by the ceremonie of imposing hands vpon Timothee, in making him Priest, or Bishop, gaue him grace: and so it should be a very Sacrament of holy Orders▪ for auoiding whereof, they translate otherwise, or els let them giue vs an other reason ther∣of, specially the Greeke word much more signifying grace, than a bare gift, as is declared.

FVLK. 10. These colewoorts were sodden enough

once before that they neede not be set on againe. The worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if you finde it an hundreth times, signi∣fieth no more▪ but a free gift, or a gift that is freely gi∣uē, euen as the English word gift doth: wherof the Pro∣uerbe is, what is so free as gift? Wherfore if we had said the grace of God we had translated amisse, & otherwise than the Greeke word doth signifie. But where you trifle in your termes of a bare gifte, and we call it barely and coldly a gifte, you doe nothing but bewray your owne shame. Can the gift of God be called a bare gift? or doth he speake barely and coldly, that saith the gift of God? Doth the Apostle Ephes. 2. speaking of our saluation, and your vulgar interpretor, and you your selues speake of a bare gifte, and call it barely and coldly, the gifte of God? When you say, you are saued▪ through faith (and that not of your selues, for it is the gift of God) not of workes &c. See you not that while you seeke to rase our skinne, you strike your selfe to the harte? Be wiser therefore, and spare your owne credite: find no fault with that which you cānot amend▪ & which if it were a fault, you your selues commit as much as we.

MART. 11. The more to prosane this sacred order, wherevnto continencie & single life hath bene alwaies annexed in the newe Testament for the honour and reuerence of the functions therevnto belonging, to profan•• the same (I say) and to make it mere laicall and popular, they will haue all to be ma∣ried men, yea those that haue vowed the contrarie: and it is a great credite among them, for our Priests Apostataes to take wiues. This they would deduce from the Apostles custome, but by most false and impudent translation: making S. Paul say thus as of his owne wife and the other Apostles wiues, Haue not* 1.815 we power to lead about a wife being a sister, as well as the rest of the Apostles? Whereas the Apostle saith nothing* 1.816 else but, a woman a sister, that is, a Christian woman, meaning such holy women as folowed Christ, and the Apostles▪ to find and* 1.817 mainteine them of their substance. So doth S. Hierom inter∣prete it, & S. Augustine, both directly prouing that it cannot be

translated, wife, but, womā: and the Greeke fathers most ex∣presly. And as for the Greeke word, if they say it is ambiguous▪ S. Augustine telleth them that as the Apostle hath put it downe* 1.818 with al the circūstances, there is no ambiguiti•• at al that might deceiue any man. Yea let vs set a part the circumstances, and consider the Greeke word alone in it selfe, and Beza will tell vs* 1.819 in other places, that it signifieth a woman rather than a wife: re∣prehending Erasmus for translating it, wife, because there is no * 1.820 circumstance annexed why it shoulde so signifie: thereby declaring that of it selfe it signifieth, woman, and ther∣fore much more when the circumstance also (as S. Augustine saith) maketh it certaine, that so it doth signifie.

FVLK. 11. If matrimonie be a holy Sacrament, as you say, & an holy ordinance of God as we both cōfesse, how should the sacred order of Priesthood be propha∣ned thereby. That cōtinence and single life hath alwaies bene annexed to the Ecclesiasticall functions in the new Testament, it is so manifest an vntruth, that I wil not stād to confute it. As where you say, that we make the order meere laycal & popular, that we will haue all men to be maried▪ yea those that haue vowed the contrarie, these be most impudent assertions. Though it be free for all men to marrie, yet no man is willed, otherwise than he shall finde cause in him selfe. And for Priests that come from you, it is more credite to marrie, than out of mariage to liue incontinently: otherwise they are of as great credit that be vnmaried, as they that be maried. What the cu∣stome* 1.821 of the Apostles was for hauing wiues & keeping cōpanie with thē, not only the Scripture of the Apostles, but also Clemens Alexandrinus a most auncient writer is witnesse for vs, & against your impudent assertion, al∣ledging euen this texte of 1. Cor. 9. To proue that they did lead their wiues about with them.

P••r quas etiam in Gynecaum, &c. By meanes of whom the doctrine of our Lord might enter into the closet of womē, without any reprehension, or euill suspition.

By which our translation is proued to be good & true, as I haue more at large de∣clared

before. Cap. 1. Sect. 18. Nether is there here any new* 1.822 matter, which is not there sufficiently answered.

MART. 12. Wherefore great must the impudencie of Beza be (and of the English B••zites) that knowing this and pro∣testing it else where in his Annotations, yet here translateth, soro••em vxorem, a sister a wife, and saying after his lordly manner, I doubted not so to translate it, disputing and reasoning against al other interpreters both auncient & later, for the cō∣trary, yea and aff••ming that S. Paul him self, did foolishly, if* 1.823 he spake there, of other rich womē. Such a fansie he hath to make the Apostles not onely maried man, but that they caried about their wiues with them, & that they were the Apostles wiues, (for so he translateth it Act. 1. v. 14) that returned with them after* 1.824 our Lordes ascension to Hierusalem, and continued togither in praier til the holy Ghost came vpon them. Whereas S. Luke there speaketh so euidently of the other holy and faithful women which are famous in the Gospel (as the Maries and other) that the English Bezites them selues dare not here folow his transla∣tion. For I beseech you M. Beza (to turne my talke vnto you a litle) is there any circumstance or particle here added why i••* 1.825 should be translated wiues? none. then by your owne reason be∣fore alleaged it should rather be trs̄lated, women▪ Againe, did Erasmus translate well, saying, It is good for a man not to touch a wife? 1▪ Cor. 7. v. 1. No, say you, reprehending this translation, because it dehorteth from mariage. If not, shew your commissiō why you may translate in the foresaid places, wife, & wiues, at your pleasure: the Greeke being all one, both where you will not in any wise haue it translated, wife, and also where you will haue it so translated in any wise.

FVLK. 12. Nay great must be the impudencie of the Papists, that imagine the Apostles, which had wiues of their owne, did leaue them behinde them, and leade straung women aboute with them into all partes of the world. The first that inuented that glose of cōtinent wo∣men, such as followed Christ, was Tertullian, the Monta∣nist in his booke of Monogamy, which he wrote against the Church, condēning secōd mariage, & reprouing the

Latine translation of his time as it seemeth, which in this text. 1. Cor. 9. vsed the terme of vxor, by the ambiguitie of the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saying that if the Apostle had spo∣ken of matrimonie, he would haue vnderstood this of wiues, but seeing he speaketh De victuaria exhibitione, of the exhibition toward his liuing, he vnderstandeth it of such women as followed Christe. Than the which distin∣ction nothing can be more absurde: for speaking of ex∣hibition towarde his liuing, the Apostle sheweth, that he might haue lawfully charged the Church with finding, not only of him self, but also of his wife, as the other A∣postles did. Againe if rich womē did folow the Apostles, ministring to thē of their substance, as they folowed our Sauiour, this was no burden, but an easement vnto the Church, which the Apostle would not haue absteined frō as a thing burdenous to the Church of Corinth. Cōcer∣ning the other place Act. 1. v. 14. although perhaps it be not necessary, to translate wiues, yet it is necessary to vn∣derstand wiues. For to answere you in M. Bezaes name, who telleth you, that it was meete, as also Erasmus thin∣keth that their wiues should be co••firmed, who partly were to be companions of their trauaile and peregrina∣tiō, partly to tarie patiētly at home, while their husbāds were about the Lords businesse, and therfore their wiues also were present. Againe, what a shamefull absurditie were it, to thinke that the Apostles would tarie in a close house, so long togither with other women than their wiues, and shut out their owne wiues, which must needes haue bene subiect to great offense and obloquie. And what deuilish malice haue you agaynst the Apostles wiues, that you cānot abide, that they should ioyne with their husbandes in praier and supplication, and be made partakers of the holy Ghost with them, as well as other women, which were also maried women, Mary the wife of Cleophas, Ioanna the wife of Chuza, and other holy women, the mothers or wiues of holy men? Will you say the Apostles had no wiues? Peters wiues mother

will testifie againste you. Will you saye she was forsa∣ken* 1.826 by Peter? the storie of his martiredome, if it bee true, affirmeth, that she continued with him to his dy∣ing day: will you say, he had no matrimoniall compa∣nie with hir? his daughter Petronilla will beare witnes against you, so yong, that she was desired in marriage by Flaccus the Comes. Touching the place, 1. Corin. 7. where Erasmus translateth, vxorem, I haue answeared al∣readie, the circumstance of the place, doth argue, that it is spoken generally of continence, & not of abstinence in marriage only. And who is such a nouice in the greke tongue, that he knoweth not, that the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifi∣eth, a wife or woman, as the circumstaunce of the place requireth, where it is vsed?

MART. 13. Againe, to this purpose they make Sainct* 1.827 Paule say, as to his wife, I beseech thee also faithful yokfel∣low, Phil. 4. v. 3. for in Englishe what doth it else sounde, but man and wife? but that S. Paule shoulde h••ere meane his wife, moste of the greeke fathers count it ridiculous and foolishe, S.* 1.828 Chrisostome, Theodorete, Oecumenius, Theophilactus. Beza and Caluin bothe mislike it, translating also in the masculine gender, S. Paule himselfe saith the contrarie, that he had no wife, 1. Cor. 7. And as for Clemens Alexandrinus, who allea∣geth it for Paules wife, Eusebius plainely insinua••eth, and Nicephorus expresly saith, that he did it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the way of contention and disputation, whiles hee ••arnestly wrote a∣gainst them that oppugned matrimonie.

FVLK. 13. The Greeke worde being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifi∣eth a fellow or companion in yoke, they haue not ther∣fore translated amisse, when they say yoke fellowe▪ whi∣che signifieth, felow in any yoke whatsoeuer. If it sound, man and wife in Englishe, what matter is that? for so it soundeth in Greeke. Men must not follow the sound of wordes onely, but examine the matter. And great pro∣babilitie there is, that he speaketh there of his wife, as Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh, neither dothe S. Paule himselfe say precisely, he had no wife, 1. Cor. 7. but that

he liued without the vse of a wife, whiche might be, hys wife consenting to remaine at ••hilippi. That the later writers mislike the iudgement of Clemens, and specially that fabulous historiā Nicephor{us}, it derogateth nothing to his credite▪ nor to the likelihoode of the matter. That Theophy lact saith, the adiectiue should be of the foemi∣nine gender, he is not to be credited aboue Clemens A∣lexandrinus, who knewe the puritie of the Greke tong, as wel as he. But whether it be to be vnderstoode of hys wife or no, we leaue it indifferent, and translate accor∣ding to the Greeke word, without preiudice of either o∣pinion, which kind of translation, at other times you do highly commend.

MART. 14. Againe, for the mariage of Priests, and of all sorts of men indifferently, they translate the Apostle thus: wed∣lock* 1.829 is honorable among al men. Where one falsificatiō is, that they say, among all men, and Beza, inter quosuis, & in* 1.830 the margent, in omni hominū ordine, in euery order or condition of mē, & in his Annotation he raileth, to make this translation good wheras the greke is as indifferēt to signifie, that* 1.831 mariage is honorable, by al means, in al respects, wholy, through∣ly, altogither. So doth, not onely Erasmus, but also the greeke fa∣thers* 1.832 expound it, namely Theophilact, whose words in the greeke be very significāt▪ but too lōg here to troble the reader with thē. Not in part saith he, honorable, and in part not: but who∣ly, throughout, by al means honorable and vndefiled, in al ages, in al times. Therfore, to restrain it in trāslatiō to per∣sons only (thogh it may also very wel be vnderstode of all persōs that haue no impedimē•• to the cōtrary) that is to trāslate falsly.

FVLK. 14. I haue answered alreadie, that seeing the apostle threatneth the iudgement of God against forni∣cators and adulterers, the moste apte signification of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is among al mē. Although that which you would haue, comprehēdeth al persons, as wel as al other things, meanes, respects, &c. If any persons haue an impe∣diment to the contrarie, such as Gods word doth alowe, their marriage by this text, is not authorised. But Priests haue no impediment, whē they are, by the word of God

to be chosen, as well of marr••ed men, as of any other, 1. Tim. 5. Tit. 1. neither can it be any falsification, to tran∣slate so, as both the words in the Greeke tong do signi∣fie, and the reason of the place doth require. Theophi∣lacts words, you say, be long, and so it seemeth, they bee for your purpose, therefore you take but a peece in the middes, cutting off, both the beginning, and the end that make against you.

In al (saith he) not in men of riper age, and not in yong men also, but in al mē, or by al means, and in al times, not in affliction truly, & in quietnes not also. not in this part pretious, and honorable, and in that part, otherwise, but the whole, and through al parts, let it be pretious. Here heretikes are made to blush, that slan∣der marriage. For beholde, he calleth mariage pretious, matrimonie honorable, which kepeth a man in the ver∣tue of temperance. And afterward. If matrimonie be per∣mitted, the fornicators & adulterers are iustly punished.

Who is so blind, that he wil not see Theophilact refer it to the persons, as wel as to al parts of it? At least wise, you should haue remembred, that Theophilact, beeing a By∣shop of the Greke church, where their Priests haue bin, and yet are suffred to be married men, would not write any thing here, against the marriage of Priests. Neyther doth Oecumenius exclude the persons, whē he extolleth the perfection of marriage, but rather doth comprehend them. Chrysostome doth plainely refer it to the persons, insomuch, that he ioineth it in expositiō with that text, H••ue peace with al men.

MART. 15. An other, and the like falsificatiō in this same short sentēce, is, that they make it an affirmatiue speech, by ad∣ding, is: wheras the apostles words be these, Mariage honora∣ble* 1.833 in al, & the bed vndefiled. Which is rather an exhortati∣on, as if he should say, Let mariage be honourable, and the bed vndefiled. How honorable? that (as S. Peter speaketh, 1. Pet. c. 3.) non cōuerse with their wiues accordyng to knowlege, im••arting honor to them, as to the weaker vessels: that is, as S.* 1.834 P. also explica••eth it▪ 1. Th. c. 4. possessing euery mā his vessel in sanctification

and honour, not in the passion or luste of concupis∣cence,* 1.835 as the Gentiles, &c. Loe what honourable marriage is, to wit, when the husband vseth the wife honourably and honestly in all respectes, not beastly and filihily according to all kinde of luste and concupiscence. And that the Apostle here exhorteth to this honourable vsage of wedlocke, rather than affirmeth a∣ny thing▪ it is most probable, both by that which goeth before, and that which immediatly foloweth, al which are exhortations. and les the Protestants giue vs a reason out of the Greeke texte, if they can, why they translate the wordes following by waye of exhortation, Let your conuers••tion be without couetous∣nes:* 1.836 and not these wordes also in like maner, Let marriage bee honourable in all. Certaine it is, that the Greeke in bothe is al one phrase and speach, and Beza is muche troubled to finde a good reason against Erasmus, who thinketh it is an exhortation. The sentence then being ambiguous and doubtfull at the least, what ioly fellows are these that wil so restraine it in translation, that it cannot be taken in the other sense, & not rather leaue it indifferētly, as in the Greke and vulgar latin it is, least the sense of the holy ghost be not that, or not only that, which they trāslate.

FVLK. 15. I haue alreadie shewed, that the Verbe of the indicatiue moode, is here to be vnderstoode, be∣cause the verbe whiche followeth in the same verse, is of the indicatiue moode. Againe, the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ as Beza telleth you, declareth the firste wordes to be vttered af∣firmatiuely: Marriage is honourable among al menne, and the bed vndefiled, but fornicatours and adulterers God wil iudge. Moreouer, Chrysostome, Theodorete, Theophilact, Oecumeneus, do al proue out of this place, the permission and lawfulnesse of marriage to all men, whiche coulde not be except they vnderstoode the Apo∣stles wordes affirmatiuely. That married menne muste liue temperately with their wiues, it is also true, but not the principall purpose of the Apostle here, to exhorte therevnto, but rather to disswade menne from fornica∣tion and adultery, because marriage is honourable and vndefiled in all sortes of menne. The reason you

require, Beza hathe giuen you, and I haue reported it. Neither is the sentence ambiguous, neither hathe it beene so taken, but of late dayes, in despite of holi•• matrimonie, which though you can not deny in all men, yet you deface the honour thereof, as the Manichees, and other Heretikes did, when you affirme that the sacred order of priesthood is profaned thereby. They be your owne wordes before, sect. 11. conuincing you to be a maintainer of the doctrine of deuils. 1. Tim 4.

MART. 16. Moreouer it is against the profession of con∣tinencie in Priestes, and others, that they translate our Saui∣ours words of single life, and the vnmaried state, thus: All men* 1.837 can not receiue this saying: as though it were impossible to liue continent. Where Christ sayd not so, that all men can not, but, All men doe not receiue this saying. But of this I haue spoken more in the chapter of free will. Here I adde onely con∣cerning the words following, that they translate them not exact∣ly, nor perhaps with a sincere meaning▪ for if there be chastitie in mariage, as well as in the single life, as Paphnutius the con∣fessor most truely sayd, and they are wont much to alledge it, then their translation doth nothing expresse our Sauiours meaning, whē they say, There are some chast, which haue made them* 1.838 selues chast, for the kingdome of heauens sake▪ for a man might saye, all doe so that liue chastly in matrimonie. but our Sauiour speaketh of them that are impotent and vnable to ge∣neration, called* Eunuches, or gelded men, and that in three* 1.839 diuers kindes: some that haue that infirmitie or maime from their birth, othersome that are gelded afterward by men, and o∣ther that geld themselues for the kingdom of heauen, not by cut∣ting of those partes, which were an horrible mortall sinne, but hauing those partes, as other men haue▪ yet geld themselues (for* 1.840 so is the Greeke) and make them selues vnable to generation. Which how it can be but by voluntarie profession, promise, and v••w of perpetuall continencie, which they may neuer breake, let the Protestants tell vs. Christ then as it is most euident, spea∣keth of gelded men, either c••rporally, or spiritually, (which are al such as professe perpetuall continencie:) and they tell vs of

some that were borne chast, and some that were made chast by men, and some that make them selues chast: •• most foolish and false translation of the Greeke wordes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

FVLK. 16. Concerning the former part of this mat∣ter, Math. 19. v. 11. we haue aunswered sufficiently, in the chapter of free will, but here is a new cauill. Because cha∣stitie is also in mariage, as in single life, our translators doe not well to expresse the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by, chast, and haue made chaste. I confesse they should more properly haue sayd, gelded men, or gelded them selues, or els continent, and made continent. Al∣though they meane none other by the worde chaste, which they vse. And touching your question, howe men may lawfully geld them selues, but by voluntary purpose of continencie, which they may not breake: I aunswer, that we deny not, but that such as be assured they haue the gift of continencie, may professe to keepe it, and af∣ter such profession or promise, made to God, they sinne if they breake it. But if any haue rashly vowed that which they are not able to keepe, they haue sinned in vowing, and can not keepe their vowe by abstinence from mari∣age, except they abstaine also from all filthines out of mariage: for such, we holde with Epiphanius, and Saint* 1.841 Hierome, that immoderate aduauncer of virginitie, that it is better to marye, than out of mariage to liue incon∣tinently.

MART. 17. The Bezites here, are blamelesse, who tran∣slate it word for word. Eunuches: but they are more to blame in an other place, where in derogation of the priuiledge and di∣gnitie* 1.842 of Priestes, they translate thus: The Priestes lippes should preserue knowledge, and they should seeke the Law at his mouth. where in the Hebrew and Greeke, it is as* 1.843 plaine as possibly can be spoken, The Priestes lippes shall keepe knowledge, and they shall seeke the Lawe at his mouth. Which is a maruelous priuiledge giuen to the Priestes* 1.844 of the olde Law, for true determination of matters in controuer∣sie, & right expounding of the Law, as we reade more fully, Deu∣tero.

17. Where they are commaunded vnder paine of death, to stand to the Priestes iudgement, which in this place God by the Prophet Malachie, calleth his couenant with Leui, and that he* 1.845 will haue it to stand, to wit, in the newe Testament, where Peter hath such priuiledge for him, and his successors, that his faith shall not faile, where the holy Ghost is President in the Church of Bishops and Priestes. All which these Heretikes would deface and defeate, by translating the wordes otherwise, than the holye Ghost hath spoken them.

FVLK. 17. The verbe in deede, which the Prophet Malachie vseth, is of the future temps. But who knoweth not, that the Hebrewes lacke the potentiall mode? and therefore they doe very often expresse it, by the future temps of the indicatiue mode. Which if you shoulde al∣waies trāslate by the future indicatiue, you should make many faire promises to them that are sharpely rebuked. But the circūstance of the place, doth plainly declare, that the Priestes of that time, had broken the couenant made with Leui, concerning keeping of the lawe. Yea the very wordes following expresse the same. But you haue de∣parted out of the way, and haue caused many to fall a∣gainst the lawe. You haue made voyde the couenant of Leui, sayth the Lord of Hostes. By which words, it is ma∣nifest, that the Prophet before, spake of that knowledge of the law, which the Priest ought to haue, & not which the Priestes alwaies had: for certaine it is, that many of them were ignorant, yea sometimes all: the high Priest was oftē an Idolater. And who condemned Christ, & his Gospell, but the high Priestes? The authoritie that was giuen to the Priestes, in case of controuersie, was limited within the bounds of Gods law, from which if they de∣clined▪ no man was bound to obey them. For who was bound to obey Vrias the high Priest, preferring the ido∣latrous altar of Damasco, before the true altar of the Lorde? or those deuilish tyrants, Menclaus, Alcimus, and such other, as occupied the Priests roomes in the time of the Maccabees, or Annas and Caiphas, in the ••yme of

Christ. Peter then hauing none other priuiledge for him and his successors, than Aaron had, he and his successors might fall and be deceiued: although Christ praied that his faith should not faile, as he prayed for all the Apo∣stles, and for all their successors, yea, for all beleuers, that they might be sanctified in the truth: yet it were mad∣nes, to say, that none of them could erre. But whensoeuer you wil go about to proue this priuiledge, out of those wordes of our Sauiour Christ, make your Syllogisme, and let vs haue no more brabling. Our translation in that place of Malachie, is more true, than you are able to impugne, for those wordes are rather a commaunde∣ment, what the Priestes lippes should doe, not a promise or assurance, that they alway did so.

MART. 18. And when the Prophet addeth immediat∣ly the cause of this singular prerogatiue of the Priest, quia an∣gelus Domini exercituum est, because he is the Angell of the Lord of hostes, which is also a wonderfull dignitie, so to be called: they after their cold maner of profane translation, say, because he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes. So doe they in the next chapter, call S. Iohn the Baptist, messen∣ger:* 1.846 where the Scripture no doubt speaketh more honourably of him, as being Christes precursor, than of a messenger, which is a terme for postes also and lackies. The Scripture I saye, spea∣keth thus of S. Iohn, Behold I send mine Angel before thee:* 1.847 and our Sauiour in the Gospell, Mat. 11. Luc. 7. telling the peo∣ple the wonderful dignisies of S. Iohn, & that he was more than a Prophet, citeth this place, & giueth this reason, For this is he of whom it is written, Behold I send mine Angel be∣fore thee. Which Saint Hierom calleth meritorum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.848 the encrease and augmenting of Iohns merites or priuiledges, that in Malachie he is called an Angell: and Saint Gregori•• sayth, he which came to bring tidings of Christ* 1.849 him selfe, was worthily called an Angell, that in his ve∣ry name there might be a dignitie, and all the fathers, and all witte and reason conceiue a greate excellencye in this name: onely our profane Protestants that thinke of all diuine

things, and persons, most basely, translate accordingly, euen in the foresayd Gospell also, making our Sauiour to say, that Iohn was more than a Prophet, because he was a Messenger. Yea, where our Sauiour him selfe is called, Angelus Testamenti, the Angell of the Testament, there they translate, the mes∣senger* 1.850 of the couenant.

FVLK. 18. It is not safe, to translate alwayes the messenger of God, by the name of an Angell, which is commonly taken to signifie a spirite, not a bodily crea∣ture: therefore our translators thought good to expresse the signification of the Hebrew, and Greeke worde in English, and to vse the terme of Messenger, as the worde doth signifie: nothing derogating from the dignitie of the persons, or office of them, of whome it is vttered, which consisteth in the addition following of God, of the Lorde, of the Church. For the name of Angell, of it selfe, is no name of dignitie, seeing there be Angells of the deuill, and of darkenes, as well as of God, & of light. And Isidorus Clarius interpreteth the word in this place of Malachie, Legatus, the Ambassador, or Messenger. It is not therefore of any profane minde, that for Angell, we say Messenger. Your owne vulgar Interpretor, Agg. 1. v. 13. translateth Maleach Iehouah, nuncius domini, the Lords Messenger, and so diuerse times where mention is made* 1.851 of Gods Messengers. This is therefore a vayne con∣tention about termes, when the matter is not in questi∣on. That the name of Angels soundeth more hono∣rably as Hierom and other thinke, it is no rule to binde translators, but expounders may as occasion is offered obserue it.

MART. 19. If S. Hierome in all these places had tran∣slated, nuntium, then the English were messenger: but tran∣slating it, angelum, and the Church & al antiquitie so reading and expounding it as a terme of more dignitie and excellencie, * 1.852 what meane these base cōpanions to disgrace the very eloquēce of the Scripture, which by such termes of amplification would speake more significantly and emphatically? what meane they

I say) that so inuey against Castaleo for his profanenesse, them selues to say, for Angell, Messenger, for Apostle, Legate, or Embassadour, and the like? Are they afraid, lest by calling mē Angels, it would be mistaken, as though they were Angells in deede by nature? then S. Paule spake daungerously, when he sayd to the Galathians, As Gods Angel you receiued me,* 1.853 as Christ Iesus. But to proceede.

FVLK. 19. The verye eloquence of the Scripture, is best expressed, when the wordes are translated as they signifie in the originall tongue. And although some words, be appropried to certaine callings, which it is not conuenient to turne into the generall signification: yet is neither the Hebrew, nor the Greeke word, that sig∣nifieth Messengers in the Scripture, so restrayned, but that it is vsed, for all Messengers indifferently, of God and men yea of God, and the deuill. Wherefore there is no cause why we should vse the Greeke worde Angell, rather than the English worde Messenger. And where you aske, whether we be afrayd, lest by calling men An∣gels, it would be mistaken, as though they were Angels in nature: we may well feare, lest the ignorant & vnlear∣ned, might so be deceiued, when Bristow, so great a Do∣ctor▪ & writer among you, is so fondly disguised, that he mistaketh the Angell of the Church of Philadelphia,* 1.854 for an Angell by nature, and alledgeth, that which God promiseth, that his enimies the Iewes shall worship be∣fore his feete, to proue the inuocation and worship of heauenly Angels. Neither spake Paule daungerously, when he said the Galathiās receiued him as an Angel of God as Christe Iesus. For the worde Angell in the Greeke tongue signifieth a messenger: it was easie to vn∣derstand, that the messenger or embassadour of a Prince is receiued as the Prince him selfe, without confounding the persons, of the Prince and his messenger.

MART. 20. It is much for the authoritie and dignitie of Gods Priests, that they do bind and loose, and execute al Eccle∣siasticall functiō •••• in the person and power of Christ, whose mi∣nisters

they are. So Saint Paule saieth, 2. Cor. 2. v. 10. that when hee pardoned or released the penaunce of the incestuous Corinthian, he did it in the person of Christe. That is (as* 1.855 Saint Ambrose expoundeth it) in the name of Christe, in his steede, as his Vicar and deputie. But they translate it, In the sight of Christ. Where it is euident they can not pretende the Greeke, and if there be ambiguitie in the Greeke, the Apostle him selfe taketh it away interpreting himselfe in the very same case, when he excommunicateth the said incestuous person, say∣ing,* 1.856 that he doth it, in the name and with the vertue of our Lord Iesus Christe: so expounding what he meaneth also in this place.

FVL. 20. That the Bishops, Elders, or Priests of gods Church do bind and lose as in the person and power of Christ, in his name, & by his authority is acknowledged by vs: But when we translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the sight of Christ, we respect, what the Greeke phrase doth more properly require, yea, what the Hebrewe phrase mipenei,* 1.857 doth signifie, wherevnto it is like, that the Apostle doth allude. Otherwise, Beza in his annotations vpō the place, doth not mislike the sense, and interpretation of Am∣brose, whereof he maketh mention, but preferreth the other, as more simple and agreeable to the meaning of the Apostle in that place, and to the nature of the Greke and Hebrew phrase.

MART. 21. And it may bee, that for some suche purpose, they change the antient and accustomed reading in these words of S. Mathew, Ex te enim exiet dux qui regat populū me∣um* 1.858 Israel: translating thus, Out of thee shal come the go∣uemour that shall feede my people Israel. for, that shall* 1.859 rule my people Israel. This is certaine that it is a false tran∣slation,* 1.860 because the Prophets wordes. Mich. 5. (cited by Saint Mathew) both in Hebrewe and Greeke▪ signifie onely, a ruler or Gouernour, and not a Pastor or feeder. Therefore it is either* 1.861 a great ouer sight, which i•• a smal matter in cōparison of the least corruption: or rather, because they do the like Act. 20. v. 28. it is done, to suppres the signification of ecclesiastical power & go∣uernement,

that concurreth with feeding, first in Christ, and from him in his Apostles and Past••rs of the Church, both which are here signified in this one Greeke word, to wit, that Christ our* 1.862 Sauiour shall rule and feede, (Ps. 2. Apoc. 2. v. 27.) yea he shal rule in a rod of yron, and from him, Peter and the rest, by his cō∣mission* 1.863 giuen in the same word feede & rule my sheepe. Io. 21. yea and that in a rod of yron, as when he stroke Ananias and* 1.864 Sapphîra to corporal death, as his successors do the like offenders to spiritual destruction (vnlesse they repent) by the terrible rod of excōmunication. This is imported in the double significatiō of the Greeke word, which they to diminish Ecclesiasticall autho∣ritie, they translate, feede, rather than, rule, or gouerne.

FVLK. 21. That wee shoulde not meane any thing against the gouernement of Christe, whome we wishe & desire from our hearts, that he alone mighte raigne, and his seruants vnder him, he himselfe is iudge, to whome in this case we do boldely appeale. But let vs see, how we may be charged with false translation. The Hebrewe and greek (say you) do signifie only a ruler or gouernor, Mich. 5. And do not we translate a gouernor or captain, which may answere there the Hebrew of the Prophet, or the Greeke of the Septuaginta, or of the Euangelist. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that we translate, sometime to gouerne, sometime to feede, is not in the Prophete, but in the E∣uangelist, and signifieth properly to feede as a sheepe∣heard, and metaphorically to gouerne. What cause haue you here to crie out, false translation, and to oppose the Hebrewe worde of the Prophet, which is fully satisfied in the worde gouernour? And the Greeke word, which the Euangelist vseth, hath his proper signification in some translations, in other, that which is figuratiue, neither doth the one exclude the other. But feeding doth import gouerning. But it seemeth you would haue rule, without feeding, that you are so zealous for gouernement. The worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 20. in some translations, is rendred. to rule, in other, to feede. The more proper is, to feede, yet the greek word wil beare the other also. But feeding

as a sheephearde doeth his sheepe, comprehendeth both. The same word Ioan. 21. our Sauiour Christ li∣miteth rather to feeding as y^e Euangelist reporteth his words vsing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 twise & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 once. For by lording & ruling Peter shuld not so wel testifie his loue towards Christ, as by painefull feeding. And there your owne vulgar interpreter translateth Pasce, and your selues feede, though in the margent you woulde faine pray aide of the Greeke to establish your popes tyrannicall rule. Yea you will giue him a rodde of yron which is the scepter of Christ, yea an armie of souldiers to sub∣due Irelande, and to wrest it out of the Queene of Englandes dominion that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 feed and rule my sheepe in your secret meaning, and for that purpose you bring in the miraculous striking of Ananias and Sapheira for their hypocrisie, preten∣ding that you meane but spirituall destruction by the rodde of excommunication, which howe terrible it is, when it is duely exercised by thē that haue authoritie, we neede not learne of you. The other text Psalme the 2. Apoc. 2. v. 27. we translate alwaies rule. And your vulgar interpretor. Pet. 5. translateth the same worde pascite feede you the church of God, &c. and else where diuerse times. Doth he so diminish ecclesiasticall au∣thoritie? &c.

