¶ A DEFENSE of the sincere and true Translations of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue, against the manifold cavils, frivolous quarrels, and impudent slanders of GREGORY MARTIN, one of the readers of Popish divinity in the traitorous Seminary of Rheims.  
By WILLIAM FULKE D. in Divinity, and M. of Pembroke haul in Cambridge.  
Whereunto is added a brief confutation of all such quarrels & cavils, as have been of late uttered by diverse Papists in their English Pamphlets, against the writings of the said WILLIAM FVLKE.  
AT LONDON: Imprinted by Henry Bynneman. Anno. 1583.  
Cum gratia & Privilegio.   

To the most high and mighty Princess, Elizabeth by the grace of God Queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc.  
AMONG THE inestimable benefits, wherewith almighty God, hath wonderfully blessed this your majesties most honourable and prosperous government: it is not to be numbered among the least, that under your most gracious and Christian protection, the people of your highness dominions, have enjoyed the most necessary and comfortable reading of the holy Scriptures in their mother tongue and native language. Which exercise although it hath of long time, by the adversaries of Him, that willeth the Scriptures to be searched (especially those of our nation) been accounted little better, than an heretical practice: And treatises have been written, praetending to show great inconvenience 
D. Standish. D. Heskins.  of having the holy Scriptures in the vulgar tongue: Yet now at length perceiving they can not prevail, to bring in that darkness and ignorance of Gods most sacred word, and will therein contained, whereby their blind devotion the daughter of ignorance, as they themselves profess, was wont to make them rulers of the world: they also at the last are become Translators of the New Testament into English. In which, that I speak nothing of their insincere purpose, in leaving the pure fountain of the original verity, to follow the crooked stream of their barbarous vulgar Latin translation, which (beside all other manifest corruptions) is found defective in more than an hundred places, as your Majesty, according to the excellet knowledge in both the tongues wherewith God hath blessed you, is very well able to judge: And to omit even the same Book of their translation, pestered with so many annotations, both false and undutiful, by which, under colour of the authority of holy Scriptures, they seek to infect the minds of the credulous readers, with heretical and superstitious opinions, and to alienate their hearts from yielding due obedience to your Majesty, and your most Christian laws concerning true Religion established: And that I may pass over the very Text of their translation, obscured without any necessary or just cause, with such a multitude of so strange and unusual terms, as to the ignorant are no less difficult to understand, than the Latin or Greek itself: Yet is it not meet to be concealed, that they which neither truly, nor precisely, have translated their own vulgar Latin, and only Authentical text, have nevertheless been bold, to set forth a several Treatise, in which most slanderously and unjustly, they accuse all our English translations of the Bible, not of small imperfections and oversights committed through ignorance or negligence, but of no less than most foul dealing, in partial & false translations, wilful and heretical corruptions.  
Against which most lewd and untrue accusation, though easy to be judged of, by such as be learned in the tongues, yet dangerous to disquiet the conscience of them that be ignorant in the same: I have written a short and necessary Defense. Which although not laboured in words, yet in matter I hope sufficient to avoid all the adversaries cavils: I am most humbly to crave pardon, that I may be bold to dedicate unto your most excellent Majesty, that under whose high & Christian authority, your people have so many years enjoyed the reading of the holy books of GOD in their native language, to the everlasting benefit of many thousand souls: Under the same your most gracious & royal protection, they may read also the Defense of the sincere and faithful translation of those Books, to the quieting of their consciences, and the confusion of the adversaries of God's truth and holy religion. By which they may be stirred up more and more, in all dutiful obedience, not only to be thankful unto your Majesty as it becometh them, but also to continue their most earnest and hearty prayers to almighty God, for this your most godly and happy regiment over them, for many years forward to be prolonged.  
The God of glory, which hitherto hath advanced your majesties throne, above all Princes of this age, in true honour and glory, vouchsafe to preserve the same with his daily blessing, to the perfection of that glorious reparation of his Church, which you have most happily taken in hand, to the everlasting praise of his mercy, and the endless felicity of your Majesty.  
Your majesties most humble subject and most bounden daily orator WILLIAM FULKE.   

THE PREFACE CONTAINING FIVE SUNDRY ABUSES or corruptions of holy Scriptures, common to all Heretics, and agreeing specially to these of our time▪ with many other necessary advertisements to the reader.  

MARTIN.  
AS it hath been always the fashion of Heretics to pretend 
Heretics five ways specially abuse the Scriptures.  Scriptures, for show of their cause: so hath it been also their custom and property to abuse the said Scriptures many ways, in favour of their errors.  

FVLKE.  
WHETHER these five abuses have been common to all heretics, & whether it hath been the fashion of all heretics to pretend Scriptures for show of their cause: though I will spare now to inquire of, as a thing wherein learned men at the first sight may espy the great skill that Martin pretendeth to have in discerning of heretics and heresies; yet will I show (by the grace of God) that none of these five abuses are committed by us, or our Catholic translations, & that the popish heretics are in some sort, or other guilty of them all.    

MART. 1. One way is, to deny whole books thereof or 
● Denying certain books or parts of books.  parts of books, when they are evidently against them. So did (for example) Ebion all S. Paul's epistles▪ Manicheus the Acts of the Apostles, Alogiani S. john's Gospel, Martion many pieces of S. Luke's Gospel, and so did both these and other heretics in other books, denying and allowing what they list, as is evident by S. Irenaeus, S. Epiphanius, S. Augustine, and all antiquity.  

FULK. 1. First we deny no one book of the Canonical scripture that hath been so received of the Catholic church, for the space of 300. years, & more, as it hath been often proved out of Eusebius, S. Jerome, and other ancient authorities: but the Papists in advancing Apocryphal books to be of equal credit with the Canonical Scriptures, do in effect deny them all. Besides that to add unto the word of God, is as great a fault as to take away from it, the one being forbidden under as heavy a curse, as the other. Those blasphemies of Pighius & Eccius, the one calling the holy Scripture a nose of wax and a dumb judge, the other terming the Gospel written, to be a black Gospel, and an ynkie Divinity, and that of Hosius acknowledging none other express word of God, but only this one word Ama, or dilige, love thou: what other thing do they import, but a shameless denial of all books of the holy Scripture in deed, how soever in word they will seem to admit them.    

MART. 2. another way is, to call into question at the 
2 Doubting of their authority, and calling them into question.  least and make some doubt of the authority of certain books of holy scriptures, thereby to diminish their credit, so did Manicheus affirm of the whole new Testament, that it was not written by the Apostles: and peculiarly of S. Matthewes Gospel, that it was some other man's under his name: & therefore not of such credit, but that it might in some part be refused. So did Martion & the Arians deny the epistle to the hebrews to be S. Paul's. Epiph. li. 2. haer. 69. Euseb. li. 4. hist. c. 27▪ & Alogiani the Apocalypse to be S. john's the Evangelist. Epiph. & August in haer. Alogianorii.  

FULK. 2. We neither doubt of the authority of any certain book of the holy Scriptures, neither call we any of them into question, but with due reverence do acknowledge them all, & every one to be of equal credit & authority, as being all inspired of god▪ given to the church for the building up thereof in truth, and for the avoiding of fables, & heresies: But the Papists arrogating to their Pope, authority to allow or refuse, any book of holy Scripture, & affirming that no Scripture hath authority, but as it is approved by their church, do bring all books of the holy Scripture into doubting, & uncertainty, with such as will depend upon their Pope, & popish churches authority: which they affirm to be above the holy Scriptures, saying they might as well receive the gospel of Nicodemus as of S. Mark, & by the same authority reject the Gospel of S. Matthew, as they have done the Gospel of S. Bartholomew. These blasphemous assertions although some of them would colour, or mitigate with gentle interpretations: yet their is no reasonable man but seethe, into what discredit and uncertainty they must needs bring the authority of the Canonical books of holy Scripture with the simple and ignorant.    

MART. 3. another way is, to expound the Scriptures 
2 Voluntary expositions according to every one's fancy or heresy.  after their own private conceit and fantasy, not according to the approved sense of the holy ancient fathers and Catholic Church, so did Theodorus Mopsuestites (Act. Synod. 5.) affirm of all the books of the Prophets, and of the Psalms, that they spoke not evidently of Christ, but that the ancient fathers did voluntarily draw those sayings unto Christ which were spoken of other matters, so did all heretics, that would seem to ground their heresies upon Scriptures, and to avouch them by Scriptures expounded according to their own sense and imagination.  

FULK. 3. We expound not the Scriptures after our own private conceit, and fantasy: but as near as God giveth us grace, according to the plain and natural sense of the same, agreeable unto the rule or proportion of faith, which been approved by the ancient fathers, and Catholic church of Christ, in all matters necessary to eternal salvation. Not bringing a new and strange sense which is without the Scriptures, to seek confirmation thereof in the Scriptures (as the manner of heretics is rightly noted by Clemens) but out of the Scriptures themselves seek we the exposition of such obscure places as we find in them, being persuaded with S. Augustine, that nothing in a manner is found out of those obscure and dark places, which may not be found to be most plain lie spoken in other places. And as for the approved sense of the holy ancient Fathers, and Catholic Church of the eldest and purest times, if the Papists durst stand unto it, for the deciding of many of the most weighty controversies, that are between us, there is no doubt, but▪ they should soon and easily be determined, as hath been showed in diverse and many treatises, written against them. In which if any thing be brought, so plainly expounding the Scripture against their popish heresies, as nothing can be more express nor clear, than they are driven to seek new and monstrous expositions of those Father's interpretations: or else they answer, they are but those Father's private expositions, appealing to the Catholic churches interpretation, which is nothing else but their own private conceit and fancy, having no record to prove that Catholic Church's interpretation, but the present heretical opinions, of this late degenerated Antichristian congregation. And when they have discoursed never so much of the Catholic churches interpretation, they reduce and submit all men's judgements to the determination of their Counsels, & the decrees of the Counsels to the approbation of their Pope, which as he is oftentimes a wicked man of life: so is he ignorant and unlearned in the Scriptures, to whose most private censure, the holy Scriptures themselves, and all sense and exposition of them is made subject, under colour that Christ praying for Peter, that his faith should not fail in temptation, gave all Pope's such a prerogative, that they could not err in faith▪ though they were wicked of life, void of learning, ignorant in the Scriptures, destitute of the spirit of God, as is proved most invincibly by example of diverse Popes, that have been heretics, and maintainers of such errors, as are not now in controversy between us (lest they should say we beg the principle) but of the sect of the Arrians, Monothelites, Eutychians, Saducees, and such other.    

MART. 4. another way is, to alter the very original 
4. Changing some words or sentences of the very original text. Tertul. count Marae cio. li. ●. in princ. Tertul. lib. 5.  text of the holy Scripture, by adding, taking away, or changing it here and there for their purpose. So did the Arians in sundry places, and the Nestorians in the first epistle of S. john, and especially Martion, who was therefore called, Mus Ponticus, the mouse of Pontus, because he had gnawn (as it were) certain places with his corruptions, whereof some are said to remain in the Greek text until this day.  

FULK. 4. The original text of the holy Scripture we altar not, either by adding, taking away, or changing of any letter, or syllable, for any private purpose, which were not only a thing most wicked and sacrilegious, but also vain, and impossible. For, seeing not only so many ancient copies of the original text are extant in divers places of the world, which we can not, if we would, corrupt, and that the same are multiplied by printing into so many thousand examples, we should be rather mad than foolish, if we did but once attempt such a matter, for maintenance of any of our opinions. As also it is incredible, that Martion the mouse of Pontus, could corrupt all the Greek copies in the world, as Lindanus, of whom you borrowed that conceit, imagineth, in those places in which he is charged by Tertullian. For Martions' heresy was not so generally received by the Greek Church, that all men would yield unto him, neither was Tertullian so sound of judgement in the Latin Church, that whatsoever he judged to be a corruption in Martion▪ must of necessity be so taken. But if adding, and detracting from the Scripture, be proper notes of heretics, who can purge Stephen Gardiner, & Gregory Martin? The one for adding unto a the verse of the Psalm, this pronoun see, himself, to prove the carnal presence, citing it thus. Escam se dedit timentibus eum. He gave himself to be meat▪ to them that fear him, whereas the words of the Prophet, according to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin are no more but▪ Escam dedit. He hath given meat, etc. The other in his fond book of schism, citing this text out of 1. Cor. 10. as many Papists do against the certainty of Faith. Qui stat, videat ne cadat. He that standeth let him take heed he fall not. Whereas not only the truth of the Greek: but even the vulgar Latin translation hath. Qui se existimat stare, He that thinketh or supposeth that he standeth, let him take heed that he fall not. But of such additions and detractions, used by the romish rats, far worse than the mice of Pontus, we shall have more occasion to speak hereafter.    

MART. 5. Another way is, to make false translations of the Scriptures for the maintenance of error and heresy: so 
False and heretical translation.  did the Arians (as S. Jerome noteth in 26. Esa.) read and translate Proverb. 8. Dominus creavit me in intio viarum suarum, that is, The Lord created mein the beginning of his ways, so to make Christ the wisdom of God a mere creature. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, possedi●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  S. Augustin also lib 5. cont. julian. c. 2. noteth it as the interpretation of some Pelagian. Gen. 3. Fecerunt sibi vestimenta▪ for, perizómata, or campestria, that is, They made themselves garments. Whereas the word of the Scripture is, breeches or aprons proper and peculiar to cover the secretparts. Again, the self same heretics did read falsely Rom. 5. Regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen etiam in eos qui 
Aug. ep. 89. & lib. 1. de pec. mer. cap. 11.  peccaverunt in similitudinem praevaricationis Adae▪ that is. Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even on them that sinned after the similitude of the prevarication of Adam, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  to maintain their heresy against original sin, that none were infected therewith, or subject to death & damnation, but by sinning actually as Adam did. Thus did the old heretics.  

FULK. 5. As touching false and heretical translations, which is the chief argument of this book, I doubt not, but by the grace of god to clear our english translators from any wilful corruptions, for the maintenance of any error, or heresy: such as were those of the Arrians & Pelagians, which Gregory Martin, as though he uttered some great piece of skill, doth so diligently express. I shall have occasion also to show, that the Papists themselves of our times, maintaining their corrupt vulgar translation, against the truth of the original texts of Greek, and Hebrew, are most guilty of such corruption, and falsification, whereof although they be not the first authors, yet by obstinate defending of such errors, they may prove worse than they which did first commit them. For the authors of that vulgar translation, might be deceived, either for lack of exact knowledge of the tongues, or by some corrupt, and untrue copies which they followed, or else perhaps that which they had rightly translated, by fault of the writers, & negligence of the times might be perverted: but these men frowardly justifying all errors of that translation, howsoever they have been brought in, do give plain testimony, that they are not led with any conscience of God's truth, but wilfully carried with purpose of maintaining their own errors: lest if they did acknowledge the error of the Romish church in that one point they should not be able to defend any one jot of their heresy, whose chief colour is the credit and authority of that particular and false church, rather than any reason or argument out of the holy Scriptures, or testimony of the most ancient Christian and Catholic church.    

MART. 6. What these of our days? is it credible that being so well warned by the condemnation & detestation of them, they also would be as mad and as impious as those? Heretics (gentle Reader) be always like Heretics, and howsoever they differ in opinions or names, yet in this point they agree, to abuse the Scriptures for their purpose by all means possibly. I will but touch four points of the five before mentioned, because my purpose is to stay upon the last only, and to decipher their corrupt translations. But if I would stand upon the other also, were it not 
That the Protestants & Caluinists use the foresaid five means of defacing the Scriptures.  easy to show the manner of their proceeding against the Scriptures to have been thus: to deny some whole books and parts of books, to call other some into question, to expound the rest at their pleasure, to pick quarrels to the very original and Canonical text, ●o fester and infect the whole body of the Bible with cankered translations?  

FULK. 6. It is very true, that so many Heretics as pretend the authority of the holy Scriptures, abuse the same to their own destruction: and no Heretics worse than the Antichristians, or Papists. As partly hath been seen already in every one of your five marks, & more may appear in those four points which you will handle in the Preface, because the argument of your whole book is the fift: so that in the end you shall be proved no wiser with your five points, than he that came forth with his five eggs, & never a good of them all. But you ask, if it were not easy for you to show (if you would stand upon them) that the Protestants use all the said siue means of defacing the Scripture? I answer no, and that shall you see when demonstration is made, how vainly you have laboured in the last point: which howsoever you would have it appear to be a sudden writing, of small travail, by interlacing a few lines here & there, against M. Whitaker, against me, & some other: yet it is evident both by Bristow'S threatening, and Campions promise, that it hath been a work of some years unto you: wherein beside that you are beholding much to Lindanus, for divers quarrels against Calvin, and to sir Thomas More, for many cavillations against W. Tyndals' translation: there is little worthy of so long study, and large promises, as have gone before this diligent discovery: so that if you will make the like trial in the rest, you shall find them as hard to prove as this last.    

MART. 7. Did not Luther deny S. james epistle & so contemn it that he called it an epistle of straw, and not worthy of an Apostolical spirit? must I prove this to M. whitaker's, who would never have denied it so vehemently in the superlative 
* Cont. rat. Edm. Camp. pag. 18. Retent pag. 32. dist. of the Rock pag. 307. Luther in no●o Test. Germa. in Prefat. jacobi.  degree for shame, if he had not thought it more shame to grant it? I need not go far for the matter: Ask M. Fulke, and he will flatly confess it was so. Ask Calvin in arg. ep. jacobi. Ask Flaccus Illyricus, in argum. ep. jacobi, and you shall perceive it is very true. I will not send you to the Catholic Germans and others, both of his own time and after, that wrote against him in the question of justification: among whom not one omitteth this, being a thing so famous and infamous to the confusion of that Arch heretic.  

FULK. 7. I know not whether ever Luther denied S. james epistle as unworthy of an Apostolical spirit, but I believe you may take a twelve months day more to prove it, as also that he did so contemn it, that he called it an epistle of straw. But M. Whitaker which denied it so vehemently▪ must ask of me, who most slatly confess (saith M. Martin) that it was so. I pray you sir, urge me not to confess more than I know, or ever knew. But you have confessed it already in two printed books, Retent. pag. 32. Disc of the Rock, pag 307. In the place first cited, there are these words But to proceed: LUTHER DENIETH THE EPISTLE OF S. JAMES, because IT IS AGAINST HIS HERESY OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY. We allow not Luther, neither did he allow himself therein, for he retracteth it afterward. First those words of Luther's denial being printed in a diverse letter, may testify sufficiently to every reasonable man, that they are the objection of Bristol, and not the confession of Fulke, who not simply admitteth them as true, but by concession, proveth that if they were true, yet Luther's opinion, against which he himself hath written, ought not to prejudice him, and much less all other men, that never held that opinion. In the later cited place, are these words. And as touching the epistle of S. james, it is a shameless slander of him to say that the Protestants reject it, but we must hear his reason. First Luther calleth it a strawen epistle. So Luther called the Pope supreme head of the Church, and the mass a sacrifice propitiatory. If Protestants be charged to hold whatsoever Luther sometime held, and after repent. etc. Who seethe not in these words, that I rehearse the objection of Saunder, which is common to him with many other Papists, which not discussing whether it be true or no, but supposing it were as Saunder and the rest of the Papists do affirm. I show that it is no good consequence, to charge all Protestants with Luther's private opinion, which perhaps he held sometime, and after retracted, more than to charge us with all opinions of Papistry, which de did hold, before God opened his eyes to see the absurdity of them. And yet if he had held that opinion, and never retracted the same, he were not in worse case than Eusebius, who in plain words affirmeth, that the same epistle is a counterfeit or bastard epistle, lib. 2. cap. 23. Do you not see now how flatly Master Fulke confesseth that it was so? Such confessions as these, are now & than extorted out of the ancient father's writings, which are not living to expound their meanings. But I had thought Master Martin could have discerned between a suppose or concession, and an absolute assertion, or a flat confession, especially of one whose writing is plain enough, and beside is alive to interpret himself, if any ambiguity were therein. But be it that Master Martin either would not, or could not see in my writing any thing else but a flat confession of Luther's denying of S. james epistle, and calling it an epistle of straw, of what forehead proceedeth it, that he willeth Master Whitaker to ask Calvin in argum. Epist. jacobi, whether Luther so speak of that epistle? in which argument Luther is not once named by Calvin, so far is it, that he doth testify any such thing against Luther. Only he saith, that some there are in these days, which think that epistle not worthy of authority, which could not be understood of Luther, who long before Calvin wrote that argument, had forsaken that opinion, if ever he held any such, as all those dutch Bibles and Testaments of Luther's translation, in which those words so much baited at, and so much sought for are omitted, do give sufficient testimony. What Flaccus Illyricus reporteth▪ who perhaps held that opinion himself, and would father it upon Luther, I have neither opportunity to seek, nor care to know. But how great a matter it is, that all the Popish Germans, and other, who have written against Luther, do so spitefully gnaw upon, I have learned at length by relation of Master Whitaker. whom you send to ask of me: who after long search and many editions turned over, at the length lighted upon a Dutch Testament, by likehood one of the first that Luther did set forth in the Germane tongue, in which he findeth neither denial of S. james epistle to be Canonical, nor affirmation that it is unworthy of an Apostolical spirit, no nor that whereof there hath been so much babbling of all the Papists, that he calleth it an epistle of straw simply, and in contempt, but only in comparison of the epistles of Paul and Peter, and other books of the new Testament, the excellency of which one above an other, after he hath showed in sundry degrees, at last he saith, the epistle of james in comparison of these, is strawye, or like straw. Which he saith not in respect of the credit or authority thereof, but in regard of the argument or matter handled therein, which all wise and godly men will confess to be not so excellent and necessary, as the matter of the holy Gospels and Epistles of some other of the Apostles, namely of Paul, Peter, and john. Our Saviour Christ himself, joh. 3. 12▪ calleth the doctrine of regeneration, in such plain manner as he uttered it, to Nicodemus, earthly things in comparison of other greater mysteries, which he could have expressed in more heavenly & spiritual sort. If I have spoken to you (saith he) of earthly things, and you have not believed, how if I should speak to you of heavenly things, will you believe? Were not he an honest and a wise man, that upon these words of Christ spoken in comparison, would conclude by his authority, that regeneration were a contemptible matter, a thing not spiritual, not heavenly, but simply and altogether earthly. And yet with, as good reason, for aught I see or can learn of Luther's words concerning this matter, he might so infer, as the Papists do enforce, the like against Luther. Wherefore it is nothing else but a famous and infamous cavillation, to the confusion of all the Papists which write against Luther, that no one of them omitteth upon so false and frivolous a ground, to slander him so heinously, and to charge all Protestants with his assertion so enviously: which if it were his, should not be so evil as other Catholic writers have affirmed of that Epistle, and therefore not sufficient to charge him, and much less others with heresy: but being not his simple affirmation, yet because it hath been offensively taken, he himself hath put it out, and given it over. O what a stir would they keep, if they had any weighty matter of truth to burden him withal?    