MART. 22. To the diminishing of this Ecclesiasticall authoritie, in the later ende of the reigne of king Henrie the ••ight, and during the reigne of king Edwarde the sixt, the one∣ly translation of their English Bibles, was, submit your selues vnto all manner ordinance of man whether it be VNTO THE KING, AS TO THE CHIEFE HEAD.* 1.865 1. Pet. 2. Where in this Queenes time, the later translatours can not finde those wordes nowe in the Greeke, but doe tran∣slate thus, To the king as hauing preeminence: or to the king as the Superiour. Why so? because then the King had* 1.866 first taken vpon him this name of Supreme heade of the Church, and therefore they flattered both him and his sonne, till

their heresie was planted, making the holie Scripture to say that the king was, the chiefe head, which is all one with, su∣preme head: but now being better aduised in that point (by Caluine I suppose and the Lutherans of Magdeburge, who do•• ioyntly inueigh against such title, and Caluine against that by* 1.867 name, which was first giuen to king Henry the eight) & because they may be bolder with a Queene than with a king, and be∣cause now they thinke their kingdome is well established, ther∣fore they suppresse this title in their later trāslations, & would take it frō her altogether if they could, to aduance their owne Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, whithout any dependence of the Queenes supreme gouernement of their church, which in their conscience (if they be true Caluinistes, or Lutherans, or mix•• of both) they doe and must mislike.

FVLK. 22. Touching this text 1. Pet. 2. I haue an∣swered before y^t the word signifieth him that excelleth, and therfore it is no corruption to translate it y^e chiefe. For the name of supreme heade in y^e sense which Cal∣uine & other abroade did mislike it, it was neuer al∣lowed, nor by authoritie graunted to the kings Henrie and Edward but in the same sense it is now graunted to Queene Elizabeth whom we acknowledge to haue the same authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall which her fa∣ther and brother kinges before her had & exercised to Gods glorie. But as Ste••en Gardiner vnderstoode y^e title in conference with Bucer at Ratisbone we doe vt∣terly abhorre it and so did all godly men alwaies, that a king should haue absolute power to do in religion what he will. In what sense the popish clergie of England, be∣ing cast in the premunire did first of all ascribe it to the king in their submission, looke you vnto it: we thinke it was rather of flatterie, than of dutie, wisedome, or re∣ligion. As for the ecclesiasticall gouernement which the scripture prescribeth may well stande, which cra∣ueth the aide of a christian Prince, which is y^e Queenes authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall.

MART. 23. But howsoeuer that he, let them iustifie their

translation, or confesse their fault. And as for the kinges supre∣macie* 1.868 ouer the Church, if they make any doubt, let thē read S. Ignatius wordes, who was in the Apostles time, ••uen when S. Peter gaue the foresaide admonition of subiection to the king, and knewe very wel how farre his preeminence extended, and therefore saith plainely in notorious wordes, that, we must first honour God, then the Bishop, and then the king. Because in all thinges nothing is comparable to God, & in the Chuch, no∣thing greater then y^e Bishop, who is consecrated to God for the saluation of the whole worlde, and c 1.869 among magi∣strates & temp••rall rulers, none is like the king. See his b 1.870 other wordes immediatly folowing, where he preferreth the Bishops office before the kings & al other thinges of price among men.

FVLK. 23. Howsoeuer those Epistles bee truely or vntruely ascribed to Ignatius which heere I wil not dis∣pute there is nothing sayde in this that you cite of the Bishops preeminence aboue the king, but wee acknow∣ledge it to be true of y^e meanest priest of Gods Church in matters properly belonging to his office which yet doth not exempt him from subiection to his prince, but that in causes ecclsiasticall also he is to be commanded by his prince to doe his duetie, and to be punished by him, if he doe otherwise.

MART. 24. But in the former sentence of S. Peter, though they haue altered their translation about the kings headshippe, yet there is one corruption remaining still in these words, Sub∣mit your selues VNTO AL MANER ORDINANCE OF MAN. Whereas in the Greeke it is worde for worde as in the olde vulgar Latine translation, omni humanae crea∣turae,* 1.871 and as we haue translated, to euerie humane crea∣ture: meaning temporall Princes & Magistrates, as is plaine by the exemplification immediatly following, of king, and dukes, and other sent or appointed by him. But they in fa∣uour of their temporall statutes, actes of Parliament, Procla∣mations and Iniunctions made against the Catholike religion, doe translate all with one consent, Submit vour selues to all maner ordinance of man. Doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifie ordinance?

or is it all one to be obedient to euery one of our Princes, and to all maner ordinance of the saide Princes?

FVLK. 24. The worde ordinance you doe violent∣ly drawe to euerie statute, proclamation or iniunction, which is vnderstood of the ordinance or appointment of magistrates in what forme soeuer they be created: or at the worst cannot be referred but onely to such de∣crees as are not contrarie to the worde of God. The worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we knowe signifieth a creature or creation, which speeches being not vsuall in our English tongue to signifie magistrates: our interpretors haue expressed the same by the worde ordinance. You your selues tran∣slate that which is in Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Latine Creaturae mark 16. of the creation and in the same sense doe our translators vse the worde of ordinance.

MART. 25. A strange case and much to bee considered, how they wring and wrest the holy scriptures this way and that way and euery way to serue their hereticall proceedinges. For when the question is of due obedience to Ecclesiasticall canons, and decrees of the Church and generall Councels, where the ho∣ly Ghost by Christes promise is assistant, and whereof it is saide, if he heare not the Church, let him be vnto thee as an* 1.872 heathen and Publicane: and, He that heareth you, hea∣reth me: he that despiseth you despiseth mee: there they cry out aloude & odiously terme all such ordinances▪ mens tra∣ditions, and, commaundementes of men, and most de∣spitefully contemne and condemne them. But heere, for obedi∣ence vnto temporall edictes and Parliament statutes daily ena∣cted in fauour of their schisme and heresies▪ they once malitious∣ly forged, and still wickedly retaine without alteration, a text of their owne, making the Apostle to commaunde submission vnto all manner ordinance of man, whereof hath ensued the false crime of treason and cruell death for the same, vpon those inno∣cent men and glorious martyrs, that chose to obey God and his Churches holy ordinances, rather then mans statutes and lawes directly against the same.

FVLK. 25. It is no strange case for an heretike and a

raytor that hath solde his tongue to vtter slaunders a∣gainst the Church of God and the christian magistrate protector of the same, to deuise and surmise that which neuer was intended, neuer was practised. As y^t against the godly and laweful decrees of the Church we should translate mens traditions commaundementes of men, and to the maintenance of all temporall lawes be they neuer so wicked we should translate ordināce in steede of creature. As for the crime of treason and iust execu∣tion of them that haue suffered of your viperous brood, I referre to the try all of the lawes and iudgements that haue passed vpon them, as no matter meete for mee to dispute of: onely this all good subiectes knowe, yea all the worlde may knowe that they which take part with the pope, our princes open and professed enemie, not in matters of religion onely, but in cases concerning her crowne and dignitie, her Realmes and Dominions can not beare dutiful & obedient hearts to her maiesty. Whose clemencie hitherto hath spared them that ac∣knowledge her princely authoritie although in all o∣ther pointes of poperie they continue as obstinate as e∣uer they were.

CHAP. XVI.

Hereticall translation against the Sacrament of Matrimonie.

BVT as they are iniurious translatours to the sacred order of Priesthoode, so a man woulde thinke they should be very friendly to the sa∣cramēt of Matrimonie. For they would seeme to make more of Matrimonie then we do, making it equall at the least with virginitie. Yet the trueth is, we make it, or rather the Church of God esteemeth it as a holy sacra∣ment, they do not: as giuing grace to the maried persons to liue together in loue, concorde, and fidelitie: they acknowledge

no such thing. So that Matrimonie with them is highly estee∣med in respect of the flesh, or (to say the best) onely for a ci∣uill contract, as it is among Iewes and Pagans: but as it is pe∣culiar to Christians, and (as S. Augustin•• sayth) in the san∣ctification also and holinesse of a Sacrament, they make no account of it, but flatly denie it.

FVLK. 1.

VE make no more of matrimonie than the holy scripture doeth teach vs nei∣ther doe wee in all respectes make it equall with virginitie, howe so euer you doe slander vs. But you so make it an holy sacrament that you thinke the holy order of priesthoode is prophaned by it. Wee acknowledge that God giueth grace to them that bee faithfull, to liue in loue, concorde and fidelitie, euen as he did to the fathers of the olde testament liuing in the same honorable estate, which prooueth that matrimo∣nie is no sacrament of the newe testament, although it be an holie ordinance for Gods children to liue in, and in it is contained, a holy secret or mysterie of the spiri∣tuall coniunction of Christ and his church. It is there∣fore nothing else but a diuelish slander to say that wee esteeme it but in respect of the flesh or for a ciuill con∣tract.

MART. 2. And to this purpose they translate in the epi∣stle to the Ephesians, 5. Where the Apostle speaketh of matri∣monie,* 1.873 This is a great secret. Whereas the Latine Church and all the Doctors thereof haue euer read, This is a great Sacrament: the Greeke Church and all the fathers thereof, This is a great mysterie▪ because that which is in Greeke, mysterie: is in Latine, Sacrament: and contrariwise, the* 1.874 wordes in both tongue•• being equiualent. so that if one be ta∣ken in the large signification, the other also: as, Apoc. 17. I will shewe thee the sacrament of the woman. And I* 1.875 will shewe thee the mysterie of the woman. And so in

sundrie places, againe if one be restrained from the larger sig∣nification, & peculiarly applyed, signifie the Sacramentes of the Church, the other also. As, the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ: or, the Mysterie of the bodie and bloud of* 1.876 Christ: and the Caluinists in their Latine and Greeke Cate∣chisme say, two Sacramentes. or, two Mysteries.

FVLK. 2. The English worde secret signifieth fully as much as the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in which we must seeke no holinesse as papistes doe in vaine sounde of wordes: but in the matter annexed, which plainely ex∣presseth that it is a great secret of great holines where∣of the Apostle speaketh. And it is verie false that you say that the Latine worde sacramentum is equiualent to the Greeke: for both it signifieth an oth which y^e Greke word doth not, and also it includeth holinesse which the Greeke worde doth not. Or else why sayth not your vulgar translator and you the sacrament of iniquitie. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore signifieth euerie secrete, sacramentum onely an holy sacrament, as when you say, Apoc. 17. the sacrament of the woman, the meaning is the secret to be reuealed concerning her is an holy thing: else in the same chapter you haue not a sacrament written in her forheade but a mysterie or secret Babylon the mo∣ther of abhominations. That the sacramentes are cal∣led mysteries we confesse, but that whatsoeuer is called a mysterie may also be called a sacrament, that doe we vtterly denie.

MART. 3. This being so, what is the fault of their tran∣slation in the place aforesaide? this, that they translate neither Sacrament, nor, Mysterie. As for the worde Sacrament, they are excused, because they translate not the Latine: but translating the Greeke, why sayde they not, Mysterie, which is the Greeke worde heere in the Apostle? I meane, why sayde they not of matrimonie, This is a great Mysterie? No doubt there can be no other cause, but to auoide both those wordes, which are vsed in the Latin and Greeke Church, to signifie the Sacrament••s. For in the Greeke Church the Sacrament of th••

bodie & bloud it self is called but a mystery or mysteries, which* 1.877 yet the Protestāts themselues call a true Sacrament. Therfore if they shold haue called Matrimonie also by that name, it might easily haue sounded to be a Sacrament also. But in saying it is a great secret, they put it out of doubt that it shall not be so taken.

FVLK. 3. Seeing the word secrete y^t we vse, signifieth wholy as much as mysterie, we hope all reasonable men wil allow y^e same also. Sacrament without preiudice to y^e trueth we could not translate, and mysterie for the bet∣ter vnderstanding of the people we haue expressed in the English worde, secrete. Out of which if it haue any force of argument in it you may proue matrimonie to be a sacrament as well as out of the Greeke worde my∣sterie. But it is the sounde of an vnknowen worde that you had rather play vpon in the eares of the ignorants then by any sound argument out of y^e scripture to bring them to the knowledge of the trueth.

MART. 4. They will say vnto mee, Is not euerie sacra∣ment & mysterie in english a secrete? Yes, as Angel, is a mes∣senger: & Apostle, one that is sent. But when the holy Scripture vseth these words to signifie more excellēt & diuine things then those of the common sort, doth it become translators to vse baser termes in steede therof, & so to disgrace the writing & meaning of the holy Ghost? I appeale to themselues, when they translat•• this word in other places, whether they say not thus, And w^t∣out doubt, great was y^t MYSTERIE of godlines: God* 1.878 was shewed manifestly in y^e flesh, &c. againe, The MY∣STERIE which haue bin hid since y^e world began, but now is opened to his saincts. againe▪ I shew you a MY∣STERIE, we shal not al sleep, but we shal all be chan∣ged. And the like. Where if they should trāslate, secret, in steed of, mysterie, as the Bezites do in one of these places, saying, I wil shew you a secret thing: what a disgracing & debasing were it to those high mysteries there signified? And if it were so in these, is it not so in matrimonie, which the Apostle maketh such a mysterie▪ that it representeth no lesse mater then Christ & his Church & whatsoeuer is most excellent in that coniunctiō? No••∣then, if in all other places of high mysterie they translate it also, mysterie, as it is in the Greeke, & only in Matrimonie do not so,

but say rather, This is a great secret, vsing so base a terme in so high & excellent a mysterie, must we not needs thinke (at no dout it is) that they do it because of their heretical opiniō against the Sacramēt of Matrimony, & for their base estimation therof••

FVLK. 4. Nowe you flie to your old shift of y^e eccle∣siastiall vse of termes which you cannot proue to be like of this English word mysterie, which is cōmōly as pro∣phanely & secularly vsed as any other word. For what is more cōmon among artificers, thā their science or my∣stery of weauing, of dying, & such like? And yet the word may be vsed of the highest secrets of Christian Religiō, as it is of our translators. And wheresoeuer they haue said a mysterie they might as truely haue saide a secret, & where they say a secrete they might haue said a my∣sterie. But wher you say y^t in al other places of high my∣stery they translate y^e word mysterie it is false. For Mat. 13. Mark. the 4. Luk. the 8. where all y^e mysteries of the kingdome of God are spokē of, they translate mysteria, the secrets of y^e kingdome of heauen. & 1. cor. 4. where the sacraments & al other secrets of Christian Religion are spokē of they translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 stewards of y^e myste∣ries of God. Wherefore it is a shamefull and senselesse slander that heere only we vse this word secret to shew our base estimation of matrimonie.

MART. 5. But they wil yet reply againe, & aske vs, what we gaine by translating it either Sacrament, or mysterie? Doth that make it one of the Sacramentes properly so called, to wit, such a Sacrament as Baptisme is? no surely, but howsoeuer wee gaine otherwise, at least we gaine the cōmendation of true tran∣slators, whether it make with vs or against vs. For otherwise it is not the name that maketh it such a peculiar Sacrament. For (as is said before) Sacrament is a generall name in Scripture to other thinges. Neither do we therefore so translate it, as though it were foorthwith one of the seuen Sacraments, because of the name: but as in other places wheresoeuer we finde this word in the Latine, we translate it, Sacrament (as in the Apocalipse, the* 1.879 sacrament of the woman) so finding it heere, we doe heere also so translate it and as for the diuerse taking of it heere, and else where, that wee examine otherwise, by circum∣stance

of the text, and by the Churches and Doctors interpreta∣tion: and we finde that heere it is taken for a Sacrament in that sense as we say, seuen Sacramentes: not so in the other places.

FVLK. 5. No reasonable man can charge vs to be false translators when we turne the Greeke worde into that which it doth generally, properly, and alwaies sig∣nifie. And for al your bragging of syncere translating, if you should translate Tob. 12. I am perswaded you would not say: it is a good thing to hide the kinges sa∣crament. Yet is the Latine worde in that place Sacra∣mentum: and the Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But it is sufficient for you to haue a shadow of somthing to find your selfe oc∣cupied rather than you would be saying of nothing.

MART. 6. As when we reade this name Iesus in Scrip∣ture common to our Sauiour and to other men, we translate it alwaies alike, Iesus, but when it is b 1.880 IESVS Christ, & when some other Iesus, c 1.881 we knowe by other circumstances. Likewise presuppose Baptisme in the Scripture were called a sacrament: yet the Protestantes themselues would not, nor could thereby conclude, that it were one of their two Sacraments. Yet I trow they would not auoyde to translate it by the worde sacrament, if they found it so called: euen so wee finding Matrimonie so called, do so translate it, neither concluding thereby that it is one of the Seuen, nor yet suppressing the name, which no doubt gaue some occasion to the Church and the holy doctors to esteem it as one of the Seuen. They contrariwise, as though it were neuer so called, suppresse the name altogether, calling it a se∣crete, to put it out of all question, that it is no Sacrament: which they would not haue done, if the Scripture had sayde of Baptisme or the Eucharist, This is a great Sacrament. So partiall they are to their owne opinions.

FVLK. 6. Except you thought you had to doe with verie ignorant persons, or else esteemed too much of your lately professed diuinitie, you would neuer comber the reader with such childish trifles of the name of Ie∣sus, of the bare name of sacrament which could not

proue baptisme or the Lords supper to be sacramentes &c. and what we would do if wee found them so called, &c. I haue alreadie told you what we haue done, where not onely the sacraments, but all other pretious Iewels of Christs church committed to the dispensation of his ministers are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and translated secretes without any abasement of the dignitie of them, or with out any intent to suppresse any of the honor and reue∣rence which is due vnto them. Wherefore vsing y^e word secret in this text, wee had no purpose to derogate any thing from the worthines of matrimonie, much lesse from the spiritual mysterie which the Apostle offereth to be considered by it in Christ & his Church.

CHAP. 17.

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

NOW let vs see concerning the Eucharist, which they allow for a Sacrament, how they handle the matter to the disgracing and de∣facing of the same also. They take away the operation and efficacie of Christes blessing* 1.882 pronounced vpon the bread and wine, ma∣king it onely a thankesgiuing to God: and to this purpose they translate more gladly, thanks-giuing then, blessing▪ as Mat. 26. the Greeke wordes being two, the one signifying properly, to blesse: the other, to giue thanks: they translate both thus,* 1.883 when he had giuen thanks. Likewise Marc. 14. in the Bi∣ble printed 1562. And when they translate it, blessing, they meane nothing else but giuing thankes, as Beza telleth vs in his Annotations Mat. 26. ver. 26. Wee reply and by most ma∣nifest Scripture prooue vnto them, that the former Greeke woorde doeth not signifie thankes giuing properly, but blessing, and a blessing of creatures to the operation of some great effect

in them: as when Christ tooke the fiue loaues and two fishes, to multiply them, he blessed them Luc. 9. What say they to this* 1.884 thinke you? Doth not the Greeke worde here plainly signifie, blessing of creatures? No, (saith Beza) no doubt but here also it signifieth giuing thankes. Howe Beza? he addeth, Not as though Christ had giuen thankes to the bread, for that were too absurd: but wee must mollifie this in∣terpretation thus, that he gaue thankes to God the fa∣ther for the loaues and the fishes. Is not this a notable ex∣position of these wordes, benedixit eis?

FVLK. 1

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

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

MART. 2. Wee aske him in the like cases, when God blessed Adam and Eue, Gen. 1. & 9. Noe and his children, saying, Increase and multiplie: when hee blessed the* 1.885 children of Israel, and they multiplyed exceedingly, when hee blessed the latter things of Iob more than the first, Iob. 42. Was this also a giuing of thankes, and not an effectuall blessing vppon these creatures? What will they say, or what difference will they make? As God bles∣sed here, so hee was God and man that blessed the loaues and fishes there. If they will say hee did it as man, and therefore it was a giuing of thankes to God his father: to omit that hee blessed them as hee multiplyed them, that is, rather ac∣cording to his diuine nature than humane: we aske them, when he blessed as man, was it alwaies giuing of thankes? he blessed

the litle children, he blessed his disciples, when he ascended:* 1.886 was this giuing thankes for them, as Beza expoundeth his bles∣sing of the loaues and fishes? When * 1.887 we blesse the table or the meate vpon the table, When S. Paul saith, 1. Timoth. 4. all meate is lawefull that is sanctified by the worde and by praier: is all this nothing but giuing thankes? So sayeth Beza in expresse wordes.

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

nothing but giuing of thankes?

MART. 3 Wee goe forwarde, and prooue the contrarie yet more manifestly, in the verie matter of the blessed Sacra∣ment, for the which they multiplie all the foresaide absurdities. Wee tell them that Saint Paul sayeth thus, The chalice of* 1.888 blessing, which wee blesse, is it not, &c. howe coulde hee speake more plainely, that the chalice or cup (meaning that in the cup) is blessed? Which S. Cyprian de Coen. Dom. expli∣cateth thus, Calix solenni benedictione sacratus, The* 1.889 Chalice consecrated by solemne blessing. Oecumenius thus▪ The Chalice which blessing wee prepare. that is, which wee blesse and so prepare, for so it must signifie, and not as Beza would haue it, which with thankes giuing wee prepare. and that I prooue by his owne wordes immediatly* 1.890 before, where hee sayeth that the Greeke worde beeing vsed of the Apostle transitiuely, that is, with a case following, cannot signifie giuing thankes. Howe then can it so signifie in Oecu∣menius wordes, who doeth interprete the Apostles meaning by the Apostles owne wordes and phrase? yea (that you may note a notorious contradiction) how doeth Beza then in the place of Luke before alleaged (where the same Greeke worde is a plaine transitiue as in this place) expound is of giuing thanks* 1.891 for the bread and fishes? A lyer (they say) must bee minde∣full, to make his tale agree in euerie point. Hee that before forced the worde in euerie sentence to bee nothing else but thankes giuing▪ euen when it was a plaine transitiue, now con∣fesseth that hee neuer read it in that signification, when it is a transitiue. and so wee haue that the blessing of the cup or of the bread, is not giuing thankes as they either translate, or in∣terprete it.

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

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

MART. 4 And surely in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this is most eui∣dent, that it signifieth in this case the blessing & consecration of the creature or element: in so much that S. Basil & S. Chry∣sostom in their Liturgies or Masses say thus by the same Greek* 1.892 word: Blesse o Lord the sacred bread. & Blesse o Lorde the sacred cup. & why or to what effect? It followeth, chan∣ging it by the holie spirite. Where is signified the trans∣mutation and consecration thereof into the bodie and bloud. But in the other worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there may be some question, because it signifieth properly to giue thankes, & therefore may

seeme to be referred to God onely, and not to the element, and, creature. But this also we finde contrarye in the Greeke fa∣thers, who vse this worde also transitiuely, saying, panem & * 1.893 calicem eucharistisatos, or, panem in quo gratiae actae sunt. that is the bread and the cuppe made the Eucharist: the bread ouer which thankes are giuen: that is, which by the worde of prayer, and thankes-giuing is made a consecrated meate, the fleshe and bloud of Christ, as S. Iustine in fine 2. Apologo, and Saint Irenaeus, lib. 4. 34 in the same places, expound it. Whereas it may also signifie that, for which thankes are giuen in that most solemne sacrifice of the Eucharist, as S. Deny•• in one place seemeth to take it. Eccl. Hi∣er.* 1.894 c. 3. in fine. Who in the selfe same chapter, speaketh of the consecration thereof, most euidently.

FVLK. 4. That the creatures, or elements, are bles∣sed, and consecrated, that by the working of Gods spi∣rite, they shoulde bee chaunged into the bodye and bloud of Christ, after a diuine and spirituall manner, vnto the worthye receyuers, Beza, and we agree with the Greeke Liturgies. But that this blessing is perfor∣med by the worde of God, prayer, and thankes-gi∣uing, both Iustinus, and Irenaeus, doe most plainely testifie with Beza, and vs. When the mixed cuppe, and bread, sayth Irenaeus, receyueth the worde of God, it is made the Eucharist, &c. The breade on which, or for* 1.895 which, thankes is giuen. The bread which is of the earth, receyuing the vocation, or inuocation of God. So sayth Iustinus, the meate for which thankes are giuen▪ by the worde of prayer, which is receyued from him, and speaking of the verie manner of the consecration, vsed in his tyme. When the breade, and wine, with water, is offered: the chiefe Minister sendeth forthe prayers, and thankes-giuing, with all his might, and the people consenteth, saying, Amen. Then followeth the distribution, and participation of those thinges, for which thankes was giuen to euery one, &c. As for the Magicall mysteries of Dionyse, although in this be∣halfe,

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

MART. 5. Whereby we haue to note, that the Here∣tikes in vrging the worde, Eucharist, as meere thankes-gi∣uing, thereby to take away blessing, and consecration, of the e∣lements of bread and wine, doe vnlearnedly, and deceitfully. because all the fathers make mention of both: Saint Paule also calleth it, blessing of the chalice, which the Euangelistes call, giuing of thankes. Whose wordes Theophylacte explica∣teth thus. THE CHALICE OF BLESSING, that is, of the Eucharist. For holding it in our handes, we blesse it, and giue thankes to him that shedde his bloud for vs. See here both blessing, and Eucharist, blessing the chalice, and thankes-giuing to Christ. Saint Iames, and the Greeke fathers* 1.896 in their Liturgies, put both wordes in the consecration of eche element, saying thus, giue thankes, sanctifying, breaking: and, giuing thankes, blessing, sanctifying: and, taking* 1.897 the cuppe, giuing thankes, sanctifying, blessing, fil∣ling it with the holy Ghost, he gaue it to vs his Disci∣ples. Saint Chrysostome, who in many places of his workes speaketh much of thankes-giuing in these holy mysteries, doth he not as often speake of the blessing, consecration, yea, and the transmutation thereof, and that with what wordes, and by what power it is done? Doth not Saint Augustine saye of the same,* 1.898 benedicitur, & sanctificatur, it is blessed, and sanctifi∣ed,* 1.899 who often speaketh of the solemne giuing of thankes in the sacrifice of the Church? Doth not the Church at this daye, vse the very same termes, as in Saint Augustines time, Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro, Let vs giue thankes to the Lord our God. and, Verè dignum & iustum est, sem∣per & vbique tibi gratias agere, &c. It is very meete and right, alwayes, and in all places, to giue thee thanks: Which the Greeke Church also in their Liturgies expresse most aboundantly? yet doth there follow blessing, and conse∣cration, and whatsoeuer Saint Ambrose describeth to be done in this holye sacrifice, touching this poynt, writing thereof

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

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

MART. 6. Of all which, this is the conclusion, that the Eucharist is a solemne name, taken of the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so called, because this sacrament and sacrifice, is blessed, and con∣secrated with prayer, & thankes-giuing, as S. Iustine speaketh, and because in this sacrifice, so blessed and consecrated into the body and bloud of Christ, him we offer vp a most acceptable ob∣lation of thankes-giuing, and a memorie of all Gods maruelous benefites towarde vs. In this sense, the fathers, and the holye Church, speake of the Eucharist, including all the rest, to wit, sacrament, sacrifice, blessing, & consecration, without which thi•• were no more to be called Eucharist, than any other common gi∣uing of thanks, as S. Irenaeus doth plainly signifie, when he decla∣reth,* 1.900 that being before bread, & receiuing the inuocati∣on of God ouer it, now is no more cōmon bread, but the Eucharist, cōsisting of two things, the earthly, & the hea∣uenly. So that it is made the Eucharist by circūstance of solemne

wordes, and ceremonies, and therefore is not a meere giuing of thankes: and further we learne, that S. Iustines, and S. Irena∣us* 1.901 wordes before alledged, Panis & calix Eucaristisatus, sig∣nifie, the bread and chalice made the Eucharist: and con∣sequently we learne, that the a〈…〉〈…〉e thereof, is, by thankes-gi∣uing to make the Eucharist. a〈…〉〈…〉 ••ecause the other word of bles∣sing, and this of thankes-giuing, are vsed indifferently, one for an other, in Christs action, about this Sacrament, we learne vn∣doubtedly, that when it is sayd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the meaning is, blessing, and giuing thankes, he made the Eucharist of his bodye and bloud, that is the Sacrament and Sacrifice of a singular thankes-giuing, which (as S. Augustine often is wont to say) the faithfull onely doe knowe and vnderstand in the sa∣crifice of the Church: and because the faithfull onely vnder∣stand, therefore the Protestants and Caluinistes are so ignorant in this mysterie, that to take away all the dignitie thereof, they bend both their expositions and translations.

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

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

MART. 7. After they haue turned blessing or conse∣cration into bare thankes giuing, which is one steppe towarde the denying of the real presence, they come nearer, and so include Christe in heauen, that he cannot bee withall vpon the aultar, translating thus, Whome heauen muste containe, vntil the* 1.902 times that al things be restored, Acts. 3. v. 21. and yet Beza worse, and he that alleadge••h him, M. Whitakers: who muste be contained in heauen. Which is so farre from the Greeke, that, not onely Illyricus the Lutheran, but Caluin himselfe doth not like it. Beza protesteth, that he so translateth of purpose, to keepe Christs presence from the altar: and we maruel the lesse, because we are wel acquainted with many the like his impudent Protestations. M. Whitak. only we do maruel at, that he should be either so deceiued by an other mans translation, or himself be so ouerseene in the Greeke worde, that hee knoweth not a meere* 1.903 deponent, and only deponent, from a passiue.

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

MART. 8. This doth not become hym that ob∣iecteth* 1.904 ignoraunce of the Greeke to an other manne, and that after hee hadde well tryed by publique conference, that* 1.905 hee was not ignoraunte: and so obiecteth it, as though•• hee knewe not three wordes in that tongue, whereas hee hadde hearde hym reade and interpreate Saint Basil, not the easiest of the Greeke Doctours. This is palpable im∣pudencie, and a face that can not blushe, and full of malice agaynste the sainctes of God, who, if they knewe not a worde in the Greeke tongue, were neuer the worse, nor the lesse learned, but among fooles and children, that esteeme learning by suche trifles, whyche Grammarians knowe farre better than greate Diuines. For, were not hee awise manne that woulde preferre one Maiser Hum∣frey, Maister Fulke▪ Maister Whitakers, or some of vs poore menne, because wee haue a little smacke in the three tongues, beefore Saint Chrysostome, Saint Basil, Saint Augustine, saint Gregorie, or saint Thomas, that vnderstoode well, none but one? howbeeit, if they esteeme learning by knowledge of the tongues, they wil not (I trowe) compare with Catholikes, eyther of former time, or of these latter age, specially since their newe Gospell beganne: and if they will compare wyth vs herein for their simple credite, wee maye perhappes giue them occasion ere it bee long, to muster their menne all at once, if they dare shewe their face beefore our campe of excellent Hebricians, Grecians, Lati∣nistes, of absolute linguistes in the Chaldee, Syriake, Arabike, &c. whome they muste needes confesse to haue beene, and to be, euen at this day, their Maisters and tea∣chers.

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

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

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

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

MART. 9. But to returne to you M. Whitakers, grea∣ter is your fault in diuinitie, than in the tonges, when you make your argument against the real presence out of this place, as out of the Scripture and S. Peter, whereas they are Bezaes wordes, and not S. Peters. Againe, whether you take Bezaes wordes, or S. Peters, your argument faileth very much, when you con∣clude that Christs natural body is not in the Sacrament, because it is placed and conteined in heauen. For S. Chrysostome telleth you, that Christe ascending into heauen, both lefte vs his* 1.906 flesh, and yet ascending hath the same. And againe, O mi∣racle, saith he? He that sitteth aboue with the Father, in* 1.907 the same moment of time is handled with the handes of al. This is the faith of the auncient fathers, M. Whitakers, and

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

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

MART. 10. Againe it is a very famous place for the real presence of the bloud (which wee haue handled at large * 1.908 else where, but here also must be briefly touched) when our Sauiour saith, Luc. 22. This is the Chalice the new Testa∣ment in my bloud, which (Chalice) is shedde for you. For so (which) must needes be referred according to the Greeke. In which speach, Chalice must needes be taken for that in the chalice, and that in the chalice must needes be the bloud of Christ, and not wine, because his bloud only was shed for v••. And so ••e do plain••ly proue the real presence, according a•• S. Chry∣sostome* 1.909 also said, Hoc quod est in calice, illud est quod ••••••∣xit delatere. That which is in the Chalice, is the same that gushed out of his side. All which moste necessarie de∣duction Beza would defeate, by saying the Greeke is corrupted in all the copies that are extant in the world, and by translating thus cleane otherwise than the Greeke will beare, This ••••ppe is the newe Testament in my bloud, which (bloud) is* 1.910 shedde for you.

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

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

MART. 11. But what pertaineth this to the English he∣retikes, who translate, which is shed, so indifferētly that it may signifie, which cuppe, or, which bloud is shed? Thus farre it* 1.911 pertaineth, because they do not only defend this translation by al meanes, but they tel vs plainely namely Fulke, that they referre* 1.912 (which) to the word bloud, and not to the worde cuppe, ••uē as Beza doth, asking vs what Grammarian would referre it other∣wise. In which question he sheweth him self a very simple Grā∣marian in the Greeke, or a madde Heretike, that either knoweth not, or will not know, that in the Greeke it can not be so referred, and consequently neither in Latine nor English, which in true translation must folow the Greeke. But of these and other their* 1.913 foule and manifold shif••es to auoide this place, I haue spoken in an other place of this booke.

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

MART. 12. Onely M. Whitakers (to say truely) hath* 1.914 brought somewhat to the purpose, to wit, that S. Basil readeth the Greeke as they translate. But he doth wel to make light of it, because it is euident that S. Basil cited not the text of the Euan∣gelist,* 1.915 but the sense, which Beza noteth to be the custome of

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

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

MART. 13. As this falshood is both against Sacrament

and Sacrifice, so against the Sacrifice also of the altar it is, that they controule S. Hieroms translation, in the olde Testament, concerning the sacrifice of Melchisedec, Who brought forth* 1.916 bread and wine: Gen. 14. v. 18. that is, offered, or sacrificed bread and wine: which we proue to be the true sense and inter∣pretation (and that this bringing forth of bread and wine, was sacrificing thereof) not onely by all the fathers expositions, that write of Melchisedeks priesthood, (Cypr. epist. 63. Epiph. haer. 55. & 79. Hiero. in Mat. 26. & in epist. ad Euagrium.)* 1.917 and by the Hebrew word, which is a word of sacrifice, Iud. 6. v. 18. and by the greatest Rabbines, and Hebricians, that a ri••••* 1.918 thereof, but we proue it also by these wordes of the very text it selfe, He brought forth bread, and wine, for he was the Priest of God most high. Which reason immediatly follow∣ing, Because he was Gods Priest, proueth euidently, that he brought it not forth in cōmō maner, as any other mā might haue done, but as Gods Priest, whose office is to offer sacrifice. This consequence is so plaine, that for auoiding thereof▪ the aduer∣saries will not haue it translated in any wise. For hee was* 1.919 the Prieste, as thoughe the Scripture gaue a reason, why hee brought forth bread, and wine: but, and he was a Priest, &c.* 1.920 Wrangling aboute the signification of the Hebrew coniunction.

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

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

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

MART. 14. Wherein the reader may see their excee∣ding partialitie and wilfulnesse. For, besides infinite like places of Scripture, whereby we do easily shew that this Hebrue parti∣cle is vsed to giue a reason or cause of a thing, themselues also in an other place proue it for vs, and that by the authoritie of* 1.921 Theophylact, and allegation of examples out of the Scripture, and translate accordingly thus: Blessed art thou among wo∣men▪* 1.922 because the fruite of thy wombe is blessed. Let them giue vs a reason, why the sayd coniunction is here by their tran∣slation, quia, or, enim, where it was neuer so translated before, and it must not be in any case in the other place of Genesis, where it hath bene so translated, and generally receiued, euen in the Primitiue Church. In other places of Scripture also, which Theophylact alledgeth, and many moe may be alledged, they cō∣fesse, and like very well it should so signifie: onely in the place of Genesi••, they can not abide any such sense, or translation there∣of:* 1.923 but▪ He brought forth bread, and wine, and he was the Priest, &c. not, because he was the Priest: What is the cause of this their dealing? None other vndoubtedly (and in all

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

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

MART. 15. For whiche purpose also their partiall translation aboute altare and table, is notorious. For, the* 1.924 name of altare (as they know verie wel) both in the Hebrue and Greeke, and by the custome of al peoples▪ both Iewes and Pa∣gans,* 1.925 implying and importing sacrifice, therfore we, in respect of the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud, say. altar, rather than,

table, as all the auncient fathers (Chrys. ho. 53. ad po. An∣tioch. and ho. 20. in 2. Cor. and in Demonst. {quod} Christus sit Deus, to. 5. Nazianz. de Gorgonia sorore. Basil. in Li∣turg. Socrat. li. 1. Hist. c. 20. & 25. Theodoret. hist. li. 4. c. 20. Theophyl. in 23. Mat. Cypr. epist. 63. Optat. cont. Parm. Aug. ep. 86. & li. 9. Confess. c. 11. & 13. & alibi sae∣pe) are wont to speake and write, (namely when S. Hierom cal∣leth the bodies or bones of S. Peter and Paule the altars of Christ, because of this sacrifice offercd ouer and vpon the same) though in respect of eating and drinking the body and bloud, it is also called a table: so that with vs it is both an altar and a table, whether it be of wood or of stone. But the Protestants, be∣cause they make it only a communion of bread and wine, or a supper, and no sacrifice, therefore they call it table onely, and abhorre from the worde, altar, as Papistical. For the which pur∣pose, in their firste translation (Bible an. 1562.) when altares were then in digging downe throughout England, they transla∣ted with no lesse malice, than they threwe them downe, putting the word, temple, in steede of altare: which is so grosse a cor∣ruption, that a man woulde haue thought it had beene done by ouersight, and not of purpose, if they hadde not doone it thrice immediately wythin twoo Chapiters, 1. Cor. 9. and 10. saying: Know you not, that they whiche waite of the TEMPLE, are partakers of the TEMPLE? and, Are not they whi∣che eate of the sacrifice, partakers of the TEMPLE? in al which places the Apostles worde in Greeke, is, altare, and not,* 1.926 temple. and see here their notorious peeuishnesse, where the Apostle saith, temple, there the same translation saith, sacri∣fice: where the Apostle saith, altar, there it saith, temple.

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

a wall, as your popishe altares stande, it is easie to prooue, and it hathe oftentimes bene prooued: and it seemeth you confesse as muche, but that it is with you, bothe an altare, and a table, with vs indeede it is, as it is called in the scripture▪ only a table. That we make the Sacrament, a communion of bread and wine, it is a* 1.927 blasphemous slaunder, when wee beleeue as the Apostle taught vs, that it is the communion of the bodie and bloud of Christe, and the Lordes supper, as for the cor∣ruption* 1.928 you pretend, I cannot thinke (as I haue aun∣sweared before) it was any thing else but the first Prin∣ters ouersight. For, why shoulde the name of altare mislike vs in that place, more than in an hundreth other places, when it is certaine, wheresoeuer it is vsed in the scriptures, in the proper sense, it signifieth, the altares of the Iewes, or of the Gentiles, and neuer, the communi∣on table, or that, at whyche the Lordes supper is prepa∣red and receiued.

MART. 16. Thus we see howe they suppresse the name of altare, where it shoulde be: now let vs see howe they putte in their translation, where it shoulde not bee▪ this also they doe thrice in one chapiter, and that for to saue the honour of their* 1.929 communion table, namely, in the storie of Bel, where we haue it thrice called the table of that idol, vnder which Bels Priestes had made a priuie entraunce, and, that the king looked* 1.930 vpon the table, and, that they did eate vppe such things as were vpon the table: these wicked translators fearing, least the name of Bels table might redounde to the dishonour of their* 1.931 communion table, translate it, altare, in al these places. Wher∣in I cannot but pitie their follie, and wonder exceedingly howe they coulde imagine it any disgrace, either for table or altare, if the idols also had their tables and altares, whereas S. Paule so plainely nameth both togither, The table of our Lorde, and* 1.932 the table of Diuels. If the table of Diuels, why not the table of Bel? if that be no disgrace to the table of our Lorde, why are you afraide of Bels table, leaste it shoulde disgrace yours? Or if you had no such feare, then you must tel vs some other good rea∣son

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

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

MART. 17. And heere, by the way, the Reader may note an other exceeding follie in them, that thinke the name of table, maketh againste altare and sacrifice, their owne tran∣slation heere condemning them, where they call Bels table, an altare. and Saint Paule, hauing saide to the Corinthians, the table of oure Lorde, saith to the Hebrewes. * 1.933 of the selfe same, we haue an altare. and againe, he saith, the ta∣ble of Diuels, whych, I am sure, they wil not denie to haue bene a true altar of Idololatrical sacrifice▪ and Malach. 1. v. 7. in one sentence it is called both altare & table, whereupon the Iewes offered their externall and true sacrifices▪ and all the fa∣thers, bothe Greeke and Latine, speaking of the sacrifice of the newe Testament, call that wherevppon it is offered, both al∣tare and table: but the Greekes more often, table, the La∣tine fathers more often, altare: and why, or in what respectes, it is called both this and that, we haue before declared, and here might ad the very same out of S. Germanus Arch. B. of Con∣stantinople, in his greke cōmentaries (called mystica theoria) on the Liturgies or masses of the Greke fathers▪ but to procede.

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

MART. 18. There are also some places lesse euident, yet such as s••ach of the like heretical humor against the B. Sacra∣ment. In the prophet I••re. c. 11. v. 17. wee reade thus, accor∣ding to the Latin and the Greke, Let vs cast * 1.934 wood vpon his bread, that is, saith S. Hierome, in comment. huius loci, the crosse vpon the bodie of our Sauior. For it is he that saide, I am the breade that descended from heauen. Where the Prophete so long beefore saying, bread, and mea∣ning his bodie, alludeth prophetically to his bodie in the B. Sacrament made of breade, and vnder the forme of breade, and therefore also called breade of the Apostle. So that bothe

in the Prophete and Apostle, his breade and his bodie is alone,* 1.935 and leaste wee shoulde thinke, that the breade onely signifieth his bodie, he saith, Let vs put the Crosse vpon his breade, that is, vppon his verie natural bodie, whyche hung on the Crosse. Nowe for these wordes of the Prophete, so vsual and well known in the Church and al antiquitie, how thinke you do these newe Maisters translate? in one Bible thus, Let vs destroy the tree with the fruite thereof. Another, wee wil destroy his meate with wood. or as they shoulde haue saide rather, the wood with his meate. Doe you see how properly they agree, whiles they seeke nouelties, and forsake the auncient vsuall translation?

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

MART. 19. They wil say, the first Hebrewe word can not be as Saint Hierome translateth, and as it is in the Greeke, and* 1.936 as all antiquitie readeth: but it muste signifie, Let vs destroy. They say truely, according to the Hebrewe word which now is.* 1.937 But is it not euident thereby, that the Hebrewe worde nowe

is not the same which the Septuaginta translated into Greeke••* 1.938 and S. Hierom into Latine? and consequently the Hebrue is al∣tered and corrupted from the originall copie which they had: perhaps by the Iewes (as some other places) to obscure this prophecie also of Christes Passion, and their crucifying of him vpon the Crosse. Such Iewish Rabbines and new Hebrue words do our newe maisters gladly folow in the translation of the olde Testament, whereas they might easily conceyue the old Hebrue worde in this place, if they would employ their skill that way, and not onely to nouelties. For who seeth not that the Greeke Interpreters in number 70. and al Hebrues of best skill in their* 1.939 owne tongue, S. Hierom also a great Hebrician did not reade as now wee haue in the Hebrue, Nashchîta, but, Nashitha, or, Nashlîcha? Againe the Hebrue worde that now is, doth so litle agree with the wordes folowing, that they cannot tell how to translate it, as appeareth by the diuersitie and difference of their translations thereof before mentioned, and transposing the wordes in English otherwise than in the Hebrue, neither of both their translations hauing any commodious sense or vnder∣standing.

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

Septuaginta in this chapiter, beside he professeth great breuitie, intreating vpon so long a Prophete. But whe∣ther a letter in this word haue bene altered or no, or* 1.940 whether it were corrupt in the copie, which the Greeke translater and Hierom did reade, for the true or simple sense thereof, there is no great difference. No nor for that sense which Hierom bringes, which although it see∣meth to be farre from the Prophets meaning, yet it may haue as good ground vpon the worde Naschita, as vpon the worde Nashlicha.

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

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

MART. 21. But concerning the B. Sacrament, let vs see* 1.941 once more how truely they folow the Hebrue. The holy Ghost (saith S. Cyprian ep. 63. nu. 2.) by Salomon foresheweth a type of our Lordes sacrifice, of the immolated host of bread & wine, saying, Wisedome hath killed her hostes, SHE HATH MINGLED HER WINE INTO the cuppe. Come ye, eate of my bread, and drinke the wine that I HAVE MINGLED for you. Speaking of WINE MINGLED (saith this holy doctor) he foresheweth pro∣phetically

the cuppe of our Lorde, MINGLED WITH WATER AND WINE. So doth S. Hierom interprete this mixture or mingling of the wine in the chalice, so doth the au∣thor of the commentaries vpon this place among S. Hieroms* 1.942 workes, so doe the other fathers. So that there is great impor∣tance in these propheticall wordes of Salomon. She hath min∣gled her wine into the cuppe, and, the wine which I haue mingled, as being a manifest prophecie of Christes mingling water and wine in the Chalice at his last supper, which the Ca∣tholike Churche obserueth at this day, and whereof S. Cyprian writeth the foresaide long epistle.

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

MART. 22. But the Protestants counting it an idle superstitious ceremonie, here also frame their translation accor∣dingly, suppressing altogither this mixture or mingling, and in steede thereof saying, Shee hath drawen her wine, and,* 1.943 drinke the wine that I haue drawen: or (as in other of their Bibles) Shee hath powred out her wine, and, the wine* 1.944 which I haue powred out: neither translation agreing either with Greeke or Hebrue. Not with the Greeke, which doth* 1.945 euidently signifie, mingling and mixture, as it is in the Latine, and as al the Greeke Church from the Apostles time hath vsed this word in this very case whereof wee nowe speake, of ming∣ling water and wine in the chalice. S. Iames, and S. Basil in their

Liturgies expresly testifying that Christ did so, as also S. Cyprian* 1.946 in the place alleaged. S. Iustine in the end of his second Apolo∣gie, calling it of the same Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is (accor∣ding to Plutarche) wine mingled with water: likewise S. Ir••∣neus* 1.947 in his fifth booke neere the beginning. See the sixth ge∣nerall Councell most fully treating hereof and deducing it from the Apostles and auncient fathers, and interpreting this Greeke worde by any other equiualent, and more plaine to signifie this* 1.948 mixture.

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

MART. 23. Thus then the Greeke is neither drawing of wine, nor powring out thereof, as they translate, but mingling.

But the Hebrew perhaps signifieth both, or at the least one of the two, either to draw, or to poure out. Gentle Reader, if thou haue skill, looke the Hebrew Lexicon of Pagnine, esteemed the best:* 1.949 if thou haue not skill, aske, and thou shalt vnderstande, that there is no such signification of this worde, in all the Bible, but that it signifieth onely mixture and mingling. A straunge case, that to auoid this mingling of the cuppe, being a most certaine tradition of the Apostles, they haue inuented two other signifi∣cations of this Hebrew word, which it neuer had before.

FVLK. 23. The Dictionaries are more sure to teach what a word doth signifie, than what it doth not signifie. I confesse, Pagnine giueth none other signification of that roote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but miscuit. But euen the worde miscuit, may signifie, a powring out, when there is no respect of ioyning diuers things togither, but of seruing one with the cuppe, as Tullie vseth the word. Qui alteri misceat mul∣sum, ipse non sitiens. He that serueth an other with sweete wine, when he is not a thirst him selfe. So is the Hebrew word vsed, Esai. 19. where the Prophet sayth. The Lorde hath powred forth amonge them, the spirite of errour. Where the worde of mixture, is not so proper. Againe, your owne vulgar Latine Interpretor, Prouerb. 23. tran∣slateth mimsach, a worde deriued from the same roote,* 1.950 not for any mixture, but for drinking vppe, or making cleane the cuppes, & student calicibus epotandis, which stu∣dy how to empty or drinke vp all that is in the cuppes. In Hebrew it is, which go to seeke strong wine, or mingled wine. And if a mixture be graunted in the place you re∣quire, how proue you a mixture, with water rather than with any thing else. Verily, the circumstance of the place, if there must needes be a mixture, requireth a mixture of spices, hony, or some such thing, to make the wine de∣lectable, vnto which, Wisedome doth inuite, and allure all men to drinke it, rather than of water onely, to abate the strength of it. As also in the text, Prouerbes 23. the drunkards that continued at the wine, and went to seeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mingled wine, went not to seeke wine mingled

with water, but some other delicate mixture. And Esay. 5. where woe is pronoūced to drunkards, the same word is vsed: woe be to them, that are strong to drinke wine, and men of might, limsoch, to mingle strong drinke, not* 1.951 to mingle it with water, for sobrietie, but with some o∣ther delectible matter, to prouoke drunkennesse, as your vulgar Interpretor translateth it. So that albeit the word did signifie to mingle, neuer so properly, and cer∣tainly, you can make no good argument for mingling with water, in that place. Prouerbs 9. where either it sig∣nifieth simply to drawe, broche, or powre out, or else to prepare with some other more pleasant mixture, than of water onely.

CHAP. XVIII.

Hereticall translation against the honour of SAINCTS, namely of our B. LADIE.

Martin.

LEt vs passe from Gods holy Sacraments, to* 1.952 his honourable Saincts in heauen, and we shall finde that these translations plucke from them also as much honour as they may. In the Psalme 138. where the Catholike* 1.953 Church, and all antiquitie readeth thus, Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus, &c. Thy friendes O God are become exceeding honou∣rable, their princedome is exceedingly strengthened: which verse is sung and sayd, in the honour of the holy Apostles, agreeably to that in an other Psalme, Constitues cos princi∣pes* 1.954 super omnem terram, Thou shalt appoint them Prin∣ces ouer all the earth: what meane they in all their English Bibles to alter it thus: Howe deare are thy counsels (or thoughts) to me O God: O how great is the summe of them? Doth not the Hebrew make more for the olde receiued* 1.955 Latine translation, than for theirs, because the Hebrew word is

vsed more commonly for to signifie friendes, than cogitations? doth not S. Hierom so translate in his translation of the Psalmes according to the Hebrew? doth not the great Rabbine R. Salo∣mon? Doth not the Greeke put it out of doubt, which is altogi∣ther* 1.956 according to the sayd auncient Latine translation?

Fulke.

THe context of the verse going before, & al∣so* 1.957 the verse following, not any enuye a∣gainst the Saincts of god, haue moued our translators to depart from the vulgar tran∣slation, which is neither so proper for the words, & altogither impertinent to the matter of the text. For when the Prophet had in the verse going be∣fore, celebrated the wonderfull worke of God, in the framing of his body in his mothers womb, in this verse, he breaketh out into an exclamatiō, to behold the mar∣uelous & vnsearchable wisedom of gods councels, whose strength is aboue mans reach, whose nūber is as the sand of the sea. To answer R Salomō, we haue R. Dauid Kim∣chi, as great a Rabbine as he, and a more sincere Inter∣pretor, that expoundeth the whole verse euen as we doe.

MART. 2. And you my Maisters, that translate other∣wise, I beseech you, is it in Hebrew, How great is the summe* 1.958 of thē: & not rather word for word most plainly, how are the heades of them strengthened, or their Princedoms, as in the Greeke also it is most manifest? Why do you then hunt af∣ter* 1.959 nouelties, & forsake the troden path of the auncient, & passe the bounds which our holy forefathers haue set and appointed, preferring your owne singularities & newe deuises., euen there where you can not iustly pretend either the Hebrew, or Greeke?* 1.960 When the Hebrew Lexicon hath giuen the cōmon interpretation of this place, & then saith, Quidam exponunt, Some expound it otherwise: why had you rather be of that lesser, some that ex∣pound* 1.961 otherwise, than of the great societie of all auncient in∣terpreters.

FVLK. 2. The Hebrew is as we haue translated, how great is the summe of them. So doth Kimchi expound it, so doth Pagnin, and to the same effect, Iustinian. And the* 1.962 same word, ••atsemu missapel▪ the summe of them is grea∣ter than can be numbred, Psal. 40. Where the Prophet speaketh of the counsailes or thoughts of God as in this place. Where you quarrel at vs, for following the lesser number when Pagnin saith, Quidam, &c. You may know if you list, that Pagnine him selfe is one of those quidam, that translateth euen as we doe, Howe precious are their thoughts vnto me, howe are the summes of them multi∣plied? As for Hierom, whom you would haue vs to fol∣low, in steede of Princes, hath poore men. And therefore you doe iniuriously, to require vs to follow him, whome you followe not your selues. You must therefore indite Pagnine of hereticall translation, beside all Protestants, or els you are very partiall.

MART. 3. But this new fangled singularitie of teaching and translating, otherwise than all antiquitie hath done, shall better appeare in their dealing, about our B. Ladie, whose ho∣nour they haue sought so many wayes to diminish, and deface, that the defense and maintenance thereof against the Here∣tikes of our time, is growen to a great booke, learnedly written by the great Clerke, and Iesuite, father Canisius, entituled, Mari∣ana.

FVLK. 3. I thinke Canisius in all his great booke called Mariana, medleth not with our English translati∣ons, and therefore very idlely was this matter brought in, to tell vs of Canisius booke, called Mariana. I haue seene a blasphemous booke against, I may iustly saye, (though it were pretended in the honour of) the blessed Virgine, called Mariale. I haue seene that horrible bla∣sphemous Psalter of Bonauentur, peruerting all the Psalmes vnto the honour of the Virgine Marie, with in∣tollerable blasphemie against God, and the holy mother of Christ, whose greatest honour is in the kingdome of her sonne, and in his infinite glorie.

MART. 4. Concerning our purpose, what was euer more common, and is now more generall, and vsuall, in all Christian Countries, than in the Aue Marie, to say, Gratia plena, full of grace, insomuch, that in the first English Bible, it hath conti∣nued so still, and euery child in our countrie, was taught so to say till the Aue Marie was banished altogither, and not suffe∣red to be sayd, neither in Latine, nor English? What auncient father of the Latine Church, hath not alwaies so redde, and ex∣pounded? What Church in all the West, hath not euer so sung, and sayd? Onely our new Translators haue found a new kind of speeche, translating thus: Haile thou that art freely belo∣ued▪* 1.963 and, Haile thou that art in high fauour. Why this, and that, or any other thing, rather than, Haile full of grace? S. Iohn Baptist was full of the holy Ghost, euen from his birth, S.* 1.964 Steuen was ful of grace, as the scripture recordeth of them both: why may not then our Ladie much more be called full of grace,* 1.965 who (as S. Ambrose sayth) onely obtained the grace, which no other women deserued, to be replenished with the author of grace?

FVLK. 4. The salutation of the Virgine, may be sayd still, either in Latine, or English, as well as any parte of the holye Scripture beside. But not to make a popish Orizon, of an Angelike salutation. That we haue transla∣ted Haile Marie freely beloued, or, that art in high fa∣uour, we haue followed the truth of the Greeke worde, not so denying there by, but that the virgin Marie of Gods special goodnesse without her merites, as she con∣fesseth was filled with all gratious giftes of the holy spirite, as much as any mortall creature might be, except our Sauiour Christe, whose onely priuiledge it is to be free from sinne, and to haue receyued the giftes of the holy Ghost without measure in his manhood.

MART. 5. They will say, the Greeke worde doth not so signifie. Doth it not? I make them selues witnesses of the con∣trarie, and their owne translation in other places shall confute them, where they translate an other worde of the selfe same na∣ture and forme and in all respectes like to this, ful of sores. If* 1.966

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be full of sores, why is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 full of grace? Let any Grecian of them all, make me a difference in the nature and significancie of these two wordes. Againe, if vlcerosus (as Beza translateth) be full of sores, why is not gratiosa (as Eras∣mus translateth) full of grace? or why doth Beza maruell, that Erasmus translated, gratiosa, when him selfe translateth the like word, vlcerosus? All which adiectiues in osus (you knowe) signifie fulnes, as, periculosus, aerumnosus. Yet what a sturre doth Beza keepe here in his annotations, to make the Greeke word signifie, freely beloued?

FVLK. 5. The signification of the Greeke worde, with your foolish cauillation of Vlcerosus, I haue discus∣sed sufficiently. cap. 1. sect. 43.

MART. 6. But hath it in deede any such signification? tell vs you that professe this great skill of the tongues, what syl∣lable* 1.967 is there in this word, that soundeth to that signification? S. Chrysostom, & the Greeke Doctors, that should best know the* 1.968 nature of this Greeke word, say that it signifieth, to make graci∣ous & acceptable, & beloued, & beautiful, & amiable, & so to be desired, as when the Psalme saith, The king shal desire thy* 1.969 beautie. Beza him selfe saith, that it is word for word, gratifica∣ta, made grateful, & yet he expoundeth it, accepted before God, & translateth it, freely beloued, because he wil haue no singular grace or goodnes, or vertue, resident in our B. Lady, but all by imputation, & acceptation, wherof I haue spoken before. S. Athanasius a greke doctor saith, that she had this title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.970 because the holy ghost descended into the Virgin, fil∣ling hir with al graces and vertues, and I beseech the reader, to see his words, which are many moe concerning this fulnesse of* 1.971 grace and al spiritual gifts. S. Hierome, that knewe the Greeke word as wel as the Protestants, readeth, Gratia plena, and findeth no fault with this interpretation. but saith plainely, she was so saluted, full of grace, because shee conceiued him, in whom al fulnesse of the deitie dwelt corporally.

FVLK. 6. Looke in the best Greeke Lexicons, and you shal finde it the same signification, that we translate, and none other. Chrisostome is of the same iudgement,

as I haue shewed, in the place aboue mentioned. That the Virgine Marie was iustified before God by faith, im∣puted to hir for righteousnes without workes or iustice, as you wil haue it called, we doubt no more of hir, than of Abraham. But, that shee was also sanctified with moste excellent graces, and indued in hir soule, with al christian vertues, Beza, and all that esteeme Beza in the word, wil confesse as muche as is conuenient for hir honour, so nothing bee derogated from the honour of God. That which Athanasius saith, we do likewise ad∣mit, and that which Hierome writeth also. But this is all the controuersie, whether the Virgine Marie were freely accepted and beloued of God, & so by his spirite indued with gratious vertues, or whether, for her vertues which she had of her selfe, she were worthie to be beloued of God, and deserued that honour, whereof she was vouch∣safed to become the mother of God. Athanasius saith expresly, that all those graces and giftes were freely giuen her by the obumbration or ouershadowing of the holy Ghost, which the Angel promised should come vpon her.

MART. 7. Now let the English Bezites come with their* 1.972 new terme, freely beloued, and controll these and all other auncient fathers both Greeke and Latine, and teach them a new signification of the Greeke worde, which the•• knew not be∣fore. Let Iohn Keltridge one of their great Preachers in Lon∣don, come and tell vs, that the Septuaginta and the beste trāslatiōs in Greeke haue no such words as we vse in the Aue Marie, but that the word which the Septuaginta vse, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Who euer heard such a iest, that the preacher of the worde of God in London (so he is called in the title of his booke) and preacher before the Iesuites and Seminaries in the tower, which is next degree to the disputers there, whose sermons be solemnely printed, & dedicated to one of the Queenes Coun∣cell, who seemeth to be such a Grecian that he confuteth the vulgar Latin translation by the significatiō of the Greeke word, and in other places of his booke alleageth the Greeke texte:

that this man for all this, referreth vs to the Septuaginta either* 1.973 as authors of S. Lukes Gospel, which is too ridiculous: or as trā∣slators thereof, as though S. Luke had written in Hebrue, yea as though the whole newe Testament had bene written in He∣brue (for so no doubt he presupposed) and that the Septuaginta had translated it into Greeke as they did the old, who were dead three hundred yeares before S. Lukes Gospell and the new Te∣stament was written.

FVLK. 7. Concerning Iohn Keltridge, agaynst whose ignorance and arrogancie you insult, I can say no∣thing, because I haue not seene his booke. But knowing how impudently you slaunder me, M. Whitaker, Beza, and euery man almost, wyth whome you haue any dea∣ling, I maye wel suspecte your fidelitie in this case, and thinke the matter is not so hard against Iohn Keltridge, as you make it seeme to be. If he haue ouershot himself (as you say) he is the more vnwise, if you slaunder him, as you do others, you are moste of al too blame.

MART. 8. Al this is such a pitiful iest, as were incredi∣ble, if his printed booke didde not giue testimonie. Pitiful, I say, because the simple people count such their preachers iolly fellows and great Clearks, because they can talke of the Greeke and of the Hebrewe texte, as this man doth also, concerning the Hebrue letter, Tau, whether it had in olde time, the forme of a Crosse, or* 1.974 no, euen as wisely and as skilfully, as he did of the Septuagin∣ta, and the Greeke worde in S, Lukes Gospel. Whose incredible follie and ignorance in the tongues, perhaps I would neuer haue mentioned (because I thinke the reste are sorie and ashamed of him) but that he boasteth of that, whereof he hath no skill, and that the people may take him for a very paterne and example of many other like boasters and braggers among them, and that when they heare one talke lustily of the Hebrewe and Greeke, and cite the text in the said tongues, they may alwaies remem∣ber Iohn Keltridge their Preacher, and say to themselues, what if this fellow also be like Iohn Keltridge?

FVLK. 8. Reseruing Iohn Keltridge to the trial & defence of himselfe, I say, you haue shewed your selfe as

ridiculous in this booke diuerse times, and so haue ma∣ny that beare a greater countenance among you ten∣times, than Iohn Keltridge doth among vs, how so euer it pleaseth you to make him the next degree to the dis∣puters: But if Iohn Keltridge haue shewed him selfe to be a vaine boaster of that knowledge whereof perhaps he is ignorant, what reason is it that other learned men, which know the tongues in deede, should be drawne in∣to suspition of ignorance for his follie? But that you de∣light by al meanes to discredite their learning and good giftes of God in them, to whom if you were compara∣ble your selfe, yet it were not tollerable, that you should seeke their reproche, before their vnskilfulnesse may plainely be reproued.

MART. 9. But to proceede: these great Grecians and Hebricians that controll all antiquitie and the approued aun∣cient Latine translation by scanning the Greeke and Hebrue wordes, that thinke it a great corruption Gen. 3. to reade, Ipsa conteret caput tuum, she shall bruise thy head, because it pertaineth to our Ladies honour, calling it * 1.975 a corruption of the Popish Church, whereas S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Grego∣rie, S. Bernard, and the rest reade so, as being the common re∣ceiued texte in their time (though there hath bene also alwaies the other reading euen in the vulgar Latine translation, and therefore it is not any late reformation of these new correctors, as though the Hebrue and Greeke texte before had bene vn∣knowen) these controllers I say of the Latine texte by the He∣brue, against our Ladies honour, are in an other place content to dissemble the Hebrue worde, and that also for small deuotion to the B. Virgin: namely Hierom 7. and 44. Where the Pro∣phet inueigheth against them that offer sacrifice to the Queene of heauen, this they thinke is very well, because it may sounde in the peoples eares against the vse of the Catholike Churche, which calleth our Lady, Queene of heauen. But they know ve∣ry well that the Hebrue worde doth not signifie Queene in a∣ny other place of the Scripture, and that the Rabbines and later Hebricians (whom they gladly folow) deduce it otherwise, to

signifie rather the whole corps and frame of heauen, consisting of all the beautiful starres and planets, and the Septuaginta call it* 1.976 not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Queene, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: the host of hea∣uen, c. 7. Hierem: and S. Hierom not onely, reginā, but rather,* 1.977 militiam coeli: and when he nameth it reginam, Queene, he saith we must vnderstand it of the moone, to which and to the o∣ther starres they did sacrifice & commit idolatrie. But the Pro∣testants (against their custome of scanning the Hebrue and the Greeke) translate here, Queene of heauen, for no other cause in the world, but to make it sound against her, whom Catholikes truly call and worthily honour as Queene of heauen, because her sonne is king, and she exalted aboue Angels and all other creatures. See the New Test Annot. Act. 1. v. 14.