MART. 8. To let this pass: Toby, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees are they not most certainly rejected? And yet 
Conc. Cart. 3. can. 47.  they were allowed and received for Canonical, by the same authority that S. james Epistle was. This Epistle the Caluinists are content to admit, because so it pleased Caluine: those 
* Argu. in epist. jacob.  books they reject, because so also it pleased him. And why did it so please Caluine? Under pretence forsooth, that they were once doubted of, and not taken for Canonical. But is that the true cause in deed? How do they then receive S. james 
* Whitak. p. 10.  Epistle as Canonical, having before doubted of also, yea (as they say) rejected? 
* Ibid.   

FULK. 8. You may well let it pass, for it is not worth the time you spend in writing of it, and if you had been wise, you would utterly have omitted it. But what say you of Toby, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees most certainly by us rejected? They were allowed (you say) for Canonical by the same authority that S. james Epistle was. And think you that S. james Epistle was never allowed for Canonical before the third Council of Carthage? For, of the other it is certain they were never received by the Church of the Israelits before Christ his coming, nor of the apostolic and primitive Church for more than 300. years after, as both Eusebius out of Origines, and the Council of Laodicea Can. ●9. confirmed afterward by the sixth general Council of Constantinople showeth for the Greek Church, and S. Jerome in prologo 
Lib. 6. cap. 18.  Galeato for the Latin Church. As for the provincial Council of Carthage holden by 44. Bishops of Africa, if we were bound to receive it for these books, we must also acknowledge five books of Solomon, which in the same Council are authorized, whereas the Church never knew but of three. And although the book of wisdom should be ascribed to Solomon, there could be but four. Again, how they understand the word Canonical, it may be gathered both out of the words of the same Canon, where they give none other reason of the approbation of all those books of Scripture, but that they have received them of their fathers to be read in the Church: and also out of S. Augustine, who was one present at the same 
De doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8.  Council: which after he hath declared how a man should discern the Canonical Scriptures from other writings, by following the authority of the Catholic Churches, especially those that have deserved to have apostolic sees, and to receive their Epistles, he addeth further. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scriptures canonicis, ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesijs Catholicis, praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt. In eyes vero quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat eas, quas plures graviorèsque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatis Ecclesiae tenent. Si autem alias invenerit à pluribus, alias à gravioribus haberi, quanquam hoc invenire non possit, aequalis tamen auctoritatis eas habendas puto. Totus autem canon scripturarum in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus, his libris continetur. He shall hold therefore this mean in the canonical Scriptures, that he prefer those which are received of all catholic churches, before those Scriptures which some Churches do not receive. But in those which are not received of all, let him prefer those Scriptures which the greater number and graver churches do receive, before those which churches fewer in number & of less authority do hold. But if he shall find some Scriptures to be had of fewer churches & other some of graver churches, although you can not find this thing, yet I think they are to be accounted of equal authority. Now the whole canon of scriptures in which we say this consideration must be occupied is contained in these books. Five books of Moses, that is Genesis, Exodus, etc. By this saying of Augustine, it is manifest, that he calleth canonical Scriptures, not only those books that ought of necessity to be received of all churches: but also such as were received of some, & of some were not, in which number were these books of Toby, Ecclesiasticus, & the Maccabees, which by his own rule, were not to be received as of absolute & sovereign authority, because the apostolic churches of Asia & Europa, & those of gravest authority, among which was the church of Rome in that time, did not receive them, as witnesseth not only S. Jerome a Priest of Rome, but also Ruffinus of Aquileia, in symbolo, who both declare what books were received in their churches as canonical, & of irrefragable authority to build principles of faith upon them, & what books were admitted only to be read for instruction of manners. And therefore according to the rule of Augustin & testimony of the ancient fathers, & because it consenteth with the rest of the scriptures, & not for Caluins' pleasure we receive the Epistle of S. james, though it hath not been always, and of all Churches received. Concerning the name of Caluinists, as of all other nick names, that it pleaseth you of your charity to bestow upon us, it shall suffice to protest once for all, that we acknowledge none other name of our profession, but Christians, & Catholics: and that we have neither received that Epistle, nor rejected the other, because it pleased Calvin so. This may serve for a clear demonstration, that in the first English Bibles that were printed under the name of Thomas 
Anno. 1532. Anno. 1537.  Matthew, before Caluine wrote any word of the rejection of those books, or of receiving of the other, they are called Apocrypha, & printed with other of that mark, by themselves, & the Epistle of S. james without any question acknowledged to be one of the canonical Epistles, whereas calvin's Institution was first printed An. 1536. & his argument upon S. james Epistle 1551. You may see what honest dealing the Papists use, to bring the truth into discredit, & the professors thereof into hatred with the simple & unlearned people, bearing them in hand, that we have no cause to receive or refuse books of Scripture, but calvin's pleasure. But the God of truth will one day reward these impudent liars & shameless slanderers.  
Well let us now see under what pretence, it pleased Caluine to reject these books. Under pretence forsooth (saith Martin) that they were once doubted of, and not taken for Canonical. I pray you sir, where doth Caluine pretend that only cause? In his Instit. li. 3. c. 5 sect. 8. He allegeth diverse other causes touching the books of Maccabees, as every man that will may read. Shame you nothing to forge such manifest untruths, & that in such matters as you may be convinced in them by ten thousand witnesses? What credit shall be given to you in matters that consist upon your own bare testimony when you force not to feign of other men, that wherein every man may reprove you? And as for the only pretence you speak of, Caluine doth so little esteem it, that notwithstanding the same, he doubteth not to receive the Epistle of S. james because it is agreeable to the whole body of the canonical Scripture as if you had read his argument upon that Epistle you might easily have perceived.    

MART. 9 Mark gentle reader for thy soul's sake, & thou 
Ibid. pag. 17. M. Whitaker by these words condemneth their own Service book, which appointeth these books of Toby and Ecclesiasticus, to be read for holy Scripture, as the other. Do they read in their Churches Apocryphal & superstitious books for holy Scripture, or is he a Puritan, that thus disgraceth their order of daily Service.  shalt find, that heresy & only heresy is the cause of their denying these books: so far, that against the orders & Hierarchies & particular patronages of Angels, one of them writeth thus in the name of the rest. We pass not for that Raphael of Toby neither do we acknowledge those seven Angels which he speaketh of, all this is far from Canonical Scriptures, that the same Raphael recordeth, & savoureth I wot not what superstition. Against free will thus: I little care for the place of Ecclesiasticus, neither will I believe free will, though he affirm an hundred times, That before men is life & death. And against prayer for the dead, & intercession of Saints thus: As for the book of the Maccabees, I do care less for it than for the other. judas dream concerning Omas I let pass as a dream. This is their reverence of the scriptures which have universally been reverenced for canonical in the church of God above 1100 years. Con. Cart. 3. & particularly of many fathers long before. Aug. de doct. Christ. l 2. c. 8.  

FULK. 9 The mouth that lieth killeth the soul. The reader may think you have small care of his soul's health, when by such impudent lying you declare that you have so small regard of your own. But what shall he mark? That heresy, etc. You were best say that Eusebius, Hierom, Ruffian & all the churches in their times were heretics, & that only heresy was the cause of their denial of these books. For such reasons as moved them move us, & some thing also their authority. But how prove you that only heresy moveth us to reject them? Because M. Whit. against the orders, & Hierarchies, & particular patronages of Angels writeth in the name of the rest. That we pass not, etc. Take heed least upon your bare surmise you bely him where you say he writeth in the name of the rest, as in the next section following you say, he writeth in the name of both the universities, for which I am sure he had no commission from either of them, although he did write that which may well be advouched by both the universities, yet I know his modesty is such, as he will not presume to be advocate for both the universities, and much less for the whole church, except he were lawfully called thereto. This is a common practice of you Papists, to bear the world in hand that whatsoever is written by any of us in defence of the truth is set forth in the name of all the rest, as though none of us could say more in any matter, than any one of us hath written, or that if any one of us chance to slip in any small matter, though it be but a wrong quotation▪ you might open your wide slanderous mouths against the whole church for one man's particular offence. Now touching any thing that M. Whit. hath written, you shall find him sufficient to maintain it against a stronger adversary than you are, & therefore I will meddle the less in his causes. And for the orders & patronage or protection of Angels by God's appointment, we have sufficient testimony in the Canonical Scriptures, that we need not the uncertain report of Tobies' book to instruct us what to think of them. But as for the Hierarchies, & patronage of Angels, that many of you Papists have imagined & written of, neither the canonical Scriptures, nor yet the Apocryphal books now in controversy, are sufficient to give you warrantise. The like I say of free-will, prayer for the dead, & intercession of Saints. But it grieveth you that those Apocryphal scriptures, which have been universally received for canonical in the church of God above 1100. years should find no more reverence among us. Still your mouth runneth over. For in the time of the Canon of the council of Carthage. 3. which you quote, these books were not universally reverenced as canonical. And Augustine himself speaking of the book of Maccabees, Cont. 2. G and. Ep. c. 23. confesseth that the jews accounted it not as the law, & the Prophets, & the Psalms, to which our Lord giveth testimony as to his witnesses, saying. It behoveth that all things should be fulfilled which are written in the Law, & in the Prophets, & in the Psalms concerning me: but it is received of the Church, not unprofitably, if it be soberly read or heard. This writeth S. Augustine, when he was pressed with the authority of that book by the Donatists, which defended that it was lawful for them to kill themselves, by example of Razis, who is by the author of that book commended for that fact. He saith it is received not unprofitably, & immediately after. Especially for those Maccabees that suffered patiently horrible persecution for testimony of God's religion, to encourage Christians by their example. Finally, he addeth a condition of the receiving it, if it be soberly read or heard. These speeches declare, that it was not received without all controversy, as the authentical word of God: for than should it be received necessarily, & because it is God's word especially, & how soever it be read or heard it is received of the Church, not only necessarily, but also profitably. Beside this, even the decree of Gelasius, which was near 100 years after that council of Carthage, alloweth but one book of the Maccabees. Wherefore the universal reverence that is boasted of, can not be justified.  
But M. Whitaker is charged in the margin, to condemn the service book, which appointeth these books of Toby & Ecclesiasticus to be read for holy Scripture, as the other. And where find you that in the service book M. Martin? Can you speak nothing but untruths? If they be appointed to be read, are they appointed to be read for holy Scripture, and for such Scripture as the other canonical books are? The service book appointeth the Litany, diverse exhortations and prayers, yea homilies to be read: are they therefore to be read for holy & canonical Scriptures? But you ask. Do they read in their Churches Apocryphal and Superstitious books for holy Scripture? No verily. But of the name Apocryphal I must distinguish, which sometimes is taken for all books read of the Church, which are not canonical: sometime for such books only, as are by no means to be suffered, but are to be hid or abolished. These books therefore in controversy, with other of the same sort, are sometimes called Hagiographa, holy writings, as of S. Hierom praefat. in lib. Tobiae: sometime Ecclesiastica, Ecclesiastical writings, and so are they called of Ruffinus. Because 
In expositione Symbols.  (saith he) they were appointed by our Elders to be read in the Churches, but not to be brought forth to confirm authority of faith: but other Scriptures they named Apocryphal, which they would not have to be read in the Churches. So saith S. Hierom in praefat. in Proverb. Even as the Church readeth in deed the books of judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees: but yet receiveth them not among the Canonical Scriptures: so let it read these two books (of Ecclesiasticus and wisdom) for the edifying of the people, not for the confirmation of the authority of Ecclesiastical doctrines. These ancient writers shall answer for our service book, that although it appoint these writings to be read: yet it doth not appoint them to be read for Canonical Scriptures. Albeit they are but sparingly read, by order of our service book, which for the lords day, & other festival days, commonly appointeth the first lesson out of the Canonical Scriptures. And as for superstition, although M. Whitaker say, that some one thing savoureth of I know not what superstition, he doth not by and by condemn the whole book for superstitious, and altogether unworthy to be read, neither can he thereby be proved a Puritan, or a disgracer of the order of daily service.    

MART. 10. As for parts of books, do they not reject certain pieces of Daniel and of Hester, because they are not in the Hebrew, which reason S. Augustine rejecteth: or because they were once doubted of by certain of the fathers? by which reason some part of S. Mark and S. Luke's Gospel might now also be called in controversy, specially if it be true which M. whitaker's by a figurative speech more than insinuateth, That 
pag. 10.  he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit, should by time win authority. Forgetting himself by & by, & in the very next lines admitting S. james epistle (though before doubted of for Canonical Scriptures, unless 
M. whitaker's book.  they receive it but of their courtesy, & so may refuse it when it shall please them, which must needs be gathered of his words, as also many other notorious absurdities, contradictions, and dumb blanks▪ Which only to note, were to confute M. whitaker's by himself, being the answerer for both Universities.  

FULK. 10. As for pieces of Daniel, & of Hester, we reject none, but only we discern that which was written by Daniel in deed, from that which is added by Theodotion the false jew, & that which was written by the spirit of God of Esther, from that which is vainly added by some Greekish counterfecter. But the reason why we reject those patches (you say) is because they are not in the Hebrew, which reason S. Augustine rejecteth. Here you cite S. Augustine at large, without quotation, in a matter of controversy. But if we may trust you that S. Augustine rejecteth this reason yet we may be bold upon S. hierom's authority, to reject whatsoever is not found in the canon of the jews, written in Hebrew, or Chaldee. For whatsoever was such, S. Hierom did thrust through with a spit or obeliske, as not worthy to be received. Witness hereof S. Augustine himself, Epist. ad Hier. 8. & 10. in which he dissuaded him from translating the Scriptures of the old Testament out of the Hebrew tongue, after the 70. Interpreters, whose reasons as they were but frivolous, so they are derided by S. Hierom, who being learned in the Hebrew & Chaldee tongues, refused to be taught by Augustine, that was ignorant in them, what was to be done in translations out of them. Also Hieronym himself testifieth that Daniel in the Hebrew, hath neither the story of Susanna, nor the hymn of the 3. children, nor the fable of Bel & the Dragon: which we (saith he) because they are dispersed throughout the whole world have added, setting a spit before them, which thrusteth them through, lest we should seem among the ignorant to have cut of a great part of the book. The like he writeth of the vain additions that were in the vulgar edition unto the book of Esther, both in the Preface, & after the end of that which he translated out of the Hebrew. There are other reasons also beside the authority of S. Hierom, that move us not to receive them. As that in the story of Susanna, Magistrates & judgement of life & death are attributed to the jews being in captivity of Babylon, which hath no similitude of truth. Beside out of the first chapter of the true Daniel, it is manifest, that Daniel being a young man was carried captive into Babylon, in the days of Nebucadnezer, but in this counterfeit story, Daniel is made a young child in the time of Astyages, which reigned immediately before Cyrus of Persia. Likewise in the story of Bel and the Dragon, Daniel is said to have lived with the same king Cyrus, and after when he was cast into the lions den, the Prophet Habacuck was sent to him out of jury, who prophesied before the first coming of the Chaldees, and therefore could not be alive in the days of Cyrus, which was more than 70 years after. The additions unto the book of Esther in many places, bewray the spirit of man, as that they are contrary to the truth of the story, containing vain repetitions, & amplifications of that which is contained in the true history, & that which most manifestly convinceth the sorgerie, that in the epistle of Artaxerxes, cap. 16. Haman is called a Macedonian, which in the true story is termed an Agagite that is an Amalekite, whereas the Macedonians had nothing to do with the Persians many years after the death of Esther & Haman. I omit that in the ca 15. ver. 12. the author maketh Esther to lie unto the king in saying that his countenance was full of all grace, or else he lieth himself, v. 17. where he saith, the king beheld her in the vehemency of his anger, & that he was exceeding terrible.  
As for other reasons, which you suppose us to follow, because these parcels were once doubted of by certain of the fathers, it is a reason of your own making, and therefore you may confute it at your pleasure. But if that be true which Master Whitaker by a figurative speech doth more than insinuate, part of S. Marks and S. Luke's Gospel, may also be called in controversy. Why? what saith M. Whitaker? Marry, that he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit, should by time win authority. But when I pray you was any part of S. Mark or S. Luke out of credit? if any part were of some person doubted of, doth it follow that it was not at all in credit? you reason profoundly, and gather very necessarily. As likewise that he forgetteth himself in the very next lines, admitting S. james epistle (though before doubted of) for Canonical. Will ye say that S. james epistle was once not in credit, or not worthy of credit, (for that is his plain meaning) because it was doubted of, yea rejected of some? yea, you say it must needs be gathered of his words, that we receive it but of courtesy, and so may refuse it when it pleaseah us. Demonstrate this in a syllogism out of his words if you can, or all the whole rabble of Rheims, if you be able. For my part I can but marvel at your bold assertions, and abhor your impudent enforcements. As for other contradictions, notorious absurdities, dumb blanks, & I know not what other monsters you feign unto him, without all proof or particular declaration, all wise men see how easy a matter it is to rail & slander in generals, & when you dare come to particulars, I doubt not but the world shall see your vanity so detected by M. Whitaker himself, that you shall have little joy thus insolently to deface his godly & learned writings. It had been more than time that his book had been confuted, which hath been abroad a year and a half almost, if you can with such facility by only noting such matters, show that he confuteth himself. But somewhat you must say afar of, to save your credit with your Disciples, to keep them play for the time, while with long study, and great travail, you are crowding out great trifles.    

MART. 11. For the second point, which is not the gross denial of books, but yet calling of them in question, moving scruples about them, and diminishing their authority and credit, I will go no further than to S. Paul's epistle to the Hebrews, 
In the argument Bib. an. 1579.  which I will not ask why they doubt of, or rather think it not to be S. Paul's, for they will tell me, because it was once in doubt (not considering that it was in like manner doubted whether it were Canonical, & yet they will not now deny but it is Canonical) but I must ask them and request them to make a reasonable answer, why in their English Bible of the year 1579. and 1580. they presume to leave out S. Paul's name out of the very title of the said epistle, which name is in the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Greek, and in beza's Latin translation, both which they profess to follow. See the title of the new Test. an. 1580. Doth not the title tell them that it is S. Paul's? why seek they further: or why do they change the title, striking out S. Paul's name, if they meant to deal simply and sincerely? and what an heretical peevishness is this, because Beza telleth them of one obscure Greek copy that hath not Paul's name, and only one: that they will rather follow it, than all other copies both Greek and Latin? I report me to all indifferent men of common sense, whether they do it not to diminish the credit of the epistle.  

FULK. 11. Now concerning the second point, which is calling of some books into controversy or moving scruples about them, to diminish their credit, or authority, whether you be guilty of that crime rather than we, I have somewhat noted before. But with what evidence you are able to charge us, it cometh now to be considered: you will go no further than the epistle to the Hebrews. You may be ashamed to have gone so far. For of all books of the new Testament, their is none that we might worse spare to confound your blasphemous heresies, than that epistle, which is the very mall to beat into powder the abominable Idol of your Mass, and your sacrilegious priesthood serving to the same. Wherefore it is without all colour that you charge us, to seek to diminish the credit of that epistle. But you will not ask why we doubt of, or rather think it not to be S. Paul's, because we will tell you, that it was once in doubt. If you acknowledge that the auctor of this epistle was once in question, you clear us of moving scruples about it, or calling it in question, which was your first charge. Let Eusebius, Jerome, and other ancient 
Euseb. lib. 6. cap. ●. Hieronim. ad▪ ●a●d. Tom. 3.  writers, bear that blame, if it be blame worthy, to tell what other men's opinions have been in such a matter. Some holding that it was written by S. Luke, some by S. Barnabas, some by S. Clemens. But you must wit if you will, that they which at this day doubt of the writer thereof, or else think it not of S. Paul's penning, have other reasons to lead them, than only because it was doubted of. For beside those reasons which they had, which of old time doubted of the writer thereof, as the diversity of the stile, and inscription thereof, and manner of reasoning, they have also observed something out of the epistle itself, which seemeth to argue, that it was not written by S. Paul: as that in the beginning of the 2. chapter he saith, The doctrine of salvation was confirmed to us by them that heard it, after it was first spoken by the Lord himself, which seemeth to agree with the profession of S. Luke in the beginning of his gospel. Whereas S. Paul denieth that he learned his gospel os men, but only by revelation of jesus Christ. Gal. 1. v. 12. But of all them that doubt, or think it not to be S. Paul's epistle, there is not one that doubteth of the authority thereof, but that it is equal with the epistle to the Romans, or the gospel of S. john. Although in the Latin 
●●●●●●. lib. 3. cap. 6. in evang Math. ●●. 5. cap. 26.  church as S. Hierom testifieth, it hath been doubted whether it were Canonical. The cause seemeth to be the heresy of the novatians, which abused a text out of the 6. chapped. against remission of sins committed after grace received, which we show was no sufficient cause to refuse so divine an epistle, seeing the Apostle speaketh not of particular faults, which are common to the faithful oftentimes every day, but of an utter apostasy, & falling clean away from the truth of the gospel once known & professed, into an horrible contempt & persecuting of the same. But we must make you a reasonable answer, why in the English Bibles printed 1579. & 1580. we presume to leave out S. Paul's name, out of the very title of the said epistle? which name is in the Greek & beza's Latin translation, which we profess to follow. I answer without any presumption, that that which is uncertain we spare to affirm. Example we have not only that ancient Greek copy whereof Beza speaketh, which leaveth out the name of Paulé, but also diverse printed books in which that name is left out. Beside it is certain, that title was not of ancient time universally added. For S. Hier. in Catalogo scriptorum ecclesiast. after he hath recited all the epistles of S. Paul, at length he cometh to this epistle, Epistola autem quae fertur ad Hebraeos, etc. But the epistle which is called unto the Hebrews, is not thought to be his, for the difference of the stile & speech, but either written by Barnabas, as Tertullian holdeth, or by Luke the Evangelist, as some men think, or by Clemens, that after was B. of the Roman church, whom they say to have ordered & adorned the sentences of Paul in his own speech, or else truly, because Paul did write unto the Hebrews, & because of the envy of his name among them he cut of the title in the beginning of the salutation. These things considered, what need those tragical exclamations in so trifling a matter? Doth not the title tell it is S. Paul's? why strike they out S. Paul's name? what an heretical peevishness is this? For lack of good matter, you are driven to loud clamours against us, but I will even conclude in your own words, I report me to all indifferent men of common sense, whether we do it to diminish the credit of the epistle, which of all S. Paul's epistles we might least miss, when we come to dispute against your Popish sacrifice, & sacrificing priesthood: or whether you do not craftily move a scruple in the minds of simple persons, to make them doubt of the authority of that epistle (whose double cannon shot you are not able to bear, when it is thundered out against you) under colour that it is not of sound credit among ourselves, that use it against you. Which of all the lies that ever Satan invented, & taught you to utter, is one of the most abominable.    