FVLK. 9. We thinke it in deede a shameful corrup∣tion of the Scripture, that your vulgar Latine texte, for ipsum, or ipse, as it is in the Greeke, readeth ipsa, and blaf∣phemous it is to ascribe that to the mother of Christe, which is proper vnto him self. But many of the auncient Fathers did reade so, and therefore Fulke did ignorantly be like, in calling it a corruption of the Popish Church. The best propertie I finde in you, (for which I am be∣holding to you) is that when you haue made a lie, and slaundered me, you will note the place your selfe, where I may be discharged and your owne impudencie be cō∣uinced. My wordes in the place by you noted be these:* 1.978

Finally, howe the Romish Church in these laste dayes hath kepte the Scripture from corruption, although I could shew by an hundereth examples, yet this one shal suffice for all. The very first promise of the Gospell, that is in the Scripture, Gen. 3. That the seede of the woman shoulde breake the Serpentes head, the Popish Church hath eyther wilfully corrupted, or negligently suffered to be depraued thus: Ipsa conteret caput tuum, shee shall breake thine head, referring that to the wo∣man which God speaketh expresly to the seede of the woman.

Whether the mysterie of iniquitie working in the Latine Churche, long before the Apostasie thereof

into the kingdome of Antichrist began this corruption, I leaue it in doubt, but that the Popish Church hath suf∣fered this deprauation to continue, it is out of all que∣stion, although you say you haue the other reading al∣so, whiche though some copies haue, yet will you not admit it to be authentical. And whereas you bragge that this reading hath bene alwaies in your vulgar Latine translation: Hentenius confesseth that of 28. ancient co∣pies, by which he reuised the vulgar translation, he found it onely in two. As for S. Ambrose how he did reade, it is not certaine: for in his booke De fuga saeculi, Cap. 7. where this texte is cited, though the printed bookes haue Ipsa, yet there is nothing in his exposition that a∣greeth therewith, and seing that he followed the Greeke text, which hath the pronoune of the masculine gēder, it is like he did reade rather Ipse, but because his Greeke was very corrupt, so that for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, conteret, he did reade 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, seruabit. There is no great account to be made of his reading. S. Augustine in Psalm. 103. readeth Ipsa, but he referreth it to the Church, not to the virgin Ma∣rie, as also for conteret, out of the corrupte Greeke hee readeth obseruabit. Gregorie followeth the same cor∣rupt version, out of the Greeke Ipsa obseruabit, but he re∣ferreth it to euery Christian man, which is the seede of the woman, not to the virgine Marie. Mor. lib. 2. Cap. 38. By whiche it is euident that your vulgar Latine texte, was not receyued in the Church of Rome for sixe hun∣dreth yeares after Christ. For you read conteret, and not obseruabit. Onely Bernarde in deede a late writer hath your reading ipsa conteret, whiche hee expoundeth as prophecie of the virgine Marie. Who withstood the temptations of the Deuill, not vnderstāding the promise of the ouercomming of the Deuill, by Christe, euen as the Apostle alludeth to it, the Lorde shall treade downe Sathan vnder your feete. Rom. 16. The same Bernarde, Sermon. de villic. Iniquo, readeth the texte, Gen. 4. Si rectè offeras, & non recte diuidas, after the

Greeke, by which also it is plaine, as by other argumēts, that your vulgare Latine translation was not receyued for 1000. yeares after Christe. How true therefore it is that you sayde Ipsa conteret caput tuum, was the common receyued text in the auncient fathers time, the readers may see and iudge.

But the chieefe complaint is behinde, that in Hiere∣mie 7. Cap. 44. we translate the Queene of heauen, as the Septuaginta, Hierom, and the vulgar Latine translation doth, and wee onely do it in despite of the virgine Ma∣rie, because the Papistes blasphemously call her the Queene of heauen. The Hebrue word in deede may sig∣nifie Queene, although with those pointes it be not else where redde for a Queene, & it may signifie the worke∣manship, but then you must supplie Aleph of the roote, that is wanting, and resteth vnder no long vowell, & so some Protestants do translate it, as Tremelius & Iunius. But if wee bee accused of hereticall translation, when we ioigne with your vulgar Latine, with Hierom, with the Septuaginta, it is very strange, that they should nor beare the blame with vs. Certaine it is, no Protestant did euer teache, that the Iewes did worshippe the vir∣gine Marie for the Queene of heauen. But the Sunne, the Moone, or some great starre as Pagnine saith. How truely you call the virgin Marie queene of heauen, and how well you proue it in your notes, vpon Actes 1. 14. Some other more conuenient time, and place may bee graunted to consider.

MART. 10. Agine, why doth the Geneua newe Testa∣ment* 1.979 make S. Mathew to say, that He (to wit, Ioseph) called his name Iesus? Why not shee, as well as hee? For in S. Luke the Angell saith to our Lady also, Thou shalt call his name Iesus. S. Matthew then speaking indifferently, and not limi∣ting it to him or her, why doe they giue this preeminence to Io∣seph rather than to the B. Virgin? did not both Zacharie and* 1.980 also Elisabeth his wife by reuelation giue the name of Iohn, to Iohn the Baptist? yea did not Elisabeth the mother firste so

name him before Zacharie hir husband? muche more may wee thinke, that the B. Virgine the natural mother of our Sauiour, gaue him the name of Iesus, than Ioseph his putatiue father. specially, if we consider, that the Aungel reu••aled the name first vnto hir, saying, that shee should so cal him: and the Hebrewe word, Esay. 7. wherevnto the Aungel alludeth, is the foeminine gender, and referred by the great Rabbines, Rabbi Abraham, and Rabbi Dauid, vnto hir, saying expresly in their commen∣taries, Et vocabit ipsa puella: and the maide hir self shall call. and surely, the vsual pointing of the Greeke text (for Be∣za maketh other points of his owne) is much more for that pur∣pose. Now, if they wil say, that Theophylacte vnderstandeth it of Ioseph, true it is, and so it maye be vnderstoode very wel: but if it may be vnderstoode, of our Ladie also, and rather of hir, than of him, why dothe your translation exclude this other interpretation?

FVLK. 10. The matter is not worth the waight of an haire, whether wee reade, he called, or, she called, for both called him so. But, because Ioseph had a comman∣dement, in the same chapiter, that hee shoulde call his name Iesus, it is more probable, that S. Mathewe, in this place meant of him, rather than hir: at the least, it is no heretical translation, to saye, that Ioseph didde that, which he was in fewe verses before, commaunded to do: and it was more ordinarie and vsuall, that the man gaue the name, rather than the woman, although, in this case, the woman had more right than the man. As for Eliza∣beths example, prooueth nothing, because shee spake when hir husband was dumbe.

MART. 11. Where, by the way I must tel you (and else∣where perhappes more at large) that it is your common fault, to make some one Doctours interpretation, the text of your tran∣slation, and so to exclude al the rest that expound it otherwise, which you know is such a fault in a trāslator, as cā by no means bee excused. Secondly, the reader may here obserue and learne, that if they shal hereafter defend their translation of any place, by some Doctours exposition, agreable therevnto, that will not

serue nor suffice them, because euerie Doctor may say his opini∣on* 1.981 in his cōmentaries, but that must not be made the tex••e of Scripture, because other Doctours expounde it otherwise: and being in it selfe, and in the original tongue, ambiguous, and in∣different to diuers senses, it may not be restrained or limited by translation, vnlesse there bee a meere necessitie, when the tran∣slation cannot possibly or hardly expresse the ambiguitie and in∣differencie of the originaltexte.

FVLK. 11. The authoritie of one Doctour, agree∣ing with the proprietie of the originall tongue, is more worth, than an hundreth againste it. We neuer follow one Doctour, as you falsly slaunder vs, to make his in∣terpretation the text, but where that one Doctour did see the truth of the natural sense, according to the ••ong, that perhaps was hid from other Doctours, whose wry∣tings we haue. As for ambiguities, and indifferences vnto diuerse senses, are better reserued to commentaries and lectures vppon the Scriptures, than that they ey∣ther can or oughte to bee retained in the translati∣ons.

MART. 12. As (for example) in this controuersie con∣cerning* 1.982 Sainctes, S. Peter speaketh so ambiguously, either, that he wil remember them after his death, or they shall remember him, that some of the Greeke fathers gathered, and concluded* 1.983 there vppon (Oecum. in Caten. Gagneius in hunc locum) that the Saincts in heauen remember vs on earth, and make in∣tercession for vs. Which ambiguitie both in the Greeke, and the Latine, shoulde be also kept and expressed in the Englishe translation, and wee haue endeuoured as neere as we could pos∣sibly so to make it, because of the diuers interpretations of the auncient fathers. But it maye seeme perhaps to the reader, that the saide ambiguitie cannot be kept in our English tongue, and that our owne translation also can haue but one sense. If it bee so, and if there bee a necessitie of one sense, then (as I saide) the translator in that respect is excused. But let the good rea∣der consider also, that the Caluinistes in restraining the sense of this place, followe not necessitie, but their heresie, that Saints

pray not for vs. Which is euident by this, that they restraine* 1.984 it in their Latine translations also, where there is no necessitie at al, but it might be as ambiguous and indifferent, as in greke,* 1.985 if it pleased them: yea, when they print the Greeke Testament onely, wythout any translation, yet here they put the Latine in the margent, according as they wil haue it read, and as thoughe it might be read no otherwise, than they prescribe.

FVLK. 12. Oecumenius, who liued in a superstiti∣ous time, telleth, that some men vnderstoode thys say∣ing of Peter, by an hyperbaton, &c. meaning to shewe, that the saincts, euē after their death, do remember those things, which they haue done here, for them that are a∣liue. But other handling this matter plainely, &c. doe giue the vsuall sense. First Oecumenius counteth thys an enforced exposition, because it cannot stand, but by an hyperbaton. Secondly, he speaketh neuer a word of the intercession of Saincts for vs. Thirdly, he prese••reth the common sense, that al the fathers before him giuen of this text, as plaine and simple, and yet this must be sufficient for vs to change our iuterpretation, although we were put in faulte immediately before, as thoughe we made one doctors interpretation, a sufficient ground of our translation. Yet is not this an opinion approo∣ued, but reported onely by Oecumenius▪ and Oecume∣nius himselfe, a Doctour of as little authoritie, as anye other, in respect of the late season, in whyche he liued. As for Gagneius, that came after him, who seeth not how little we are to accompt of his credite, that would wreste the deciding of an vnprofitable question, out of this place, whether Sainctes make intercession for vs, whiche, if it were graunted, it foloweth not, that wee must make intercession to them.

CHAP. XIX.

Hereticall translation againste the distinction of LATRIA and DVLIA.

Martin.

IN this restraining of the Scripture to the* 1.986 sense of some one Doctour, there is a fa∣mous example in the epistle to the Hebrnes,* 1.987 where the Apostle saith, eyther Iacob ado∣red the top of Iosephs scepter, as many reade and expound: or else, that he adored toward the toppe of his scepter, as other reade and interpreate: and beside these, there is no other interpretation of* 1.988 this place in al antiquitie, but in S. Augustine onely, as Beza confesseth: yet are they so bolde to make his exposition onelye, and his commentarie peculiar to him alone, the texte of the scripture in their translation, saying: Iacob leaning on the ende of his staffe, worshipped God, and so excluding all o∣ther senses, and expositions of al the other Fathers, excluding, and condemning their owne former translations, adding twoo* 1.989 wordes more, than are in the Greeke texte, leaning, God: forcing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signifie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whiche may be, but is as rare, as virgae eius, for virgae suae: turning the other wordes cleane* 1.990 out of their order and place, and forme of construction, whych* 1.991 they muste needes haue correspondent, and aunswereable to the Hebrewe texte, from whence they were translated: whyche He∣brewe wordes themselues translate in this order, He worship∣ped toward the beds head. If he worshipped toward the beds head, according to the Hebrewe: then did hee worship toward the top of his scepter, according to the Greeke: the* 1.992 difference of bothe being only in these words, scepter, and bed, (because the Hebrue is ambiguous to bothe) and not in the or∣der or construction of the sentence.

Fulke.

THe restraining of simple men from* 1.993 errour, is counted of you the restrai∣ning of the Scripture, as though the Scripture were a nose of waxe, as some of you haue called it, which might be writhed euery waye, and especially it pleaseth you, when it may be wrested to some colour of your errour. So haue you not one place of Scripture cleare on your side, for any of your heresies, but you are glad to vphold ambiguities, and di∣uersities of senses, wheras, if you had the truth, you might haue texts of infallible certaintie, whereof there could not be diuers interpretations, without manifest violence offered vnto the wordes and true signification of them. But concerning the place now in question, your vulgar text, omitting the preposition, which is both in the Greeke, and in the Hebrew, hath committed a manifest errour, in saying, that Iacob worshipped the toppe of his rodde or staffe, where S. Augustine hath rightly obser∣ued the true sense of the place, and sayth, that Iacob (as a weake olde man) worshipped vpon the toppe of his staffe, that is, leanīg on his staffe. The Hebrew is, towards the beds head. Although it is not vnlike, that either the Apostle did reade the worde Mattah, which we reade Mittah, or els that Mittah signifieth a staffe, as well as Mattah. For it is not like as Beza sayth, that Iacob kept his bed, when Ioseph came first to him, for after it was told Ioseph that his father was sicke. That other transla∣tors obserued not this matter, whereto shall it be impu∣ted, but to humane imperfection? That we adde to the text, it is false, the wordes, leaning, and God, are printed in the small letter, to signifie that they are not of the o∣riginall text, but added for plainnesse. And yet the sense may stand without them: and he worshipped vpon the

ende or toppe of his staffe. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is forced to sig∣nifie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is a forgerie of you, and no enforcement by vs: for it is in a manner as commonly taken so, as other∣wise, except there be an other antecedent, to whome it may be referred, then to auoyde ambiguitie, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. rather than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 As Math. 4. his pathes, his meate, his hande, Math. 5. his Disciples, and else where in euery place.

MART. 2. To make it more plaine, when the Prophet Dauid sayth, Adorabo ad templum sanctum tuum, Psal.* 1.994 5. & 137. is not the true translation, and grammaticall sequele of the wordes, thus: I will adore toward thy holy temple? Is it not a common phrase in the Scripture, that the people of God adored toward Hierusalem, toward his holy mount, be∣fore* 1.995 the Arke, toward the place where his feete stoode? May any man be so bolde, by adding and transposing to alter and obscure all such places of holye Scripture, that there may ap∣peare no maner of adoration toward or before a creature? and for worshipping or adoring toward the thinges aforesayd, and the like, may we say, leaning vpon those thinges to worshippe, or adore God? Were they afrayde, lest th••se speeches of holye Scripture might warrant and confirme the Catholike and Chri∣stian maner of adoring our Sauiour Christ, toward the holye Roode, at, or before his image and the crucifixe before the al∣tar, and so forth? For had they not feared this, why shoulde they translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, leaning vpon, rather than, towardes, yea, why in Genesis, towardes his beds head, and here not, towards?

FVLK. 2. You abound in leysure, thus to trifle a∣bout nothing, we allowe worshipping toward the tem∣ple, the holye hill, the footestoole, the Arke of God, and such like: yea if you will haue it toward the beddes heade, or the toppp of his staffe, what gayne you for the worshipping of images, forbidden by the seconde com∣maundemēt, or before images? for so you would creepe vpon poore mens consciences, first, to worshippe before images, then to worshippe images, thirdly, to worship,

them with Dulia, and not with Latria, at last to worship the image of God, of Christ, of the Trinitie, with Latria, euen the same worshippe that is due to God him selfe.

MART. 3. And (which is more) when the auncient Greeke fathers, Chrys. Oecum. in Collectan. Damase. lib. 1. pro imaginibus, Leont. apud Damasc. put so litle force* 1.996 either in this preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (or the other alledged) that they expound all those speeches, as if the prepositions were of phrase onely, and not of signification, saying: Iacob adored Iosephs* 1.997 scepter, the people of Israel adored the temple, the Arke, the holy mount, the place where his feete stoode, and the* 1.998 like, whereby S. Damascene proueth the adoration of creatures, named Dulia, namely, of the crosse, and of sacred images: if I say they make so litle force of the prepositions, that they inferre not onely adoration towards the thing, but adoration of the thing: howe doe these goodly translators, of all other wordes, so straine and racke the litle particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to signifie, leaning vpon, that it shall in no wise signifie any thing, tending towards ado∣ration?

FVLK. 3. The worship that Chrysostom, and Oe∣cumenius speake of, is a ciuill reuerence done to Ioseph, or to his scepter, in respect of the kingdom of Ephraim, that should be set vp in his posteritie. What Damascene gathereth hereof, to maintaine idolatrie, we regard not, certaine it is, that Iacob worshipped none but God, and bowed him self, either toward the beds head, or leaning vpon his staffe, as S. Augustin sayth That they which fol∣low constrained expositions, are inforced to neglect the prepositions, it is no warrant for vs, when we see how the sense may best stand without making the prepositions, which the holy Ghost vseth, idle or vnprofitable, both in the Hebrew, and in the Greeke. And if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should signifie toward, as it doth not properly, but vpon, your counter∣fet distinction of Dulia, and Latria, should neuer the soo∣ner be receiued.

MART. 4. And if the Greeke Doctors suffise not to sa∣tisfie

these great Grecians herein, tell me, you that haue skill in the Hebrew, whether in the foresayd speeches cited out of the Psalmes, there be any force in the Hebrew prepositions? sure∣ly* 1.999 no more than if we should say in English, without prepositi∣ons,* 1.1000 Adore ye his holye hill: we will adore the place* 1.1001 where his feete stoode: Adore ye his footestoole: For you knowe that there is the same preposition also, when it is sayd, Adore ye our Lord: or, as your selues translate, wor∣ship* 1.1002 the Lorde: where there can be no force nor signification* 1.1003 of the preposition. And therefore in these places also, your tran∣slation is corrupt, and wilfull, when you say thus: We will fall downe before his footestoole. fall ye downe before his footestoole, before his holy mount, or worshippe him vpon his holy hill: Where you shunne and auoyde, first the terme of adoration, which the Hebrewe and Greeke, duely* 1.1004 expresse by termes correspondent in both languages, through∣out* 1.1005 the Bible and are applied for the moste parte, to signifie adoring of creatures. Secondly, you auoyde the Greeke phrase, which is at the least, to adore towards these holye thinges, and places: and much more the Hebrew phrase, which is, to adore the very thinges rehearsed: to adore Gods footestoole (is the Psalme sayth) because it is holye, or,* 1.1006 because he is holye, whose footestoole it is, as the Greeke readeth.

FVLK. 4. If the Apostle had meant nothing by the preposition, he might, and would, (as it is most like) haue left it cleane out, yea, if he had meant no more, but the adoration of Iosephs scepter, what needed he to haue added the toppe, or the extremitie? or why was the top of his scepter more to be adored, than all the other length of it? But certayne it is, the Apostle would ex∣presse the Hebrewe preposition, which muste needes haue some signification. And where you aske them that haue skill in the Hebrewe, whether there be any force in the preposition, in those sayings out of the Psalme, that speake of worshipping, or falling downe before his footestoole, his holye hill, &c. I aunswere, yea,

there is great force, for the hill was not to be worship∣ped, but he whose tabernacle or temple was on it. But you obiect, that we our selues neglect the preposition, Psal. 96. and say, worship the Lord. The fault is the lesse, because the worship is referred to none but the Lorde: yet the precise translation in that place, should be, bowe downe, or fall ye downe before the Lorde, in the glori∣ous sanctuarie. And where you say, we shunne the worde of adoration, which the Hebrew, and Greeke, duely doe expresse, by termes applyed, for the most part signifie a∣doring of creatures. You haue packed vp a great number of vntruthes, togither, as it were in a bundell. First, that we shunne the terme of adoring, for doubt of your Du∣lia, which is vtterly vntrue, for it is auoyded partly, be∣cause it is more Latine, than English, partly because it doth not expresse either the Greeke, or the Latine termes, which the Scripture vseth. Secondly, you auouch, that both the Hebrew, lishtachauoth, and the Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.1007 whereas all that be learned in both the tongues, doe know, that the Hebrew worde doth signifie proper∣ly, to bowe downe, and therefore is vsed of such bowing downe, as is not to the ende of adoration, as Psalme 42. v. 5. 6. Why art thou cast downe O my soule, and in di∣uers other places. The Greeke word also signifieth, to vse some gesture of bodie in worshipping, & sometimes, to fall downe as Herodotus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they must worship the King falling downe before him. Final∣ly, where you say, they are applied to the adoring of cre∣atures, if you cal it adoration which is vsed in ciuil man∣ner to Princes, and other persons of authoritie, I graunt it is often so applyed, but if you meane of religious adoration, it is expresly forbidden to any creature or Image of creature, by the second commaundemēt in the Hebrue terme, and by the wordes of our Sauiour Christ to the Deuill, Math. 4. In the Greeke worde, Thou shalt worship the Lorde thy God, and him onely shalt thou serue. Where Sathan desired not to bee worshipped as

God with diuine honour, but that our Sauiour Christe would fal downe before him and worship him, as an ex∣cellēt minister of God, to whom the dispositiō of all the kingdomes of the world, as he falsly said, were by God committed, Luk. 4. v. 6. which vtterly ouerthroweth your bold distinction of Dulia and Latria, seeing it was that which you call Dulia, that the Deuill required, but our Sauiour Christe telleth him, that all religious worship and seruice pertaineth onely to God. Touching the adoration of Gods footestoole, I haue spoken sufficient∣ly before, Cap. 1. Sect. 41.

MART. 5. This being most manifest to all that haue skill in these tongues, it is euident that you regard neither He∣brue nor Greeke, but only your heresie: and that in S. Paules place aforesaid of adoring Iosephs scepter, you alter it by your owne fansie, and not by S. Augustines authoritie, whom I am sure you will not admit reading in the Psalme, Adore yee his footestoole: and so precisely and religiously reading thus, that he examineth the case, and findeth thereby that the B. Sacra∣ment must be adored, and that no good Christian doth take it, before he adore it. Neither will you admitte him when he rea∣deth thus of Dauid, He was caried in his owne handes, and* 1.1008 interpreteth it mystically of Christ, that he was caried in his owne handes, when he gaue his body and bloud to his Disciples. Yet are S. Augustines interpretations (how so euer you like or mislike thē) very good, as also that aboue named of Iacobs lea∣ning vpō his staffe, & adoring, may be one good sense or cōmēta∣rie of that place, but yet a cōmentarie, & one Doctors opiniō, not the sacre text of Scripture, as you wold make it by so trāslating.

FVLK. 5. Let Pagnine for the Hebrew word, the Greeke Lexicons for the other, be iudge betwene vs. For you are the most impudent aduoucher I thinke, that euer became a writer. That we leane to Augustines iudge∣ment, in this case, it is not because we make him an au∣thor of truth, but a witnesse of the same, against such ve∣nemous tongues and pennes, as yours is, that call euery thing hereticall, that sauoureth not of your owne drow∣sie

dreames, of antichristian heresie. Neither is it reason that by vsing the testimonie of Augustine, where he bea∣reth witnesse to the truth, we should be bound to euery interpretation of his▪ when he declineth therefro. Where you say, that by adoring the footestoole of God, he fin∣deth that the blessed Sacrament must be adored, you say vntruly, he gathereth that Christes humanitie or body, must be adored, but not the blessed Sacrament thereof. Likewise when he sayth, vpon a feeble ground, of a false interpretation, that Christ was carried in his owne hands in the Sacrament, he affirmeth it not so absolutely, as you alledge it, but quodam modo, after a certaine maner, he bare himselfe in his handes, when he saide, this is my bodie. Yea, in that place Augustine, as in many other, declareth his iudgement, that he acknowledged not the corporall maner of presence, and eating of Christes bo∣die, in the sacrament, for whych, you Papistes so greatly contend, that you ate content to make so many senses of the scripture, it declareth, that you acknowlege none cer∣taine, and so derogate al credite and authoritie from the word of God, which may haue so many meanings, as there be diuers doctors that haue commented vppon it. Whereas diuers interpretations may haue al a true sense, but it is impossible, that they should al be senses of the same Scripture.

MART. 6. And if S. Hierome like not the Greke doctors interpretation, in this place of adoring Ioseph and his scepter, yet he also saith, that Iacob adored toward Iosephs rodde, or to∣ward the beddes heade, and not, leaning vpon his staffe hee adored, which you make the texte of Scripture. And thoughe he thinke, that in this place is not meant any adoration of Io∣seph, yet, I am sure, for adoration of holie things, namely, Re∣liques, the holie lande, and al the holie places and monuments of Christs being and doing vpon the earth, you wil not bee tryed by S. Hierome. And againe, why S. Paule should say, that by faith he adored, & in respect of things to come, it is not otherwise easie to vnderstād, but that he partly for saw the kingdō of Ephraim,

the posteritie of Ioseph: partly the kingdome of Christ prefi∣gured in Ioseph then Prince of Aegypt, and so by faith adored his scepter or toward his scepier (which is all one) as the Greeke fathers for the most part expound it. But let vs hasten towàrd an end.

FVLK. 6. S. Hierom in deede denieth that Iacob did worship his staffe or his scepter, or toward the toppe of his Sonnes scepter, but onely towardes the beds head as the Hebrue text is. For reuerent estimation of reli∣ques, the Holy land, and the monuments of Christs do∣ing and being, as he sometime vpon contention perhaps was immoderate, so for adoration of such things, after such Idolatrous manner as is vsed in the popish Church, he was farre off:

yea, he saith expresly, that hee dothe not allowe the adoration of any creature, and that, to adore any creatures, is plaine idolatrie. Has autem non dico martyrum reliquias, &c. But we doe worshippe and a∣dore, I saye, not the reliques of martyres, but neither the sunne truly, nor the moone, &c. not Aungelles not Archaungels, not Cherubin, not Seraphin, or any name that is named in this worlde, or in the worlde to come, least we should serue the creature rather than the creator whiche is blessed for euer. But we honour the reliques of martyres, that wee might adore him, whose martyres they are.

Doe you not heare how Hierome alloweth the ado∣ring of creatures? I see no cause therefore why wee may not be tryed by his iudgement, for adoration of holie things, and namely, reliques, and whatsoeuer you will name beside, seeing he maketh adoration proper onelie to God.

Finally, the Apostle saith, not that Iacob adored, in respecte of things to come, but, that by faith, he bles∣sed his sonne, concerning things to come, and worship∣ped God, whome no man can worshippe truely, but by faith. And Iacobs faith, was the more commendable, that being neere his ende, and in that infirmitie of bo∣die,

he both beleeued the promises of God made to him concerning his sonnes, and also gaue thankes vnto God, for those benefites whyche hee shoulde neuer taste of in the flesh, but was assured by them, as tokens of Gods fa∣uour towards him, to the attainement of the lande of e∣ternall life, whereof the lande of Canaan was but a ho∣lie figure and sacrament.

CHAP. XX.

Hereticall translation, by ADDING TO THE TEXT.

Martin.

BEcause in the last corruption I spake of adding* 1.1009 to the texte, thoughe i•• bee their common and vniuersal fault in euerie controuersie, as is to bee seene in euerie chapiter of this booke: yet here I wil adde certaine places, not yet mentio∣ned. As, The reste of the actes of Iehoa∣kim,* 1.1010 and his abhominations whych he did, and CAR∣VED IMAGES THAT VVERE LAID TO HIS CHARGE, BEHOLDE THEY ARE VVRITTEN,* 1.1011 &c, these words, carued images laid to his charge, are more than is either in the Greeke, or the Hebrewe.

Fulke.

YOu forget your self in the first place, wher∣of* 1.1012 made mention, Chap. 3. sect. 9. where I haue aunsweared, that our firste translators added that which is the common interpre∣tation, and supply of them that write vpon this place, but, because that hadde beene better in the note, than in the texte, it is corrected in twoo later tran∣slations

MART. 2. Againe, Saule confounded the Iewes, proouing (by conferring one Scripture with an other)* 1.1013 that this is very Christe. These wordes, by conferring one Scripture with another, are added more than is in the greeke texte: in fauour of their presumptuous opinion, that conference of scriptures is ynough for any man to vnderstand them, and so to reiecte bothe the commentaries of the Doctours, and expo∣sition of holy Councels, and Catholike Churche, it is so muche more, I saye, than is in the Greeke text, and a notorious corrup∣tion in their Bible, read daily in their churches, as most authen∣ticall. See the rest of their Bibles, and thou shalte finde no more, for al those wordes, but, affirming, or, confirming. and the* 1.1014 selfe same Bible, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, transla∣teth the same Greeke worde thus, Who shal instruct? And in∣deede, that is the true and vsuall signification of the word, both in the olde Testament, and in the newe▪ as Deut. 4. Thou shalt* 1.1015 teach them thy children. And Esay 40. Who shal instruct our Lord? The Hebrewe worde also in both places, signifying no more, but instructing and teaching. And so doth the Apostle cite i•• to the Corinthians out of Esay, and he vseth i•• to the Co∣loss. (c. 2. v. 2. in the same signification, as the Churche readeth and expoundeth it, and so consequently, S. Luke in the place whereof we nowe treate, saith nothing else, but that S. Paule earnestly taught or instructed them, that Iesus is Christe. And yet our newe translators without respect of Hebrewe, or Greeke, haue coined a new signification, of conferring one scripture with an other. So ignorant they are in the signification of Greke wordes, or rather, so wilfully malitious.

FVLK. 2. Either you make aloude lie, or else some one print, whych you haue of the Bishops Bible, whiche you cal, Bib. 1577. hath put that into the line that should be the note in the margent. For, of four translations that I haue, neuer a one hath that addition. The Bishoppes Bible hathe that 22. verse Chap. 9. this. But Saule in∣creased the more in strength, and confounded the Iewes, which dwelt at Damascus, affirming, that this was very

Christe. The Geneua Bible thus. But Saule increased the more in strength, and confounded the Iewes that dwelt at Damascus, confirming, that this was the Christ▪ where the note in the margent vppon the word, confir∣ming, is this: proouing by the conference of the scrip∣tures. Thomas Mathews Bible translateth that verse thus. But Saule increased in strength, and confounded the Iewes, which dwelt at Damascus, affirming, that this was verie Christe. Maister Couerdales Bible 1562. hatla it thus. But Saule increased the more in strength, and confounded the Iewes whiche dwelte at Damascus, affir∣ming, that this was verie Christ. Thus are al our transla∣tions without that addition, which, although it is not to be borne in the text, yet is no hereticall addition, ex∣cepte you counte it heresie, to prooue a thing by confe∣rence of Scriptures.

MART. 3. Againe, in the firste epistle of Saint Peter* 1.1016 they translate thus: The worde of the Lorde indureth e∣uer: and this is the word which by the gospel was prea∣ched vnto you. where these wordes, by the Gospel, are ad∣ded deceitfully, and of il intent, to make the reader thinke, that there is no other word of God, but the written word, for the com∣mon reader hearing this word Gospel, conceiueth nothing else. But indeede al is the gospell, whatsoeuer the Apostles taught, either by writing, or by tradition and word of mouth, a•• S. Paul speaketh, 2. Thess. 2. and S. Peter saith nothing else in the place alleadged, but, This is the word which is preached among* 1.1017 you, as the Geneua Bibles translate, or more significātly, which is Euangelized amōg you, as we translate, for, though there be greater significancie in the Greeke worde, than is expressed by bare preaching or telling a thing, as hauing a goodly relation, & allusion to the word, Euangeliū▪ Gospel, yet neither do they* 1.1018 in any other place, neither can they translate it, to preach by the gospel, but simply, to preach, to tel, to shewe. as, preaching peace by Iesus Christe, Act. 10. vers 39. so themselues translate it.* 1.1019 & Psalm. 95 (or 96. v. 2.) Be telling of his saluation from daye to daye. Whiche in other places is spoken by other

Greeke wordes, that haue no signification at all of Gospell,* 1.1020 as immediately in the said Psalme, 95 (or 96. v. 3) and Psalme 104. (or 105. v. 1.) and Act. 13. v. 5. and c. 17. v. 23. and Io. 1. v. 3.