MART. 12. I know very well that the authority of Canonical Scripture standeth not upon the certainty of the author, but yet to be Paul's or not Paul's, Apostolical or not Apostolical, maketh great difference of credit and estimation. For what made S. james epistle doubted of sometime, or the second of S. Peter, and the rest, but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles? This Luther saw very well, when he denied S. james epistle to be james the Apostles writing. If titles of books be of no importance, then leave out Matthew, Mark, Luke, and john, leave out Paul in his other epistles also, and you shall much pleasure the Manichees and other old Heretics: & if the titles make no difference, urge no more the title of the Apocalypse, S. john the Divines, as though it were not S. john's the Evangelists, and you shall much displeasure some Heretics now a days. Briefly, most certain it is, and they know it best by their own usual doings, that it is a principal way to the discredit of any book, to deny it to be that authors, under whose name it hath been received.  

FULK. 12. If you know so well that the authority of the Canonical scripture, standeth not upon the certainty of the auctor: as in deed it doth not. For the books of judges, of Ruth, of Samuel the later▪ of the Kings, etc. who can certainly affirm by whom they were written? with what forehead do you charge us to doubt of the authority of this epistle, because we report out of the ancient writers, the uncertainty of the auctor? or leave out that title which is not certainly true? But yet (you say) to be Paul's or not Paul's, apostolical or not apostolical, maketh great difference of credit and estimation. If by apostolical you mean of apostolical spirit or authority, I agree to that you say of apostolical, or not apostolical. If you mean apostolical that only which was written by some Apostle, you will make great difference of credit & estimation between the Gospel of Mark, Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles, from the gospels of Matthew and john. But which of us I pray you that thinketh that this epistle was not written by S. Paul, once doubteth whether it be not of Apostolical spirit and authority? Which is manifest by this, that both in preaching and writing we cite it thus, the Apostle to the Hebrews. And if it were written by S. Luke, or by S. Clement, which both were apostolic men, seeing it is out of controversy that it was written by the spirit of God, it is doubtless Apostolical and differeth not in credit and estimation from those writings that are known certainly to have been written by the Apostles. But I marvel greatly why you writ, that to be Paul's or not Paul's, maketh great difference of credit & estimation. Those epistles that are peter's and johns are not Paul's, & yet I think their is no great difference of credit & estimation between them & Paul's. What you think I know not, but you writ very suspiciously. You ask what made S. james epistle, or the second of Peter and the rest, to be sometimes doubted of, but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles? Yes, something else, or else they doubted vainly of them, and without just cause, as I think they did. But when their were two Apostles called james, he that doubteth whether the epistle was written by james the brother of john, & is persuaded it was written rather by james the son of Alphaeus, doubteth nothing of the credit, authority, & estimation of the epistle. No more do we, which doubt whether the epistle to the Hebrews were written by S. Paul, seeing we are persuaded it was written either by S. Barnabas, or by S. Luke, or by S. Clement, as the ancient writers thought, or by some other of the Apostles or Evangelists, we make no question but that it is Apostolical, and of equal authority with the rest of the holy scriptures. But Eusebius denied the epistle of S. james, because he was persuaded that it was written by no Apostle or apostolic man, and therefore saith plainly that it is a bastard or counterfeit: and so belike was Luther deceived▪ if ever he denied it, as you say he did. But if titles of books be of no importance (say you) then leave out Matthew, Mark, john, and Paul in his other Epistles. What need that I pray you? Is there no difference between leaving out a title whereof there hath been great uncertainty, and diversity in God's church, and which in some Greek copies both written and printed is left out: and in leaving out those titles that never were omitted, nor never any question, or controversy moved of them by any of the ancient catholic fathers? But you will us to urge no more the title of the Apocalypse of S. john the Divine, as though it were not S. john the Evangelists, & we shall please I know not what heretics of our time except it be the Papists whom it would most concern, that the revelation of S. john in which their Antichrist of Rome is so plainly described were brought out of credit. But if you had read beza's preface before the Apocalypse, you should find that even by that title, he gathereth a probable argument, that it was written by john the Evangelist, because it is not like that this excellent name THE DIVINE could agree to any john in the Apostles time so aptly, as to Saint john the Evangelist, beside the consent of all antiquity, ascribing that Revelation to Saint john the Evangelist and Apostle. Last of all (you say) it is most certain and we know best by our usual doings, that it is a principal way to discredit any book, to deny it to be the authors under whose name it hath been received. How certain it is with you, whereof no man else but you can see any light of reason or necessity of conclusion, I know not, but we are not so void of wit, if we lacked honesty, that we would discredit Paul's Epistle, by saying it was peter's, or Augustine's sermon, by saying it was Ambrose, or Chrysostom's work by saying it was Basils'. But if we would bring any book out of credit by denying the auctor whose title it hath borne: we would rather entitle it to some other writer of less credit, or later time, or by some other arguments prove it unworthy of credit, not by only denying it to be the authors, under whose name it hath bene received.    

MART. 13. But I come to the third point of voluntary expositions of the Scripture, that is when every man expoundeth according to his error and Heresy. This needeth no proof, for we see it with our eyes. Look upon the calvinists and Puritans at home, the Lutherans, zwinglians, and Caluinists abroad: read their books written vehemently, one sect against an other: are not their expositions of one and the same Scripture as diverse and contrary, as their opinions differ one from an other? Let the example at home be, their controversy about the distinction of Ecclesiastical degrees, Archbishop, Bishop, and minister: the example abroad, their diverse imaginations and fantasies▪ upon these most sacred words, Hoc est corpus meum.  

FULK. 13. That every one of us expoundeth the scripture voluntarily according to his error or heresy, you say it needeth no proof, for you see it with your eyes. You have very clear sight to see a mote in other men's eyes, but can not see a beam in your own. You make your demonstration by the Caluinists and Puritans at home, & the Lutherans, zwinglians, & Caluinists abroad▪ the one for the distinction of Ecclesiastical degrees, Archbishop, Bishop, & Minister: the other for their diverse imaginations & fantasies of these words▪ Hoc est corpus meum. But I beseech you sir, touching the domestical dissension, what is the text, or what be the texts of Scripture? upon which these voluntary expositions▪ are made▪ for the distinction or confusion of Ecclesiastical degrees? If they had been as ready as Hoc est corpus meum, they should have been set down, as well as that. But I suppose they are yet to seek for that controversy, as I take it standeth rather in collections than interpretations, and in question whether the political government of the Church be distinctly expressed in the scripture, or no. As for the contention abroad, I confess to stand a great part in exposition of that text, wherein although the one part doth err, is that a sufficient cause to condemn them both. The church of Africa, and the Church of Rome, and the two principal lights of them both Cyprian and Cornelius, dissented about rebaptizing them that were baptised of Heretics. The Aphricans not in one text only, but in the 
Cyprianus, & ali● in Concilio Aphricano.  exposition of many, differed from the Romans, & from the truth, yet it were hard to condemn them both for Heretics, & least of all them that held the truth. S. Augustine and S. Hierom dissented about a text of S. Paul to the Galathians, of Peter's dissembling, as their contrary epistles do testify. The truth was of S. Augustine's side, yet was not the other an heretic, following a wrong interpretation. And to come nearer home unto you, the Dominicans & Franciscans Friars were at daggers drawing (as we say) yea at most sharp and bitter contention between themselves, and all the Popish Church was divided about their brawling, concerning the conception of the virgin Marie, whether she were conceived in sin, or no, where many texts of Scripture must needs receive voluntary expositions, if not of both parts, yet at the least of one part: which of those will you say were heretics? If you say neither of both, then must you have stronger reasons to prove us all heretics, than voluntary expositions, where parties be in diverse opinions, especially in matter not overthrowing the foundation of Christian religion. And when you have gathered the most voluntary expositions you can find, yet shall you find none so gross, so absurd, so impertinent, as you Papists have coined, for maintenance of your errors and heresies, of which you yourself are ashamed, though otherwise you have iron foreheads and brazen faces. A few examples among a great many shall suffice. God made man according to his own image, that is to say, we must have images in the Church. No man lighteth a candle and putteth it under a bushel, the meaning is, that images must be set upon the altar. God made two great lights, the Sun and the Moon, that is, the Pope to be above the Emperor. Behold here are two sword: that is, the Pope hath power of both the sword. Put on the whole armour of God, that is, the Priest must put on all his vestments, before he say Mass. I am become as sounding brass, or as a tinkling Cymbal, that is, the bells in the steeple signify preaching of God's word. I might fill many leaves, yea a whole book of such popish expositions, as the Papists in our days dare not for shame abide by.    

MART. 14. And if you will yet have a further demonstration, this one may suffice for all. They reject Counsels, & Fathers, and the Catholic Church's interpretation, unless it be agreeable to God's word, and whether it be agreeable or no, that Luther shall judge for the Lutherans, Calvin for the Caluinists, Cartwright for the Puritans, and an other for the Brethren of love: briefly themselves will be judges both of Counsels and 
* Whitak. pag. 17. & 120.  Fathers, whether they expound the Scriptures well or no, and every youth among them upon confidence of his spirit and knowledge will saucily control not only one, but all the father's consenting together, if it be against that which they imagine to be the truth.  

FULK. 14. We had need of a better demonstration than the former, by which you yourselves are proved Heretics, rather than we. But let us see how handsomely you begin. They reject (say you) Counsels and Fathers, and the Catholic Church's interpretation, unless it be agreeable to God's word. Thus far you say well. We do reject not only those that you name, but even an Angel from heaven, except his message be agreeable to God's word. But all the rest that you assume to the end of this section, is a stark staring lie, except that you say of H. N. for the brethren of love, which are more like to you than to us. For neither Luther, nor Calvin, nor Cartwright is judge among us, whether any thing be agreeable to the word of God, but whatsoever any of them do say, it is examined and tried by the Scriptures. And the Scriptures themselves, where they are so obscure, that neither by common sense, knowledge of the original tongue, Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, story, nor any other human knowledge, nor judgement of any writers, old, or new, the certain understanding can be found out, they are either expounded by conference of other plainer texts of Scripture, according to the analogy of faith: or else they remain still in obscurity, until it shall please God to reveal a more clear knowledge of them. But none so like the family of love as you Papists are, which reject counsels, father's interpretation of the most ancient Catholic Church, yea & manifest Scripture itself, except it be agreeable to the judgement of your P. M. Pontifex Max. the Pope, as those familiar devils, submit all things to the sentence, & authority of their H. N. Shame you nothing therefore to quote Whitaker pag. 17. & 120. as though he affirmed, that we ourselves will be judges, both of Counsels, & Fathers, whether they expound the Scriptures well or no? because he writeth (percase) that we ought to examine all men's writings by the word of god. Doth the Apostle make every man judge of all things, when he willeth every man to examine all things▪ and to hold that which is good? If any youth upon confidence of his wit, or knowledge, presume too much in divine matters, we count it rashness. But that any youth among us, upon confidence of his spirit, will saucily control all the father's consenting together against his fantasy, except it be some Schismatic or Heretic, that is cast out from amongst us, I do utterly deny, neither are you able to prove it of any that is allowed among us.    

MART. 15. Whereupon it riseth that one of them defendeth this as very well said of Luther, That he esteemed not 
Ibid. pag. 101.  the worth of a rush a thousand Augustine's, Cyprians, Churches, against himself. And an other very finely & figuratively, (as he thought) against the holy Doctor & Martyr S. Cyprian, affirming that the Church of Rome can not err 
Praef. ad 6. theses Oxon pag. 25.  in faith, saith thus: Pardon me Cyprian, I would gladly believe thee▪ but that believing thee, I should not believe the Gospel. This is that which S. Augustine saith of the like men, dulcissimè vanos esse, non peritos, sed perituros, nec 
Lib. Confess. 1. cap. 14. lib. 7. c. 20.  tam disertos in errore, quàm desertos à veritate. And I think verily, that not only we, but the wiser men among themselves, smile at such eloquence, or pity it, saying this, or the like most truly, Prodierunt oratores novi, stulti adolescentuli. 
Cicer. de Senect.   

FULK. 15. Why should you not at your pleasure upon your false assumption general, infer one or two slanders particular. M. Whitaker defendeth that it was well said of Luther. That he esteemed not the worth of a rush a thousand Augustine's, Cyprians, Churches, against himself. Would God that every Papist would read his own words in the place by you quoted, that he might see your impudent forgery. For I hope there is no Christian, that will imagine, that either Luther would so speak, or any man of honesty, defend him so speaking. For Luther was not so senseless, to oppose his own person, but the truth of his cause, grounded upon the holy Scriptures, not only against one thousand of men, holding the contrary, but even against ten thousand of Angels, if they should oppose themselves against the truth of God. But I am too blame to deal so much in M. whitaker's cause, who ere it be long, will display the falsehood of Gregory Martin, in a Latin writing, to his great ignominy.  
The next cavil is upon M. Rainoldes words, in his preface to his six positions, disputed upon at Oxford, where against Cyprian, affirming that the Church of Rome can not err in faith, he saith: Pardon me Cyprian, I would gladly believe thee, but that in believing thee, I should not believe the Gospel. These words you confess that he spoke figuratively, and finely, as he thought: but that he used the figures of Ironve and concession, you will not acknowledge, but all other men may easily see. For first he no where granteth, that S. Cyprian affirmeth, that the Church of Rome can not err in faith. But immediately before the words by you translated, after he had proved out of the eleventh to the Romans, that the particular Church of Rome may be cut of, as well as the Church of the Israelites, which were the natural branches, he asketh the question Quid? & Cypriano secus est visum? What? And did it seem otherwise to Cyprian? Pardon me Cyprian, etc. His meaning is plain, that Cyprian thought not otherwise than S. Paul hath written, or if he did, it was lawful to dissent from Cyprian. As a little after he saith: Quare si Romanam Ecclesiam errare non posse, etc. Wherefore if Cyprian thought that the Church of Rome could not err in that point, by the sentence of the Papists, he himself is to be condemned of error: for diverse Papists whom he nameth, confess that every particular Church may err, and Verratus, one of them, affirmeth that the Church of Rome is a particular Church, which the rest can not deny. And in deed that which Cyprian writeth, is about certain runneagate Heretics, that flying out of the Church of Carthage, sought to be received of the particular Church of Rome. All this while here is no grant that Cyprian affirmeth, that the Church of Rome cannot err in faith. And if Cyprian had so affirmed contrary to the scripture, it might have been justly replied unto him, which S. Augustine saith when he was pressed with his authority. Contra Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 31. Nos nullam Cypriano facimus iniuriam. We do Cyprian no wrong, when we distinguish any writings of his from the Canonical authority of the divine Scriptures. And in truth the words which M. Rainolds before cited out of S. Cyprian, lib. 1. ep 3. ad Cornel. are spoken of no matter of faith, but in a matter of discipline. Neither doth Cyprian say, that the Church of Rome can not err in faith, but that those Heretics which brought letters from schismatics & profane persons, did not consider, that they are Romans, whose faith is praised by the commendation, or preaching of the Apostle, to whom perfidia, falsehood, or false dealing can have none access. Meaning that the Romans so long as they continued in that faith which was praised by the Apostle, can not join with Heretics and Schismatics, that are cast out of other Catholic Churches. For that he could not mean that the Pope or Church of Rome cannot err in faith (as the Papists affirm) it is manifest, for that in a question of religion▪ he dissented both from the Bishop and Church of Rome, as all learned men know he did, which he would never have done, if he had believed they could not err. And that his meaning was not that the Bishop of Rome could not err in matters of discipline, it is manifest in the next epistle, where he complaineth, that Basilides a wicked man, after his crimes were detected, and his conscience made bare by his own confession, went to Rome, and deceived our fellow Bishop Stephanus, dwelling far of, and being ignorant of the case, so that he sought ambitiously to be unjustly restored into the Bishopric from whence he was justly deposed. These things prove, that S. Cyprian thought it no impossible thing, for the Bishops and Church of Rome to err in faith or government. Wherefore that you cite out of Augustine agreeth best unto yourself, and such as you are, who employ all your eloquence and utterance, to set forth lies and slanders. last of all, when you have nothing else to disgrace those grave and learned writers, you would make them by abusing a piece of Tully, contemptible for their youth, among such as know them not, who if they wanted half a score years a piece, of that ripe and well seasoned age they have, yet with those gifts of godliness and learning, which God hath in great measure bestowed upon them, they were worthy to be reverenced. So that Venomous traitor, which writeth of the persecution of the Papists, maketh me a very young man, and therefore contemned of the ancient Fathers at Wisbiche, and yet I can easily prove, that I was of lawful age, if more than twice one and twenty years will serve, before ever I saw Wisbiche castle.    

MART. 16. The 4. point is, of picking quarrels to the very original text: for alter and change it I hope they shall not be able in this watchful world of most vigilant Catholics. But what they would do, if all Bibles were only in their hands and at their commandment, guess by this: that Beza against the evidence 
Beza the mouse of Geneva, gnaweth the text of Scripture.  of all copies both Greek and Latin, (In his Annot. upon the new Testam. set forth in the year 1556.) thinketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is more than should be in the text Mat. 10: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 7: the first, against Peter's supremacy: the second, against the real presence of Christ's blood in the B. Sacrament: the third, against the making of what soever images, whether they be adored or no. Thus you see how the mouse of Geneva (as I told you before of Martion the mouse of Pontus) knibbleth and gnaweth about it, though he can not bite it of altogether.  

FULK. 16. In this point you do nothing but pick quarrels, seeing you confess that neither they have, nor can alter, or change any thing of the original text. If Beza express his conjecture upon some ground or similitude of reason, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matthew 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 22. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act 7. might perhaps be added to the text out of the margin or otherwise, and yet doth not precisely affirm it, but leave it to judgement and trial of ancient copies, if any shall be found to favour his conjecture, what hath he like to the mouse of Pontus Martion, which altered & corrupted the text? you say he knibbleth & gnaweth about it, though he can not bite it of altogether. And for what advantage? forsooth, because the first word maketh for Peter's supremacy, a poor supremacy that Peter can gain in that he is named the first in the catalogue of the Apostles, which is but a primacy of order, not of honour, or as Ambrose saith, a primacy of confession, not of honour, 
De ineam. dom. cap. 4.  of faith, not of degree. The second word you say is against the real presence of Christ's blood in the B. Sacrament. You are a perilous cat that can spy a mouse gnawing at the real presence, which none of the ancient Fathers, or late writers before these days could find in those words. And as for making of Images who doth forbid, except it be in any use of religion, which God doth forbid in the second commandment of the first table. And where you will have men to guess what we would do if all Bibles were only in our hands, by this example of beza's conjectures. I wish men rather to consider what the Romish rats were like to do in that case, which in their translation of the ten commandments for the people's instruction, have clean gnawn out the second commandment, and because they cannot bite it clean out of the Bible, they seek all shifts to hide it under the first commandment. Finally whether Lindanus and you do pick quarrels against all the evidence of all Greek copies, I refer me to your 4. section, where out of Lindanus you falsely affirm that certain of Martions corruptions remain in the Greek text until this day.    

MART. 17. He doth the like in sundry places which you may see in his Annotat. Act. 7. v. 16. Where he is saucy against all copies Greeke and Latin to pronounce corruption, corruption, avouching & endeavouring to prove that it must be so, and that with these words, To what purpose should the holy Ghost, or Luke, add this? Act. 8. v. 26. But because those places concern no controversy, I say no more but that he biteth at the text, and would change it according to his imagination, if he might: which is too proud an enterprise for Beza, & small reverence of the holy scriptures, so to call the very text into controversy, that whatsoever pleaseth not him, crept out of the margin into the text, which is his common and almost his only conjecture.  

FULK. 17. Where Beza noteth corruption in places that concern no controversy, it appeareth that without partiality he desireth to restore the text to sincerity. And yet he is charged of you with pride and sauciness. Why more I pray you, than Lindanus, of whom you learned to prattle so much of the mouse of Pontus? Which lib. 2 de optim. gen. interpret. scripturas, hath diverse chapters of the defect of the Greek text, of the redundance, and of the corruption thereof. If Lindanus might do this with modesty, and desire to find out the truth (as I think he did) why may not an indifferent reader, judge the like of Beza, in his doings? As for creeping out of the margin into the text, which you say is his common and almost only conjecture, why may it not come to pass in writing out of the books of the Scripture, as it hath in other writings of other authors. And that either by that means, or by some other means, corruption hath happened to all copies that at this day are extant, both Greek & Latin, in naming Hieremie for Zacharie, Math. 27, Who is so blind that he will not see? yet the ordinary Gloze confesseth, that there were diverse copies in times past, in which the name of Hieremie was not, but the word Prophet generally. Likewise in the vulgar Latin text, in the beginning of S. Marks Gospel, Esay is cited for that which is written in Malachi▪ and some Greek copies have the same, from whence it is like the Latin translation received that error. But the more part of best Greek copies, leave out the name of Esay. How these corruptions should come into the text, except it be out of the margin, if you can find a better conjecture, we shall be content with more patience to hear you, than you can abide to hear Beza.    

MART. 18. He biteth sore at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 1. v. 7●. and will not translate that, but the Hebrew word of the old 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Testament, but at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Act. 2. v. 24.) much more, and at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Act. 7. v. 14.) exceedingly: but yet after he hath said all that he could against it, he concludeth, that he 
No. Test. an. 1556. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Beza reconcileth the Greek ●●●● of the new Testament with the Hebrewe text of the old, by putting out of the Greek text so much as pleaseth him.  durst not, and that he had a conscience, upon conjecture to change any thing. And therefore all this is gnawing only. But in the 3. of Luke he maketh no conscience at all, to leave out these words vers. 36. Qui fuit Cainan, not only in his own translation, but in the vulgar Latin which is joined therewith, saying in his Annot. Non dubitavimus expungere, that is, We doubted not to put it out: and why? by the authority of Moses Gen. 11. Whereby he signifieth, that it is not in the Hebrew Gen. 11. where this posterity of S●m is ●eckened: and so to maintain the Hebrew verity (as they call it) in the old Testament he careth not what become of the Greek in the new Testament, which yet at other times, against the vulgar Latin text, they call the Greek verity, and the pure fountain, and that text whereby all translations must be tried.  

FULK. 18. His biting (as you call it) at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luk. 1. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ast. 2. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 9 Seeing they concern no controversy, might have been contained in the section next before, especially seeing you confess he saith he durst not, and that he had a conscience upon conjecture to change any thing. But in the 3. of Luk. vers. 36. He maketh no conscience at all to leave out the words, Qui fuit Cainan, saying in his annotations, that he doubted not to put it out by authority of Moses, Gen. 11. A sore charge to diminish any part of the holy Scripture. But if he have only corrected an error of the scribe, which by all likelihood took upon him to add unto S. Luke out of the Greek text of the 70▪ that which is not in the Hebrew, verily, I see not what offence he hath committed. For first he can mean no fraud in concealing those words, whereof he doth admonish the reader, and of the cause of his leaving them out. Secondly▪ he winneth no advantage against his adversaries, or to his own cause, by omitting to say, that Sala was the son of Cainan, whom Moses affirmeth to be the son of Arphaxad. And seeing Moses Gen. 11. hath no such Cainan the son of Arphaxad, it is not like that S. Luke, who borrowed that part of his genealogy out of Moses, would add any thing which Moses had omitted. But you say that Beza to maintain the Hebrew verity of the old Testament, eareth not what become of the Greek in the new Testament. You should have made your antitheton more full (wherein it seemeth you pleased yourself not a little) if you had said that Beza to maintain the Hebrew verity of the old Testament, careth not what becometh of the Greek corruption in the new Testament: and so you should have spoken both more eloquently, and more truly. But at other times (you say) against the vulgar Latin text, they call the Greek, text the Greek verity, and the pure fountain, and that whereby all translations must be tried. We say in deed that by the Greek text of the new Testament, all translations of the new Testament must be tried, but we mean not by every corruption that is in any Greek copy of the new Testament, and much less that the Hebrew text of the old Testament, should be reform after the Greek of the new, where it is uncorrupted: and lest of all where any copy is guilty of a manifest error as in this place now in question.    

MART. 19 But if he have no other way to reconcile both Testaments, but by striking out in the Greek of the new, all that agreeth not with the Hebrew of the old Testament, then let him alter and change so many words of our Saviour himself, of the Evangelists, and of the Apostles, as are cited out of the old Testament, and are not in Hebrew. Which places they know are very many, and when need is, they shall be gathered to their hands. Let him strike out (Mat. 13. v. 14. 15. & Act. 28. v. 26. 27.) the words of our Saviour and S. Paul, cited out of Esay, because they are far otherwise in the Hebrew. 
Est. 6. 9 10. Gal. 3. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Strike out of the Epistle to the Galathians these words, upon a tree: because in the Hebrew it is only thus. Cursed is he that is hanged. Deut. 21. in finc. Yea strike out of David's Psalms that which concerneth our redemption upon the cross 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  much nearer, They have pierced my hands and my feet, Psal. 21. because in the Hebrew there is no such thing. Let them control the Apostle, Eph. 4. for saying, dedit, he gave gifts: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  because it is both in the Hebrew and Greek, (Psal. 67.) Accepisti, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  thou tookest gifts. and (Hebr. 10.) for, corpus aptasti, let them put, aures perforasti, because it is so in the Hebrew, Psalm. 40. To be short, if all must be reform according to the Hebrew, why doth he not in S. Steuens sermon cut off the number of siue souls from seventy five, because it is not in the Hebrew?  

FULK. 19 If you had read Beza his works as diligently to learn the truth out of them, as you have pried here & there busily how to espy some fault or error in them, you should easily have found, that he hath other ways to reconcile both the Testaments, & the difference that seemeth to be in the allegations, than by striking out of the Greek in the new, all that agreeth not with the Hebrew of the old Testament. And therefore vainly you bid him alter so many words as are cited in the new Testament out of the old, which are not in the Hebrew, and strike out of Matth. 13. v 14. 15. and Act. 28. v. 26. 27. the words of our Saviour▪ and S. Paul, cited out of Esay, because they are otherwise in the Hebrew. Beza knoweth that Christ and his Apostles always keep the sense of the Hebrew verity, although they do not always rehearse the very words. But whereas you bid him out of Gal. 3. 13. strike out these words (upon a tree) because in the Hebrew it is only thus: Cursed is he that is hanged. You show either gross ignorance or intolerable frowardness▪ for these words (upon a tree) are in that verse, & in the next before. For thus the Hebrew text is. 22. When there shallbe in any 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  person a sin to be adjudged to death, & he shallbe delivered to death, if thou shalt hang him upon a tree: 23. Let not his carcase tarry all night upon that tree, but in any case thou shalt bury him the same day, for accursed to God is he that is hanged. The word (tree) being twice named before, who would be so mad to say, that S. Paul hath added it beside the Hebrew text. Likewise where you bid us strike out of the Hebrew. Psal. 21. that which concerneth our redemption on the cross. They have pierced my hands and my feet, because in the Hebrew there is no such thing: you say most untruly, for there is nothing else in the Hebrew, no not in the common readings, as johannes Isaake a Popish jew will teach you, who hath confuted the cavils of Lindanus against the Hebrew text, of whom you borrowed this exam le, where if you had not been blind with malice, you might have seen that Saint Jerome did read without controversy, Fix●runt, they have pierced, as also that the most ancient copy of the Hebrew Psalms, supposed to have pertained to Saint Augustine of Canterbury, hath Charu they 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  have pierced, though you had been ignorant what is written concerning this word in the Masoreth and what Isaac also writeth of that word, as it is commonly red, that it can not signify, as you fantasy sicut lo: like a lion. And therefore the Chalde, paraphrast turneth it, As a lion, they pierced my hands and my feet. But of this matter more hereafter, as occasion shall be given. As for the Apostle, Ephes. 4. saying that Christ gave gifts, whereas of David it is said, he received gifts, speaketh nothing contrary to the Hebrew: but showeth wherefore Christ hath received gifts: namely to bestow upon his church. Except you will say that Christ gave of his own and received none: and so the Apostle doth show the excellency of the truth, above the figure: Christ above David. Likewise, where the Psalmist sayeth in the Hebrew: Thou hast opened mine ears, the Apostle doth rightly collect, that Christ had a body, which in his obedience was to be offered unto the father. Last of all you would have five souls cut from 75. in Saint Stephen's Sermon, because it is not in the Hebrew: but you are deceived. For Saint Stephen gathereth the whole number of them that are named in the forty sixth chapter of Genesis. Namely, the two sons of juda, that were dead, and jacobes' four wives, to show how great his family was at the uttermost, before he went down into Egypt, and how greatly God did multiply him afterward. What is there in any of these examples like to Qui fuit Cainan, about which you make so much a do?    

MART. 20. Must such difficulties & diversities be resolved by chopping and changing, hacking and hewing the sacred text of holy Scripture? Sec into what perplexities wilful heresy and arrogancy hath driven them. To discredit the vulgar Latin translation of the Bible, and the father's expositions according to the same (for that is the original cause of this) and besides, that they may have always this evasion, It is not so in the Hebrew, it is otherwise in the Greek, and so seem jolly fellows and great clerks unto the ignorant people, what do they? they admit only the Hebrew in the old Test. and the Greek in the new, to be the true and authentical text of the Scripture. Whereupon this followeth, that they reject, and must needs reject the Greek of the old Test. (called the Septuaginta) 
Their perplexity in defending both the Hebrew text of the old Testament, and Greek text of the new.  as false, because it differeth from the Hebrew. Which being rejected, thereupon it followeth again, that wheresoever those places so disagreeing from the Hebrew are cited by Christ or the Evangelists and Apostles, there also they must be rejected, because they disagree from the Hebrew, and so yet again it followeth, that the Greek text of the new Testament is not true, because it is not according to the Hebrew verity: & consequently the words of our Saviour, and writings of his Apostles must be reform (to say the least) because they speak according to the Septuaginta, and not according to the Hebrew.  

FULK. 20. Who alloweth, or who can abide chopping and changing, or hacking and hewing the sacred text of holy Scriptures? As for the perplexities whereunto you feign that wilful heresy and arrogancy hath driven us, is of your weaving, for God be praised we can well enough with good conscience & sound knowledge, that may abide the judgement of all the learned in the world, defend both the Hebrew text of the old Testament, and the Greek text of the new. Not of purpose to discredit the vulgar Latin translation, and the expositions of the fathers: but to fetch the truth, upon which the hope of our salvation is grounded, out of the first fountains and springs, rather than out of any streams that are derived from them. And this we do agreeable to the ancient father's judgements. For who knoweth not what fruitful pains S. Hierom took in translating the Scripture out of the original tongue, neither would he be dissuaded by S. Augustine, who although he misliked that enterprise, at the first, yet afterward he highly commended the necessity of the Greek & Hebrew tongues for Latin men, to find out the certain truth of the text in the infinite variety of the Latin interpretations: for thus he writetth, De doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 11. Contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio. E● latinae etc. Against unknown proper signs, the knowledge of tongues is a great remedy. And truly men of the Latin tongue, whom we have now taken in hand to instruct, have need also of two other tongues unto the knowledge of the divine Scriptures, namely the Hebrew, & the Greek, that recourse may be had unto the former copies, if the infinite variety of the Latin interpreters shall bring any doubt, although we find oftentimes in the books, Hebrew words not interpreted, as Amen, Alleluia, Racha, Osanna, etc. and a little after Sed non propter haec pauca etc. But not for these few words which to mark and inquire of, it is a very easy thing, but for the diversities (as it is said) of the interpreters, the knowledge of those tongues is necessary. For they that have interpreted the scriptures out of the Hebrew tongue into the Greek tongue, may be numbered, but the Latin interpreters by no means can be numbered. For in the first times of the faith, as a Greek book came into every man's hand, & he seemed to have some skill in both the tongues, he was bold to interpret it. Which thing truly hath more helped the understanding, than hindered, if the readers be not negligent: for the looking upon many books, hath often times made manifest sundry obscure or dark sentences. This is S. Augustine's sound judgement, of the knowledge of tongues, and diversity of interpretations, for the better understanding of the Scriptures. But let us see what be the absurdities, that you gather of our defending the original texts of both the tongues. First, we must needs reject the Greek of the old Testament, called septuaginta, as false, because it differeth from the Hebrew. Where it is not only different in words, but also contrary in sense, Why should we not? but if it retain the sense and substance, although it express not the same words, we need not reject it. S. Hierom, who was required by Paula, and Eustochium, to expound the Prophets, not only according to the truth of the Hebrew, but also after the translation of the Septuaginta, whereof he diverse times complaineth: upon the first of Nahum, saith expressly, that it was against his conscience always, to follow the same. Ignoscite prolixitati, etc. Pardon me that I am so long. For I can not, following both the story, and the tropology or doctrine of manners, comprehend both briefly: most of all, seeing that I am so greatly tormented, or troubled with the variety of the translation, and against my conscience sometimes I am compelled to frame a consequence of the vulgar edition: which was the Septuaginta. This was Saint hierom's opinion of the Septuagintaes' translation. But upon rejection of that translation (say you) it followeth that wheresoever those places, so disagreeing from the Hebrew are cited by Christ, or the Evangelists and Apostles, there also they must be rejected, because they disagree from the Hebrew, and so the Greek text of the new Testament is not true, and consequently the words of our Saviour, and writings of his Apostles speaking according to the Septuaginta, must at least be reform. It is an old saying, and a true, that one inconvenience being granted, many do follow, and so you may heap up an hundred after this manner. But for answer I say, that neither our Saviour, nor his Apostles, citing any place out of the old Testament, do bring any thing disagreeing in sense, and substance of matter (the purpose for which they allege it considered) from the truth of the Hebrew text. Therefore there is no need that the 70. in those places should be rejected. Although our Saviour Christ speaking in the Syrian tongue, is not to be thought ever to have cited the text of the 70. which is in Greek. And his Apostles and Evangelists using that text, regard the substance of the sentence, & not the form of words. For many times they cite not the very words of the Greek 70. neither: & S. Hierom in Catalogo script: Eccles. which is set as a Preface to S. Mathewes Gospel, telleth you expressly, that in the Hebrew example of S. Matthew which he had, wheresoever the Evangelist S. Matthew either in his own person, or in the person of our Lord and Saviour, useth the testimonies of the old Testament, he followeth not the authority of the 70. translators, but the Hebrew: of which these are two places: Out of Egypt have I called my son. And he shall be called a Nazarite. See you not what a perilous perplexity we are are in by defending both the Hebrew text of the old Testament, and the Geeke of the New, when neither are contrary to the other?    

MART. 21. All which must needs follow, if this be a good consequence, I find it not in Moses, nor in the Hebrew, therefore I struck it out, as Beza doth and saith concerning the foresaid words. Qui fuit Cainan. This consequence therefore let us see how they will justify: and withal let them tell us, whether they will discredit the new Testament, because of the Septuaginta, or credit the Septuaginta, because of the new Testament, or how they can credit one, and discredit the other, where both agree and consent together: or, whether they will discredit both, for credit of the Hebrew: or rather, whether there be not some other way to reconcile both Hebrew & Greek, better than beza's impudent presumption. Which if they will not maintain, let them flatly confess that he did wickedly, & not (as they do) defend every word and deed of their masters, be it never so heinous, or salve it at the least.  

FULK. 21. No whit of that doth follow by striking out qui fuit Cainan. Because it is not found in Moses, & therefore we have nothing to do to justify your vain consequence grounded upon an absurdity of your own devising. But we must tell you whether we will discredit the new Testament, because of the Septuaginta? no not for a thousand millions of Septuagintaes', nor for all the world will we credit the Septuaginta, against the truth of the old Testament. But what soever is cited out of the 70. in the new, is not contrary to the Hebrew in the old, and therefore the way of reconciliation is easily found, without discrediting both, or either of both in those places. And in this place, which is a mere corruption, borrowed out of the corruption of the Septuagintaes', or a judaical addition Gen. 11. I think there is no better way of reconciling than to strike it clean out, as Beza hath done, which generation neither is in the Hebrew verity, nor in your own vulgar Latin translation, either Gen. 11. or 1. Par. 1. Beside that it maketh a foul error in the computation of time, adding no less than 230. years between Arphaxad and Sala, more than the Hebrew verity, or the vulgar Latin agreeing therewith, doth number. And therefore he was more presumptuous, that out of the corrupt and false text of the Septuaginta, added the same unto the Genealogy in S. Luke, than Beza, which by the authority of Moses removed the same. If you will still persist to defend the authority of the Septuaginta, against the Hebrew verity, which like an Atheist you deride, at leastwise defend your own vulgar Latin translation of the old Testament, and deliver yourself out of that perplexity, in which you would place us, between the Hebrew of the old, and the Greek of the new Testament. Seeing no less doubts entangleth you between the Latin of the new, and the Latin of the old, differing altogether a like, as the Greek and the Hebrew do.    

MART. 22. Alas how far are these men from the modesty 
How the fathers reconcile the said Hebrew and Greek. Li. 18. de Ciui●. c. 43. 2. Lib. de Doct. Chr. c. 1●.  of the ancient fathers, and from the humble spirit of obedient Catholics, who seek all other means to resolve difficulties, rather than to do violence to the sacred Scripture, and when they find no way, they leave it to God. S. Augustine concerning the difference of the Hebrew & the Greek, saith often to this effect, that it pleased the holy Ghost to utter by the one, that which he would not utter by the other. And S. Ambrose thus, We have found many things not idly added of 
Hexam. li. 3. ca 6.  the 70. Greek interpreters. S. Hierom, though an earnest patron of the Hebrew (not without cause, being at that time 
In Prooem. li. Paralip.  perhaps the Hebrew verity in deed) yet giveth many reasons for the differences of the Septuaginta, and concerning the foresaid places of S. Luke, he doth give a reason thereof, both for 
Comment. in 28. Esa. and in question. Hebrai.  the 70, and for the Evangelist that followed them, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controlling them by the authority of Moses (as Beza speaketh) that is, by the Hebrew. Others say concerning Cainan, that Moses might leave him out in the Genealogy of Sem, by the instinct of the same Spirit, that S. Matthew left out three kings in the genealogy of 
Mat. c. ●.  our Saviour. Where if a man would control the Evangelist by the Hebrew of the old Testament that is read in the books of the kings, he should be as wise and as honest a man as Beza. Lastly, Venerable Bede thinketh it sufficient in this very difficulty 
Praef. in Act. Apost.  of Cainan, to marvel at it reverently, father than to search it dangerously. And thus far of picking quarrels to the original text, and their good will to alter and change it as they list, if they might be suffered.  