FVLK. 3. The other before is not a more lewde slaunder, than this is a foolishe cauill. The Greeke word signifieth not simply to preach the gospel, or good tydings, whych, both may, and ought to bee expressed, where the phrase of our tongue wyll abide it. And ther∣fore the Geneua translation is imperfect in this place, ra∣ther than the other. When you say Euangelized, you do not translate, but faine a newe worde, which is not vn∣derstoode of meere Englishe eares, as you do in an hun∣dreth places beside, to make the scripture darke and vn∣profitable to the ignorant readers. And if the word sig∣nifieth no more but, to preach, to tell, to shewe, as you would seeme to proue by a nūber of quotations, why do you vse that newe word, Euangelize? which, if it were vn∣derstoode and in vse, is more, than simply, to preache, to tell, to shewe. But of all other your madde surmises, this is the most monstrous, that this is added, to make the reader thinke, that there is no other worde of God, but the written worde. Doth Gospel, I praye you, sig∣nifie the written worde? The common hearer, you saye, hearing this worde Gospell, conceiueth nothing else. I am persuaded there is no such reader in England, except it bee some of your viperous broode, that thinketh the Gospell, to bee nothing but the storie written by the foure Euangelistes: whereas all true Christians knowe the Gospel to be contained, not onely in those stories, but also in other writings of the Apostles, and that the Gospel is preached, whensoeuer a good sermon teaching the way vnto saluation is preached. Howsoeuer the Sep∣tuaginta vsed the worde Euangelizo in the olde Testa∣ment, we are not to learne the signification thereof, out of their translation, but out of the Scribes of the holie ghost, in the newe Testament.

MART. 4. All which wordes signifie only to tell, to shew, to declare, and are vsed indifferently for and with the other worde which they here only translate, to preach by the Go∣spel. Whereas in all others places when they will translate it* 1.1021 most significantly, they expresse it by bringing glad tidings: and in some places where it should be expressed most significant∣ly in respect of euangelizing or preaching the Gospel, there they translate it barely, preachers, and preaching. Only S. Peters place aforesaid, must be stretched to signifie, The word preach∣ed by the Gospel, to insinuate and vphold their heresie of the written Gospel only, or only written worde, against Apostolicall traditions not written. If this be not their meaning, let them giue vs a good reason why they translate it so in this one place only.

FVLK. 4. When we varie about the signification of the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or in deede when we varie not in substāce, though you must brabble about it for a coun∣tenance, what meane you to teach vs the significatiō of o∣ther words, except you would make folke beleeue, that we know nothing, but what we learn of you? I say again, if in the new Testament we haue not fully expressed the significatiō of the Greeke word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, either it is be∣cause our English phrase could not expresse it, or else it is a fault of negligēce. But in the old Testamēt, where we haue not that worde, because we translate out of Hebrue, what reason is there, that you should exact the signifi∣cancie of that word, when we do not translate it? The in∣senslesse insinuation that you dreame of, I am sure was farre from the translators mindes, seeing we haue mani∣fest and ineuitable Scriptures to confound your hereti∣call blasphemie of the imperfection and insufficiencie of the word & Gospel of God written vnto eternall salua∣tion. And if the worde Gospell, when it is added to the text out of the verbe of Euangelizing▪ do insinuate the he∣resie of the written Gospell only, why do you Math. 11. v. 5. translate, Pauperes Euangelizantur, to the poore the Gospell is preached? Would you thinke it were an ho∣nest

surmise of me, to say you auoyde the name of the Gospell, so often as you expresse it not in translating that worde, for hatred you beare the Gospell? And yet it hath more likelihood, than many that you haue in∣uented, and prosecuted against vs.

MART. 5. It is written of Luther that he for the selfe* 1.1022 same heresie, in his first translation into the Germane tongue, left out these wordes of S. Peter altogither, This is the worde which is euangelized or preached to you. Why so? because S. Peter doth here define what is the word of God: saying, that which is preached to you, and not that only which is written▪ which false dealing of Luther is no small presumptiō against the like hereticall meaning of our English Protestants, who (I am sure) in this point of controuersie of the worde written and vn∣written, will not denie that they agree with the Lutherans.

FVLK. 5. That any such sentence was vpō any pur∣pose leste out by Luther in his translation, for my part I beleeue it not, neither vpon your report, nor vpon your author Lindanus credite. If the Printer did omit a line, yet what reason were it to thinke that Luther did it, vpon such a cause? which were to no purpose for him ex∣cept he should haue left out all those textes of Scripture, where preaching of the Gospel, or word of God is men∣tioned. What you haue left out, I haue noted before, and yet I haue not pronounced the cause why, so confident∣ly as you do of that omission, which you know not whe∣ther it be so or no.

MART. 6. Againe in the epistle of S. Iames, they adde* 1.1023 the word, Scripture, into the text, saying, But the Scripture of∣fereth more grace. Where the Apostle may say as wel, and in∣differently, The Spirit or holy Ghost giueth more grace, and it is much more probable, and is so expounded of many. Let the good reader see the circumstance of the place, and ab∣horre their saucinesse in the text of holy Scripture.

FVL. 6. The nominatiue case in the Greeke is wanting, which is expressed in the verse before, and in this verse is supplied by the translators: yet printing it

so in another letter, that the reader may know it is not in the Greeke, as they do in 500. places beside, where a verbe or a nowne, or a pronowne, or any other worde, must of necessity be vnderstood, to fil vp the sense: which you in your precise trāslatiō obserue not, whē you adde any such thing beside many imperfect sentēces that you make, because you will not seeme to adde, that which in translation is no addition, but a true trāslation. But here you say, the Apostle may as well vnderstande the holy Ghost, as the Scripture. When there is a nominatiue case before, that agreeth with the verbe, & the sense, it is farre fetcht to vnderstād a nominatiue case of him, that is not spoken of. I will set downe the whole text, that the rea∣der may iudge, what perilous addition is here cōmitted, by our translators.

Doe you thinke that the Scripture saith in vaine, the spirite that dwelleth in vs, lusteth after enuie. But (the Scripture) or, it giueth more grace, and therefore saith: God resisteth the prowde, and giueth grace to the humble.

In Grāmar schooles they vse to ex∣amine it thus, who, or what giueth, who, or what saith? doth not the Scripture mētioned immediatly before, an∣swere to these questiōs most aptly? yet mē must abhorre our saucinesse, or rather your spitefull malitiousnesse.

MART. 7. One addition of theirs I would not speake of, but onely to knowe the reason why they doe it, because it is very strange, and I know not what they should meane by it. This I am sure, if they doe it for no purpose, they doe it very folishly, and forgetfully, & contrarie to themselues. In the Go∣spell of S. Marke, in the reckening of the Apostles, they adde* 1.1024 these wordes, And the first was Simon, more than is in their* 1.1025 Greeke text. Which addition they learned of Beza, whose con∣tradictions in this point are worthie nothing. In S. Matthew* 1.1026 where these wordes are, he suspecteth that, first, was added by some Papist, for Peters primacie: here, where the word is not, he auoucheth it to be the true text of the Gospell, and that because Matthew readeth so. There he alleaged this reason, why it could not be said, the first, Simon, because there is no consequence

nor coherence of second, third, fourth, &c. here he saith, that is no impediment, because there be many examples of such speach, and namely in the said place of S. Matthew. There he saith it is not so, though al Greeke copies haue it so: here it must needes be so, though it be only found in certaine odde Greeke copies of E∣rasmus, which Erasmus him selfe (as Beza confesseth) allowed not, but thought that these wordes were added in them out of S. Matthew. What these contradictions meane I know not, and I would learne the reason thereof, of his scholers our English trā∣slators, who by their Maisters authoritie haue made the selfe same addition in their English translation also.

FVLK. 7. It seemeth you like the addition well e∣nough, because it importeth a shadow of Peters prima∣cie, but yet your malice is so great against Beza, whose sinceritie in this case you shoulde rather commende, if there were any sparke of honest equitie in you, that you cannot passe it ouer without quarrelling, and cauilling. But your pretense is to know the reason why they do it. I haue some maruaile, that you should be ignorant of such things, as are compted so materiall for the mainte∣nance of the Popes primacie. Especially sith Beza telleth you so plainly the reason of it. True it is, that the cōmon printed bookes haue not that addition. But Beza taketh Erasmus to witnesse, that in diuerse Greeke copies these words are expressed, & because they agree best with the context, Beza translateth them out of those copies. For except you so read (saith Beza) the next verse begin∣ning of the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall haue no worde at all, with which it may be knit. But in S. Mathew (you say) he su∣specteth that the worde (first) was added by some▪ Papist for Peters primacie. He onely obiecteth, what if it were so, & answereth the obiection him self out of S. Marke: as vpon S. Marke, for the coherence with that which fol∣loweth: wherfore it is not without great and malicious impudēce, that you charge him with cōtradiction, where there is none, and where he saith more towarde your cause, than any of you could say for your selues.

MART. 8. There is also an other addition of theirs, either proceeding of ignorance, or of the accustomed humor, whē they translate thus: If ye continue stablished in the faith,* 1.1027 and be not moued away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye haue heard how it was preached to euery crea∣ture: or, whereof ye haue heard how that it is preached: or, whereof ye haue heard, and which hath bene preached to euery creature, &c. For, all these varieties they haue, and none according to the Greeke text, which is word for word, as the vulgar Latine Interpretor hath most sincerely translated it, Vnmoueable from the hope of the Gospell, which you* 1.1028 haue heard, which is, or hath bene preached among all creatures, &c. So that the Apostles exhortation is vnto the Colossians, that they continue grounded and stable in the faith* 1.1029 and Gospell, which they had heard and receyued of their first Apostles: as in the epistle to the Romanes, and to the Gala∣tians, and to the Thessalonians, and to the Hebrewes, and to Ti∣mothee, and S. Iohn in his first Epistle, c. 2. v. 24. and S. Iude, v. 3. & 20. all vse the like exhortations.

FVLK. 8. Here is no addition of any worde, that may not be comprehended in the Greeke. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being the genitiue case, signifieth not onely, which, but also, whereof, or of which, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that hath bene, or which hath bene preached. Here is onely the poore word (how) which is a superfluous word, euen in our English, for the sense is all one, if you leaue it out, Vnmoueable from the hope of the Gospell, of which you haue heard, that it hath bene preached among, or, to all creatures. Here is therefore no addition to the text, but a sense dif∣fering from that which pleaseth you best, and yet your vulgar Latine may well beare that sense, which our tran∣slators doe follow.

MART. 9. But this doth not so well like the Protestants, which* with Hymenaeus, and Alexander, and other olde Here∣tike••,* 1.1030 haue fallen from their first faith, and therefore they alter the Apostles plaine speech, with certaine wordes of their owne, and they will not haue him say, Be vnmoueable in the faith and

Gospell which you haue heard and receiued: but, whereof you haue heard, howe that it is preached: as though he spake not of the Gospell preached to them, but of a Gospell which they had onely heard of, that was preached in the world. Certaine it is, these wordes, whereof you haue heard, how it was prea∣ched, are not so in the Greeke: but, which you haue heard, which hath bene preached. Which is as much to say, as that they should continue constant in the faith and Gospell, which them selues had receiued▪ and which was then preached, and re∣ceiued, in the whole word. So say we to our deere countriemen, Stande fast in the faith, and be vnmoueable from the hope of the Gospell, which you heard of your first Apostles, which was, and is preached in all the world. If the Protestants like not this exhortation, they do•• according to their translation.

FVLK. 9. The Lorde is witnesse, there is nothing liketh the Protestants better, than that all nations should continue grounded, and stable in that faith and Gospell, which they had heard, & receaued of their first Apostles: but in this place, our translators vnderstande, not onely that continuance in the Gospell, but also they compre∣hend the mysterie of the preaching of the Gospell, to the Gentiles, whereof the Apostle in this text, beginneth to speake, that the Collossians might know, that they haue bene enstructed in that Gospel, which at such time as the Apostle did write vnto them, had bene spread by prea∣ching, according to our Sauiour Christes commaunde∣ment, ouer all the world.

As for your brutish collection, as though he spake not of the Gospell preached to them, but of a Gospel, which they had onely heard of, that was preached in the world.

What ground can it haue of our translation, according to the sense I shewe, that the tran∣slators followed? Is it possible they should continue in a Gospel that was not preached vnto them, but whereof they had heard onely a fame, that it was preached to o∣thers? The whole context before, inforceth as much as you say, is the sense of the place. And the vulgar transla∣tor seemeth to fauour this sense, that our translators fol∣low,

rather than that bare translation of yours, because he sayth not, à spe Euangelij, quod audistis praedicati in vni∣uersa creatura, &c. but, à spe Euangelij quod audistis, quod praedicatum est in vniuersa creatura. The words of the ex∣hortation you make to your countrymen, are wel to be liked, if your meaning were as good. But when by the Gospell, you meane popish traditions, by your first A∣postles, not the Apostles of Christ, but of the Bishop of Rome, by, which was preached in all the worlde, the doctrine of Antichristian apostasie, we are so to consider, that vnder so good and holy wordes, so diuilish and de∣testable a meaning is craftily couered, and cloked with hypocrisie.

CHAP. XXI.

Certaine other hereticall TREACHERIES, and CORRVPTIONS, worthy of obser∣uation.

Martin.

THey holde this position, that the Scriptures* 1.1031 are not hard to be vnderstood, that so euery one of them may presume to interprete, and expound them. And because S. Peter sayth plainly, that S. Paules Epistles are harde,* 1.1032 and other Scriptures also, which the vnlear∣ned (sayth he) peruert to their owne destru∣ction, therefore they labour tooth and naile, to make this subtill difference, that S. Peter sayth not, Paules Epistles are hard, but some things in S. Paules epistles are hard, (as though that were not all one) & therefore they translate so, that it must needes be vnderstoode of the things, & not of the Epistles, pretending the* 1.1033 Greeke, which yet they knowe in some copies can not be refer∣red to the thinges, but must needes be vnderstood of the Epi∣stles.

Wherefore, the Greeke copies being indifferent to both, & the thing also in very deede being all one, whether the hardnes be in the Epistles, or in the matter, (for when we say the Scrip∣ture is harde, we meane specially the matter) it is not onely an hereticall, but a foolish and peeuish spirite, that maketh them so curious and precise in their translations, as here to limite and abridge the sense to the things onely, Beza translating, inter* 1.1034 quae sunt multa difficilia, and not, in quibus, as it is in the olde vulgar translation, most sincere, and indifferent both to E∣pistles, and things.

Fulke.

WE holde of the Scriptures, as S. Augu∣stine* 1.1035 teacheth, de doct. chr. lib. 2. cap. 6. that the holy Ghost, hath so magni∣fically and wholsomly attempered the holy Scriptures, that with open and cleare places he hath prouided against famine, and in darke and hard places, he hath wiped away lothsomnes. And that nothing al∣most is gathered out of those darke places, which is not found els where to be vttered most plainly, specially, if it conteine matter necessarye vnto saluation.

But that e∣uery one may presume to interprete and expound the Scriptures, it is one lye of an hundred, that Martine hath made in this booke, and hath fayned of vs, neuer held or maintained by vs. But S. Peter (you say) plainly sayth, that Saint Paules epistles are hard, and other Scriptures also. Howbeit, Saint Peter sayth, neither the one, nor the other, especially not the latter. For albeit in the most approued Greeke copies, the relatiue be of the neuter gender, limiting that which S. Peter speaketh, not to any matter at large in S. Paules Epistles, but to those things which S. Paule hath written, concerning the second com∣ming of Christ, yet of the other Scriptures, he saith not,

that they are harde, although he might say, there is harde thinges in thē, but that the vnstable & vnlearned peruert thē to their owne destruction, which they do oftentimes, when they be most plaine and easie, and not only where they be difficult and harde. That you can vnderstand no difference betweene the sense, which is made of the neu∣ter gender, and that which the faeminine gender doth yeelde, I know not whether it be to be imputed, to the dulnesse of your wit, but rather I thinke it proceedeth of the craftie malice of your minde. As also that you charge vs with an hereticall, foolish, and peeuish spirite, when we translate according to the most vsuall Greeke copies, and according to that which is most agreeable to the place. For to accuse all S. Paules epistles of diffi∣cultie and hardnesse, had not bene agreeable to that ex∣cellent commendation, which S. Peter before did giue him. For euery man, that desireth to teach, as S. Paule did by his Epistles, ought to frame his speach, to be as plaine, and easie to be vnderstood, as the matter whereof he speaketh will admitte. But that some thinges about that high mysterie of the second comming of Christ, are harde to be vnderstood, dischargeth Paule of affectation of difficultie, or not regarde of perspicuitie, shewing the cause of the hardnesse, to be in the height of the matter, not in the handling of the writer. And that some did misunderstand the Apostle S. Paule writing of that mat∣ter, it is apparant, by the second epistle to the Thessalo∣nians, Chap. 2.

MART. 2. An other fashion they haue, whiche can not* 1.1036 proceede of good meaning, that is, when the Greeke texte is in∣different to twoo senses, and one is receiued, read, and expoun∣ded of the greater parte of the auncient fathers, and of all the Latine Churche, there to follow the other sense, not so generally receiued and approoued, as in Saint Iames epistle, where the common reading is, Deus intentator malorum est, God is no tempter to euil, they translate, Gad cannot be tempted with euil, which is so impertinent to the Apostles speach there▪

as nothing more. But, why wil they not say, God is no tempter to* 1.1037 euill, as wel as the other? is it because of the Greeke word, which is a passiue? Let them see their Lexicon, and it will tell them that it is both an actiue, and passiue. so say other learned Greci∣ans,* 1.1038 Interpreters of this place. so sayth the very circumstance of the words next going before, Let no man say that he is temp∣ted of God. Why so? Because God is not tempted with euill, say they▪ is this a good reason? nothing lesse. howe then? Because God is no tempter to euill, therefore let no man say, that he is tempted of God.

FVLK. 2. You haue a fashion, common to you, with many of your fellowes, to snatch all occasions that you can get, to make a shew, for your hainous slaūders, wher∣with you seeke to ouerwhelme the Saincts of God, and especially those, whose labors haue bene most fruitful to his Church. Whereof you giue vs an euident example in this translation, which you follow with such egernes in three large sections, that the ignorant Reader, which can not examine the matter, might thinke you had great and vrgent cause so to doe. The Greeke of S. Iames, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we translated passiuely, as the word signifieth, & as words of that forme doe signifie. God is not, or can not be tempted with euill. But against this translation, you oppose the Lexicon, which following the iudgement of the vulgar Interpretor, that hath translated it actiuely, doth in deede make it indifferent, to both significatiōs, but exāple giueth none thereof, but this now in contro∣uersie▪ You alleage further learned Grecians interpretors of this place, & namely Gagneius a late writer, to whom I may oppose Hentenius, who translating Oecumenius vpō S. Iames, turneth this place of Scripture thus. Deus e∣nim malis tentari nequit.

And Oecumenius in his cōmen∣tarie is plaine of the same iudgement, for repeting the text as before, he saith: Iuxta eum qui dixit (quanquā ex∣ternus sit à nobis & à fide aliemis) diuina beata{que} natura ne{que} molestias sustinet ne{que} alijs praebet. God cannot be tempted with euil, according to him which said (although he be a

foriner from vs, & a straunger from the faith) the diuine and blessed nature, neither suffereth griefes, nor offereth to other. And this iudgement of Oecumenius, is colle∣cted out of a great nūber of Greeke doctors.

But the ve∣ry circūstance of the wordes next before (say you) doth require it should be taken actiuely. A good interpretor will consider the circūstances of the words following, as wel as of the wordes going before. For the wordes fol∣lowing declare, that it must be taken passiuely, or els the Apostle speaketh one thing twise togither, without any cause why. Wheras the passiue taking of that word, agre∣eth to the circūstance, as well going before, as following after. The whole context is this:

Let no man say, whē he is tempted, I am tempted of God. for God cannot bee tempted of euilles, neither doth he tempt any man. The meaning is plain, god is so far frō tempting vnto euil, as his diuine nature is vncapable of any temptation of euil.

For tēptation to euil, could not come frō God, except it were first in God, but seing it cānot be in God, it cannot procede frō him, & so doth Oecum. interprete the place.

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* 1.1039 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.

MART. 4. Is not this to say, God is a tempter to euill: cleane contrary to S. Iames the Apostle? or could he that is of this opinion, translate the contrary, that God is no tempter to euill? Is not this as much to saye, as that God also brought Satan into Iudas to fill his hart, and so was author of Iudas trea∣son, euen as he was of Paules conuersion? Let Beza nowe, and* 1.1040 Maister Whitakers, or any other Heretike of them all, wrest & wring them selues from the absurditie of this opinion, as they endeuour and labour to doe exceedingly, because it is most bla∣sphemous: yet shall they neuer be able to cleare and discharge them selues from it, if they will allow and maintaine their fore∣sayd exposition of Gods leading into temptation. Doth not Beza for the same purpose translate, Gods prouidence for, Gods* 1.1041 prescience? Which is so false, that the English Bezites in their translation, are ashamed to follow him.

FVLK. 4. Beza that sayd the one, desieth the other. For S. Iames saith, that God tempteth no man to euill▪ as he him selfe is not tempted of euill. Therefore it is most ridiculous that you imagine, that Beza should not tran∣slate the word actiuely, to auoid that sentence (God is no tempter to euil) which foloweth in the very next words, God tempteth no man. That God gaue ouer Iudas vnto Satan, it implieth not, that God was the author of Iudas treason, no more than when the Apostles saye, that He∣rod and Pontius Pilate came togither, with the Gen∣tiles, & people of Israel, against Iesus Christ, to do what∣soeuer the hand and counsaile of God had determined, Act. 4. v. 27. 28. Behold all they that murdered Christ, Herod, Pilate, Iudas, Annas, Caiphas, with all the rest, did whatsoeuer the hand and counsaile of God had before determined to be done. Was God then author of their sinne? God forbid. And yet without horrible sinne, those things could not be done, which God had determined to be done, by those wicked instruments, yet necessary by Gods appointment, for our redemption. Beza therefore

needed not for any such ende, as you slaunder him, to haue translated Gods prouidence, for Gods prescience, which I haue answered before. Neither is there any need for M. Whitaker, or other to wrest and wring themselues from this absurditie, which they neuer graunted, but may easily be auoided by them▪ that holde the doctrine of Gods eternal prouidence, and foreappointment of all things as we doo.

MART. 5. An other exceeding treacherie to deceiue the Reader, is this: that they vse Catholike termes & speches in such* 1.1042 places where they may make them odious, & where they must needes sound odiously in the peoples eares. As for example, this terme, procession, they put very maliciously & falsly, thus: When the feast of Bacchus was kept, they were constrai∣ned* 1.1043 to goe in the procession of Bacchus. Let the good rea∣der see the Greeke Lexicon, if there be any thing in this worde, like to the Catholike Churches processions: or whether it signifie so much as, to goe about, as their other Bibles are translated, which meant also heretically, but yet durst not name, processiō.

FVLK. 5. Your popish ceremonies are many of them so heathenish, and idolatrous, that they may wel be resembled to the customes, and solemnities of the Gen∣tils, from whome they were taken. And as for the Greeke word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it signifieth to goe in a solemne pompe, such as your processions are, and so doth our Lexicon teach vs, in pompa incedere, to goe solemnly in a pompe. And if it signifieth not so much, as to goe about, as you say: I pray you tell vs, why your vulgar Latine Interpre∣tor hath translated it by circuire, or whether circuire doth not signifie to goe about: or whether the worshippers of Bacchus did not goe about, with garlands of yuie on their heads, as your Priestes went with garlands of flow∣ers at sometime of the yeare.

MART. 6. Againe▪ He put downe the Priests (of Ba∣al)* 1.1044 whom the kings of Iuda had founded to burne in∣cense.* 1.1045 4. Reg. 23. verse 5▪ So they translate (the Hebrewe being simply to giue, make, appoynt) because in the Catho∣like

Church, there are foundations of chaunterie Priests, Chap∣ples, diriges, &c. Neither is it sincerely, and without ill meaning, that they say here the Priestes of Baal, whom &c. Because the Hebrew worde signifieth all those that ministred in the temples of false gods.

FVLK. 6. A childish follie. As though we were e∣nemies to good & godly foundations, because we mis∣like idolatrous & superstitious foūdations. The Hebrew word which signifieth to giue, according to the circum∣stances of this place, may well be translated to founde, because the text speaketh of a gift of perpetuitie, inten∣ded by those wicked kinges. That Chemarim were the Priestes of Baal, the storie doth declare, although they had that name of their blacke garments, which they did weare superstitiously, as your blacke monkes doe: or if you doubt whether Baal had Sacerdotes. sacrificing Priestes, you may reade, 4. Reg. 11. v. 18. where Mathan, Baals Priest, was killed before his altar. And if the He∣brew worde signifie all those that ministred in the tem∣ples of false gods, your vulgar Latine translator, by your owne iudgement, hath erred in translating it Aruspices, which is a kind of Soothsayers.

MART. 7. Againe, Siluer shrines for Diana, Act. 19.* 1.1046 v. 24. Because of the shrines and tabernacles made to the i∣mage of our B. Ladie: the Greeke word signifying▪ temples, & Beza saith, he can not see how it may signifie shrines.

FVLK. 7. The worde in that place, is taken neither for shrines, nor temples, but for peeces of coyne, in which was striken the similitude of Dianaes temple, in deede such a thing, as your shrines, and tabernacles are, or rather such as your brooches, and leaden coynes are, which are vsed at your solemne pilgrimages, and idola∣trous festiuities, such as I haue seene a number at Amiens in Fraunce, prepared on S. Iohn Baptistes eue, hauing the print of S. Iohns head in a platter, on them, and I knowe not what beside. But of this place, I haue spoken before. cap. 1. sect. 16.

MART. 8. Againe, As I passed by, and beheld your* 1.1047 deuotions, I found an altar, Act. 17. v. 23. So they call the superstition of the Athenians towarde their false Gods, because of Catholike peoples deuotions toward the true God, his Church. Altars, Saincts, &c. the Greeke worde signifying the things that are worshipped (as 2. Thess. 2. v. 4. and Sap. 15. v. 17.) not the* 1.1048 maner of worshipping.

FVLK. 8. Of this also I haue spoken in the place a∣boue mentioned, the worde may signifie the exercise of there religion. And seeing S. Paule accompteth the al∣tar, which he found dedicated to the vnknowen God, a∣mōg their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it seemeth he taketh the word more generally, than to signifie their Gods. For the altar was not worshipped, as God, but dedicated to the vnknowē God. Againe, what folly is it to thinke, our translators had respect to your Popish deuotions, by the name of deuotion so applied to discredite them, when the terme of deuotion is indifferent, as the terme of religion, ei∣ther to true or to false deuotion▪ and religion?

MART. 9. Againe, The Iewes had agreed, that if a∣ny* 1.1049 man did confesse that he was Christ, he should be ex∣communicate, Ioh. 9. v. 22. And Iesus heard that they had excommunicated him, v. 35. to make the Iewes doing against thē that confessed Christ, sound like to the Catholike Churches* 1.1050 doing against Heretikes in excommunicating them, and so to disgrace the Priests power of excommunication: whereas the Iewes had no such spirituall excommunication, but (as the Greeke must needes only signifie) they did, put them out of* 1.1051 the Synagogue, & so they should haue translated, the Greeke worde including the very name of Synagogue. But they, as though the Churche of Christ and the Synagogue of the Iewes were all one, so translate, excōmunicating, and putting out of the Synagogue, as all one.

FVLK. 9. The like discipline to the Churches ex∣communication, had the Iewes, in excluding men from their Synagogues, or assemblies, and therefore of the si∣militude the one hath to the other, in the thing, as wel as

in the end, our translators haue vsed the word of excom∣municating in this place, and yet not excommunicating alone, for they al adde out of the Synagogue, to make it more plaine, which you do fraudulently suppresse. But howe vaine a thing it is, that wee should haue any pur∣pose against the discipline of excommunication, all the worlde may see, when wee practise it our selues, and teach, that it is necessarie to be perpetual in the Church, against them that holde it was but temporall. And what we are to esteeme of the excommunicatiō of heretikes, both out of this place, and diuerse other, we may be suf∣ficiently instructed.

MART. 10. I omit here as spoken before, that they call an Idoll, the Queene of heauen, because we call our Lady by that title: so to make both seeme like. Also, that they say Bels al∣tar* 1.1052 thrife, for Bels table, to disgrace altars: & that for idols, they say images, in despite of the Churches images: that they say tra∣dition* 1.1053 du••ly in the ill part, yea sometime when it is not in the Greeke, to make traditions odious, and such like. Thus by simi∣litude and like sound of wordes they b••guile the poore people, not only in their false expositions concerning Iudaical fasts, mea••s, obseruation of daies (as is else where shewed) but also in their translations. So doth Caluins new Testament in french, for No∣lite* 1.1054 vocari Rabbi, translate, Be not called nostre maistre, or Magister noster: in derision and disgrace of this ••ill•• and ••al∣ling, which is peculiar to Doctors of Diuiniue in the Catholike Vniuersities beyond the seas: euen as Wi••l••sse their grand▪ fa∣ther did vpon the same wordes condemne such degrees in Vni∣uersities. But their Rabbines can tell them that Rabbi signifi∣eth▪ Magister, and not, Magister noster. And S. Iohn telleth them so chap. 1. v. 38. and chap. 3. v. 2. and chap. ••0. v. 16. and yet it pleaseth them to translate otherwise and to abuse Christes owne sacred wordes against Catholike Doctors and schooles: not considering that as Christ forbad them to be called Rabbi, so he forbad them the name of father and fathers▪ and yet I ••rowe they will not scoffe at this name either in their owne fathers, or in themselues so called of their children: though in Religious men,

according to their hereticall humor, they scoffe also at this name, as they do at the other in Doctors.

FVLK. 10. And I omitte here, as answered before, the Queene of heauen▪ Altars, Images, and Traditions. But owe as though wee had any thing to do therewith, we are charged with Caluines new Testament in French, which translateth Math. 23. Nolite vocari Rabbi, be not called Nostre maistre, or Magister noster. I suppose it is not credible, that any man woulde translate, Rabbi, nostre maistre, or Magister noster. Specially seeing it is made a great difference among dunsticall Doctors, betweene Noster magister, and Magister noster, as also it is a lyke i••ste betweene Noster magistrande, and Nostrande magi∣ster▪ Wherfore, except I see the booke of Caluines tran∣slation, I must thinke you faine. For I haue two new Te∣stamentes printed at Geneua, the one 1555. the other 1559. and in both them, Rabbi is translated consonātly, Maistre, and not, Nostre maistre, or Magister noster. That the text may be wel applied against your pompous titu∣le•• Doctors, that desire to be called Nostre maistres, as also that whiche followeth against your Iebusites, that must be called fathers, though they be but yong & light persons, I will not denie. And yet I thinke, the titles of Doctor, & Master, in the vniuersities, and of fathers, ascri∣b••d to any auncient and graue personage, in respecte of ciuilitie▪ and not of superstition, may be well vsed with∣out transgression of our Sauiour Christs commaunde∣ment▪ Math. 23.

MART. 11. Contrarywise as they are diligent to put* 1.1055 some wordes odiously where they shoulde not, so they are as circumspect not to put other wordes and termes, where they should. In their first Bible (printed againe An. 1562.) not once the name of Church: in the same, for charitie, loue: for altar, temple: for heretike, an author of sectes: & for heresie, sect•••• because in those beginnings, al these words sounded exce••∣dingly against, them. The Church they had then forsaken, Chri∣stian charitie they had broken by schisine, altars they digged

downe, here sie and heretike they knewe in their conscience more like in the peoples eares to agree vnto them, rather than to the olde Catholike faith and professors of the same. Againe in all their Bibles indifferently, both former and later, they had ra∣ther say righteous, than iust: righteousnesse than iustice: gift, than, grace, specially in the sacrament of holy orders: se∣crete, rather than mysterie, specially in matrimonie▪ dissen∣sion, than, schisme: and these wordes not at all, Priest, (to wit. of the new Testament) Sacrament, Catholike, hymnes, cō∣fessiō, penance iustifications, & traditions in the good part: but in steede therof, Elders, secrete, general, praise••, acknow∣ledging amendment of life, ordināces instructions. And which is, somewhat worse, carcas, for soule, and graue for hel.* 1.1056 We may say vnto you as Demosthenes, said to Aeschines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ••hat are these? wordes or wonders? certainly they are wonders, and very wonderfull in Catholike mens eares, and whether it be sincere and not hereticall dealing, I appeale to the wise and indifferent reader of any sorte.

FVLK. II. For all the termes quarrelled at in this Section, wee haue answered before: except perhaps for the terme of loue, which is vsed, in steede of charitie, ex∣pressing what charitie is in deede, and not as it is com∣monly taken of the common people, for an effect of charitie, when they call almesse, charitie. No man that patiently could abide the people to be instructed would cauill at the explication of the worde charitie, by loue, when in the English tongue, the worde charitie of the common people is eyther not vnderstood, or taken for an other thing, than the Latine worde Charitas do the signifie. As for the wonders of wordes, that Demosthe∣nes spake of, I knowe not where more properly they shal be found, than in your affected nouelties of termes, such as neither English, nor Christian eares euer heard in the English tongue. Scandall, prepuce, neophyte, ••••••o∣sium, gratis, parasceue, paraclete, exinanite, repropitiate, and a hundred such like inkehorne termes. Yea I woulde gladly know, why among so many Greckish and Latine∣like

terms, Gazophylac••••, is not a Gazophilace, but a trea∣surie: en••aenia, the dedication, and not the encaenes; as wel as pasce, Pentecost, azymes, parasceue, belike the Church must haue treasure, and the feast of dedication must not ••e hidde in a new found terme. Why shoulde Aduentus be sometime the comming, and sometime the aduent, except it were for the sounde of the time of aduent, bee∣fore the feast of the natiuitie of Christ? Why should La∣tine words be translated in Greekish termes? as scissuras* 1.1057 into selismes, aemulatores, zelators, and such like. These, and suche other, be wonders of wordes, that wise menne can giue no good reason, why they should be vsed.

CHAP. XXII. Other faults Iudaeical, prophane, meere vanities, follies, and nouelties.

Martin.

NOW leauing matters of controuersie, lette* 1.1058 vs talke a little with you familiarly, and learne of you the reason of other pointes in your translation, which to vs seeme faults, and sauour not of that spirite whyche shoulde bee in Christian Catholike tran∣slatours.

Fulke.

OVR translations, as neare as the tran∣slators* 1.1059 could see the truth, are euen, and iuste with the originall texte, the sense whereof, if it doe not alwaies containe suche excellent matter, as the Septua∣ginta, or vulgar Latin translation haue

supposed, there is no cause why our translators shoulde be blamed, whose office is to regarde what the originall truth is, and not to drawe it for any respecte to an other meaning, thā the spirit of god expresseth in those words.

MART. 2. First, you are so profane, that you say, The ballet of ballets of Salomon, so terming that diuine booke, Canticum canticorū, contayning the high mysterie of Christ and his Church, as if it were a ballet of leue betweene Salomon and his concubine, as Castaleo wantonly translateth it. But you say more profanely, thus, we haue conceiued, we haue born in paine, as thoughe wee shoulde haue brought ••oo•• •••••• wind. I am ashamed to tel the literall commentarie of this your* 1.1060 translation▪ why might you not haue said, we haue conceiued and as it were traueled to bring forth, and haue brought forth the spirite? is there any thing in the Hebrewe, to hinder you thus far? Why woulde you say, winde, rather than, spirite: knowing, that the Septuagintain Greeke, and the auncient fa∣thers, and S. Hierome himselfe, who translateth according to* 1.1061 the Hebrew, yet for sense of the place, al expound it both accor∣ding to Hebrew and Greeke, of the spirite of God, which is first conceiued in vs, & beginneth by feare, which the scripture cal∣leth, the beginning of wisdome▪ in so muche, that in the Greeke there are these goodly words, famous in al antiquitie: Through the feare of thee ô lord we conceiued, and haue trauailed with paine, and haue brought forth the spirite of thy sal∣uation, which thou hast made vpon the earth. Which doth excellently set before our cies, the degrees of a faithful mans in∣crease, and proceeding in the spirite of God, which beginneth by the feare of his iudgements, and is a good feare, though seruile, and not sufficient. and it may be, that you condemning wyth Luther this seruile feare, as euil and hurtfull, meane also some such thing by your trāslatiō. But indede the place may be vnder stode of the other fear also, which hath his degrees more or lesse.

FVLK. 2. I meruaile why this word ballet should seme to you to be profane, more than this word song, or canticle: songs and cāticles be many as il as any ballets.

But the other matter is of greate waight, Esay. 26. where, for the spirite, we translate winde, whych is suche an ab∣surditie, that you are ashamed to tel the literall cōmen∣tarie of this our translation. Belike you are afraide of suche a faulte as S. Lambert, in your legend is reported to haue committed. But excepte you hadde a prophane minde, you would neuer haue imagined any such mat∣ter thereof, which you are ashamed to vtter. The circum∣stāce of the place requireth, that we should translate the word in this place for wind, and not the spirit: for the pro phets pur pose was to shew, that people wer in desperat case, without hope of help, til God did raise them, euē as it were frō death. The similitude is taken of a trauailing woman, whose womb, if it be ful of wind, she is in great tormentes. But you aske vs whether there be anie thing in the Hebrue, that hindreth vs to say, we haue cōceiued, and as it were traueled, and haue brought forth the spirit. Yea verily the cōtext of the Hebrue words, wil not beare that translation for the worde chemo, quasi, as it were, is* 1.1062 placed before the word ialadhenu, which signifieth, brin∣ging foorth, and not before chalnu, which signifieth tra∣uailing in paine. Therfore the text is worde for word as wee haue translated it. And the word following: wee coulde make no helpe to the lande, or there was no help in the earth, declareth a continuance of their miserie, and cannot agree with that sense, whiche you woulde haue, because they which haue receiued the holy Ghost, haue founde helpe, and are able to helpe. Beside that, it is a monstrous phrase, that the godly shoulde saye, they haue conceiued, trauailed, and brought foorthe the ho∣lie Ghost, by which they are borne againe to bee the children of God, rather, than that they haue conceiued or brought forth Gods spirite. And therfore, howsoeuer Hierom like your interpretation, it agreeth neither with the words of the Hebrue, nor with the circūstance of the place, & it is scarce tollerable, to make such a conceptiō, and generation of Gods spirite in men. That seruile

feare is to be reprooued in the children of God, whych: shoulde feare him, as sonnes, and not as slaues, wee are content to acknowledge with Luther. But what place is this for vs to meane any thing against seruile feare, wh•• there is no mention of feare in the Hebrewe texte? and the Greeke hathe suche licentious additions, that Hie∣rome is faine to strike them through with a spitte, and note them to be wiped out.

MART. 3. But to saye, wee haue broughte foorthe winde, can admit no suche interpretation▪ but euen as if a meere Iew should translate or vnderstand it, who hath no sense of Gods spirite, so haue you excluded the true sense which con∣cerneth the holie Ghost, and not the colde terme of winde, and whatsoeuer naked interpretation thereof. And it is your fashion in al such cases, where the richer sense is of Gods holie spirite, there to translate winde, as Psal. 147. v. 1••. as you number the psalmes.

FVLK. 3. We must say in english, as the prophet hath said before vs in Hebrue, and so truly translate the scrip∣ture, that neuer a Iewe in the world, may haue iust cause to accuse our falshode or partialitie. And how cold soe∣uer the terme of winde seeme to your crooked minde, and how naked soeuer the interpretation be thought of your cloaked hypocrisie, it is the worde of the euerli∣uing God, and the true sense thereof, as it is expressed by the Prophet. Likewise, Psalme 147. the Prophet she∣weth who doth execute the commandement of God, in thawing, & dissoluing the frost namely, the wind, which being southerly, wee see the effect of it, what neede wee here to cause the holie ghost to be sent to melt the ice.

MART. 4. And it is not vnlike to this, that you wil not translate for the Aungels honor that carried Abacu••, He sette* 1.1063 him into Babilon ouer the lake by the force of his spi∣rite: but thus, through a mightie winde, so attributing it to the winde, not to the Aungels power, and omitting cleane the Greeke pronoune 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his, which sheweth euidently, that it was the Angels spirite, force, and power.

FVLK. 4 That we haue translated in the storie of Abacuks taking vp, that it was through a mighty winde, it hath good probabilitie by the circumstance of the place, and the signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is a force with with a noise, is more apt to the winde, than to the spirite. And in other writers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is taken for the ve∣hement noise of windes: but the pronoune, I confesse, should not haue bene omitted, and then it may be refer∣red, either to the winde, or spirite of God, whose Angell this is sayd to be: rather than to the Angel. For the An∣gell being nothing but a spirite, it is not so conuenient to saye, by his spirite, as by his owne force: againe, the pronoune is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereof you made great difference, as in deede there is difference in another case.

MART. 5. Againe, where the Prophets speake most ma∣nifestly of Christ, there you translate cleane an other thing: as Esa. 30. v. 20. When S. Hierom translateth thus, & the church* 1.1064 hath alwayes redde accordingly▪ Non faciet auolare à te vltra Doctorem tuum: & erunt oculi tui videntes praecepto∣rem tuum. that is, And (our Lord) shall not cause thy Do∣ctors to flie from thee any more: and thine eyes shall see* 1.1065 thy Maister. Which is all one in effect, with that which Christ sayth, I will be with you vnto the e••de of the word. there you translate thus, Thy raine shall be no more kept back: but thine eyes shall see thy raine. So likewise Ioel 2. v. 23. where the holy Church readeth, Reioyce you children of Sion in the Lord your God: because he hath giuen you the Doctor of iustice: there you translate, the raine of righteousnesse. Doth the Hebrue word force you to this? you* 1.1066 Iewes thēselues, partly vnderstād it of Esdras, partly of Christs Diuinitie. Why are you more profane (I will not say more Iudaical••) than the Iewes themselues? why might not S. Hie∣rom a Christian Doctor and lacking no skill in the Hebrue (as you well know) satisfie you, who maketh no doubt but the He∣brue in these places is; Doctor, Maister, Teacher? Who also (in Psal. 84. 7.) translateth thus, With blessings shall the

Doctor be araied: meaning Christ. Where you with the la∣ter Rabbines, the enemies of Christ, translate, The raine co••e∣reth the pooles. What cold stuffe is this in respect of that other translation, so clearly pointing to Christ out Maister & doctor?

FVLK. 5. I haue told you in the beginning of this chapter, we must not, neither is it safe for the strengthe∣ning of our faith, to drawe places of Scripture vnto Christ, which by the holy Ghost had an other meaning: so shall the Iewes laugh vs to scorne, and the faith of the ignorant, which is grounded vpon such translation, if it shall be opened vnto them, that it is vntrue, shall be mightily shaken, and brought in doubt of all other places of Scripture, applyed to the like ende. God be thanked, there be plaine and euident testimonies of Christ, in the Scripture, which no malice of Iewish or Heathenish enemies, can wrest out of our handes, which are sufficient for instruction, and confirmation of our faith. Now concerning those places, where you would haue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to signifie a Doctour, Teacher, or Maister: first, it seemeth you haue your Hebrew, but from hande to mouth: for chapter 3. sect. 25. whereas we translate, moreh shaker, a teacher of lyes, Abacuc. 2. you saye, wee* 1.1067 translate another thing, without any necessary pretence of Hebrewe, or Greeke: and here you would haue it of the necessitie of the Hebrew, that we should translate a teacher: yet Pagnine in the roote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wherevnto you referre vs, saith, that Esay, the 30. verse 20. this word is taken either for raine, or for a teacher, Ioel the 2. hee maketh no question▪ but it signifieth raine: sauing that some thinke it to be the name of a place. In the thirde place, Psalme 84. after he hath tolde you, how Hierome translateth it, hee telleth you how R. Dauid, and other doe translate it for raine, as wee doe: and in al these pla∣ces, the sense is more proper for raine, than for a teacher, sauing that in Esay, perhappes, it may signifie more apt∣ly a teacher, and so the Geneua translation noteth it. In Ioel, where the Prophet before hadde threatened fa∣mine

through drought, nothing is so conuenient to bee vnderstoode, as seasonable raine. In the Psalm 84. where the Prophet commendeth the courage of the people that trauailed to Ierusalem, through the drie desarts, and places that wanted water, it is moste apte to vnderstand, that God filleth their pits with raine, for their comfort. This, how cold soeuer it is counted of you that care not whereon faith shoulde be grounded, yet is it an hundred times more comfortable to a godly conscience, that desireth to bee established in trueth, than anye violent wresting of the Scripture, from the true and naturall sense, to anye other interpretation, how good in shew soeuer it be.

MART. 6. And againe, where S. Hierom translateth,* 1.1068 and the Church readeth, and all the fathe••s interprete and ex∣pound accordingly, There shal be faith in thy times: to ex∣presse the maruelous faith that shall be then, in the first Chri∣stians specially, euen vnto death, and in all the rest concerning the hidden mysteries of the newe Testament: there you tran∣slate, There shal be stabilitie of thy times. The Prophete ioyneth togither there, iudgement, iustice, faith, wisedome, knowledge, the feare of our Lord: you for a litle ambiguitie of the Hebrue worde, turne faith into stabilitie.

FVLK. 6. The word stabilitie Esai. 33. v. 6. excludeth not faith, but sheweth wherein faith is grounded. And therefore, this is as all the reste, a fonde quarrel, with∣out any good grounde at all. Seing our translation may stande with the truth of the wordes, and of the mat∣ter, and comprehendeth as much as you would haue, and more also. Yea it sheweth that faith is setled vpon stabilitie, and stedfastnesse of truth, which shall flourish in the time of Christ.

MART. 7. If I should burden you with translating* 1.1069 thus also concerning Christ, Cease from the man whose breath in his nostrels: for wherein is he to be esteemed? You would say I did you wrong, because it is so pointed now in the Hebrue. Wheras you know very wel by S. Hieroms commen∣tarie* 1.1070

vpon that place, that this is the Iewes pointing or reading of the worde, against the honour of Christe: the true reading and translation being as he interpreteth it, for he is reputed high▪ and therefore beware of him. Otherwise (as S. Hierom saith) what a consequence were this, or who would commend a∣ny man thus, Take heede ye offende not him, who is no∣thing esteemed? yet that is your translation. Neyther doth the Greeke helpe you which (if the accent be truely put) i•• thus, because he is reputed for some body or some thing▪* 1.1071 as S. Paule speaketh of the chiefe Apostles, and it is our phrase in the commendation of a man.

FVLK. 7. So long as you acknowledge, wee haue translated truely according to the Hebrue texte that we reade, there is no reason, that you should burden vs with false interpretation. The Septuaginta, as Hierome con∣fesseth, did reade as we doe, and plaine it is, not oneli•• by the vowels, but also by the contexte, that so it muste be read. For the Prophet disswadeth the people from putting affiance in any mortall man, for God wil bring downe the pride of all suche, as they truste moste in, as it followeth in the next chapiter, whereof this verse should be the beginning. The dismembring whereof, by the ill diuision of the Chapiter, deceiued Hierome, to think the Prophet spake of Christe, when he spake of a prowd man▪ whose breath was in his nostrels, and therefore he was of no strength: euen as Dauid vseth the same argu∣ment, Psalme. 146. for the purpose, The Chaldee Pa∣raphrase also did reade, euen as the Septuaginta.

MART. 8. The like excuse you woulde haue by allead∣ging the Hebrue vowels, if you were told, that you much obs••ure a notable saying of the prophet concerning Christ, or rather the* 1.1072 speach of Christe himselfe by his prophete, saying: I haue spo∣ken by the Prophets, and I haue multiplied vision, and in the hand of the Prophets, (that is, by the Prophets) haue I beene resembled. Which later words do exceedingly expresse, that al the Prophets spake of Christ: as o••r Sauiour himself de∣clareth, beginning from Moyses and al the Prophetes to* 1.1073

interprete vnto the two disciples, the things that concer∣ned* 1.1074 him: & as S. Pet••r saith in these words, Al the prophets from Samuel and that spake after him didde tell of these daies. This prophecie then being so consonant to these speaches* 1.1075 of the ••ewe Testament, the Greeke also being word for word so, the Hebrewe by changing one little pricke (whyche the latter Iewes haue added at their owne pleasure) being fully so as wee* 1.1076 ••eade with the Catholike Church: why pretend you the Iewes authoritie to maintaine an other lesse Christian translation, whiche is thus: I vse similitudes by the ministerie of the Prophetes. as though there were nothing there concerning Christ▪ or the second person peculiarly?

FVLK. 8. Seeing our Sauiour Christ hath promi∣sed, that neuer a pricke of the lawe shall perishe, wee may vnderstande the same also of the Prophets, who haue not receiued the vowels of the latter Iewes, but euen of the Prophets themselues, howsoeuer that heathenish opini∣on pleaseth you, and other Papistes.

MART. 9. You wil also perhaps alleadge, not onelye the* 1.1077 later Iewes, but also some later Catholike men, that so translate the Hebrewe. But the difference betweene them and you, is, that they, with reuerence and pre••erment alwaies of S. Hi••roms, and the Churches a••••••ient translation, tel vs how it is nowe in the Hebrewe: you, with derogation and disanulling the same alto∣g••ther, set downe your owne, as the onlie true interpretation ac∣cording to the Hebrewe: a••ouching the Hebrewe that nowe i••, and as now it is printed, to be the only authenti cal truth of the olde Testament. Where you can neuer answere vs, howe that in the Ps. 22. As a lion my hand and my feete, (as now it is in the Hebrewe) can be the true and old authentical Hebrewe,* 1.1078 whiche none of the fathers knewe, the auncient Rabbines con∣demne as a corruption, your selues translate it not, but after the olde accustomed reading, They haue pierced my handes & my feete. Which is a notable prophecie of our Sauiours kinde and maner of Passion, being crucified on the Crosse. Onelye the later Iewes, and suche Heretikes, as thinke he died vpon a gal∣low••s or gibbes, and not vpon the Crosse, they like this Hebrue

textwel, and stand vpon i••, as you do vpon al without excepti∣on, and yet, when it commeth to certaine particulars, you are cō∣pelled to forsake it. as in certaine other places▪ for example.

FVLK. 9. Isidorus Clarius, retaining the word, assi∣••ulatus sum, doth thus expounde it, in his note. Hoc est vo∣luntatem meam similitudinibus & varijs l••cutioni•• gene••ibu•• ••locutus sum. That is, I haue vttered my wil by similitudes and diuers kindes of speach: you see therfore, howe you are deceiued in aduouching this matter of your owne pseudocatholikes, when this Bishop, not departing from your reading, yet expoundeth this text according to the Hebrewe, and was allowed in so doing, by the Deputies of the Councel of Trent, whose sensure was obserued in printing this Bible. Where you repeate yet once again, that we can neuer answere that of a lion, Psa. 22. you shew your skil, and great reading▪ I haue answeared before in the preface sect. 44. that we forsake the hebrue in this, or in any other, it is vtterly false, for we follow no text, but the Hebrue, so neare as we can vnderstād it, & expresse it.

MART. 10. Where the Hebrewe saith, Achaz king of Israel, 2. Paralip. 28. v. 19. which is not true, you are compelled* 1.1079 to translate, Achaz king of Iuda, as the truth is, and as it is in the Greeke and the vulgar Latine. yet some of your Bibles* 1.1080 folow the falshode of the Hebrew.

FVLK. 10. While you take vppon you, to discouer faults in the hebrue text, you bring three exāples, which if they were all faultes, containe no matter of doctrine, whereby we may be deceiued in any article of faith. The first is, that Achaz, z. Chr. 28. v. 19. is called King of Israel, whereas he was King only of Iuda. But I pray you sir, was not Iuda parte of Israel? why might he not then be cal∣led a king, or one of the Kings of Israel? The Queene of England, may wel be called Regina Brytanniae, althoughe there be a King in Scotland. Although there may be an other cause why Achaz is called King of Israel, because in his dayes when Pekah the sonne of Remaliah was slaine, the kingdome of Israel, that had continued from Iero∣boams

time, vntil then, was now in a maner decaied. For Hosea was of smal power, and made tributarie to the King of Assyria, and peraduenture also in the time of Achaz was kept in prison: as it is certaine he was empri∣soned, 2. Reg. 17. v. 4. so that, when there was none other King of Israel to account of, Achaz might be called king of Israel, as also in the same chapter the last verse, though he were buried at Ierusalem, and in the citie of Dauid, it is saide, that he was not laide in the sepulchres of the Kings of Israel: where your vulgare Latine text hath, Is∣rael, and not Iuda.

MART. 11. Likewise, where the Hebrewe saith, Zede∣chias his brother, meaning the brother of Ioachim, you tran∣slate,* 1.1081 Zedechias his fathers brother, as indede the truth is, according to the Greeke, and to the Scripture, 4. Reg. 24. v. 19. and therefore your Bible whych foloweth the Hebrewe here also, translating, his brother, yet in the margen: putteth downe a•• more true, vncle.

FVLK. 11. This argueth no fault in the Hebrue text, but grose ignorance of the Hebrew ••ong in you, whiche knew not, that ach, signifieth, not only a brother, but al∣so,* 1.1082 any other kinsman, as the vncle, cousins, and such like, as, Gen. 13. Abraham and Lot, are called brethrē, yet was Abraham Lots vncle, Deut. 25. when brethren shall dwell togither, the lawe of marying the brothers wife, that di∣ed without issue, there the word brethren pertaineth to kinsmen farre off, as appeareth in the storie of Ruth, ca. 3. & 4. finally, it is a thing so commonly knowen to thē, which haue but a little smacke in the Hebrew tong, that I wil spend no time about it. And euē your vulgar tran∣slation in some antient copies, hath fratrem, & not patr••ū, as you may see in the Bible printed by Plantin 1567.

MART. 12. Likewise in an other place, the hebrewe is so out of frame, that some of your Bibles say, hee begate Azuba of his wife Azuba. and othersome translate, He begat Ieri∣oth of his wife Azuba: the hebrue being thus: he begat Azu ba his wife and I••rioth, whyche, neyther you, nor any man

else can easily tel what to make of. Thus you see howe easie it were (if a man woulde multiplie such examples) to shew by your owne testimonies the corruption of the Hebrewe, and that your* 1.1083 selues do not, nor dare not exactly folow it, as of the Greeke text of the new Testament also is declared else where.

FVLK. 12. The third fault you finde, is 1. Chron. 2. v. 18. where the interpretors are deceiued, while they take* 1.1084 eth, for a signe of the accusatiue case, whych in that place, as in diuers other, is taken for a preposition, of, or by, as Gen. 4. Eue saith, I haue obtained a son eth Iehouah, of the Lord, or by the Lords gift, &c. Gen. 44. they were gone out eth hayir, of, or from the citie. So here the true tran∣slation of this verse in question, is this. Caleb the sonne Chet••ron, begate of Azuba, his wife, and of Ierioth: that is, he had children by these two women, Azuba his wife, and Ierihoth, which was his concubine, so they called them, that were lawful wiues, in respect of matrimonie, but yet had not the honor of wiues, but being of base condition beefore they were marryed, so continued: by this Ier••hoth he had those three sonnes, that in thys verse are named, his children by Azuba are named af∣terwarde, verse. 42. Wherefore heere is no faulte in the Hebrewe, but in your vulgare translator, which maketh Ierihoth the sonne of Azuba, and addeth to the text, be∣cause he vnderstoode it not. It is false therefore that you say, we dare not folow the Hebrewe, because some tran∣slator, by ouersight, hath not attained to the right vn∣derstanding thereof: as also, that we dare not exactly fo∣lowe the Greeke of the newe Testament, which we de∣sire to follow as exactly as we can.

MART. 13. But it is greater maruel, why you folowe not the Hebrewe in other places also, where is no corruption. You protest to translate it according to the points or vowels that now it hath, and that you call the Hebrewe veritie. Tel me then I beseeche you, why doe you in al your Bibles translate thus, O Virgin, daughter of Sion, hee hathe despised thee, and* 1.1085 laughed thee to scorne: ô daughter of Hierusalem hee

hath shaken his head at thee. In the Hebrew, Greeke, S. Hie∣romes* 1.1086 translation and commentarie, it is cleane contrary, The Virgin daughter of Sion, hath despised thee (O Assur:)* 1.1087 the daughter of Hierusalem hath shakē her head at thee. All are the foeminine gender, and spoken of Sion literally, and* 1.1088 of the Church spiritually triumphing ouer Assur, and all her e∣nemies: you translate all as of the masculine gender, and apply it to Assur, insulting against Hierusalem, &c. I can not cōceiue what this translation meaneth, and I would gladly know the rea∣son, and I would haue thought it some grosse ouersight, but that I find it so in all your English Bibles, and not onely in this place of Esay, but also in the bookes of the kings, 4. Reg. 19. where the same words are repeated. And it is no lesse maruell vnto vs, that know not the reason of your doings, why you haue1 1.1089 left out Al∣leluia* 1.1090 nine times in the sixe last Psalmes, being in the Hebrew nine times more than in your translation: specially when you* 1.1091 knowe that it is the auncient and ioyfull song of the Primitiue Church. See the new English Testament, Annot. Apoc. 19.

FVLK. 13. It seemeth that our translators follow∣ed too much the iudgement of the Tigurine translator, who, what reason moued him so to translate, I know not, it seemeth they weyed not well the Hebrew in that place, but such is mans frailtie, that he is apt and easie t•• ••b de∣ceaued, if he be not very vigilant, and attentiue in those cases. And the example of one mans errour, that is of credite, soone draweth other men into the same, by countenance of his authoritie. Neuerthelesse two of our translations, the Bishops Bible, and Couerdales Bible, translate the very same words according to the Hebrew, 2. Reg. 19. referring the saying against Senacherib despi∣sed, and laughed to scorne by Ierusalem. And therefore you say vntruly, that is is in all our English Bibles, 4. Reg. 19. Where you maruaile, why we haue left out Al∣leluia nine times in the sixe last Psalmes, I maruaile as much, why you should so saye: for in the Bishops Bible which I haue, and which you call Bib. 1577. It is tenne times in the fiue last Psalmes, and tenne times there is in

the translation, Praise ye the Lord. In the 145. it is not in the Hebrew. But in the other fiue Psalmes, it is both in the beginning, and in the ende of euery one of them.

MART. 14. Againe, you translate thus: Many which had seene the first house, when the foundation of this house was layd before their eyes, wept, &c. Looke well to your Hebrew, and you shall find it according both to the Greeke and the Latine, thus: Many which had seene the first house in the foundation thereof, (that is, yet standing vpon the foundation, not destroyed) and this temple before their eyes, wept. You imagined that it should be meant, they saw Sa∣lomons temple, when it was first founded, which because it was vnpossible, therefore you translated otherwise than is in the He∣brew, Greeke, and Latine. But yet in some of your Bibles, you should haue considered the matter better, and translated accor∣dingly.

FVLK. 14. The Hebrew is indifferent, Ezra. 3. to either of both translations, and the sense is all one, whe∣ther beiasedho be referred to the first house, named be∣fore,* 1.1092 or to this house before their eyes, which followeth. And therefore your coniecture of our imagination, as in other places, is no more bold, than vaine.* 1.1093

MART. 15. And surely why you shoulde translate (4.* 1.1094 Reg. 23. v. 13.) On the right hand of mount Oliuete, ra∣ther than as it is in the vulgar Latine: and why, Ye abiect of* 1.1095 the Gentiles, Esa. 45. v. 20. rather than, ye that are saued of the Gentiles: you belike know some reason, we doe not, neither* 1.1096 by the Hebrew, nor the Greeke.

FVLK. 15. The Geneua Bible hath according to the Hebrew, the mount of corruption, which was in deed the Mount Oliuet, as is proued by 1. Reg. 11. v. 7. and 2. Sam. 15. v. 30. and of the fruitfulnes of oyle was called Mischethith: but in this place, in detestation of the ido∣latrie, is called Maschith, signifying corruption, as Bethel was called Bethauen. Osec. 4. v. 15.

In Esai 45. two of our translations, haue according to the vsuall signification of the Hebrewe worde pelitei,* 1.1097

you that escaped of the people, but that the worde also signifieth an abiect, you might haue learned by Pag∣nine, and so ceased to haue maruailed, why the Geneua Bible translateth, you abiects of the Gentiles. As your owne vulgar translation, Ier. 44. trāslateth it, of them that fled, or fugitiues.

MART. 16. Howbeit in these lesser things (though no∣thing in the Scripture is to be counted litle) you might perhaps more freely haue taken your pleasure, in following neither He∣brew, nor Greeke: but when it concerneth a matter no lesse than vsurie, there by your false translation to giue occasion vnto the Reader, to be an vsurer, is no small fault, either against true re∣ligion,* 1.1098 or against good maners. This you doe most euidently in your most authenticall translations, saying thus: Thou shalt* 1.1099 not hurt thy brother by vsurie of money, nor by vsurie of corne, nor by vsurie of any thing that he may be hurt withall. What is this to say, but that vsurie is not here forbid∣den, vnles it hurt the partie that boroweth, which is so rooted in most mens hartes, that they thinke such vsurie very lawfull, and* 1.1100 daily offend mortally that waye. Where Almightye God in this place of holy Scripture, hath not a word of hurting, or not hur∣ting, (as may be seene by the Geneua Bibles,) but sayth simply thus: Thou shalt not lend to thy brother to vsurie, vsurie of money, vsurie of meate, vsurie of any thing that is put* 1.1101 to vsurie.

MART. 17. Marke the Hebrew, and the Greeke, and see, and be ashamed, that you straine and peruert it, to say for, Non foenerabis fratri tuo, which is worde for worde in the Greeke, and Hebrew, Thou shalt not hurt thy brother by vsurie. If the Hebrew word in the vse of holy Scripture, doe sig∣nifie, to hurt by vsurie, why doe you in the very next words fol∣lowing, in the selfe same Bibles translate it thus, vnto a straun∣ger* 1.1102 thou mayst lend vpon vsurie, but not vnto thy bro∣ther? Why sayd you not, A straunger thou mayst hurt with vsurie, but not thy brother? Is it not all one word & phrase, here and before? And if you had so translated it here also, the Ie••es woulde haue thanked you, who by forcing the Hebrewe

word as you doe, thinke it very good to hurt any straunger, that is, any Christian, by any vsurie, be it neuer so great.

FVLK. 16. & 17. You saye well, that in the Scrip∣ture, nothing is to be counted litle, and therefore, euen in these litle thinges, we haue endeuoured to follow the Hebrew, and haue so well followed it, that though you say much, yet you can proue litle against vs. But concer∣ning this text of vsurie, whereof you would make vs great patrones, it is maruell that you can not finde in your Dictionaries, that the verbe, nashach, signifieth to* 1.1103 bite, at least wise you should haue regarded, that your vulgar Latine Interpretor, Num. 21. trāslateth it to strike, or hurt, as they were, that were hurt, or bitten by the fie∣rie serpents. The consent of all Hebritians also is, that neshech, the name of vsurie, is deriued of biting, and hur∣ting,* 1.1104 wherefore the Bishops Bible, meaning to expresse, that all vsurie is hurtfull, according to the etymologie of the word, rather than to defend, that any vsurie is law∣ful, other than such as God him selfe alloweth. And ther∣fore it had bene well to haue translated also in the next verse, a straunger mayst thou bite, or hurt with vsurie, howsoeuer the Iewes would take it, whose abhominable vsurie, vnder pretence of that place, sure I am, our transla∣tors purpose was not to defend.