FULK. 22. Here of pity you will show unto us a piece of learning, how the Fathers reconcile the said Hebrew and Greek, without violence to the text, as they do always, or else leave the matter to God.  
First S. Augustine De civitate, lib. 18. cap. 43. de doctr. chr. lib. 2. cap. 15. of their agreement, notwithstanding they 
8●.  were separated into several celles, gathereth, that those Septuaginta were inspired with the same prophetical spirit of interpreting, that the Prophets were in foreshowing. But this doth S. Jerome utterly deny, and derideth 
Pr●fat. in Pent●● teuch.  the ground of this imagination, those 72. celles at Alexandria, as a fable and a lie. That S. Ambrose saith, we have found that many things are not idly added of the 70. Greek interpreters: We confess as much, where 
Hexam. lib. 3. c. 6.  their addition serveth for explication of that which is contauned in the Hebrew, and so meaneth Ambrose: not that they had authority to add any thing, which Moses had omitted. And we acknowledge with S. Jerome, that their may be many reasons given for the difference of the one, from the other: But concerning this place of S. Luke now in question, you say he giveth a reason thereof, both for the 70. & for the Evangelist that followed them, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controlling them by the authority of Moses. And for this you quote Comment. in 28. Esa. and in question. Hebrai. in neither of which places is any mention of this place, much less any reason given to reconcile it, or the Septuaginta with the Hebrew. It seemeth you red not the books yourself, but trusted to much some man's collection, which you understood not. In the Preface to the Hebrew questions, Hieronym excuseth himself against envious persons, that barked against him as though he did nothing but reprove the errors of the 70. saying. That he thinketh not his labour to be a reprehension of them, seeing they would not express unto Ptolomaeus king of Alexandria, certain mystical things in the Scriptures, and especially those things which promised the coming of Christ, lest the jews might have been thought to worship an other God, whom that follower of Plato therefore did greatly esteem, because they were said to worship but one god. But the Evangelists also, and our Lord and Saviour, and S. Paul the Apostle, bring forth many things, as it were out of the old Testament, which are not had in in our books, of which in their due places we will more fully discuss. Whereof it is clear, that those are the more true examples, which agree with the authority of the new Testament. Thus much Hierom in that place: but neither in his questions upon Genesis, nor 1. Paralip. the proper places for this text, is their any mention of this place of Luke, Qui fuit Cainan. In the place cited by you upon the 28. of Esay, he saith, Legimus in Apostolo, etc. We read in the Apostle. In other tongues and lips will I speak to this people, and neither so shall they hear me, saith the Lord. Which seemeth to me to be taken out of this present chapter, according to the Hebrew. And this we have observed in the old Testament, except a few testimonies which only Luke useth otherwise, which had knowledge of the Greek tongue rather, wheresoever any thing is said out of the old Testament, that they set it not according to the 70. but according to the Hebrew, following the translation of no man, but turning the sense of the Hebrew into their own speech. You see that Jerome saith nothing particularly, & that which he saith generally, concerneth this place nothing at all. And very like it is, that this corruption was not crept into S. Luke's text in his time, especially seeing neither S. Ambrose in his commentary upon S. Luke, once toucheth this controversy, as he doth all other questions about that Genealogy. Where you say S. Jerome was a great patron of the Hebrew, not without cause, being at that time perhaps the Hebrew verity in deed. It is without perhaps, or peradventure, that not one jot, or prick of the law of God can perish, by the testimony of our Saviour Christ, Math. 5. And if you will believe Arias Montanus, an excellent learned Papist, he will tell you as much, out of the same text doubtless, in his Preface unto the great Bible by him set out, with diligent observation of all the Accents & Hebrew points, which Christ (saith he) will never suffer to perish. And if the Hebrew verity were in Hieronyms' time (as doubtless it was) whether he had a perfect copy thereof, or no, the same Arias Montanus testifieth, if you dare credit him, being one of your sect, for opinion, though in sincerity of mind, and love of the truth, which I pray to God to reveal unto him, I think him far better than a number of you: he (I say) affirmeth in the same Preface, against the objection that is made of the jews corruption of the Hebrew books: Etenim apud nonnull. for we read in some authors that through the fraud and impulsion of the spirit of error, some of the nation of the jews in times past were brought to that point of insolency, or madness, that in the beginning of the Christian church, they changed some words, which might altogether break of that their contention of oppugning the Christian verity: But those places so defiled by them, were very few, and in the books of our writers, and also in the copies, both printed & written of the jews themselves, are all for the most partnoted, and showed out. For although either by the fraud of those men, or by the ignorance of the book writers, or by injury of the times, some change hath been made in the Hebrew books, which we use, yet is there not one word, nor one letter, nor point that is mentioned to have been of old time, which is not found to have been safely kept, in that most rich treasury, which they call the Mazzoreth. For in that, as in an holy and faithful custody, appointed with uttermost diligence, and great study, the remnants, monuments, tokens, steps, and examples of the ancient reading, are all contained, and the way how to compare the old and new reading is showed: of which truly, being compared together, a very certain way is extant, to the prescript rule whereof, the holy mysteries may be showed forth, examples whereof sometime in this work, in due place, and else where also, with God's help, we will set forth. Thus far Arias Montanus, whose judgement if you say you are not bound to follow, yet I suppose you can yield no sufficient reason, why you should not credit his testimony, concerning the certainty of the Hebrew verity, remaining to this day, and which shall remain to the worlds end, although all the smatterers among you, would braced for spite against it. Concerning the opinion of them, which think that Moses might leave out Cainan, in the genealogy of Sem, by the same spirit that Matthew left out three kings in the genealogy of our Saviour. I answer, if it be lawful so to imagine, we may without study answer all controversies, although the same reason is not of Moses compiling a certain account of the time, from the flood to the calling of Abraham, and of Matthew, showing by the legal descent, which every man might take out of the books of Kings and Chronicles, that Christ was the son of David, and therefore he was not bound to the number of successors, seeing for memory, it was his purpose to recite but thrice fourteen generations. That Beda marveleth at the doubt, which he could not dissolve, his modesty is to be commended, rather than his knowledge. Nevertheless, the same Beda, in his preface unto his retractation upon the Acts of the Apostles, speaking of such difference, as he found in the Greek text of the Acts, from the Latin, he saith: Quae utrum negligentia interpretis omissa, etc. Which things, whether they were omitted through negligence of the Interpreter, or otherwise uttered, or for lack of regard of the writers depraved, or otherwise left, as yet we could not know. For I dare not so much as suspect, that the Greek copy was falsified: wherefore I admonish the Reader, that wheresoever we have done these things, he read them for his learning: yet that he interlace them not in his book, as places corrected except perhaps he shall find the same in some Latin book of a peculiar edition, to have been of old so interpreted. This place showeth that in Bedes time, there were more Latin translations than one, & that the vulgar Latin was not of such authority, but that it might be corrected by the Greek, with the consent of other ancient Latin translations. Likewise upon the text in question, Lib. 1. in Luc. cap. 3. he confesseth that the name & generation of Cainan, according to the Hebrew verity, is found neither in Genesis, nor in the Chronicles: saying that S. Luke took this generation from the edition of the Septuaginta. But whether is the truer, or whether both can be true, he leaveth it to the knowledge of God. Noting that whereas according to the Hebrew verity, from the flood to the birth of Abraham, there were but 292. years, the 70. make 1077. so that the difference is no less than of 785. years. But to favour this fact of Beza, in putting out the name of Cainan, there is an ancient copy of the Gospels & Acts in Greek and Latin, of as great antiquity by all likelihood, as any copy this day extant in Christendom, sent unto the University of Cambridge this last year, by Beza himself, there to be kept in the common library, in which copy, this generation of Cainan, both in the Greek, & in the Latin, is clean left out, even as Beza hath done in his translation. So that he hath not only the authority of Moses, which of itself is sufficient, but also the testimony of this most ancient book, both for the Greek & for the Latin, to approve his fact in putting out Qui fuit Cainan. What your vulgar latin translation hath left out in the later end of the lords prayer in S. Matthew, and in the beginning and midst in S. Luke, whereby that heavenly prayer is made unperfect, not comprehending all things that a Christian man ought to pray for, beside many other like omissions, whether of purpose, or of negligence, and injury of time, yet still by you defended, I spare to speak of in this place.    

MART. 23. Which also may be proved by all their false 
The 5. abuse of Scriptures, Corrupt translation. which is the argument & purpose of this book.  translations (being the principal point I mean to speak of) most evidently. For as now they translate falsely to their purpose, because they can not alter the text: so would they, if it were possible, have the text agreeable to their translation. For example, he that translateth, ordinances, when it is in the original Greek text, justifications, and, traditions, he would rather that it were, ordinances, also in the Greek: but because he can not bring that about, he doth at the least what he can, to make the ignorant believe it is so, by so translating it.  

FULK. 23. You shall never be able to prove by any translation of ours (though perhaps in some we may err,) that we have any purpose, either to falsify the truth, or to change the text though it were possible for us. In translating we have dealt with a good conscience, albeit not always peradventure, we have attained to the full truth, which in translating out of one tongue into another, is a very hard point thoroughly to observe. Your example of ordinances translated, for that which in the Greek is justifications and tradition, when you show where, and by whom it is so translated, you shall receive an answer. In the mean time, (I say) a translator that hath regard to interpret for the ignorant people's instruction, may sometimes departed from the etymology, or common signification or precise turning of word for word, and that for diverse causes. You yourselves translate not Ecclesia, always the Church, but sometimes the assembly, nor Seniores, Elders, but Seniors, or ancients. Neither would you translate Presbyter, always a priest, if you translated the old Testament. In the story of Susanna, you would not call them Priests, that laid wait for her honesty and life: yet in your vulgar Latin, they are called Priests. So are they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, in the new Testament, which you turn sometimes Priests, sometimes ancients, and sometimes Seniors.    

MART. 24. And this of all other is the most fine and subtle treachery against the Scriptures, to deceive the ignorant readers withal, (which S. Paul calleth the secret things of 
2. Cor. 4.  dishonesty, and adulterating of the word of God, as it were mingling water with wine like false vintner's) when they give them for God's word, & under the name of God's word, their own words, and not Gods, forged and framed, altered and changed, according to differences of times, and variety of new opinions, and diversity of humours and spirits, diversly and differently, 
The Heretics dissension about their translations. Dial cont. Melan. Lind. dubit pag. 84. ●6. ●8. c See Zuing resp ●. and Confess. Tigurinorum.  one Heretic not only correcting his fellow every day, but one eagerly refuting and refelling an other. Bucer, and the Osiandrians and c Sacramentaries against Luther for false translations: Luther against Munster, Beza against Castaleo, Castaleo against Beza, Calvin against servetus, Illyricus both against Calvin and Beza: The Puritans control the grosser Caluinists of our country, yea the later translations of the self same Heretics, control the former exceedingly, not only of oversights, but of wilful falsifications, as it is notorious in the 
* Ibid. pag. 83. 97.  later editions of Luther and Beza, and in our English Bibles set forth in diverse years, from tindal their first translator until this day: yea (which is more) the English translators 
The new Test of the year 1580.  of beza's new Testament, control him and his translation which they protest to follow, 
* Luc. 3. 36.  being afraid sometime and ashamed to express in English his false translations in the Latin.  

FULK. 24. By false translations wilfully and of purpose to falsify the truth of God's word is as gross & as abominable treachery, as to corrupt the very text, although I think S. Paul speaking of the covertures, or cloaks of dishonesty, and adultering of the word of God 2. Cor. 4. meaneth a further cunning, than false translations. That those whom you call heretics find fault with one an others translations, they do none otherwise, than you Popish heretics. Do not you Gregory Martin, in the 7. chapter and 33. section of this book find fault with all the Catholics as you term them, that translate Sheol, Sepulchrum, a sepulchre, and not always 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  hell? If Bucer, or Zwinglius do justly observe any error in Luther, or Luther in Munster, or Beza in Castalio the Anabaptist, or Caluine in servetus the horrible heretic, yea and if froward & schismatical Illyricus can discover any error committed by Caluine, and Beza: the truth loseth nothing, when the errors of men are found out by what means soever. That you speak of the Puritans, controlling the grosser calvinists of our country, I know not what you mean, neither do I think you can justify your words, for translation of the Scriptures. Where you say, the later translations of the self same heretics control the former exceedingly, not only of oversights, but of wilful falsifications, it is a wilful and impudent slander: yet you blush not to say, it is notorious. How I pray you? You answer in the later editions of Luther and Beza, and in our English Bibles set forth in diverse years, from Tyndall their first translator. That Luther, Beza, and the later translators of the English Bibles have corrected some small faults that have escaped in their former editions, it may be granted. But do Luther, and Beza therefore accuse themselves, or the later English translators the former, of wilful falsifications? I think those brute beasts, to whom Ambrose ascribeth the 
Hexam. lib. 6. cap. 4.  art of making syllogisms (if they could speak) would not conclude thus brutishly. Certain it is that balaam's ass did reason substantially. But much more you say the English translators of beza's new Testament, do control him and his translation, being sometimes afraid and ashamed to express his false translations. If it be so, they are more modest than you, which seem to be afraid, or ashamed of nothing so much, as lest you might seem to fail in unshamefastness. But to the purpose. If they think Beza (as all men may err) hath somewhat trodden awry, is it a fault to avoid his step, or a proud controlling or accusing him of falsification? Nevertheless wherein soever Luther, Beza, or the English translators, 
De doct. Christ. lib. 2. c●p. 11.  have reform any of their former oversights, the matter is not so great, that it can make an heresy. Yea, if you were of Saint Augustine's judgement you would acknowledge that the multitude and diversity of translations, is for the benefit of them that be ignorant in the tongues, yea & of them also, that be learned in them oftentimes, that of diverse men's translations, they may judge which is the aptest.    

MART. 25. But in this Catalogue of dissensions falsifiers and disagreeing translators, I will not greatly rip up old 
Act. 1. 14. & 2: 23. Act. 3. 21. The Germane, French, and English corruptions of the new Testament.  faults, neither abroad, nor at home. I leave Luther's false translations into the german tongue, to the credit of Staphylus, Apolog. part. 2. and Emserus, praef. Annot. in no. Test. Luth. and other german writers of his own time, that saw them & read them, and reckoned the number of them in the new Testament only, about 
* See Lind. Dubit. p. 84. 85. etc.  1400. heretical corruptions: I leave calvin's and Bezas french corruptions, to so many worthy men as 
* Vigour and the rest.  have noted them in their french books against the said heretics: Tindals' and his companions corruptions in their first English Bible, to our learned countrymen of that age, and namely to the right reverend Father and Confessor Bishop Tonstal, who in a sermon openly protested, that he had found in the new Testament only, no less than two thousand. If we know it not, or will not believe it, 
* Lind. Dub. p. 98.  strangers in their Latin writings testify it to the world.  

FULK. 25. We are much beholding to you, that you will not rip up old faults abroad, nor at home: and leave Luther's Dutch translation with a 1400. heretical corruptions in the new Testament only, with Caluins & beza's French corruptions noted by Vigour, and the rest. Also Tyndals & his companions corruptions in their first English Bible, in whose translation of the new Testament Bishop Tonstal professed openly in a sermon that he found no less than 2000 corruptions. This you know he protested with the same tongue, with which he forswore the Pope, & swore to the king's supremacy, and with which he preached a solemn sermon, which is in print before the King, against the Pope's usurped tyranny, pride, false doctrine, covetousness, cruelty, treason, perverting of Scriptures, as in the same Sermon more at large it appeareth: and therefore we need not Lindanus writing to testify of his credit. But thanks be to God that when you have scraped all that unto you seemed to have any show of corruption, you can not find 200. faults in the translation of the whole Bible, nor in three several translations of the same, which points you are feign to dilate, with such vain tautologies, and repetitions, that all learned men are ashamed of your tedious writing and yet to make your book to be of some tolerable length, you had no better shift, than to note a sort of beza's corruptions in his Latin Testament. Who if you would write against him in Latin, any thing worth the noting, would thank you for your pains. and reform his errors, but if you brought nothing but cavils, would so shake you up, as you should have small joy of your insolent invective: but you provided well for that, by writing against a Frenchman, in English. And as for the number of errors, or coruptions that you would have the ignorant believe to be in our English translations, you think is so great, as must needs make the simple abhor it. But look homeward a little unto your authentical vulgar Latin translation, how many faults be in that, which your Tridentine Council hath authorized. And here I will not charge it with the adversaries thereof, as you do ours; but with great friends of it, and your doctrine. Lindanus Bishop of Ruremonde, and Isidorus Clarius Monk of Casine, and Bishop Fulginatensis, of which the former writeth a whole book, discussing how he would have 
De opt. Gen. interpr. lib. 3.  the errors, vices, corruptions, additions, detractions, mutations, uncertaynties, obscurities, pollutions, barbarisms, and soelecismes of the vulgar Latin translation corrected and reform: bringing many examples of every kind, in several chapters and sections. The other Isidorus Clarius giving 
In his Epistle to the reader printed at Venice apud juntas. ●557.  a reason of his purpose in castigation of the said vulgar Latin translation, confesseth that it was full of errors, almost innumerable, which if he should have reform all according to the Hebrew verity, he could not have set forth the vulgar edition, as his purpose was. Therefore in many places he retaineth the accustomed tanslation, but in his annotations admonisheth the reader, how it is in the Hebrew. And notwithstanding this moderation, he acknowledgeth that about 8000. places are by him so noted & corrected. This Epistle the Deputies of the Council of Trent could not abide, and therefore in the later edition of this Bible, set forth with observation of their censure 1569. it is clean left out, as also a godly collection of the same Isidorus, of places of Scripture, exhorting to the study of holy Scripture, and a like sound confession of those things which the Scriptures teach, etc.    

MART. 26. But I omit these as unknown to our country, 
The author's intent in this book.  or to this age, and will deal principally with the English translations of our time, which are in every man's hands within our country, the corruptions whereof, as they are partly touched here and there in the annotations upon the late new English Testament catholicly translated and printed at Rheims so by occasion thereof, I will by God's help, to the better commodity of the Reader, and evidence of the thing, lay them closer together, and more largely display them, not counting the number, because it were hard, but esteeming the weight and importance of so many as I thought good to note, specially in the new Testament. Where I have to advertise the Reader of certain special things, which he must observe.  

FULK. 26. You should rather omit them as untrue, for albeit it can not be denied, but some faults may escape the most faithful and diligent translator, yet so many heretical corruptions, either in the Dutch, or English are incredible, and turn rather to the discredit of the accuser in all wise men's judgement, than to the parties so charged. In like manner as Surius noteth no less than 11000. lies in Sleidan, more to his own reproach, than to the defacing of Sleidans' credit. You profess wisely therefore, not to count the number, but to esteem the weight and importance of such faults as you thought good to note: if there were as great faithfulness in your performance, as there is wisdom in your profession. But now to your nine advertisements to the Reader.    

MART. 27. First, that in this book he may not look for 
Certain advertisements to the Reader.  the proof or explication and deciding of controversies, Which is done in the Annotations upon the new Testament, but only therefuting or controlling of their false translations concerning the said controversies, which is the peculiar argument of this treatise.  

FULK. 27. I think their is no wise reader would look for the deciding of so many controversies in so small a book, & he that shall seek them in your Annotations, shall find even as little to the purpose, except he will take your determination without proof for a sufficient decision. As for the doctors you quote without judgement, fraudulently, falsely, truncately, and otherwise abusively, have all or the most been answered long ago. And if need shall be, with little labour may be answered again.    

MART. 28. Secondly, that we refu●e sometime one of their translations, sometime an other, and every one as their falsehood giveth occasio. Neither is it a good defence for the falsehood of one, that it is truly translated in an other: the reader being deceived by any one, because commonly he readeth but one. Yea one of them is a condemnation of the other.  

FULK. 28. That showeth your malice, rather than either wisdom or honesty. For if we ourselves in our later translations, have corrected some small and few errors, that have overslipped us in our former translations, we have showed our sincerity and care of setting out the truth by all means. And where you say, it is no good defence, the reader being deceived by any one, because commonly he readeth but one. I answer you, first there is not in the worst translation any fault escaped, that may of itself lead him into a damnable error. Secondly, he hath the word of God expounded, by catechizing, sermons, & lectures, in which he may learn the substance of Christian religion. Thirdly, he hath at hand every where learned Divines, unto whose counsel he may resort, if he be offended with any thing that he readeth in his Bible, sounding contrary to the publicly received doctrine of the Church. In that you say the one of our translations condemneth the other, it had been sufficient to have said, reproveth: which is only, where there is a manifest error in the one: for otherwise the diversities of translations (as S. Augustin teacheth you) may much profit the simple readers: & they that be diligent students of the Scriptures in the English tongue, will not satisfy themselves with every translation, but will seek for the best approved.    

MART. 29. Thirdly, that we speak indifferently against Protestants, Caluinists, Bezites, and Puritans, without any curious distinction of them, being all among themselves brethren and pewfellows, & sometime the one sort of them, sometime the other, more or less corrupting the holy Scriptures.  

FULK. 29. A wise advertisement. But this is to be noted, that now you acknowledge them to be all brethren among themselves, and pewfellows. But when you list, they shall be at deadly feud one against an other, and no community or fellowship between them.    

MART. 30. Fourthly, that we give but a taste of their corruptions, not seeing so far, nor marking all so narrowly and skilfully, as themselves know their own subtleties & meanings, who will smile at the places which we have not espied.  

FULK. 30. He that considereth your quarrels picked to words of one signification, as Church & Congregation, justice and righteousness, Elder and Priest, Image and Idol, works and deeds, and such like, will not think that you have passed over any great matters worth the writing of: but that you would set a vain brag of the case, as though there were much worse matter, than you have wit to conceive. Yet you say confidently, that we as guilty of our own subtleties and meanings, will smile at the places which you have not espied. You are like to those soothsayers mentioned in Tully, of whom one said, that he marveled, if when they met together, one of them did not smile upon another, because they deluded the city, & got themselves much honour with such vain superstitions. So you being newly become, subtle and partial translator, think other men to be like yourselves. But even as the head of your Church once jested with his Cardinal, how great wealth & honour that fable of Christ (so the beast called the Christian religion) had brought them: even so you his lewd limbs, make sport among yourself of the holy word of God, which you have corrupted, somewhat with your blind translations, but much more with your heretical Annotations. So said your great friend Campion, in open audience, that he could make as good sport upon the incarnation of Christ. According to your own affection therefore you judge of us, and not according to the truth, as the day will try, when the secrets of all hearts shall be made manifest.    

MART. 31. Fifthly, that the very use and affectation of certain terms, and avoiding other some, though it be no demonstration against them, but that they may seem to defend it for true translation, yet was it necessary to be noted, because it is and hath been always a token of heretical meaning.  

FULK. 31. When our translation is true, I doubt not but we shall defend the use of some terms, and the avoiding of other some, by as good reason, as you shall defend the like in your translations, especially where you affect new terms unused, or not understood, and avoid common and usual terms of the same signification, as Euangelizing for preaching the Gospel, aduent of Christ, for the coming of Christ, scandalising, for offending, scandal, for offence, etc. Which if it be, as you say, always a token of heretical meaning, first pluck yourself by the nose, and then see if we can not defend our doings.    

MART. 32. Sixtly, that in explicating these things, we have endeavoured to avoid (as much as was possible) the tediousness of Greek and Hebrew words, which are only for the learned in these tongues, and which made some little doubt whether this matter (which of necessity must be examined by them) were to be written in English or no. But being persuaded by those (who themselves have no skill in the said tongues) that every reader might reap commodity thereby, to the understanding and detesting of such false & Heretical translations, it was thought good to make it vulgar and common to all our dear country men, as the new Testament itself is common, whereof this Discovery is as it were a handmaid, attending thereupon for the larger explication and proof of corruptions there brie●ly touched, and for supply of other some not there mentioned.  

FULK. 32. He that seethe your margin painted with Greek and Hebrew words, in so many places, may guess whether it were possible for you to have avoided the tediousness of them, when in diverse places the Greek and Hebrew words are set without all need of them, and sometimes where there is no controversy about them: as in the 5. section of this Preface, where you show the corruptions of the Arrians and Pelagians, and in the 19 section, where you would show the difference of the new Testament from the old, in citing of testimonies. But the Hebrew word in the Psalm 21. or 22. which you falsely say, signifieth no such thing, as piercing, you set not down, lest your falsehood by them that have skill, might be convinced. And if you had cared as much to find out the truth as to show your skill in both the tongues, you would have written in Latin, especially against Beza, which never wrote in English. And vain it is that you pretend to make the matter common to your dear countrymen, that be unlearned, for the judgement must rest in them that have knowledge in the tongues, albeit you had written in Latin. It is all one therefore to the unlearned, as if you had only said, there are many faults or corruptions, which in a Latin book shall be discovered to the judgement of the learned▪ seeing the ignorant can not understand your demonstrations.    

MART. 33. Seventhly, that all the English corruptions here noted, and refuted, are either in all or some of their English Bibles printed in these years, 1562. 1577. 1579. And if the corruption be in one Bible, not in an other, commonly the said Bible or Bibles are noted in the margin: if not, yet sure it is, that it is in one of them, and so the Reader shall find it if he find it not always in his own Bible. And in this case the Reader must be very wise and circumspect, that he think not by and by we charge them falsely, because they can show him some later edition that hath it not so as we say. For it is their common and known fashion, not only in their translations of the Bible, but in their other books and writings, to alter and change, add & put out, in their later editions, according as either themselves are ashamed of the former, or their scholars that print them again, dissent and disagree from their Masters. So hath Luther's, Caluins, and beza's writings and translations been changed both by themselves, and their scholars, in many places, so that Catholic men when they confute that which they find evident faults in this or that edition, fear nothing more than that the Reader hath some other edition, where they are corrected for very shame, and so may conceive that there is no such thing, but that they are accused wrongfully. For example. Call to mind the late pretended conference in the Tower, where that matter 
Touching S. james Epistle.  was denied and faced out for Luther's credit, by some one book or edition of his, which themselves, and all the world knoweth, was most truly laid to his charge.  

FULK. 33. First this is untrue, for some you have noted in the new Testament, printed 1580. Secondly, it is uncertain, for two of these translations might be printed in one year, and so I think they were. Therefore I know not well which you mean, but I guess that the Bible 1562. is that which was of Doctor Coverdales' translation, most used in the Church service in King Edward's time. The Bible 1577. I take to be that, which being revised by diverse Bishops, was first printed in the large volume, and authorized for the Churches, about ten or twelve years ago. That of 1579. I know not what translation it be, except it be the same that was first printed at Geneva, in the beginning of the Queen's majesties Reign. And this conjecture as the fittest I can make, I must follow, seeing your note of distinction, is as good, as that fond fellows, that would know his masters horse by the bridle.  
But it is a common and known fashion, you say, used of us, that not only in translations, but in other books and writings of ours, we altar and change, add, and put to in our later editions. And who useth not so to do, if by later cogitations, that often are wiser, he find any thing meet to be changed? Do not you Papists use the same? Is Bristow'S chapter of obedience in his motives, nothing altered from the high treason contained in the first edition? Is nothing added, taken away, or changed in your jesus Psalter, in any of your editions, or are you yourselves ashamed of the former? Or have your scholars presumed to alter their masters writings? If you may have an evasion in these cases, I trust we are not so penned in, but we may change our own writings without shame of the former, or corruption in the later. As for the example of S. james Epistle, denied (as you say) and faced out for Luther's credit, will serve you for no proof. For so far off is it, that we, or the world do know, that is was most truly laid to his charge: that now we know of a certainty, that it was a very slander, as false, as it was common: seeing Luther's words of that Epistle, are not absolute, but in comparison, as is confessed by you, and found by some of us to be none otherwise in deed, who have not stood upon one only book or edition, but upon as many as they could come by, both in the Latin, and in the Dutch tongue.    

MART. 34. Eightly, in citing Beza, I mean always (unless I note otherwise) his Latin translation of the new Testament, with his annotations adjoined thereunto, printed in the year 1556.  

FULK. 34. You were afraid, lest they that understood not Latin, for whose sake you wrote in English this treatise, might take hurt by beza's translations, and annotations in Latin. And if he himself have espied, and corrected any thing of his first edition, that was either 
In his later edition 156●. he hath Qu● fuit Caina●●, both in the Greek & in the vulgar Latin.  faulty or offensive, in his two later editions, with great equity, as though you were the only man that had discovered his errors, you must let all the unlearned in England know, what shameful corruptions, you have observed in beza's translation, or annotations.    

MART. 35. Lastly and principally is to be noted, that 
We charge them not with forsaking the old approved Latin text, though it be an ill sign, and to their evident confusion.  we will not charge them with falsifying that which in deed is the true and authentical Scripture, I mean the vulgar Latin Bible, which so many years hath been of so great authority in the Church of God, and with all the ancient fathers of the Latin Church, as is declared in the Preface of the new Testament: though it is much to be noted, that as Luther, only in favour of his heresies, did wilfully forsake it, so the rest followed, and do follow him at this day, for no other cause in the world, but that it is against them. And therefore they inveigh against it, and against the holy Council of Trent, for confirming the 
Kemnitius. Calvin.  authority thereof, both in their special treatises thereof, and in all their writings, where they can take any occasion.  

FULK. 35. In the margin, You will not charge us with forsaking the old approved Latin text, though it be an ill sign, and to our evident confusion. S. Augustine, though a mere Latin man, whom you yourself do after confess to have understood but one tongue well, and that was even his mother tongue, learned (as he confesseth) of his nurses, is not so addicted to the Latin translation, but that he would have men to seek to the Hebrew, and Greek fountains, which you like a blasphemous hypocrite deny to be the true, and authentical Scriptures in deed: allowing only the vulgar Latin translation, as though neither the Churches of Greece, Syria, Armenia, Aethiopia, nor any other in the world, which have not the vulgar Latin, had not the true and authentical Scriptures. And though your vulgar Latin hath for many years been of great authority in the Latin Church, from the time when the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek tongues have decayed: yet is it utterly false, that you say that it hath been of great authority with all the fathers of the Latin Church: whereas there is not one that lived within 400. years after Christ, that knew it, but almost every one followed a several translation. And S. Augustine in the place before cited, telleth you, that there were innumerable translations out of the Greek into the Latin. Again that your vulgar Latin, is full of many errors, and corruptions, I have showed by the confession of Isidorus Clarius, and Lindanus two of your own profession: of which the one took pains by the Hebrew and Greek to correct it, the other showed means how it should be corrected. And where you say that Luther and his followers forsook it for none other cause in the world, but that it is against them, it is utterly untrue. For beside that they have made clear demonstration of many palpable errors therein, (which they that have any forehead amongst you cannot deny.) they have and do daily convince you of horrible heresies, even out of your own corrupt vulgar translation. Finally whosoever shall read what Caluine and Kemnitius have written against the Council of Trent, for auctorizing that translation, shall plainly see, that they had something else to allege against it, which nothing at all concerneth their opinions, that be contrary to the Popish heresy.    

MART. 36. And concerning their wilful and heretical avoiding thereof in their new translations, what greater argument can there be than this, that Luther, who before always had read with the Cath. Church and with all antiquity, these words of S. Paul, Have not we power to lead about A 
1. Cor. 9 Mulierem sororem. 2. Pet. 1.  WOMAN A SISTER, as also the rest of the Apostles? and in S. Peter, these words, Labour that BY GOOD WORKS you may make sure your vocation and election: suddenly, after he had contrary to his profession taken a wife (as he called her) and preached that all other votaries might do the same, and that faith only justified, good works were not necessary to salvation: suddenly (I say) after he fell to these heresies, he began to read and translate the former Scriptures accordingly, thus: Have not we power to lead about a SISTER A WIFE, as the rest of the Apostles? and, Labour that you may make sure your vocation and election: leaving out the other words, by good works. And so do both the Caluinists abroad, and our English Protestant's at home read and translate at this day, because they hold the self same heresies.  

FULK. 36. If their be no greater argument, as you confess there can be none, that their avoiding of this vulgar Latin is wilful and heretical, than this, that Luther defended his marriage being a votary, by that text of 1. Corinth. 9 wherein the Apostle challengeth power to lead about with him a sister to wife, which your text hath Mulierem sororem a woman a sister. And that to prove that faith only justifieth and good works are not necessary to salvation, he left out of the text of S. Peter good works, by which the Apostle exhorteth us to make sure unto ourselves our vocation, & election: there is none argument at all of wilful, needless, or heretical a●oyding. For although the marriage of ecclesiastical ministers generally is proved by that Scripture: yet the marriage of votaries specially, is nothing confirmed. And for the marriage of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, your own translation of 1. Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. both Latin and English will warrant them to be the husbands of one wife, so that every child may see, that he needed not for that purpose, to corrupt the text, 1. Cor. 9 And as for the other texts, 2. Pet. 1. although this word, (by good works,) is not expressed in the most Greek copies, yet the whole circumstance of the place giveth it necessarily to be understood, and yet it maketh nothing against justification by faith only. For our election which is most certain & immutable in God's determination, is made certainly known unto us by good works, the fruits of justifying faith, even as the effects do necessarily prove the cause gone before. And so doth Thomas Mathewes Bible note: likewise the Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible, for so I had rather call them, than by the years in which they were once printed, which have been often printed, and perhaps all in some one year. Coverdales' Bible also addeth these words by good works, which is red in some Greek copies. So true it is that you say, we leave it out, because we hold the self same heresy: As likewise that you slander us to hold, that good works are not necessary to salvation, whereas we believe that good works are as necessary to salvation, as faith, in all them that are justified by faith only. But because you are not able to withstand the truth which we believe, you feign odious Monsters, as Dragons, Centaurs, Hydra's to fight withal before the people, that you might get the praise of glorious conquerors: like S. George on horseback, that in a pageant vanquisheth an hideous dragon made of paper or painted clothes.    

MART. 37. So do they in infinite places alter the old text, which pleased them well before they were Heretics, and they do it with brazen faces, and plain protestation, having no shame nor remorse at all, in fleeing from that which all antiquity with one consent allowed and embraced until their unhappy days. Which though it be an evident condemnation of their novelties in the sight of any reasonable man that hath any grace: yet as I began to admonish thee (gentle Reader) we will not charge them for altering the ancient approved Latin translation, because they pretend to follow the Hebrew and Greek, and our purpose is not here, to prove that they should not follow the Hebrew and Greek that now is, before the ancient approved Latin text, which is done briefly already in the preface to the new Testament.  

FULK. 37. You were afraid belike to be overmatched in railing, and therefore you thought to bear us down at once, with a whole flood of reproachful slanders, and that you utter even with the same face, with which you affirm, that all antiquity with one consent allowed and embraced your vulgar Latin text: for what else you should mean I cannot conjecture, seeing you say afterward you will not charge us for altering the ancient approved Latin translation. What say you Martin? doth all antiquity with one consent allow and embrace your vulgar Latin translation? What is the cause then that the most of all antiquity of the Latin Church used not your vulgar Latin text? or dare you join issue with me, that all the Latin doctors for 400 years after Christ, used none other Latin translation but that? or that they all knew your vulgar Latin translation: you are never able to prove it. The 70. translation in deed was greatly esteemed, and almost generally received in the Greek and Latin Churches, and out of it were innumerable Latin versions, as S. Augustine affirmeth. But your vulgar Latin followeth it not in many places, as it were easy to show, if time and occasion served, and I suppose you will not deny. As for the reasons you bring in the Preface to the new Testament, to prove that we should not follow the Hebrew and Greek that now is, before that ancient approved text, when they come to be considered it shall appear how vain and frivolous they are. But as for the Hebrew and Greek that now is, may easily be proved to be the same that always hath been, neither is their any diversity in sentence, how soever some copies either through negligence of the writer, or by any other occasion do vary from that which is commonly and most generally received in some letters, syllables, or words.    

MART. 38. Neither will we burden them, for not following 
We charge them not with forsaking the Greek copies that agree with the ancient approved Latin text, though this be a sign of their incredible partiality.  the vulgar Latin text, when the same agreeth with most ancient Greek copies: which notwithstanding is great partiality in them, & must needs be of an heretical wilful humour, that among the Greek copies themselves, they reject that which most agreeth with the vulgar Latin text, in places of controversies: Yet will we not I say, neither in this case, lay falsehood and corruption to their charge, because they pretend to translate the common Greek text of the new Testament, that is, one certain copy. But here at the least let them show their fidelity, and that they be true and exact translators. For here only shall they be examined and called to account.  

FULK. 38. In translation we follow the common usual and printed copies, as you do in your translation, and yet you know there be as many, yea ten times as many diverse readings in the Latin, as are in the Greek: witness hereof the Bible printed at Antwerp, by Christopher Plantine 1567. of Hentenius castigation: where the margins almost of every leaf be full of diverse readings obelisks, asterisks, stigmates, signifying the variety that is in many copies, by adding, detracting, changing.  
The same is confessed by Arias Montanus. 
In apparat. Bibl. De opt. Gen. interpret. sc. lib. 3.   
Lindanus likewise acknowledgeth as much.  
Of that which you say we reject that which best agreeth with the vulgar Latin in places of controversy, you bring none example. But that among your diverse readings, you reject that which agreeth best with the Hebrew and with the Greek in places of controversy. I will give you an example. Gen. 3 v. ●5. where the Hebrew truth teacheth, that the seed of the woman shall break the serpent's head, and the Greek translateth the pronoun in the masculine gender (he) meaning Christ: and some ancient copies of your vulgar Latin have (ipse) you nevertheless follow that blasphemous corruption, that in these later times hath been received in your vulgar Latin Bibles, and read still in your text ipsa, she, which though you would wrest blasphemously to the virgin Marie, which is proper to Christ, can not by the circumstance of the place be aptly referred to any but to Eue.    

MART. 39 And if they follow sincerely their Greeke 
We charge them for forsaking & false translating their own Hebrew & Greek text.  and Hebrew text, which they profess to follow, and which they esteem the only authentical text, so far we accuse them not of heretical corruption. But if it shall be evidently proved, that they shrink from the same also, and translate an other thing, and that wilfully, and of full intention to countenance their false religion and wicked opinions, making the Scriptures to speak as they list: then we trust, the indifferent reader for his own soul's sake, will easily see and conclude, that they have no fear of God, no reverence of the Scriptures, no conscience to deceive their readers: he will perceive that the Scriptures make against them, which they so pervert and corrupt for their purpose: that neither the Hebrew nor Greek text is for them, which they dare not translate truly and sincerely: that their cause is nought, which needeth such f●ule shifts: that they must needs know all this, and therefore do wilfully against their conscience, and consequently are obstinate heretics.  

FULK. 39 We crave no pardon, if it can be proved that we have wilfully translated an other thing than is contained in the Hebrew and Greek, to maintain any false religion or wicked opinion. Provided always, that if any translator, or all the translators, have ignorantly erred in misunderstanding any word or phrase of the Hebrew or Greek text, that if it may be plainly showed unto them, they acknowledging the fault, they may not be charged with heretical corruption, from which it is certain, their intention was most free.    

MART. 40. And the more to understand their misery and wretchedness, before we enter to examine their translations, mark and gather of all that which I have said in this Preface, their manifold flight's and jumps, from one shift to an other, and how Catholic writers have pursued and chased them, and followed them, & driven them even to this extreme refuge & silly covert of false translation, where also they must of necessity yield, or devise some new evasion, which we can not yet imagine.  

FULK. 40. Hitherto I hope the indifferent reader will confess, that you have driven us to no jumps, nor shifts, but only uttered your own malicious and unlearned quarrels. And how Popish writers have pursued and chased us to extreme refuge, and silly covert of false translation, let it appear by the learned answers of M. jewel, M. Horn, M. Nowell, M. Bridges, M. Calfhill, and others, that I speak nothing of mine own simple labours, who being one of the meanest, having confuted ten or twelve of your Popish treatises, can receive no reply of any man, but only of poor Bristol: to whom in this respect, I confess myself more beholding, than to all the Papists beside, saving that I have rejoined to him almost two years ago, and yet I hear not of his answer.    

MART. 41. First we are wont to make this offer (as we 
The diverse shifts and flights that the Protestants are driven unto by the Catholics, as it were the jumps and turnings of an hare before the hounds.  think) most reasonable and indifferent: that forasmuch as the Scriptures are diversely expounded of us & of them, they neither be tied to our interpretation, nor we to theirs, but to put it to the arbitrement & judgement of the ancient fathers, of general Counsels, of universal custom of times and places in the Catholic Church, No, say they, we will be our own judges and interpreters, or follow Luther, if we be Lutherans: Calvin, if we be Caluinists: and so forth.  

FULK. 41. For expounding of the Scriptures, we will not refuse the arbitrement and judgement of the ancient fathers, of general Counsels, of universal custom of times, and places in the Catholic church, for this you say is your offer, which was never refused of us, though you most falsely affirm, that we say we will be our own judges, and interpreters, or follow Luther, if we be Lutherans: Caluine, if we be calvinists, etc. Who ever said so, you shameless sclau●derer? What have you differing from us? Wherein you have the judgement of the ancient fathers, of general Counsels, of universal custom, of times and places in the Catholic church? Unless perhaps you mean some wretched sophistry, by disjoining these that you here seem to join together. And if you so do, we must first ask you, whether you yourselves in all expositions of the Scriptures, will stand to the arbitrement of every ancient father, or of every general Council, or of any custom in any time or place. I know and you can not deny it, that you will stand to nothing, that is not allowed by your Pope, though fathers, counsels, custom, time or place, or all the world be against it, yea the manifest Scripture, which is so plain that it needeth no exposition: as the commandment against images in religion. Theodoret, Gelasius, Vigilius, Chrysostom, against transubstantiation, Epiphanius against images, the sixth council of Constantinople for condemning the Pope of heresy, the counsels of Constance and Basil for deposing the Popes, and decreeing, that the council is above the Pope & many other like matters beside, in which you go clearly from the consent of all antiquity for 600. years, as the Bishop of Sarum hath made plain demonstration, and you are not able to reply.    

MART. 42. This being of itself a shameless shift, unless it be better coloured, the next is to say, that the Scriptures are easy and plain and sufficient of themselves to determine every matter, and therefore they will be tried by the Scriptures only. We are content, because they will needs have it so, and we allege unto them the books of Toby, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees. No, say they: we admit none of these for Scripture. Why so? are they not approved Canonical by the same authority of the Church, of ancient Counsels and fathers, that the other books are? No matter, say they, Luther admitteth them not, Caluine doth not allow them.  

FULK. 42. That the Scriptures are plain and easy to be understood of them that use the ordinary means to come to it, for all doctrine necessary to be known, and sufficient to determine every matter, the holy Ghost himself doth testify, 2. Tim. 3. and some of the ancient fathers also do bear witness, as Augustine de doct. Christ. lib. 2. Chrysost. in Gen. hom. 13. de verb. isaiah. Vidi d●minum, etc. hom. 2.  
If therefore you had the spirit of the ancient fathers, you would be content to be tried by the Scriptures, for reverence you ought to Gods most holy and perfect writings, and not because we will have it so, who are content in many controversies to be tried by the judgement of the ancient fathers, or general Counsels, or universal custom of times and places: and in all controversies, wherein all the ancient fathers, all Counsels, and universal custom of all times and places do consent▪ if any think such things can be brought against us, as it is falsely and sophistically bragged. But whereas we refuse the books of Toby, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, for Canonical Scripture, it is not (as you say ridiculously) because Luther and Caluine admitteth them not, but because they are contrary to the Canonical Scriptures, and were ne●er received of the Church of Israel for Canonical, nor of the Catholic Church of Christ, for more than 400. years after Christ, as I have showed before.    

MART. 43. Well, let us go forward in their own dance. You allow at the least the jews Canonical books of the old Testament, that is, all that are extant in the Hebrew Bible: and all of the new Testament without exception. Yea, that we do. In these books then, will you be tried by the vulgar ancient Latin Bible, only used in all the West Church above a thousandyeares? No. Will you be tried by the Greek Bible of the Septuaginta interpreters, so renowned and authorized, in our saviours own speeches, in the Evangelists and Apostles writings, in the whole Greek Church evermore? No, How then will you be tried? They answer, Only by the Hebrew Bible that now is, and as now it is pointed with vowels. Will you so? and do you think that only, the true authentical Hebrew which the holy Ghost did first put into the pens of those sacred writers? We do think it (say they) and esteem it the only authentical and true Scripture of the old Testament.  

FULK. 43. Where so many of your own Popish writers do accuse your vulgar Latin text of innumerable corruptions, what reason is there, that we should follow that translation only, especially seeing God hath given us knowledge of the tongues, that we may resort to the fountains themselves, as S. Augustine exhorteth. As for the Greek translation of the Septuaginta, from which your own vulgar Latin varieth, (although we reverence it for the antiquity, and use it for interpretation of some obscure places in the Hebrew) why should you require us to be tried thereby, which will not be tried by it yourselves? If I were as captious as you are with john Keltrige, about the Greek Bible of the Septuaginta Interpreters, I might make sport with you, as you do with him: but I acknowledge your Synecdoche, that you mean the old Testament only, whereas the word Bible, is commonly taken for both. But to the purpose, we acknowledge the text of the old Testament, ●n Hebrew and Chaldee, for in the Chaldee tongue were some parts of it written, as it is now printed with vowels, to be the only fountain, out of which we must draw the pure truth of the Scriptures for the old Testament, adjoining herewith, the testimony of the Mazzoreth, where any diversity of points, letters, or words, is noted to have been in sundry ancient copies, to discern that which is proper to the whole context, from that which by error of the writers, or printers, hath been brought into any copy, old or new.    

MATT. 44. We ask them again, what say you then to 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that place of the Psalm, where in the Hebrew it is thus, As a lion my hands and my feet: for that which in truth should be thus, They digged or pierced my hands and my feet: being an evident prophecy of Christ's nailing to the cross. There in deed (say they) we follow not the Hebrew, but the Greek text. Sometime than you follow the Greek and not the Hebrew only. And what if the same Greek text make for the Catholics, as in these places for example, I have inclined my heart to keep thy justifications for reward: and, Redeem thy sins with alms: might we not obtain here the like favour at your hands for the Greek text, specially when the Hebrew doth not disagree? No, say they, nor in no other place where the Greek is never so plain, if the Hebrew word at the least may be any otherwise interpreted, & drawn to an other signification.  

FULK. 44. We say to you first, that you have falsely pointed the Hebrew word in the margin for all the printed books that ever I have seen, as Bomberge both in folio, and quarto, Stephanus, Basil, Plantine, Arias Montanus, Complutensis, all place Camets' under Caph, where you make Patach. But perhaps your Hebrew is most out of Munster's Dictionary, where it is pointed as you make it. But for answer to your question, we say, that their is a double testimony of the Mazzorites to prove, that in the most ancient and best corrected copies, the Hebrew was Caru, they have digged or pierced: this is testified not only by our translators, but also by joannes Isaac your own Rabbin, against Lindanus a prelate of yours. And this the authors of the Complutense edition, do acknowledge, for thus they have pointed it Caru, where 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  is nothing but the redundans of Aleph (which is understood in every Camets') differing from the usual reading and declining of the Verb Carah, that signifieth 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  to pierce or dig. Again, where it is red otherwise, if it be rightly pointed, as it is in Arias Montanus Caari, it cannot signify Sicut lo, as a lion, as both the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Mazzorites do teach, and johannes Isaac a Grammarian out of them by the points, & the note over iod doth plainly demonstrate. For what should shure●h sound in iod? or if you would contend it should be Daghes, to what purpose should it be in iod, if the word should signify as a lion? Therefore howsoever this variety of copies came either by negligence of some writers, or by corruption of the jews, we have sufficient warrant for the ancient and true reading, which the Greek translator did follow, which also was in S. Hieromes copy, otherwise he would not have translated out of the Hebrew Fixerunt: they have pierced. Therefore Rabbi joseph, which made the Chalde● Paraphrase upon the Psalter, laboured to express both the copies, as well that which hath plainly (they have pierced,) as that which hath it corruptly, as though it spoke of a Lion, and yet can not rightly be so translated, because the points are imperfect even for that reading. Therefore he hath said Nikethin 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Heich Cheariah, They have indented and pierced like a lion my hands and my feet▪ as it is in the Venice print of Daniel Bomberg, although Arias Montanus in his Bible, have no more but Nachethin, which he traslateth, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  biting my hands and my feet. I have played the fool to utter these matters in the mother tongue to ignorant men, that can make no trial of them, but you have not only given me example, but also enforced me with your unsoluble question (as you thought) by one word somewhat out of frame, to overthrow the whole Hebrew text. But you are to be pardoned, for that you follow your M. Lindanus herein, who hath nothing else in effect to quarrel against the Hebrew text, but this: & therefore he repeateth it in many places, to make greater show of it as you do. In other, places where the Hebrew word hath diverse significations, who shall forbid us to choose that which is most agreeable to the circumstance of the text, and to the analogy or rule of faith?    