MART. 18. What shall I tell you of other faults, which I would gladly account ouersights or ignorances, such as we also desire pardon of, bus all are not such, though some be. As, Two* 1.1105 thousand, (written at length) to them that keepe the fruite thereof. In the Hebrew, and Greeke, two hundred. Againe, in* 1.1106 the same booke, c. 1. v. 4. As the fruites of Cedar. in the He∣brew, and Greeke, Tabernacles. And, Aske a signe either in* 1.1107 the depth or in the height aboue, for, in the depth of Hell. And, Great workes are wrought by him. for, doe worke* 1.1108 in him. as S. Paule vseth the same word, 2. Cor. 4. v. 12. And,* 1.1109 To make ready an horse. Act. 23. v. 24. in the Greeke, bea∣stes, And. If a man on the Sabboth day receiue circumci∣sion, without breaking of the law of Moyses. Io. 7. v. 23.

For, to the end that the lawe of Moyses be not broken.* 1.1110 And, The sonne of man must suffer many things, and be reproued of the elders, Mar. 8. v. 31. For, be reiected. As* 1.1111 in the Psalme, The stone which the builders reiected, we say not, reprouing of the said stone, which is Christ. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.1112 a yong scholer, in all your translations, falsely. And, Simon of Chanaan or Simon the Cananite, who is called otherwise, Zelotes, that is Zelous, as an interpretation of the Hebrue word, Cananaeus: which I maruell you considered not, specially con∣sidering that the Hebrue worde for Zelous, and the other for a* 1.1113 Cananite, beginne with diuers letters. And, least at any time* 1.1114 we should let them slippe. For, least wee slippe or runne by, and so be lost.

FVLK. 18. The first in Can. 8. is doubtlesse the prin∣ters faulte, who did reade in the written copie, one Cy∣pher to much. That the second Can. 1. v. 5. was the prin∣ters fault, which did reade fruites for tentes, it is plaine by the note vpon the worde Kedar, which is this, Kedar was Ischmaels sonne, of whom came the Arabians, that dwelt in tentes. In the thirde place Esai 7. there lacketh this worde (beneath) or towarde the pit downeward, for Shealah is here opposite to Lemayelah aboue, or vpward,* 1.1115 which omission, I know not whether it is to be imputed to the negligence of the Printer, or of the translators, but not withstanding the sense is all one. In the fourth texte also, there is no difference for the meaning, and some are of opinion, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may be taken passiue∣ly, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Beza in Marc. 6. v. 14. other translations turne it actiuely. In the fifte text. Act. 23. if for an horse, they had saide horses, it had bene no faulte, for it is not lyke they rodde vpon Asses, or Camels. The worde sig∣nifieth beasts, that are possessed, and of possession they be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but here it is certaine, beastes meete for cariage of men are signified. In the sixte, Ioan. 7. v. 23. I thinke the translators were deceiued, supposing that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might be translated, so that the lawe of Moses be not broken, as perhaps it may: but hereof I will not deter∣mine,

commonly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to the ende: yet is there no vngodly sense conteyned in this translation. The se∣uenth, Mar. 8. v. 31. Is but a knot in a rushe: for reproued in that place, signifieth nothing but refused, or reiected. Your vulgar Latine sayth Reprobari, which is plainely to be reproued, and 1. Pet. 2. The stone which the builders reproued, Reprobauerunt, refused. By reproued, they do not meane reprehended, or rebuked, but vtterly refused, and not accepted. The eight, Neophytus, a young schol∣ler, as I haue shewed before is better Englished, than a Neophyte, which is neither Greeke, Latine, nor English. The ninth, is corrected in two translations, and the Ge∣neua Bible telleth you, that for Cananite you may reade Zealous, so that wee are not beholding to you for this correction, as it seemeth you would haue vs. Touching the tenth texte, Heb. 2. both those translations that say: least at any time wee should let them slippe, haue this note in the margent, by which they declare they meane euen as you would haue them say: least like vessels ful of chappes we leake, and runne out on euery parte, for ves∣sels that do runne out, do let goe or let slippe that licour that is put into them.

MART. 19. And as for the first Bible, which was done* 1.1116 in hast, and not yet corrected, but is printed still a freshe: that saith, With Herods seruants, as though that were the onely* 1.1117 sense: that calleth idiotas lay men:1 1.1118 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a ship:2 1.1119 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wondering:3 1.1120 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are gone out: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his substance: and, To know the excellent loue of the knowledge of Christ. For, the loue of Christ that excelleth knowledge. And, of men that turne away the truth. For, that shunne the truth* 1.1121 and turne away from it. And, Mount Sina is Agar in A∣rabia. For, Agar is mount Sina, &c.

FVLK. 19. The first Bible was not that you meane, but not much differing from it, neither was it done in hast, but with as good cōsideratiō, as god gaue for that time: neither was it printed these 22. yeares, for ought I know, which you say is printed still a fresh. In that Bible

Herods seruaunts, put for the Herodians, was lacke of knowledge of what sect the Herodiās should be. Idiotas, Lay mē, is no more faulte, than, of the vulgar sort, which you say. The shippe for the Arke, is a smal fault, seing that arke into which Noe entred, was a ship, or in steede of a shippe. The wōdring, for the tumult, is a populer terme: for so they call a great noyse made by a multitude. The lampes are gone out, or are quenched, I know not what great difference may be in it. His substaunce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I know not where you meane, except it bee Marke. 13. where Erasmus noteth, that he hath redde in some co∣pie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, substaunce, which seemeth to agree aptly with the place. In the texte Eph. 3. the true translation is as wee haue corrected it in the later editions: yet the wordes maye beare that other interpretation also. In Titus the firste, the participle is of the meane voyce, and therefore may signifie actiuely or passiue∣ly. In Gal. the transposition, Sina before Agar, see∣meth to be the faulte of the Printer, rather than of the translator.

MART. 20. Let these and the like be small negligences or ignorances, such as you will pardon vs also, if you finde the like. Neither do we greatly mislike, that you leaue those wordes,1 1.1122 Vrim and Thummim, and* 1.1123 Chemarim, and2 1.1124 Ziims, and Iims, vntranslated, because it is not easie to expresse them in English: and we would haue liked as wel in certaine other words, which you haue translated, images, images, and stil, images,* 1.1125 being as hard to expresse the true signification of them, as the former. And we hope you will the rather beare with the late Ca∣tholike translation of the English Testament, that leaueth also certaine wordes vntranslated, not only because they can not be expressed, but also for reuerence and religion (as S. Augustine saith) and greater maiestie of the same.

FVLK. 20. Some in deede are small faultes, some none at al. That you mislike vs not, for not translating a few words, whose signification is vnknowen, or else they can not be aptly expressed in the English tongue, it is of

no equitie towardes vs, but that you might vnder that shadowe, creepe away with so huge a multitude of wordes, which may as well be translated, as any in the Bible, and that in the new Testament, which is scarse the sixte parte of the whole Bible. The wordes which wee haue translated Images, are out of question termes signi∣fying Images, and of your translator, they be called ey∣ther imagines, simulachra, sculptilia, Idola, &c. Our En∣glish tongue, being not so fruitefull of wordes, we call them sometimes Idols, sometimes Images, which when we speake of worshipped images, can be none other, but such as you call Idols. To obscure such a multitude of words, & so much matter by them, as you do, S. Augu∣stine wil not warrant you, who speaketh only of two, or three words vsually receiued in the Latine Church in his time, not of such a number as you haue counterfaited.

MART. 21. Of one thing we can by no meanes excuse you, but it must sauour vanitie, or noueltie, or both. As when you affectate newe strange wordes which the people are not ac∣quainted with all, but it is rather Hebrue to them than English:* 1.1126 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Demosthenes speaketh, vttering with* 1.1127 great countenance and maiestie, Against him came vp Na∣bucadnezzar king of Babel, 2. Par. 36. v. 6. for, Nabucho∣donosor* 1.1128 king of Babylon: Saneherib, for Sennacherib: Michaiahs prophecie, for Michaeas: Iehoshaphats prayer, for Iosaphats: Vzza slaine, for Oza. When Zerubbabel went about to builde the Temple, for Zorobabel: Re∣member what the Lorde did to Miriam, for Marie, Deut. 34. And in your first translation, Elisa for Elisaeus, Pekahia and* 1.1129 Pekah for Phaceia and Phacee, Vziahu for Ozias, Thi∣glath-peleser for Teglath-phalasar, Ahaziahu for Ocho∣zias: Peka the sonne of Remaliahu, for, Phacee the sonne of Romelia. And why say you not as wel Shelomoh for Sa∣lomon, and Coresh for Cyrus, and so alter euery word frō the knowen sound & pronunciatiō thereof? Is this to teach the peo∣ple, whē you speake Hebrue rather than English? Were it a good. ••y hearing (thinke you) to say for IESVS, Ieshuah, and for

MARIE his mother, Miriam: and for Messias, Messiach, and Iohn, Iachannan, and such like mōstrous nouelties? which you might aswel do, and the people wold vnderstand you as wel, as when our preachers say, Nabucadnezer King of Babel.* 1.1130

FVLK. 21. Seing the moste of the proper names of the olde Testament were vnknowne to the people, be∣fore the Scripture was read in Englishe, it was beste to vtter them according to the truth of their pronuntiation in Hebrewe, rather than after the common corruption, which they had receiued in the Greke and Latin tongs. But as for those names which were known vnto the peo∣ple out of the new Testamēt, as Iesus, Iohn Marie, &c. it had bin follie to haue taught mē to soūd thē otherwise than after the Greke declination, in which we find them.* 1.1131

MART. 22. When Zuinglius your greate Patriarke did reade in Munsters translation of the old Testamēt, Iehizki∣abu, Iehezchel, Choresh, Darianesch, Beltzezzer, and the like, for, Ezechias, Ezechiel, Cyrus, Darius, Baltasar: he called them barbarous voices, and vnciuil speaches, and saide, the worde of God was soiled and depraued by them. Know you not, that pro∣per names alter and change, and are written and sounded in e∣uerie language diuersly? Might not al antiquitie, and the ge∣nerall custome, both of reading and hearing the knowen names of Nabuchodonosor, and Michaeas, and Ozias, suffice you, but you must needes inuent other which the people neuer heard, ra∣ther for vaine ostentation, to amase and astonish them, than to edification and instruction Which is an olde hereticall fashion, noted by Eusebius, lib 4. c. 10. and by the author of the vnper∣fect commentaries vpon S. Mathew, ho. 44. and by S. Augustine, lib. 3. c. 26. contra Cresconium.

FVLK. 22. That Zuinglius is no Patriarke of ours, you may knowe by this, that we doe freely dissent from him, when we are perswaded that he dissenteth from the truth. But where you charge vs, with an hereticall fashi∣on in sounding Hebrew names, according to the truth of the Hebrew tongue if your authors be well weyed, they will conuince you of an hereticall fashion, in framing of

new wordes, which are more apt to amase and astonishe men, than to instruct or edifie them: and in vsing straūg language in all your Church seruice, and in that also di∣uerse Hebrew wordes. So did the Marcosians, of whome Eusebius out of Irenaeus writeth in baptising. And the author of the vnperfect worke vppon Mathew, though him selfe an Heretike, yet truly sayth of heretike Priests,

as you are, in the homily by you quoted, Sic & modo hae∣retici Sacerdotes, &c. Euen so the Heretike Priestes shut vp the gate of truth. For they knowe that if the truth were made manifest, their Church should be forsaken, &c.

For which cause, vntill this tyme, you haue bene vtter enimies to the translation of the Scripture. But nowe you see you can not preuaile against the translati∣on, you haue begunne so to translate the Scripture, as in many thinges it were as good not translated, for any thing the people shall vnderstande by it. For you haue not explicated the fourth parte of the fayned inkehorne termes that you haue vsed. And that Saint Augustine sayth, Cresconius went fondly about to terrifie him, with the Greeke word Anti••athegoria, you doe the like with Parasceue, Azymes, scandals, Neophyte, yea with Latine wordes, gratis, depositum, and such like, seeke to bring the ignorant in great admiration of your deepe knowledge, which is nothing els, but an hereticall fa∣shion, vnder strange termes, to hide the poison of your pestilent doctrine.

MART. 23. What shal I speake of your affectation of* 1.1132 the worde Iehôua (for so it pleaseth you to accent it) in steede of Dominus, the Lord: whereas the auntient fathers in the verie Hebrewe texte did reade and sounde it rather Adonai, as appeareth both by S. Hieromes translation, and also his com∣mentaries, and I woulde knowe of them the reason, why in the Hebrewe Bible, whensoeuer this word is ioined with Adonai, it is to be read Elohim, but only for auoiding Adonai, twice to∣gither. This I say wee might iustly demaunde of these that take a pride in vsing this word Iehôua, so ofte, both in Englishe and

Latin, though otherwise we are not superstitious, but as occasion serueth, only in the Hebrue text, we pronounce it and reade it Againe we might aske them, why they vse not aswel Elohim in steede of Deus, God: and so of therest, changing al into hebrue, that they may seeme gay fellowes, and the people may wonder as their wonderful and mystical diuinitie.

FVLK. 23. In our Englishe translation, Iehoua is very seldome vsed in other speache, no wise man vseth it oftner, than there is good cause why. And when there is cause, we haue no superstition in pronouncing it, as we are not curious in accēting it. Although, perhaps you quarrel at our accent, because you can not discerne be∣tweene time and time. The middle syllable wee knowe to be long, whether it be to be eleuated wee make no question, wee know where the accent is in the Hebrue, but we thinke not that all accents be sharpe, and eleuate that syllable in which they are. It is a great matter, that you demaunde the reason why ioygned to Adonai, it is to bee redde Elohim, you should rather demaunde why it is otherwise pointed, when it is ioygned with Adonai, for being pointed as it is, I see not why it shoulde not bee read according to the vowels, Adonai Iehouih. Ma∣ny other questions might bee moued, about the names of God, in pronouncing or writing of which we know the Iewes were reuerente, euen to superstition: and therefore in bookes that shoulde come in all mennes handes, made other alterations, than you speake of, and yet retayned in other authenticall copies, the true letters and pointes. If any desire vaine gloriously to vt∣ter his skill in the tongues, when hee should edifie the people, of all them that be wise and learned, he is misli∣ked for so doing.

MART. 24. To conclude, are not your scholers (thinke you) muche bound•• vnto you, for giuing them in steede of Gods blessed worde and his holy Scriptures, such translations, heretical, Iudaical, profane, false, negligent, phantasticall, newe,

naught, monstrous? God open their eyes to see, and mollifie your hartes to repent of all your falshood and treacherie, both that which is manifestly conuinced against you and can not be deni∣ed, as also that which may by some shewe of answer be shifted of in the sight of the ignorant, but in your consciences is as manifest as the other.

FVLK. 24. Happy and thrise happy hath our En∣glish nation bene, since God hath giuen learned transla∣tors, to expresse in our mother tongue the heauenly my∣steries of his holy worde, deliuered to his Church in the Hebrew and Greeke languages. Who, although they haue in some matters of no importance vnto saluation, as men bene deceiued: yet haue they faithfully deliue∣red the whole substaunce of the heauenly doctrine, con∣teyned in the holy Scriptures, without any hereticall translations, or wilfull corruptions. And in the whole Bible among them all haue committed as fewe ouer∣sights for any thing that you can bring, and of lesse im∣portance, than you haue done onely in the newe Testa∣ment. Where beside so many omissions, euen out of your owne vulgar Latine translation, you haue taken vp∣on you, to alter that you founde in your texte, and tran∣slate that, which is onely in the margent, & is redde but in fewe written copies. As for Italia you say A••talia, no∣ted before Heb. 13. for placuerunt you translate latuerunt, 2. Pet.2. for coinquinationis which is in the text, you tran∣slate coinquinationes, which was founde but in one onely copie, by Hentenius, as the other but in one or two of thirtie diuerse copies, most written.

FINIS.

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.
• * 1.79

  1.
• c 1.80

  See the anno∣tations of the nevv Testamēt 2. Thess. 2. 15.
• * 1.81

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.82

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.83

  2. Thess. 2. v. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, tr••∣ditiones.
• * 1.84

  2. Thess. 3. 6.
• * 1.85

  ••. Cor. 15. 2.
• * 1.86

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.87

  Yet M. Fulke saith, it is found there. pag. 153. against D. Sand. Rocke. If he giue not vs an instance, let him giue him selfe the lie.
• * 1.88

  2. Thess. 2. & 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.89

  Col. 2. 20.
• * 1.90

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.91

  Of the yeare 1579.
• * 1.92

  Col. 2. 1••. Ephes. 2. 15.
• * 1.93

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.94

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they translate, ordi∣nance: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, tradition: cleane contrarie.
• * 1.95

  1. Pet. 1. 18.
• * 1.96

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.97

  Tradidi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪
• * 1.98

  Discouer. of the Rocke. pag. 147. Fraefat in nou•••• Test. 1556.
• * 1.99

  Col. 2. 20.
• * 1.100

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.101

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.102

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.103

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.104

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.105

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.106

  Faenerator.
• * 1.107

  Stabulum.
• * 1.108

  Quod factum.
• * 1.109

  Act. 5.
• * 1.110

  Affigentes, act. 2.
• * 1.111

  Saluamini, act. 7.
• * 1.112

  Confessus, act. 7.
• * 1.113

  Nauiculas, luc. 5.
• * 1.114

  Nauis, marc. 4.
• * 1.115

  Cecinimus, mat. 11.
• * 1.116

  Fanum, mat. 14.
• * 1.117

  Refectio, mar. 14.
• * 1.118

  Insipientia, luc. 6.
• * 1.119

  Simulachrum.
• * 1.120

  1.
• * 1.121

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.122

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.123

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.124

  Bib. 1577. Eph. 5. Col. 3.
• * 1.125

  1.
• * 1.126

  The absurditie of this transla∣tion, A couetous man is a vvor∣shipper of images.
• * 1.127

  2. Cor. 6.
• * 1.128

  Salomōs Tēple did vvell agree vvith images, but not vvith idols.
• * 1.129

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.130

  The brasen ser∣pent, first an i∣mage, and lavv∣full: aftervvard an idol, and vn∣lavvfull.
• * 1.131

  Numb. 21.
• * 1.132

  Lib. 10. de Ciuit. c. 8.
• * 1.133

  4. Reg. 18.
• * 1.134

  Exod. 32.
• * 1.135

  The moltē calf, an idol.
• * 1.136

  1. Cor. 10.
• * 1.137

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.138

  Psalm. 165.
• * 1.139

  In c. 25. Ezech. The Protestāts are like to the Ammonits and Moabits.
• * 1.140

  In Ezech. cap. 25
• * 1.141

  The holy Scri∣pture speaketh against the idols of the Gentiles, not against all maner of ima∣ges.
• * 1.142

  Rom. 1.
• * 1.143

  VVhat vvere the idols of the Pagans.
• * 1.144

  1. Cor. 5. Bib. 1562.
• * 1.145

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.146

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.147

  VV. Fulke, Cō∣futat. of Iohn Hovvlet fol. 35.
• * 1.148

  Bib. 1577. Col. 3. v. 5.
• * 1.149

  Bib. 1562.
• * 1.150

  Ioh. 19. v. 26.
• * 1.151

  Col. 3. v. ••.
• * 1.152

  VV. Fulke Confut. fol. 35.
• * 1.153

  Fol. 36. Bib. 1579.
• * 1.154

  1. Iohn. 5.
• * 1.155

  Irenaus libr. 1. e••. 20 23. 24. Epiphanius. lib. 1. Tom. 2 H. 27.
• * 1.156

  V V. Fulke. Fol. 35.
• * 1.157

  Gen 1.
• * 1.158

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.159

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.160

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.161

  Rom. 8. Imagini. 1. Cor. 15. Imaginem.
• * 1.162

  2. Cor. 3. Hebr. 10.
• * 1.163

  Col. 1. 2. Cor. 4.
• * 1.164

  Ab idolis.
• * 1.165

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.166

  1. Ioh. 5.
• * 1.167

  Loco citato. fol. 35
• * 1.168

  Eph. 5. A coue∣tous man is a vvorshipper of images, and Col. 3. Couetousnes is vvorshipping of images.
• * 1.169

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. subaud. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Num. c. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.170

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.171

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.172

  The meaning of the 1. Commaū∣dement concer∣ning false Gods & grauen idols.
• * 1.173

  The Crosse in the Q. Chappel.
• * 1.174

  Images in the Lutheran Churches.
• * 1.175

  ••. Reg. 11. Psalm. 105. v. 35.
• * 1.176

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.177

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.178

  Hebr.
• * 1.179

  Teraphim.
• * 1.180

  Matsebah.
• * 1.181

  Temunah.
• * 1.182

  M••schith.
• * 1.183

  Pesel.
• * 1.184

  Tselamim.
• * 1.185

  Tabnith.
• * 1.186

  Hamanim.
• * 1.187

  Samel.
• * 1.188

  Massecah.
• * 1.189

  Nesachim.
• * 1.190

  Gillulim.
• * 1.191

  Miphletseth.
• * 1.192

  Gr.
• * 1.193

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.194

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.195

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.196

  Al image and i∣ages, in their trāslations.
• * 1.197

  Matsebah.
• * 1.198

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.199

  Gen. 28. v. 22. Esa. 19. v. 19.
• * 1.200

  Of the yeare 1570.
• * 1.201

  Pesilim.
• * 1.202

  Massechoth.
• * 1.203

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.204

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.205

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.206

  Of the yeare 1579.
• * 1.207

  Sculptile.
• * 1.208

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.209

  Abic. ••.
• * 1.210

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.211

  1. Cor. 8. Act. 19.
• * 1.212

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.213

  Abac. 2. Ierem. 10.
• * 1.214

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.215

  Dan. 14. v. 4.
• * 1.216

  Bib. 1562. 1577.
• * 1.217

  Comment. in A∣bac. 2.
• * 1.218

  Zach 13. Loco citato.
• * 1.219

  Osee. 11.
• * 1.220

  Osee. 12.
• * 1.221

  In 5. Amos.
• * 1.222

  In 8. Amos.
• * 1.223

  c. 6.
• * 1.224

  1.
• * 1.225

  Chap. 3. num. 17. 18. See also M. V Vhitaker pag. 200. and the 6. chap. of this booke (num. 6. 7. 8. & num. 13. &c.) much more of this matter.
• * 1.226

  1.
• * 1.227

  See chap. 15. nu. 18. & 3. 4. & chap. 21. nu.
• * 1.228

  Gal. 5. Tit. 3. 1. Cor. 11. Bib. 1562.
• * 1.229

  Eph. 5. v. 32.
• * 1.230

  1. Cor. ••. v. 10.
• * 1.231

  Tit. 3.
• * 1.232

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.233

  Gal. 5.
• * 1.234

  An. 1562 1577.
• * 1.235

  Euseb. li. 2. Eccl. bis••. c. 22. in fine. 1579.
• * 1.236

  Lind. in Dubitan∣tio.
• * 1.237

  Catholica.
• * 1.238

  1
• * 1.239

  Bib. 1562.
• * 1.240

  1.
• * 1.241

  Mat. 16.
• * 1.242

  Mat. 18.
• * 1.243

  Eph. 5.
• * 1.244

  1. Tim. 3.
• * 1.245

  Ep. 1. Heb. 12. v. 23.
• * 1.246

  In ps. 81. in initio.
• * 1.247

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.248

  Consut. of M. Hovvlet sol. 35.
• * 1.249

  See his nevve Test. in Latine of the yere 1556, printed by Ro∣bert Steuen in fol. Act. 2. v. 27.
• * 1.250

  Mat. 16. v. 18. Bib. 1577.
• * 1.251

  Eph. 1. v. 2••. 23.
• * 1.252

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.253

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.254

  Recipere.
• * 1.255

  Animam.
• * 1.256

  ••raescientiam.
• * 1.257

  Poenitentiam.
• * 1.258

  Eph. 1.
• * 1.259

  Bib 1579.
• * 1.260

  Cant. 6. v. 8.
• * 1.261

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.262

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.263

  1.
• * 1.264

  1.
• * 1.265

  Luc. c. 22. v. 19.
• * 1.266

  VVhitakers pag. 199.
• * 1.267

  See the Puri∣tans reply, pag. 159. and VVhit∣gifts defence a∣gainst the Puri∣tans, pag. 722.
• * 1.268

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.269

  Presbyteros.
• * 1.270

  The later Bi∣bles read Churche.
• * 1.271

  Act 16.
• * 1.272

  Tit. 1.
• * 1.273

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.274

  Presbyteros.
• * 1.275

  Bib. an 1562.
• * 1.276

  ••. Tim. 6.
• * 1.277

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.278

  Act. 14.
• * 1.279

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.280

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.281

  Tit. 1.
• * 1.282

  Greg. Nazian. in titul. Ser. 1. 4. 5.
• * 1.283

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.284

  Ignat. ep. 10. saith of Bishoppes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.285

  In Esa. cap. 58.
• * 1.286

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.287

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.288

  Bib. 1579. 1577.
• * 1.289

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.290

  Presbyterij.
• * 1.291

  Ca. 3. in the yeare 436. VVhere S. Au∣gustine vvas present and sub∣scribed.
• * 1.292

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.293

  Lib. 3. de Sacer∣dotio.
• * 1.294

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.295

  S. Hierom rea∣deth, Presbyteros ego compresbyter Ep. 85. ad Euag. & in 1. ad Gal. prouing the dig∣nitie of Priests. and yet in 4. Gal. he readeth according to the vulgar La∣tine text, Seni∣ores in vobis rogo consenior & ipse. VVhereby it is euident, that Se∣nior here, and in the Actes, is a Priest, and not contrary, Pres∣byter, an Elder.
• * 1.296

  See can. Apost. Conc. 1. Nic. E∣pist. Ignat. Cōc. Carth. 4. Beza in 1. Pet. 5.
• * 1.297

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.298

  Diaconus.
• * 1.299

  S. Tim. 3. Bib. 1577. 1579.
• * 1.300

  Prebstre. Prete.
• * 1.301

  Beza in cap. 5. Mat. nu. 25. &c. 10. nu. 2.
• * 1.302

  In 3. cap. Mat. nu. 1••.
• * 1.303

  Baptizo.
• * 1.304

  Baptisme.
• * 1.305

  Baptizo. Mediator.
• * 1.306

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.307

  Confut. of the Reas. fol. 35.
• * 1.308

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.309

  Dionys. Ec. Hier. c. 3.
• * 1.310

  Latrîa. Dulîa. Beza in 4. Mat. nu. 10.
• * 1.311

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Scriptures, al∣most alvvaies v∣sed for the ser∣uice & honour proper to God. August▪ de Ciuit. Dei. li. 10. c. 1. Bib. an. 1562.
• * 1.312

  That Presbyter hath signified a Priest, from the Apostles time, not an Elder.
• * 1.313

  Can. 23. 4.
• * 1.314

  Can. Apost. 32.
• * 1.315

  Can. 40.
• * 1.316

  Can. 3.
• * 1.317

  Can. 14.
• * 1.318

  Can. 24.
• * 1.319

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.320

  Ep. 2. ad Tral∣lianos.
• * 1.321

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.322

  Comment. in c. 7. Michea.
• * 1.323

  Ep. 85. ad Eua∣grium.
• * 1.324

  Epitaph. Nepo∣tiani. c. 9.
• * 1.325

  Ep. 60. apud Hie•• ••••. ca. 1.
• * 1.326

  Ep. 1. ad Heliod.
• * 1.327

  Inter Epistolas Hiero. Ep. 97. in ••ine.
• * 1.328

  Lib. 1. ca. 2. in fine.
• * 1.329

  Annot. in 1. Pet. 5.
• * 1.330

  Bezaes vvords in the place a▪ boue alledged.
• * 1.331

  Prete. Prebstre. Priest.
• * 1.332

  Presbyter, for a Priest. Baptismus for the Sacra∣ment of Bap∣tisme.
• * 1.333

  See M. VVhit∣gifts defence a∣gainst the Puri∣tans reply. pag. 721. vvhere he affi••meth that this vvorde Priest, commeth of the vvord Presbyter, and not of the vvord Sacerdos.
• * 1.334

  Ruffin. lib. 1. ca. 2.
• * 1.335

  Epist. 32. ad Valē∣tinianum Imp.
• * 1.336

  Iuris Sacerdo∣talis.
• * 1.337

  In Apolog. pro sua f••g. orat. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epist. 1. ad Hie∣ronem. Sacerdotes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.338

  Ec. Hiera. c. 3.
• * 1.339

  Lib. 8 cap. 27. De Ciu. Dei.
• * 1.340

  Lib. 22. Ciuit. c. 10.
• * 1.341

  So as he said be∣fore, I offer to ••••ee Peter, &c.
• * 1.342

  Epist. 23. ••onifac. De cōsec. dissinct. 2. cap. hoc est, & Glossa ibidem ca∣lestis.
• * 1.343

  Lib. de Sacram. c. 4.
• * 1.344

  Sacerdos.
• * 1.345

  Hom▪ 2. in 2. Ti∣moth.
• * 1.346

  Sacerdos. Sacerdote.
• * 1.347

  Sacerdotis.
• * 1.348

  Presbyteri.
• * 1.349

  Sacerdotibus.
• * 1.350

  a Sacerdote.
• * 1.351

  Sozom. lib. 7. c. 16▪ Socrat. lib. 5. c. 19.
• * 1.352

  Lib. 3. de Sacerd.
• * 1.353

  Heb 12:
• * 1.354

  Clerus.
• * 1.355

  * In ••. Pet. 5. See S▪ Hierome ad Nepot. de vit. Clericorum ep. 2. c. 5.
• * 1.356

  Chap. 6.
• * 1.357

  1
• * 1.358

  Caluins Institu∣tions li. 2. c. 16. Sect. 10. and in his Catechisme.
• * 1.359

  1
• * 1.360

  Beza in 1. Pet. 3. 19 Caluins Institur. li. 2. c. 16. Sect. 9.
• * 1.361

  Hiero. in Ps. verso ex Hebraeo.
• * 1.362

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.363

  See his Annot. in 2. Act.
• * 1.364

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.365

  Bib. an. 1579.
• * 1.366

  Act. 7. v. 14.
• * 1.367

  Act. 2.
• * 1.368

  See Vigors ser∣mons pag. 110. 115. & dei••ceps.
• * 1.369

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.370

  Bib. an. 1562. and 1577.
• * 1.371

  See Lind. dubit. pag. 19.
• * 1.372

  VVhitak. pag. 165. M. Hues B. of S. Asaph in VValles.
• * 1.373

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.374

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.375

  Gen. 37.
• * 1.376

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.377

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.378

  Infernus.
• * 1.379

  Iob 10▪
• * 1.380

  Hebr. 9. v. 8.
• * 1.381

  Hebr. ••0. v. 20.
• * 1.382

  Heb. 4. v. 16.
• * 1.383

  Heb. 10. v. 19.
• * 1.384

  Heb. 11. v. 40.
• * 1.385

  Epitaph. Nepot. ca. 3.
• * 1.386

  Luc. 16.
• * 1.387

  See S. August. in Psal. 85. v. 13.
• * 1.388

  Nascendo.
• * 1.389

  Moriendo.
• * 1.390

  Epist. 99. ad E∣uod. & de Gen. ad lit. li. 12. c. 33.
• * 1.391

  In Psal. 85 v. 13.
• * 1.392

  Loco citato.
• * 1.393

  Hom. quod Chri∣stus sit Deus to. 5.
• * 1.394

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.395

  Infernus.
• * 1.396

  Gen. 4••.
• * 1.397

  3. Reg. 2.
• * 1.398

  In cap. 13. Osee. Aug. in Psal. 85. v. 13.
• * 1.399

  The Scriptures speake of an o∣ther Hell, be∣sides that of the damned.
• * 1.400

  Ab inferno infe∣r••ori.
• * 1.401

  Bib. 1579.
• * 1.402

  Prouerb. 15. 24.
• * 1.403

  Bib. 15••9. De manu inferi.
• * 1.404

  Psal. 89. 48.
• * 1.405

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.406

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.407

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.408

  Bib. 1579.
• * 1.409

  See S. Hier. Cō▪ mēt. in 13. Osee.
• * 1.410

  Hierom in Os•••• cap. 13▪
• * 1.411

  Psal. 6.
• * 1.412

  Bib. 1579.
• * 1.413

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.414

  Infernus.
• * 1.415

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.416

  Sepulchrum.
• * 1.417

  Gen. c. 49.
• * 1.418

  Annot. in Act. 2. 25. 27. & in 1. Cor. 15. 55.
• * 1.419

  Bib. 1579. Prouer. 1. 12. 30. 15. 16.
• * 1.420

  Prou 27. 20.
• * 1.421

  Cap. 15. 11.
• * 1.422

  Bib. 1562. 1577. Prouerb. 1. 1. Pet. 5.
• * 1.423

  Apoc. 9. 11.
• * 1.424

  Beza before al∣leaged.
• * 1.425

  Annot. in 2. Act. v. 24.
• * 1.426

  Nihil aliud.
• * 1.427

  Sheoli••••. Sheol.
• * 1.428

  In Gen. 37.
• * 1.429

  The Protestāt•• in interpretatiō of Scriptures, folovve the late Ievves, rather than the aunci∣ent fathers, and Apostolicall church.
• * 1.430