MART. 45. We reply again and say unto them, why, Is not the credit of those Septuaginta interpreters, who themselves were Jews, and best learned in their own tongue, and (as S. Augustine often, and other ancient fathers say) were inspired with the holy Ghost, in translating the Hebrew Bible into Greek: Is not their credit (I say) in determining and defining the signification of the Hebrew word, far greater than yours? No. Is not the authority of all the ancient fathers both Greek and Latin, that followed them, equivalent in this case to your judgement? No, say they, but because we find some ambiguity in the Hebrew, we will take the advantage, and we will determine and limit it to our purpose.  

FULK. 45. S. Hieronym abundantly answereth this cavil, denying that supposed inspiration, and de●iding the fable of their 70. celles, which yet pleased Augustine greatly, yea calling in question, whether any more were translated by them, than the five books of 
Praefat. in penned.  Moses: because Aristaeus, a writer in Ptolomees time, and after him, josephus, make mention of no more. The same cause therefore that moved S. Jerome to translate out of the Hebrew, moveth us: whose translation, if we had it sound and perfect, might much further us for the same purpose. Although for the signification of the Hebrew words, we require no more credit, than that which all they that be learned in the Hebrew tongue, must be forced to yield unto us. And seeing your vulgar Latin departeth from the Septuagintaes' interpretation, even in the books of Moses, which (if any be theirs) may most rightly be accounted theirs, because it is certain they translated them, although it be not certain whether they translated the rest: with what equity do you require us to credit them, which your own vulgar translation, affirmeth to have translated amiss? as I have showed before in the example of Canans' generation. another example you have in the 4 of Genesis, Nun si bene egeris recipies, etc. If thou shalt do well shalt thou not receive? but if thou shalt do evil, straighte-way thy sins shall be present in the doors. The greek text, hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. not if thou haste rightly offered: but thou hast not rightly divided: hast thou sinned? be stil. Where your translation cometh much nearer to the Hebrew, as might be showed in very many examples. As for the ancient father's credit of the greek Church, and the Latin that followed them, if our judgement alone be not aequivalent unto them, yet let these ancient fathers, Origene, and Jerome, that thought them not sufficient to be followed, and therefore gathered or framed other interpretations, let their judgement, I say, joining with ours, discharge us of this fond and envious accusation.    

MART. 46. Again, we condescend to their wilfulness, and say: what if the Hebrew be not ambiguous, but so plain and 
Psalm. 15.  certain to signify one thing, that it can not be plainer? As, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell, which proveth for us, that Christ in soul descended into Hell. Is not the one Hebrew word as proper for soul, as anima in Latin, the other, as proper and usual for hell, as infernus in Latin. here then at the least will you yield? No, say they, not here neither. for Beza telleth us, that the word, which commonly and usually signifieth, soul, yet for a purpose, if a man will strain, it may signify, not only body, but also, carcase. and so he translateth it. But Beza (say we) being admonished by his friends, corrected it in his later edition. Yea, say they, he was content to change his translation, but not his opinion concerning the Hebrew word, as himself protesteth.  

FULK. 46. You have chosen a text for example, wherein is least colour (except it be with the unlearned) of an hundred. For, whereas you ask, whether Nephesh, be no not as proper for soul, as anima, in Latin, & Sheol for Hell, as infernus in Latin? I utterly deny both the one and the other. For nephesh is properly the life, and Sheol, the grave or pit, though it may sometimes be taken for Hell, which is a consequent of the death of the ungodly, as nephesh is taken for person, or one's self, or as it is sometimes, for a dead carcase. Yea, there be that hold, that it is never taken for the reasonable immortal soul of a man, as anima is, specially of Ecclesiastical writers. That Beza translated the Greek of the new Testament after the signification of the Hebrew words, although it was true in sense, yet in mine opinion, it was not proper in words: and therefore he himself hath corrected it in his latter editions, as you confess, he hath not changed his opinion concerning the Hebrew: the reason is, because it is grounded upon manifest texts of Scripture, which he citeth, levit. 19 verse. 27. & cap. 21. verse. 1. and 11. Num. 5. verse 2. and 9 verse 10. In the first place your own vulgar Latin translation, for la nephesh turneth mortuo. you shall not cut your flesh for one that is dead. In the second place, your vulgar Latin hath, Ne non contaminetur sacerdos in mortibus. and, Ad omnem mortuum non ingredietur omnino. Let not the Priest be defiled with the deaths of his countrymen. and, The high Priest shall not enter into any dead body at all: where the Hebrew is lenephesh. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  In the third place your vulgar Latin readeth polluiusque est super mortuo. they shall cast out him that is polluted by touching a dead carcase, where the Hebrew is lanephesh In the first place, your vulgar Latin hath indeed, anima, but in the same sense, that it had before mortuo for the text is of him that is unclean, by touching any dead body, which in Hebrew is nephesh. How say you now, is the Hebrew word as proper for soul, as anima in Latin? except you will say, the Latin word anima doth properly signify, a dead body: hath not Beza good reason to retain his opinion concerning the Hebrew word, when he hath the authority of your own vulgar translation? You that note such jumps, and shifts in us, whether will you leap to save your honesty? will you say, the Hebrew text is corrupted since your translation was drawn out of it. The seventy interpreters then will cry out against you: for they with one mouth in all these places, for the Hebrew word nephesh, render the usual signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, adding in the 21. of Leuit. v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which either you must translate, a dead body, or you shall call it absurdly, a dead soul. Would any man think to have found in you, either such gross ignorance, or shameful negligence, or intolerable malice against the truth, that Beza sending you to the places, either you would not, or you could not examine them, or, if you did examine them, that you would notwithstanding thus maliciously against your own knowledge and conscience, rail against him? you make us to say, if a man will strain the word, it may signify not only body, but also carcase. What say you? did Moses strain the word to that signification? You said before, that we were at the jumps and turnings of an hare before the hounds, such mighty hunters you are, and we such fearful hares before you. I am not skilful in the terms of hunting, but in plain English I will speak it, that if all the traitorous wolves and foxes, that be in the kennel at Rheims, would do their best, to save your credit in this section, nay in this whole preface, they shall never be able to maintain their own, with any indifferent reader.    

MART. 47. Well then doth it like you to read thus, according to beza's translation, Thou shalt not leave my carcase in the grave? No, we are content to alter the word carcase, (which is not a seemly word for our saviours body) and yet we are loath to say soul, but if we might, we would say rather, life, person, as appeareth in the margin of our Bibles. but as for the Hebrew word that signifieth Hell, though the Greek & Latin Bible throughout, the Greek and Latin fathers in all their writings, as occasion serveth, do so read it and understand it, yet will we never so translate it: but for Hell, we will say grave, in all such places of scripture, as might infer Limbus patrum, if we should translate, Hel. These are their shifies, and turnings, and windings, in the old Testament.  

FULK. 47. I have showed you before, that in the new Testament, we like better to translate according to the proper and usual signification of the Greek word. But the Hebrew word in the old Testament may be translated according to the circumstance of the place, life, person, self, yea, or dead body, and in some place perhaps carcase. You follow us very near▪ to seek advantage of the English word carcase, which commonly is taken in contempt, & therefore we would not use it, speaking of the body of our Saviour Christ, when it was dead. But you hunt yourself out of breath, when you would bring the same contempt to the Latin word Cadaver, which Beza used. For Cadaver signifieth generally a dead body of man or beast, and by your vulgar Latin translator, is used for the dead bodies of sacrifices, of 
Cadaver.  Saints, and holy men, as indifferently, as for carrion of beasts, or carcases of evil men. Namely in job. 39 v 33. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  wheresoever the dead body is, thither will the Eagle resort, which similitude our Saviour Christ apply to himself, Math. 24. v. 28. wheresoever the dead body is, thither will the Eagles be gathered, where he compareth himself to the dead body, and the faithful to the Eagles.  
Now concerning the other Hebrew word, which you say signifieth hell, because the Greek, and vulgar Latin interpreter do so translate it. When just occasion shall be given afterward Cap. 7. I will show that it properly signifieth a grave, pit, or place for dead bodies, and that in this place of the 16. Psalm, it must needs so signify, not only the later part of the verse, expressing in other words that which was said in the former: but also the Apostles proving out of it the resurrection of Christ, do sufficiently declare. If you have no place therefore in the Scriptures, to prove your Limbus patrum, but where the holy Ghost speaketh of the death and burial of the fathers, no marvel though you must strain the Hebrew word, which properly signifieth grave, and the Greek word, which properly signifieth a dark place, and especially the Latin, which signifieth generally a low place: none of all the three words signifying hell, as we commonly understand the word hell, properly and only, but by a figure where mention is made of the death of the ungodly, whose reward is in hell. These be the poor shifts, turnings and windings that you have to wreath in those fables of Limbus patrum, & Purgatory, which the Church of God, from the beginning of the world unto the coming of Christ, never heard of, nor many hundredth years after Christ, until the Montanists, or such like heathenish heretics brought in those fantasies.    

MART. 48. In the new Testament, we ask them will you be tried by the ancient Latin translation, which is the text of the fathers and the whole Church? No, but we appeal to the Greek. What Greek, say we, for there be sundry copies, and the best of them (as Beza confesseth) agree with the said ancient Latin. For example in Saint Peter's words, Labour that by good works you may 
2. Pet. ca 1.  make sure your vocation and election. Duth this Greek copy please you? No, say they: we appeal to tha● Greek copy, which hath not those words, by good works, for otherwise we should grant the merit and efficacy of good works toward salvation. And generally to tell you at once, by what Greeke we will be ●ried, we like best the vulgar Greek text of the new Testament, which is most common and in every man's hands.  

FULK. 48. We need not appeal to the Greek; for any thing you bring out of the vulgar Latin against us. As for that text, 2. Pet. 1. Labour that by good works, etc. I have answered before in the 36. Section. We like well the Latin, or that Greek copy which hath those words by good works, for we must needs understand them, where they are not expressed: and therefore you do impudently beelie us to say they do not please us. Calvin upon that text saith, Nonnulli codices habent bonis operibus, sed hoc de sensu nihil mutat, quia subaudiendum est etiam si non exprimatur. Some books have By good works, but this changeth nothing of the sense, for that must be understood although it be not expressed. The same thing in effect saith Beza: that our election, and vocation must be confirmed by the effects of faith, that is by the fruits of justice, etc. therefore in some copies we find it added by good works. So far of is it, that Beza misliketh those words, that he citeth them to prove the perpetual connection of Election, Vocation, justification, and Sanctification. This is therefore as wicked a slander of us, as it is an untrue affirmation of the vulgar Latin, that it is the text of the fathers, and the whole Church: whereby you show yourself to be a Donatiste, to acknowledge no Church, but where the Latin text is occupied. So that in Greece, Syria, Armenia, Aethiopia, and other parts of the world, where the Latin text is not known, or understood, there Christ hath no Church by your unadvised assertion. That we like best the most common Greek text, I am sure that we do it, by as good reason, if not by better, than you in so great diversities of the Latin text, who like best of that which is most common, and in every man's hands.    

MART. 49. Well, say we, if you will needs have it so, take your pleasure in choosing your text. And if you will stand to it, grant us that Peter was chief among the Apostles, because your own Greek text saith, The first, Peter. No, saith 
Mat. 10.  Beza: we will grant you no such thing, for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favoured Peter's primacy. Is it so? then you will not stand to this Greek text neither. Not in this place, saith Beza.  

FULK. 49. In granting Peter to be the first, we need not grant him to be the chief, and if we grant him to be the chief, it followeth not that he is chief in authority. But if that were granted, it is not necessary that he was head of the Church. And albeit that were also granted, the Bishop of Rome could gain nothing by it. But what saith Beza, where the text saith, the first Peter? If we must believe you, he saith, No, we will grant you no such thing, for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favoured Peter's primacy. I pray you Martin where hath Beza those words? will you never leave this shameful forgery? Beza in the tenth of Matthew doth only ask the question. Quid si hoc vocabulum, etc. what if this word were added, by some that would establish the Primacy of Peter? for nothing followeth that may agree with it. This asketh Beza but as an objection, which immediately after he answereth, & concludeth that it is no addition, but a natural word of the text, found in all copies, confessed by Theophylact an enemy of the Pope's primacy, and defendeth it in the third of Mark, where it is not in the common Greek copies nor in the vulgar Latin, against Erasmus, who finding it in some Greek copies, thought it was untruly added out of Matthew. But Beza saith: Ego verò non dubito quin haec sit germana lectio. But I doubt not but this is the true and right reading of the text: and therefore he translateth Primming Simonem, the first Simon, out of the few copies Erasmus speaketh of. Therefore it is an abominable slander to charge him with following the common received text where it seemeth to make against you when he contendeth for the truth against the common text, yea and against your own vulgar Latin, to give you that which you make so great account of, that Peter in the catalogue of the Apostles was first. So greatly he feareth to acknowledge that Peter was called first. And so true it is that you charge him to say. No, we will grant you no such thing, for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favoured Peter's primacy. I hope your favourers seeing your forgery thus manifestly discovered, will give you less credit in other your shameless slanders, at the leastwise this in equity. I trust all Papists will grant, not to believe your report against any man's writing, except they read it thonselues. Now ●●at this word, (the first) argueth no primacy, or superiority, beside those places quoted by Beza, Act. 26. 20. Rom. 1, 8. & 3, 2. You may read 1. Par. v▪ 23 & 24. where the posterity of Levi and Aaron are rehearsed as they were appointed by David in their orders, or courses. Subuel primus, Rohobia primus, sors prima joiarib, etc. where least you should think of any headship, or principality, because the Hebrew is sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you may see, that Subuel is called primus of the sons of Gerson, when there is no more mentioned, & more expressly, Rohobia is called primus of the sons, of Eleazar, of whom it is said, that he had no more sons, & that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth here, the first in order, it appeareth by those generations, where the second, third, or fourth, is named, as in the sons of Hebron, and of Oziel. Also in the sons of Semei, where jehoth is counted the first, Ziza the second: jaus and Beria, becaused they increase not in sons, were accounted for one family. In all which, there is no other primacy, than in the first lot of joiarib, where the Hebrew word is harishuon, and so follow the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  reston order, unto four and twenty courses. Therefore there is no cause why we should not stand to the Greek text, in that place, neither did Beza ever deny to stand to it.    

MART. 50. Let us see an other place. You must grant us (saywe) by this Greek text, that Christ's very blood which was shed for us, is really in the chalice, because S. Luke saith so in the Greek text. No, saith Beza, those Greek words came out of the margem into the text, and therefore I translate not according to them, but according to that which I think the truer Greek text, although I find it in no copies in the world, and this his doing 
* See chap. 1. num 37. chap. 17. num. 11.  is maintained & justified by our English Protestants, in their writings of late.  

FULK. 50. Still Beza speaketh, as you inspire into him, while he speaketh through your throat, or quill. The truth is, Beza saith, that either there is a manifest Soloecophanes, that is an appearance of incongruity, or else those words (which is shed for you) seem to be added out of S. Matthew, or else it is an error of the writers, placing that in the nominative case, which should be in the dative. For in the dative case did Basil read them in his morals, 21. definition.  
Nevertheless, all our old books (saith Beza) had it so written, as it is commonly printed in the nominative case. Here are three several disiunctions, yet can you find none, but one proposition that you set down, as though it were purely and absolutely affirmed by Beza. Likewise, where you speak of no copies in the world, you say more than Beza, who speaketh but of such copies as he had, who, if he were of no better conscience, than you would have him seem to be, might feign some copy in his own hands, to salve the matter. But the truth is, that since he wrote this, he found one more ancient copy, both in Greek, and Latin, which now is at Cambridge, where this whole verse is wanting. But of this matter, which somewhat concerneth myself particularly, I shall have better occasion to write in the places by you quoted, cap. 1. num. 37. and cap. 17. num. 11. where I will so justify that which I have written before, touching this place, as I trust all learned and indifferent Readers, shall see how vainly you insult against me, where you bewray grosser ignorance in Greek phrases, than ever I would have suspected in you, being accounted the principal Linguist of the Seminary at Rheims.    

MART. 51. Well yet, sayewe, there are places in the same Greek text, as plain for us as these now cited, where you can not say, it came out of the margin, or, it was added falsely to the text. A●, Stand and hold fast the traditions, etc. by this 
2. Thess. 2.  text we require that you grant us traditions delivered by word of mouth, as well as the written word, that is, the Scriptures. No, say they, we know the Greek word signifieth tradition, as plain as possibly, but here and in the like places, we rather translate it, ordinances, instructions, and what else soever. Nay Sirs, say we, you can not so answer the matter, for in other places, you translate it duly, and truly, tradition: and why more in one place, than in another? They are ashamed to tell why, but they must tell, and shame both them selves, and the devil, if ever they think it good to answer this treatise, as also why they changed congregation, which was always in their first translation, into Church, in their later translations, and did not change likewise ordinances, into traditions, Elder● into Priests.  

FULK. 51. That the Thessalonians had some part of Christian doctrine, delivered by word of mouth, that is, by the Apostles preaching, at such time as he did write unto them, and some part by his Epistles, the text enforceth us to grant, and we never purposed to deny: But that the Church at this day, or ever since the new Testament was written, had any tradition by word of mouth, of any matter necessary to salvation, which was not contained in the old or new Testament, we will never grant, neither shall you ever be able out of this text, or any text in the Bible to prove. Make your Syllogisms, when you dare, and you shall be answered. But we know (you say) that the Greek word signifieth, tradition, as plain as possibly, but here, and in like places, we rather translate it, ordinances, instructions, and what else soever. We know that it signifieth tradition, constitution, instruction, precept, also mancipation, treatise, treason.  
For all these the Greek Dictionaries do teach, that it signifieth. Therefore if in any place we have translated it ordinances, or instructions, or institutions, we have not gone from the true signification of the word, neither can you ever prove, that the word signifieth such a doctrine only, as is taught by word of mouth, and is not, or may not be put in writing. But in other places you can tell us, that we translate it duly and truly, tradition, and you will know, why more in one place, than in another, affirming that we are shamed to tell why. For my part, I was never of counsel with any that translated the Scriptures into English, and therefore it is possible, I can not sufficiently express what reason moved the translators so to vary in the exposition of one and the same word. Yet can I yield sufficient reason, that might lead them so to do, which I think they followed. The Papists do commonly so abuse the name of tradition, which signifieth properly a delivery, or a thing delivered, for such a matter as is delivered only by word of mouth, and so received from hand to hand, that it is never put in writing, but hath his credit without the holy Scriptures of God, as the jew had their Cabala, and the Scribes & Pharisees had their traditions beside the law of God, 
Irenaeus, lib. 3. c. 2.  and the Valentinian Heretics accused the Scriptures, as insufficient of authority, and ambiguously written, and that the truth could not be found in them by those that knew not the tradition, which was not delivered by writing, but by word of mouth, jump as the Papists do. This abusing of the word, tradition, might be a sufficient cause for the translators, to render the Greek word, where it is taken for such doctrine as is beside the commandment of God, by the name of tradition, as the word is commonly taken. But where the Greek word is taken in the good part, for that doctrine which is agreeable with the holy Scriptures, they might with good reason avoid it, as you yourself do not always translate tradere, to betray, but sometimes to deliver. So did the translators give these words, ordinances, instructions, institutions, or doctrine delivered, which do generally signify the same that tradition, but have not the prejudice of that partial signification, in which the Papists use it, who wheresoever they find tradition, strait way imagine they have found a sufficient argument, against the perfection and sufficiency of the holy Scripture, and to bring in all riff-raff, and trishe trash, of man's doctrine, not only beside, but also contrary to the manifest word of God, contained in his most holy and perfect Scriptures. To the shame of the devil therefore, and of all popish maintainers of traditions uncommanded by God, this reason may be yielded.  
Now to answer you why Ecclesia was first translated congregation, and afterward Church: the reason that moved the first translators (I think) was this: the word Church of the common people, at that time, was used ambiguously, both for the assembly of the faithful, and for the place in which they assembled: for avoiding of which ambiguity, they translated Ecclesia the congregation, and yet in their Creed, and in the notes of their Bibles, in preaching, & writing they used the word Church for the same, the later translators seeing the people better instructed, & able to discern when they read in the Scriptures, the people, from the place of their meeting, used the word Church in their translations, as they did in their preaching. These are weighty matters that we must give account of them▪ Why we change not ordinances into traditions, and Elders into Priests, we will answer when we come to the proper places of them. In the mean season we think there is as good cause for us in translating, sometime to avoid the terms of traditions and priest, as for you to avoid the names of Elders calling them ancients, and the wise men sages, as though you had rather speak French, than English as we do. Like as you translate Conside. have a good heart after the french phrase, rather than you would say as we do, be of good comfort.    

MART. 52. The cause is, that the name of Church was at the first odious unto them, because of the Catholic Church which stood against them: but afterward this name▪ grew into more favour with them, because of their English Church, so at length called and termed. But their hatred of Priests and traditions continueth still, as it first began, and therefore their translation also remaineth as before, suppressing the names both of the one and of the other. But of all these their dealings, they shall be told in their several chapters and places.  