  Esa. 7.
• * 1.431

  1. Reg. 28.
• * 1.432

  Eccl. 46. 23.
• * 1.433

  Geneb. lib. 3. de Trin.
• * 1.434

  Prouerb. 15. Iob. 26.
• * 1.435

  Prou. 1••. Iob. 26.
• * 1.436

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.437

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.438

  Annot. in Act. 2•• 27.
• * 1.439

  Ibid. v. 24.
• * 1.440

  Infernus, inferi.
• c 1.441

  If they obiect vnto vs some Catholikes, that translate it Se∣pulchrū, as they doe: it is a fault in them also, but so farre lesse thā in the Prote∣stants, as chaūce medley is in re∣spect of vvilfull murder.
• * 1.442

  See their margi∣nall annot. Io∣nae 22. Bib. 1577.
• * 1.443

  ••at. 12.
• * 1.444

  Comment. in 2. ••o••••.
• * 1.445

  Psalm. 15. In inferno. Psalm. 87.
• * 1.446

  Mich. 2. 13.
• * 1.447

  Heb. 10. 20.
• * 1.448

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.449

  Initiauit.
• * 1.450

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.451

  Aug. tract. 48. in Ioan.
• * 1.452

  Heb. 11. 16.
• * 1.453

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.454

  Of the yeare 1577.
• * 1.455

  Against Christs descending into H••••.
• * 1.456

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.457

  ••••x meru.
• * 1.458

  Calu. Catech. & Institut. li. 2. c. 16.
• * 1.459

  Io. 11. 42.
• * 1.460

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.461

  Act. 8.
• * 1.462

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.463

  Anno. in Luc. 2. v. 25.
• * 1.464

  Flac. Illyric.
• * 1.465

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.466

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.467

  1.
• * 1.468

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.469

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.470

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.471

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.472

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.473

  1.
• * 1.474

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.475

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.476

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.477

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.478

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.479

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.480

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.481

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.482

  Annot. in 1. Lu••.
• * 1.483

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.484

  Beza Annot. in Apoc. 19.
• * 1.485

  Bib. of the yere 1577. most ap∣proued.
• * 1.486

  Mat. 1. 19.
• * 1.487

  Luc. 1. 6.
• * 1.488

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 iustum est. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Non enim iniustus est Deus.
• * 1.489

  The Scriptures most euident for iustification, by workes, agaynst only faith.
• * 1.490

  Psal. 57. Si vti∣que est fructus iu∣sto, vtique est De∣us iudicans eos in terra.
• * 1.491

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.492

  Aug. de gra. & lib. arb. ca. 6.
• * 1.493

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.494

  In psal 70. & in Psal. 101.
• * 1.495

  Ephe. 2. v. 10.
• * 1.496

  Heb. 10.
• * 1.497

  Luc. 18.
• * 1.498

  Bib. 1577.
• * 1.499

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.500

  I suppose.
• * 1.501

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Non sunt condig∣nae ad futuram, gloriam. S. Chrysostom vpon this place.
• * 1.502

  1.
• * 1.503

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.504

  Prou. 3.
• * 1.505

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.506

  The Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifieth a comparison. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.507

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.508

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.509

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.510

  Hovve good vvorkes merite life euerlasting, though one in∣comparably ex∣ceede the other.
• * 1.511

  Heb. 2. ••. in the nevv Testamēt of the yeare 1580. & Bib. 1579.
• * 1.512

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.513

  ••. Cor. 4. v. 17.
• * 1.514

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.515

  See this Greeke vvord, 2. Cor. 7. thrise. VVhere thē selues trans∣late it, causeth▪ worketh, v. 10. 11.
• * 1.516

  Ep. 56. nu. 3. Singulorum met rita.
• * 1.517

  Ad Quirin. lib. 1. ca. 42.
• * 1.518

  Ser 37. de San∣ctis.
• * 1.519

  Praemia merito∣rum.
• * 1.520

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dignos se. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.521

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.522

  Condignae ad glo∣riam.
• * 1.523

  Dignosse.
• * 1.524

  Merite of good vvorkes plaine∣ly proued by the Scriptures.
• * 1.525

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.526

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.527

  Dignus mercede s••••a.
• * 1.528

  Non ero cōdignu•• prouidentiae.
• * 1.529

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.530

  Apoc. 16.
• * 1.531

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.532

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Digni sunt. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Dignos se.
• * 1.533

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifie desert.
• * 1.534

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.535

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.536

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.537

  Quidigni habe∣buntur. Vt digni habea∣mini.
• * 1.538

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to make vvorthy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be made, or to be vvorthy. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.539

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.540

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.541

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.542

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.543

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.544

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.545

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.546

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Col. 1. v. 12.
• * 1.547

  Annot. in 3. Mat. no. Test. 1556.
• * 1.548

  Idoneum dicere malui.
• * 1.549

  Oecum. in Caten.
• * 1.550

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.551

  Ho. de Cruce & latrone.
• * 1.552

  Vt etiam illius d••∣gnitatis gloriam merer••ntur.
• * 1.553

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.554

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.555

  Luc. 18. Luc. 7.
• * 1.556

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.557

  Eccles. 16. Psal. 61. Apoc. 22.
• * 1.558

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.559

  Prefat. in no. Test. 1556.
• * 1.560

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.561

  2. Epist. v. 8.
• * 1.562

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.563

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.564

  Mat. 20.
• * 1.565

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.566

  Luc. 10.
• * 1.567

  Math. 20.
• * 1.568

  Luc. 10.
• * 1.569

  Ambros. ad virg. in exhor.
• * 1.570

  Annot. in Ro. c. ••. v. 27.
• * 1.571

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.572

  Hebr. 10. & 11.
• * 1.573

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Phor. apud Oecum. in Hebr. 10. Ps. 18. & 118. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.574

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.575

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.576

  Luc. 18. & 17.
• * 1.577

  Coll. 3.
• * 1.578

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.579

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.580

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.581

  Propter aeter∣nam retributio∣nem sez. vitae ae∣ternae, vt eam merear percipere. in comment.
• * 1.582

  Psalm. 118. v. 112.
• * 1.583

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.584

  No. Test. 1580.
• * 1.585

  Vt mori posset.
• * 1.586

  See Caluine in epist. ad Philip.
• * 1.587

  1.
• * 1.588

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.589

  No. Test. 1580.
• * 1.590

  Vt liceret filios Dei fieri.
• * 1.591

  ••. Cor. 7. 17.
• * 1.592

  1.
• * 1.593

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.594

  Iohn. 15. v. 5.
• * 1.595

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.596

  (vvitnesse) (sinnes.)
• * 1.597

  Bib. 1562.
• * 1.598

  No. Test. 1580.
• * 1.599

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.600

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.)
• * 1.601

  Non ego, sed gra∣tia Dei mecum.
• * 1.602

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.603

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.604

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.605

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.606

  Et mecum labo∣ret.
• * 1.607

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, S. Augustine, Cooperarij. & 2. Cor. 6. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.608

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.609

  Eph. 2. v. 5.
• * 1.610

  The English translators are ashamed of their Maister.
• * 1.611

  Ioh. 12.
• * 1.612

  Ioh 21. Act. 1. Act. 14.
• * 1.613

  Act. 25. Ibid.
• * 1.614

  1. Cor 14. 1. Cor. 15.
• * 1.615

  Eib. 1561. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.616

  Aug. Serm. 15. de verb. Apostoli.
• * 1.617

  2. Timoth. 2. 1. Cor. 9.
• * 1.618

  Rom. 2. Mat. 19.
• * 1.619

  Ioh. 14.
• * 1.620

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Maruelous strang transla∣tion. De gra••. & li••. arb. c. 4.
• * 1.621

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.622

  ••i••. 1••79.
• * 1.623

  Li. 15. c. 7. de ciuit. Dei.
• * 1.624

  Quest. Heb. in Genes.
• * 1.625

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.626

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.627

  Cap. 1. sect. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.628

  q. Hebr. in Genes.
• * 1.629

  Quinquarboreu••▪
• * 1.630

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.631

  ••ilr•• & milel. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.632

  No. Test 1580.
• * 1.633

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.634

  Luc. 10.
• * 1.635

  VVhitakers, pag. 18.
• * 1.636

  Multi inter vos infirmi sunt, &c. 1. Cor. 11 v. 30. Cum infirmor, tū petens sum. 2. Cor 12. v. 10. & alibi.
• * 1.637

  2. Cor. 11. 29.
• * 1.638

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and à pri∣uatiuum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ••exicon magnum Basileae. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.639

  Pag. 209.
• * 1.640

  Beza in annot: Rom. 2. 27.
• * 1.641

  Mandata eius grauia non sunt. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.642

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.643

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.644

  1
• * 1.645

  Annot, in Rom. 5. 18.
• * 1.646

  Rom. 5.
• * 1.647

  1
• * 1.648

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. absolui. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. absoluitur.
• * 1.649

  Ius••i pronuntia∣bu••••••••.
• * 1.650

  Annot. Ro. 3. v 20.
• * 1.651

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.652

  Non quasi nobis indatur qualitas.
• * 1.653

  Annot. in Ro. 4. v. 2▪
• * 1.654

  Pro iustitia. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.655

  Vice & loco.
• * 1.656

  Reputabitur tibi in peccatum.
• * 1.657

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.658

  Oecum in caten. Phot••ni▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.659

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.660

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. Cor. 4.
• * 1.661

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.662

  Bib. 1562. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.663

  Philip. 3.
• * 1.664

  1. Eph. v. 6.
• * 1.665

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.666

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.667

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.668

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.669

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.670

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.671

  1.
• * 1.672

  1.
• * 1.673

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.674

  Annot. in 1. Luc. v. 1.
• * 1.675

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.676

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.677

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Plenissime sciens.
• * 1.678

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.679

  Ministerium tu∣••m imple. An. 1577. An. 1562. Ignat. Ep. Smyrn. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.680

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.681

  Chrys. Theodor. Theophyl. vpon Ro. 10.
• * 1.682

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ••id•• donum electum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ••••b. 1577. •••••• 20. 6. •••• 1•• 14. Hebr. 6. 9.
• * 1.683

  2. Cor. 4.
• * 1.684

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.685

  Bib. 1562.
• * 1.686

  Bib. 1577. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.687

  1. Io. 3.
• * 1.688

  Hebr. 10. 2. Cor. 3.
• * 1.689

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ••. Cor. 13. Annot. in No. Test. 1556.
• * 1.690

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.691

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.692

  Luther. to. 2. fol. 405. edi. VVit∣tenb. an. 1551. Act. 9. 22. Bib. 1577. 1 Pet. 1. 25. 2. Par. 36. 8. 2. Cor. 5. 21. 1. Pet. 2. 13. in the Bib. 1562.
• * 1.693

  Mart. 10. 52. Luc. 18. 42. &c. 8. v. 48.
• * 1.694

  Luc. 8. 50.
• * 1.695

  See Gough•• sermon and Tomsons an∣svver to the L•• Abbot of vvest∣mest.
• * 1.696

  An. in. 1. Co. 13. 2
• * 1.697

  Bib. 1577.
• * 1.698

  1.
• * 1.699

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.700

  Act. 26. 20. in No. Test. an. 1556. and in his later translation, 1565 Mat. 3. v. 8. Luc. 3. v. 8.
• * 1.701

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Agere poeniten∣tiam.
• * 1.702

  1.
• * 1.703

  That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. is to doe pe∣nance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, poenitentiam egis∣sent.
• * 1.704

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.705

  2. Cor. 7. 9.
• * 1.706

  1. Cor. 5.
• * 1.707

  2. Cor. 2.
• * 1.708

  Mat. 3. Luc. 3. Act. 26.
• * 1.709

  Fructus dignos iis qui resipuerint. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.710

  Ec Hier. c. 3. in principio. Poenitentes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.711

  Sozom. lib. 7. c. 16 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See S. Hierome in epitap. Fabiola.
• * 1.712

  Li. 5. c. 10.
• * 1.713

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.714

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.715

  De poenitentia.
• * 1.716

  Concil. Ancyr. can. s. &c.
• * 1.717

  De ieiunio.
• * 1.718

  ••itur. Chry. in ru∣bricis, pa. 69. 104 Metanoea. Annot. in 3. Mat. v. 2.
• * 1.719

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Poenitentiam agere.
• * 1.720

  Discou. of Sand. Rock. pag. 147. Praefat. in No. Test. an. 1557.
• * 1.721

  De opt. Gen. in scr. lib. 3. cap. 6.
• * 1.722

  Ep. 108.
• * 1.723

  Agunt homi••es poenitentiam. Act. 2.
• * 1.724

  Sicut agunt qui Poenitentes appel∣lantur.
• * 1.725

  Act. 8. 18.
• * 1.726

  Vt ageret poeni∣tentiam.
• * 1.727

  Quotidianam a∣gere poenitentiam.
• * 1.728

  In Ps. 118. pbe.
• * 1.729

  In Psal. 137.
• * 1.730

  In Luc. lib. 10. cap. 22.
• * 1.731

  Whitak. pag. 97. cont. ration. Ed••••. Camp.
• * 1.732

  Doctrinam poeni∣tentiae.
• * 1.733

  De poenitenti••. Imprudenter.
• * 1.734

  Poenitentiae.
• * 1.735

  Rom. 1.
• * 1.736

  Pag. 101.
• * 1.737

  Pag. 109. Pag. 101.
• * 1.738

  Pag. 114. 117.
• * 1.739

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.740

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sap. 5. Poenitentiam a•• gentes.
• * 1.741

  ••••••. e••p. 59. Dan. 10.
• * 1.742

  v. 12. Bib. 1579.
• * 1.743

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,
• * 1.744

  vt te affligeres. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.745

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.746

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.747

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.748

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.749

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.750

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.751

  Dan. 4. 24.
• * 1.752

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.753

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.754

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Ps. 49. v. 5.
• * 1.755

  Psalm 111.
• * 1.756

  Annot. in Mat. 6. v. 1.
• * 1.757

  2. Cor. 9.
• * 1.758

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.759

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.760

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.761

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.762

  1
• * 1.763

  1
• * 1.764

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.765

  Libens refugi. Quod obsignaret, for, sigillum.
• * 1.766

  Act. 19. 3.
• * 1.767

  Anno. in Act. ••9.
• * 1.768

  Matth. 10.
• * 1.769

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.770

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.771

  Ioh. 3. v. 5.
• * 1.772

  Beza in 4. Io. v. 10. & in Tit. 3. v. 5.
• * 1.773

  c. 3. v. 5. Per lauacrum re∣generationis Sp∣sancti QVOD effudit in nos abunde.
• * 1.774

  Quem effudit, as Beza himselfe translateth.
• * 1.775

  Comment. in hunc locum.
• * 1.776

  Sp. sancti, quem effudit.
• * 1.777

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. VVhereof Cō∣fession is called in S. Cyprian & other fathers, Exomologesis.
• * 1.778

  In the order of visitation of the sicke.
• * 1.779

  1.
• * 1.780

  Chap. 6.
• * 1.781

  Eccles. c. 7. v. 31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.782

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.783

  1. Tim. 3.
• * 1.784

  Bib. 1562. & 1577.
• * 1.785

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.786

  1.
• * 1.787

  Annot. c. 5. v 25.
• * 1.788

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 4. Bib. 1562. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For messenger and legate the Scripture vseth these vvordes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.789

  1. Cor. 14. 23. 24.
• * 1.790

  1. Tim. 3.
• * 1.791

  Annot. in c. 10. Mat. v. 2.
• * 1.792

  Annot. in Rom. 16. v. 7 & in 2. Cor. 8. v. 23.
• * 1.793

  In tit. Euang. Math. & in c. 3. v 11. &c. 10. v. 2. &c. 5. v. 25.
• * 1.794

  No. Test. 1580.
• * 1.795

  Annot. ibid. & Act. 14. v. 23.
• * 1.796

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.797

  Annumeratus est. cooptatus est.
• * 1.798

  His defense, or 2. booke. pag. 157.
• * 1.799

  chap. 6. nu. 7.
• * 1.800

  In act. hom. 3.
• * 1.801

  Bib. 1577.
• * 1.802

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.803

  Beza ibid.
• * 1.804

  Pag. 200. ad rat. Camp.
• * 1.805

  Pag. 210.
• * 1.806

  Beza Annot. Act. 6. v. 6.
• * 1.807

  1. Tim. 4. v. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.808

  2. Tim. 1.
• * 1.809

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.810

  Phil. cap. 1. v. 29.
• * 1.811

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act 27.
• * 1.812

  2. Cor. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.813

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.814

  ••▪ Tim. 1. v. 6.
• * 1.815

  1. Cor. •• v ••. No. Test. 1580.
• * 1.816

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Mat. 27.
• * 1.817

  ••i. 1. aduers. Io∣um. De op. mon. ca. 4.
• * 1.818

  In Collectā. Decu. super hun•• docum.
• * 1.819

  Annot. Mat. 5. v. 28. & 1. Cor. 7. v. 1.
• * 1.820

  Quia non ad∣ditur. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.821

  1. Tim 3. T••t. 1. 1. Cor. 9. &c.
• * 1.822

  And Pr••fat. Sect. 36.
• * 1.823

  Inepte facer••••.
• * 1.824

  Cum vxoribus.
• * 1.825

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vxorem non tan∣gere. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.826

  Clemē. Reco. lib. 7. Cronica cronic. Fascicul. Temp.
• * 1.827

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.828

  Socie germane. Theophilacte saith, if he spake to a vvoman, it shoulde be•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greeke. Li. 2. c. ••4.
• * 1.829

  Hebr. 13.
• * 1.830

  No. Test. a••. 1565.
• * 1.831

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.832

  See, Oecum. in ca••en••.
• * 1.833

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.834

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.835

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.836

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.837

  Mat. 19. v. 11.
• * 1.838

  Bib. 1561. 1577▪
• * 1.839

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.840

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,
• * 1.841

  T••i••••. cont. A∣post. 61. Hierom. ep. ad Demetriadem.
• * 1.842

  ••••••. 2. v. ••. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.843

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.844

  The infallible iudgement of ••he Priestes, in questions of re∣ligion.
• * 1.845

  v. 4.
• * 1.846

  Malach. 3. v. 1.
• * 1.847

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Angelnm meum.
• * 1.848

  Comment. in hunc locum.
• * 1.849

  Hom. 6. in Euang.
• * 1.850

  Malach. 3. v. 1.
• * 1.851

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.852

  See Apoc. c. 2. and 3. in the En∣glish Bibl. 1562. To the messen∣ger of the con∣gregation, &c. Angelo Ecclesia.
• * 1.853

  ••••l. 4. v. 14.
• * 1.854

  Apo••. 3. ••••••st. repl. c. 6.
• * 1.855

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.856

  1. Cor. 5. v. ••.
• * 1.857

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.858

  Mat. 21
• * 1.859

  No. Test. 1580.
• * 1.860

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.861

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.862

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.863

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.864

  Act. 5. ••. Cor. 4. v. 21. &c. 5. v 5. & 2. Cor. ••0. v. 4. & 8.
• * 1.865

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.866

  Bibl. 1577. 1579.
• * 1.867

  Calu. in c. 7. Amos. Magdeb. in praef. Cent. 7. fo. 9. 10. 11.
• * 1.868

  Epist. 7. ad Smyrnenses.
• c 1.869

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.870

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.871

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Pet. 2. v. 13 14.
• * 1.872

  Mat. 18. Luc. 10.
• * 1.873

  Sacramentū hoc magnū est.
• * 1.874

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.875

  Sacramentū 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.876

  Duo Sacra∣menta. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.877

  Were it ho∣nest or law∣full to trans∣late▪ Baptiso, I wash: or Baptismus, Washing: o•• Euāgeliū. good newes? yet y^e words prophanely taken, signi∣fie no more.
• * 1.878

  1. Tim. 3. Col. 1. v. 26. Eph. 3. v. 9. 1. Cor. 15. V. 51.
• * 1.879

  Apoc. 17▪
• b 1.880

  Inde. v. 5.
• c 1.881

  Act. 7. v. 45. Colos. 4. v. 11.
• * 1.882

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bib. 1562. 1577.
• * 1.883

  Great diffe∣rence in the scriptures betweene blessing, and giuing of thanks.
• * 1.884

  Benedixit eis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Annot. in 9. Luc. v. 16.
• * 1.885

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Psal. 106. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.886

  Luc. 24.
• * 1.887

  Beza, loco citato. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which word can neuer si∣gnifie, gi∣uing thanks
• * 1.888

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.889

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.890

  Annot. in 1. Cor. 10. v. 16.
• * 1.891

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.892

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.893

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.894

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.895

  Lib. 5. cap. 4. Lib. 4. cap. 34. Apolog. 2.
• * 1.896

  Liturg. S. ••at. Ba∣sil. Chrys.
• * 1.897

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hom. 2. in Tim. 2. Hom. 83. in Mat. Hom. de Iuda proditore.
• * 1.898

  Aug. ep. 59.
• * 1.899

  De bono viduit. c. 16.
• * 1.900

  Lib. 4. cap. 3••.
• * 1.901

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.902

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ad rat. Cam. pag. 43.
• * 1.903

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.904

  Ibid. pag. 84.
• * 1.905

  If he had not yet tried him, he presumed to belie him, be∣fore he knevve him.
• * 1.906

  Ho. 2 ad po. An∣tioch.
• * 1.907

  Li. 3. de Sacer∣dotio.
• * 1.908

  Chap. 1. num. 38. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.909

  In 1. Cor. ca. 10. ••om. 24.
• * 1.910

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.911

  Ad rat. Camp. pag. 34.
• * 1.912

  Against D. Sand. Rocke pag. 309.
• * 1.913

  Chap. 1. num. 37. 38. &c.
• * 1.914

  Pag. 35.
• * 1.915

  Praef. in No. Test. an. 1556.
• * 1.916

  The sacrifice of Melchisedec.
• * 1.917

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.918

  See Pet. Galat▪ lib. 10. c 4. & 5. & Chro. Gene•• brardi, pag. 13.
• * 1.919

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.920

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.921

  •••••••• ••nnot. in ••. Luc. v. 42.
• * 1.922

  No. Test. an. 1580▪ Benedicta tu &c. & benedictus, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.923

  Gen. 14. v. 18.
• * 1.924

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.925

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.926

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. c. 9. v. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.927

  1. Cor. 10. 11.
• * 1.928

  Chap. 1 sect. 11.
• * 1.929

  Dan•• 4. v. 12. 17. 20.
• * 1.930

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.931

  See the Bib. 1562. and 1577.
• * 1.932

  1. Cor. 10. v. 2.
• * 1.933

  Haimoi Oecumen.
• * 1.934

  Lignum in panem eius. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.935

  ••. Cor. 10.
• * 1.936

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.937

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.938

  Psal. 21.
• * 1.939

  Destruamus. Ponamus. Mittamus.
• * 1.940

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.941

  That vvater & vvine ought to be mingled in the chalice. Pro. 9.
• * 1.942

  See S. Augustine De Ciuit. Dei lib. 17. c. 20.
• * 1.943

  Bibl. 1579.
• * 1.944

  An. 1577.
• * 1.945

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Miscuit. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Miscut.
• * 1.946

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.947

  Mixtus calix. Conc. Constanti∣nop. 6. can. 32.
• * 1.948

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.949

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.950

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.951

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.952

  1.
• * 1.953

  Psal. 138.
• * 1.954

  Psal. 44.
• * 1.955

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.956

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.957

  1.
• * 1.958

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.959

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.960

  Epito. Thesau. Pagn. an. 1570. in radi••••.
• * 1.961

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.962

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.963

  Bib. 1579. & 1577
• * 1.964

  Iuc. 1. v. 15. Act. 7. v. 8.
• * 1.965

  Ambr. lib. 2. in 1. ••uc.
• * 1.966

  Luc. 16. v. 20.
• * 1.967

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.968

  Comment. in Eph. ••.
• * 1.969

  Psal. 44.
• * 1.970

  S. Athan. de S. deip.
• * 1.971

  Ep. 140. in expos. Psalm. 44.
• * 1.972

  Iohn Keltridge preacher of the word in Londō. In his Sermons vvithin the tovvre, printed, fol. 14. Grosse ignorāce and singular pride in many of the nevv Cler∣gie. So he called the Priestes of the Seminarie, as if one vvould call a Monke a Mo∣nasterie, or a Nonne a Nōry.
• * 1.973

  Pag. 37. of the ••. parte.
• * 1.974

  Fol. 11. part. 2.
• * 1.975

  Sand. Rocke discou. pag. 145.
• * 1.976

  See Pagn. in ra∣dice.
• * 1.977

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.978

  Disc. Sand. pag. 145.
• * 1.979

  An. 1580▪ Cap. 1. v. 25. Cap. 1. v. 31.
• * 1.980

  ••uc. 1. v. 60. and 63.
• * 1.981

  See chap. 1. nu. 3. 43. chap. 10. nu. 1. 2. chap 19. nu. ••.
• * 1.982

  2. Pet. 1. v. 15.
• * 1.983

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.984

  Eeza.
• * 1.985

  No. Test. Grae. Henr. Steph. an. 1576.
• * 1.986

  1.
• * 1.987

  Hebr. 11 v. 21.
• * 1.988

  Quest. in Gen. Bib. 1579.
• * 1.989

  Bib. 1562. 1577.
• * 1.990

  Gen 47. v. 31.
• * 1.991

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.992

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.993

  1.
• * 1.994

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.995

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dan. 6. 3. Reg. 8. Psal. 98. Ios. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Psal. 1••1.
• * 1.996

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.997

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.998

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.999

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1000

  Psal. 98. 13••.
• * 1.1001

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1002

  Psal. 95. or 96.
• * 1.1003

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1004

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1005

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1006

  Psal. 98.
• * 1.1007

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1008

  Praef. in Ps. 33.
• * 1.1009

  1.
• * 1.1010

  2. Paral. 36. v. 8. in Bib. 1562.
• * 1.1011

  Against Images.
• * 1.1012

  1.
• * 1.1013

  Act. 9. v. 22. Bib ••577. For conference of Scriptures, against fathers, Councels, &c.
• * 1.1014

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. c. 2. v. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1015

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1016

  ••. Pet. ••. v. 35. Bib. 1562. 1577. Against tradi∣tions.
• * 1.1017

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1018

  Euangelizo.
• * 1.1019

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1020

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1021

  Luc. 2. v. 10. Act. 13. v. 32. Gal. 3. 8. Dominus dabit verbum euange∣lizantibus. Qui Euangelizas Hierusalem. Ps. 67. Isa. 40.
• * 1.1022

  ••ind. Dubit. pag. 88.
• * 1.1023

  Ia 4. v. 6.
• * 1.1024

  Marc. 3. v. 16.
• * 1.1025

  Bibl. 1579.
• * 1.1026

  Mat. 10. v. 2.
• * 1.1027

  Col. 1. v. 23.
• * 1.1028

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1029

  Rom. 16. Gal. c. 1. & 2▪ 2. Thess. 2. Heb. 13. 1. Tim. 6. 2. Tim. 1. & 2▪
• * 1.1030

  1. Tim. 1. & 6.
• * 1.1031

  1.
• * 1.1032

  2 Pet. 3. Corruption cō∣cerning the ea∣sines of the scri∣ptures. Beza in Annos.
• * 1.1033

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Test. Gr. Crisp.
• * 1.1034

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1035

  1.
• * 1.1036

  Corruption to make God the Author of sinne.
• * 1.1037

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1038

  Gagneius.
• * 1.1039

  Annot. No. Test▪ an. 1556. Mat. 6. verse. 1••▪
• * 1.1040

  See Beza An. not. in Rom. c. 1. v. 24. Act 2. v. 23. W••••it. ad rat. Camp. pag. 139. 145.
• * 1.1041

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 2. v. 23.
• * 1.1042

  Corruption in abusing Catho∣like vvordes. 2. Mach. 6. v. 7.
• * 1.1043

  Bib. 1570. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Procession. Bib. 1562. 1577▪
• * 1.1044

  Founded.
• * 1.1045

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1046

  Shrines. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1047

  Deuotions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1048

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1049

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1050

  Excommunica∣tion.
• * 1.1051

  Aposynagogum sacere.
• * 1.1052

  Altar••.
• * 1.1053

  Images. Traditions.
• * 1.1054

  Mat. 23.
• * 1.1055

  A hea••e of cor∣ruptions.
• * 1.1056

  Demosth. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1057

  Rom. 11. Act. 20.
• * 1.1058

  1.
• * 1.1059

  1.
• * 1.1060

  Esay. 26. v. 18.
• * 1.1061

  Ambr. li. 2. de interpel. c. 4. Chryso. in Ps. 7. prope finem. See S. Hierome vpon this place.
• * 1.1062

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1063

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1064

  Bib. 1579.
• * 1.1065

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1066

  See 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••yrain 30. Esa.
• * 1.1067

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1068

  Esa. 5••.
• * 1.1069

  Esa. 2.
• * 1.1070

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1071

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Gal. 2. v. 6.
• * 1.1072

  Osee. 12. 10.
• * 1.1073

  ••uc. 24. v. 27.
• * 1.1074

  Acts. 3.
• * 1.1075

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1076

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1077

  The Hebrevve text, is no cer∣taine rule to in∣terpreate by.
• * 1.1078

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1079

  Faultes in the Hebrevv text.
• * 1.1080

  Bib. 1579.
• * 1.1081

  Bib. 1579.
• * 1.1082

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1083

  In the preface of the ne••ve Testament.
• * 1.1084

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1085

  Esay. 37. v. 22.
• * 1.1086

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1087

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1088

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 1 1.1089

  Bib. 1577.
• * 1.1090

  Alleluia.
• * 1.1091

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1092

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1093

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1094

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1095

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1096

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1097

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1098

  Bib. 1562. 1577.
• * 1.1099

  Deut. 23. v. 19.
• * 1.1100

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1101

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• * 1.1102

  ibid. v. 20.
• * 1.1103

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1104

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1105

  Cant. Cantic. c. 8. v ••2.
• * 1.1106

  ••ab. 2579.
• * 1.1107

  Isa. 7. v. 11.
• * 1.1108

  Mat. 14. v22.
• * 1.1109

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bib. 1577.
• * 1.1110

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1111

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1112

  1. Tim. 3. Mar. 3.
• * 1.1113

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1114

  Heb. 2. v. ••.
• * 1.1115

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1116

  A••. 1562.
• * 1.1117

  Mat. 22.
• 1 1.1118

  Mat. 24.
• 2 1.1119

  Mar. 5.
• 3 1.1120

  Mat. 25. Eph. 3.
• * 1.1121

  Tit. 1▪
• 1 1.1122

  Deut. 33.
• * 1.1123

  4. Reg. 23.
• 2 1.1124

  Ierem. 50.
• * 1.1125

  Hamanim. Esa. 17. Gillulim. Ier. 50. Miphlet seth. 3. ••o. 15.
• * 1.1126

  Fib. 1579.
• * 1.1127

  Demosth.
• * 1.1128

  2. Par. 36. r. 6. c. 32. Fol. 172. 173. Fol. 160. Epistle to the Queene.
• * 1.1129

  Bibl. 1562. 4. Reg. c. 15. 16.
• * 1.1130

  Cal••i••.
• * 1.1131

  Prafat. in Esa.
• * 1.1132

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