FULK. 52. I pray you, who translated first the creed into the English tongue, and taught it to the people▪ & for that cause were accounted heretics of the Antichristian Romish rabble? If the name of Church were odious unto them, why did they not suppress that name in the creed, which they taught to young and old, and in steed of Catholic Church, call it the universal congregation or assembly? Well Daws, these things be not aptly divided according to their times. The first translation of the Bible that was printed in the english tongue, in very many places of the notes, useth the name Church, & most notoriously in the song of Solomon, where before every other verse almost it telleth which is the voice of the Church to Christ her spouse▪ which no reasonable man would think the translators would have done, if the name of the Church had been odious unto them, or that they thought the Catholic church stood against them. Look Thomas Mathewes Bible, in the Canticles of Solomon, & upon the 16. of S. Mathewes Gospel, the 18. verse, the words of Christ to Peter. Therefore your senseless imaginations, show no hatred of the Catholic Church in our translators, but cankered malice, and impudent folly in yourselves.    

MART. 53. To conclude, as I began, concerning their shifts, and jumps, and windings, and turnings every way, from one thing to an other, till they are driven to the extreme refuge of palpable corruptions, and false translations: consider with me in this one case only of traditions, as may be likewise considered in all other controversies, that the ancient fathers, counsels, antiquity, universality, and custom of the whole Church allow traditions: the Canonical Scriptures have them, the Latin text hath them, the Greek text hath them: only their translations have them not. Likewise in the old Testament, the approved Latin text hath such and such speeches, that make for us, the renowned Greek text hath it, the Hebrew text hath it: only their translations have it not.  
These are the translations which we call heretical and wilful, and which shall be examined and discussed in this Book.  

FULK. 53. By what windings and turnings I pray you are we driven to that miserable refuge of palpable corruptions, and false translations? for hitherto you have showed none, but such as show your own ignorance, or malice. Neither (I hope) you shall be able to show any, though you sweat never so sore at your work. Yes, I ween, this one case only of traditions, for so you seem to say, if it be considered, will discover no less. It is marvel, if for your sake, all the Greek Dictionaries in the world must not be corrected, & taught to say, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can signify nothing but a tradition, that is not written. But yet you roll in your accustomed rhetoric, saying, that the ancient fathers, counsels, antiquity, universality, & custom of the whole Church allow traditions, & so do we, so many as be good & agreeable to the holy scriptures, but that there be traditions of matter necessary to salvation▪ not contained in the holy scriptures, when you bring your fathers, Counsels, etc. you shall receive an answer to them. That the canonical scripture alloweth any traditions contrary to the doctrine thereof, or to supply any want or imperfection thereof, as though all things required to make the man of God perfect, prepared to all good works, were not contained in the Scriptures, you shall never be able to prove, although for spite against the perfection of the Canonical Scripture, you should burst a sunder, as judas did, which betrayed the auctor of the Scripture. Finally, what so ever you say out of the old Testament, without proof or show of proof, it is as easily denied by us, as it is affirmed by you. When you bring but only a shadow of reason, it shall soon be chased away, with the light of truth.     

The Arguments of every chapter, with the page where every chapter beginneth.  

CHAP. 1. THat the protestāns translate the holy Scripture falsely of purpose, in favour of their heresies, throughout all controversies. page. 1.  
2 Against Apostolical Traditions. pag. 73.  
3 Against sacred Images. pag. 88  
4 The Ecclesiastical use of words turned into their original and profane significations. pag. 131.  
5 Against the CHURCH. pag. 139.  
6 Against Priest and Priesthood. Wheremuch also is said of their profaning of Ecclesiastical words. pag. 157.  
7. Against Purgatory, Limbus Patrum, and Christ's descending into Hell. pag. 196.  
8. Concerning justification, and God's justice in rewarding good works. pag. 252.  
9 Against Merits, meritorious works, and the reward for the same. pag. 263.  
10 Against Free will. pag. 300.  
11 For Imputative justice against true inherent justice. pag 328.  
12 For Special faith, vain security, and only faith. pag. 342.  
13 Against Penance and Satisfaction. pag. 355.  
14 Against the holy Sacraments, namely Baptism, and Confession. pag. 379.  
15 Against the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and for the Marriage of Priests, and Votaries. pag. 390.  
16 Against the Sacrament of Matrimony. pag. 423.  
17 Against the B. Sacrament, and Sacrifice, and altars. pa. 429.  
18 Against the honour of Saints, namely of our B. LADY. pa. 460.  
19 Against the distinction of Dulîa, and Latrîa. pag. 474.  
20 Adding to the text. pag. 483.  
21 Other heretical treacheries, and corruptions, worthy of observation. pag. 493.  
22 Other faults judaical, profane, mere vanities, folly's, and novelties. pag. 507.    

¶ A Discovery of the manifold corruptions of the holy Scriptures, by the Heretics of our days, specially the English Sectaries, & of their foul day dealing herein, by partial and false Translations to the advantage of their heresies, in their English Bibles used, and authorized since the time of Schism.  

CHAP. 1.  
That the Protestants translate the holy Scriptures falsely of purpose, in favour of their heresies.  

MARTIN.  
THOUGH this shall evidently appear through out this whole Book in every place that shall be objected unto them: yet because it is an observation of greatest importance in this case & which stigeth them sore, & toucheth their credit exceedingly, in so much that one of them setting a good 
* Confutation of 10. Ho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ le●. fo. 35. p. 2.  face upon the matter, saith confidently, that all the Papists in the world are not able to show one place of Scripture mistranslated wilfully of purpose: therefore I will give the reader certain brief observations and evident marks to know wilful corruptions, as it were an abridgement and sum of this Treatise.  

FVLKE.  
ALTHOUGH this trifling treatise was in hand two or three years ago, as by the threatening of Bristol, and Howlette it may appear: yet that it might seem new, and a sudden piece of work compiled with small study, you thought good by carping at my confutation of Owlet last made, and of M. whitaker's work, set forth later than it, as it were by setting on new ears upon your old pot, to make it seem to be a new vessel. And first of all you would seem to have taken occasion of my confident speech in my confutation of Owlets nine Reasons, in rehearsing whereof, you use such fidelity, as commonly Papists use to bear towards God, the Church, your Prince, and your Country. For what face soever I set upon the matter: with a whorish forehead and a brazen face, you make report of my saying: which being testified by a thousand copies printed, as it were by so many witnesses, doth cry out upon your falsehood, and injurious dealing. For my words out of the place by you quoted against Owlet, are these: That some error may be in translation (although by you it can not be showed) I will not deny: but that any shameless translations, or wilful corruptions, can be 
Such doth Owlet charge us withal.  found of purpose to draw the Scriptures to any heretical opinion, all the Papists in the world shall never be able to make demonsiration. This was my saying, and I repeat it again with as great confidence as before, yea and with much greater too, forasmuch as all the Papists in the Seminary, having now beaten their heads together to find out shameless translations and wilful corruptions, of purpose to maintain heresies▪ can find nothing, but old frivolous quarrels answered long before, or new trifling cavils, not worthy in deed of any learned man's answer but for satisfying of the simple and ignorant. How this my saying, differeth from your slanderous report, I trust every reasonable Papist that will take pains to confer them together, will be enforced to acknowledge. For where I say shameless translations and wilful corruptions (as Owlet chargeth us,) you report me to say mistranslated, although in plain words I did confess, that there might be some errors even in the best and perfectest of our translations. For to translate out of one tongue into an other, is a matter of greater difficulty than it is commonly taken, I mean exactly to yield as much and no more, than the original containeth, when the words and phrases are so different, that few are found▪ which in all points signify the same thing, neither more nor less in divers tongues. Wherefore notwithstanding any translation that can be made, the knowledge of the tongues, is necessary 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, have not attained to the best, and most proper expressing of the nature of all words and phrases of the Hebrew and Greek tongues in English, it is not the matter that I will stand to defend, nor the translators themselves, I am well assured, if they were all living. But that the Scriptures are not impudently falsified, or wilfully corrupted by them, to maintain any heretical opinion, as the adversary chargeth us, that is the thing, that I will (by God's grace) stand to defend, against all the Papists in the world. And this end you have falsely and fraudulently omitted, in reporting my saying, whereupon dependeth the chief, yea the whole matter of my assertion. You plai● manifestly with us, the lewd part of Procustes the thievish host, which would make his guests stature equal with his beds, either by stretching them out if they were too short, or by cutting off their legs, if they were too long. So if our sayings be too short for your purpose, you strain them to be longer, if they be too long, you cut of their shanks, yea that which is worse, the very head, as you play with me in this place. I myself, and so did many hundreds beside me, hear that reverend father M. Doctor Coverdale of holy and learned memory, in a sermon at Paul's cross, upon occasion of some slanderous reports, that then were raised against his translation, declare his faithful purpose in doing the same, which after it was finished, and presented to King Henry the eight, of famous memory, and by him committed to diverse bishops of that time to peruse, of which (as I remember) Steven Gardiner was one: after they had kept it long in their hands, and the King was diverse times sued unto for the publication thereof, at the last being called for by the King himself, they redelivered the book: and being demanded by the King what was their judgement of the translation, they answered that there were many faults therein. Well said the King, but are there any heresies maintained thereby: They answered there was no heresies that they could find, maintained thereby. If there be no heresies said the King, then in God's name let it go abroad among our people. According to this judgement of the King and the Bishops, M. Coverdale defended his translation, confessing that he did now himself espy some faults, which if he might review it once over again, as he had done twice before, he doubted not but to amend: but for any heresy, he was sure there was none maintained by his translation. After the same manner, I doubt not (by God's help) so to defend all our translations, for all your evident marks to know wilful corruptions, that not one shall be found of purpose to maintain any heretical opinion, and not many errors committed through negligence, ignorance, or humane frailty.    

MARTIN. 2. The first mark and most general is: If they translate elsewhere not amiss, and in places of controversy 
Evident marks or signs to knoww●●full corruptions in translating.  between them and us, most falsely: it is an evident argument that they do it not of negligence, or ignorance, but of partiality to the matter in controversy. This is to be seen through the whole Bible, where the faults of their translations are altogether, or specially, in those Scriptures that concern the causes inquestion between us. For other small faults, or rather oversights, we will no further note unto them, than to the end, that they may the more easily pardon us the like, if they find them.  

FVLKE. 2. This mark is too general, to know any thing thereby: when you do exemplify it in special, you shall easily be answered: in the mean time, it is sufficient to deny generally, that wherewith you so generally charge us; that we have in places of controversy translated any thing falsely. If one word be otherwise translated in any place of controversy, than it is in other places out of controversy: there may be rendered sufficient reason of that variety, without that it must needs come of partiality to the matter in controversy, but rather of love of the truth, which in all matters of question between us, is confirmed by plain text of Scriptures, or necessary collection out of the same, so that if the translation in those places were the same that yours is, of the new Testament, it should neither hinder our truth, nor fortify your error. As for small faults, and oversights, reason it is (as you say) they should be pardoned on both sides.    

MART. 3. If, as in their opinions and heresies, they forsake the ancient fathers: so, also in their translations, they go from that text and ancient reading of holy Scriptures, which all the fathers used and expounded: is it not plain that their translation followeth the vein and humour of their heresy? And again, if they that so abhor from the ancient expositions of the fathers, yet if it seem to serve for them, stick not to make the exposition of any one Doctor, the very text of holy Scripture: what is this but heretical wilfulness? See this 1. chap. num. 43. chap. 10. num. 1. 2. chap. 18. num. 10. 11. and chap 19 num. 1.  

FUL. 3. We never go from that text, and ancient reading, which all the fathers used & expounded, but we translate that most usual text, which was first printed out of the most ancient copies, that could be found. And if any be since found, or if any of the ancient fathers▪ did read otherwise, than the usual copies in any word that is any way material, in annotation, commentaries, readings & sermons, we spare not to declare it as occasion serveth: but that we stick not to make the exposition of any one Doctor, the very text of holy Scripture, it is a very heinous slander, neither can it be proved in any of the places of your book, which you quote for that purpose.    

MART. 4. Again▪ if they that profess to translate the Hebrew and Greek, and that because it maketh more for them (as they say) and therefore in all conferences and disputations appeal unto it as to the fountain and touchstone, if they (I say) in translating places of controversy, flee from the Hebrew and the Greek, it is a most certain argument of nilfull corruption. This is done many ways, and is to be observed also throughout the whole Bible, and in all this book.  

FULK. 4. We never flee from the Hebrew and Greek in any place, much less in places of controversy: but we always hold as near as we can, that which the Greek and Hebrew signifieth. But if in places of controversy, we take witness of the Greek, or vulgar Latin, where the Hebrew or Greek may be thought ambiguous. I trust no wise man will count this a flight from the Hebrew, and Greek, which we always translate aright, whether it agree with the 70 or vulgar Latin, or no.    

MART. 5. If the Greek be, Idololatria, and Idololatra: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and they translate not. Idolatry, and, Idolater: but, worshipping 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of Images, and, worshipper of Images, and that so absurdly, that they make the Apostle say, Covetousness is worshipping 
Eph. 5. Col. 3. ●●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 577.  of images: this none would do but fools or mad men. unless it were of purpose against sacred images. See cha. 3. nu. 1. 2.  

FULK. 5. If the Greek words do signify, as we translate, as hath been often proved, who but a wrangling quarreler would find fault therewith, except it were to maintain Idolatry, or worshipping of images, which before God and all wise men of the world, is all one. And where you say, none but fools, or mad men would translate, Ep 5. Col 3 Covetousness is worshipping of Images. I pray you in whether order will you place Isydorus Clarius of a Monk of Casinas made bishop Fulginas: which in the 3. to the Collossians upon your vulgar Latin text, which according to the Greek, calleth Idolatria, Simulachrorun servitus, the service of images: in his notes upon the place writeth this. Praeter caet●ra peccata avaritia peculiare hoc nomen assecuta est, ut dicatur esse (horrendum nomen) cultus simulachrorum, nam pecunia quid aliud est quàm simulachrum quoddam vel argenter, vel aureum, quod homines avari plus amani & long maiore cultu atq▪ honore prosequuntur, quàm ipsum Deum. Above other sins, covetousness hath obtained this peculiar name, that it is called (which is an horrible name) the worshipping of images▪ for what other thing is money, but a certain image, either of silver or gold? which covetous men do love more▪ & prosecute with far greater worship & honour, than they do God himself. or if you make no count of Is●dorus Clarius, in what degree will you account the deputies of the council of Trent, whose severe censure, this note hath escaped, of fools or of mad men, or of enemies to sacred images? yea how will you excuse your own vulgar Latin translation, which turneth Idololatria out of Greek into simulachrorum servitus, the service or worship of Images? I am not so unacquainted with your shameless shifts, but I know right well, that you will say, this Latin word Simulachrun signifieth a false image, or an idol that is worshipped as God. For nothing else you will knowledge to be an idol. But who shall better tell us what the Latin word Simulachrun doth signify, than the father of eloquence in the Latin tongue, even Tully himself, who in his oration pro Archia poeta, useth simulachrum, for the same that statue, & Imago, speaking of the cunning image makers of Greece, he saith: S●atuae & imagines non animorum simulachra sunt, sed corporum. Standing images, and other images are not similitudes or images of the minds, but of the bodies. And in his accusation of Verres: he nameth Effigies simulachrunque Mithridatis: The shape and image of Mithridates. In his second book de inuentione, he showeth that Zeuxis, that famous painter, did paint the image of Helena, ut excellentem muliebris formae pulchritudinem muta in sese imago contineret, Helenae se pingere velle simulachrum dixit. That a dumb image might contain in it, the excellent beauty of a woman's form, he said he would paint the similitude or image of Helena. Also in his familiar epistles, Epist. 68 Illi artifices corporis simulachra ignotis nota faciebant. Those workmen did make the images of the bodies known to them that knew them not. And so commonly he useth simulachrum justitiae, virtutis, civitatis, for the image or similitude of justice, of virtue, of a city or common wealth etc. And so do other good Latin writers as well as he, use the word Simulachrum: not only for an image, that is religiously worshipped, but even generally for any image, and in the same signification that they use the word Imago. But peradventure Ecclesiastical writers use the word Simulachrum only for idols forbidden, and I perhaps shall be chidden of Martin for citing testimonies out of profane authors, to know the use of Ecclesiastical terms. Let us see then what Christian writers say to this matter, and how they use this word Simulachrum. You yourselves say, we may not translate that verse of Genesis, God made man after his idol. But Lactantius 
De vero Dei cultu. lib. 6. c●p 13.  calleth men viventia Dei simulachra, living images of God which we ought to garnish rather, than Simulachra insensibilia Deorum, The senseless images of the Gods, which the Heathen garnished, yea he hath a whole chapter, entitled, de simulachris 
De orig. error. lib. 2. cap. 2.  & vero Dei simulachro & cultu. Of Images and of the true Image and Worship of God. In which also he showeth that Simulachrum is called of similitude. And therefore the heathenish Idols, having no resemblance of God, can not properly be called Simulachra. S. Ambrose an other writer of the Church, upon 1. Cor. 10. upon that text: Non quia simulachrum est aliquid etc. Not that the image is any thing, the Greek is Idolum, simulachrum verè nihil est quia imago videtur rei mortuae. The image or idol is in deed nothing, because it seemeth to be an image of a dead thing. Also upon the 45. Psalm. God was high in the patriarchs and Prophets, which did not compare him Imaginibus terrenis & simulachris scrupeis, to images or similitudes of the earth and stone. Tertullian also, a Latin writer, in his book De spectaculis, speaking of cunning workmanship of Imagery, showed in those plays, and the authors of them, sayeth: Scimus enim nihil esse nomina mortuorum, sicut nec ipsa simulachra eorum. We know that the names of those dead men, are nothing, as also their images. afterward to their names Nominibus he joineth Imaginibus, to show that Simulachra and Imagines are all one, which of Christians at that time were greatly abhorred, in detestation of Idolatry. S. Augustine calleth the same Simulachra which before he called Imagines. Cùm ex desiderio mortuorum constituerentur Imagines, unde simulachrorum usus exortus est. When for desire of the dead, Images were made, whereof the use of Images came, through flattery, divine honour was given unto them: and so they brought in idolatry or the worshipping of images. The same Augustine in his book Octaginta question. in the 78. quaest. which is entitled De simulachrorum pulchritudine, of the beauty of Images, ascribeth to God, the cunning, by which they are made beautiful. And in his questions upon the book of judges, lib. 7. cap. 41. inquiring how gedeon's Ephod was a cause of fornication to the people, when it was no Idol, he plainly distinguisheth Simulachrum from Idolum, as the general from the special. Cùm idolum non fuerit, id est cuiuspiam dei falsi & alieni simulachrum. When it was no Idol, that is to say, an Image of some false or strange God. Again he saith, those things that were commanded 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. Augustine, signifieth as generally, as Image, and can not be restrained to signify an Idol, in the evil part, except you add, that it is an image of a false or strange God. Arnobius an ecclesiastical writer of the Latin Church useth the word Simulachrum for an image generally: calling man also simulachrum Dei, as Lactantius doth the image of God, Cont. gent. lib. 8. Putatis autem nos occultare quod colimus si delubra & arras non habemus. Quod enim simulachrum Deo fingam, cùm si rectè existimes sit Dei homo ipse simulachrum. Think you that we do hide that which we worship, if we have no temples, and altars. For what image shall I fayne to God, whereas if you judge rightly, man himself is the image of God. You see therefore that Simulachrum signifieth not an Idol worshipped for God, but even as much as Imago, by your own rule. last of all, for I will not trouble the Reader with more, although more might be brought. Isidorus Hispalensis an ancient Bishop of the Latin Church, Originum lib. 8. speaking of the first inventors of Images, which after were abused to Idolatry, sayeth: Fuerunt etiam & quidam viri fortes aut urbium conditores: quibus mortuis homines qui eos dilexerunt, simulachra finxerunt, ut haberent aliquod ex imaginum contemplatione solatium: sed paulatim hunc errorem etc. There were also certain Valiant men or builders of Cities, who when they were dead, men which loved them, made their images or counterfeits, that they might have some comfort in beholding the images: but by little and little the devils persuading this error, it is certain that so it crept into their posterity, that those whom they honoured, for the only remembrance of their name, their successors esteemed and worshipped as gods. Again he sayeth, Simulachra autem à similitudine nuncupata, etc. Images are called Simulachra of the similitude, because by the hand of the artificers, of stone, or other matter they resemble the countenance of them, in whose honour they are feigned. Or they are called à Simulando, whereof it followeth, they are false things. These testimonies needed not, for them that be but half learned, which know right well, that Simulachrum is Synonomon with Imago: but that our adversaries are so impudent, that to serve their idolatrous affection, they care not what Idols they invent, of words, of significations, of distinctions, so they may seem to say somewhat in the ears of the unlearned, which are not able to judge of such matters. But perhaps they will say, their vulgar Latin interpreter useth the word Simulachrum, only for Idols, that are worshipped with divine honour. Neither is that true, and although it were, seeing it seldom useth 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 prove that your interpreter useth Simulachrum for an image generally, as all other Latin writers do, you may see 1. Sam. cap. 19 where speaking of the image which Michol laid in the bed, to counterfeit the sickness of David, first he calleth it Statuam, and afterward the same image he calleth Simulachrum. And sure it is, that David had no idols in his house. And lest you should cavil about the Hebrew word Teraphim, which the Septuaginta translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Aquila calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Hieron. telleth you they signify Figuras or Imagines, figures 
Quest. Heb. in Gen.  or images, which sometimes were abused to idolatry▪ as those which Rachel stole, and those which are mentioned jud. 17. Aben Ezra and other of the Rabines say, they were astronomical images to serve for dials, or other purposes of Astrology: and such it is most like was that, which was placed in David's bed, which your interpreter calleth Statuam & Simulachrum. Therefore whereas we have translated Idololatria, Col. 3. worshipping of Images, we have done rightly: and your Latin interpreter will warrant that translation, which translateth the same word Simulachrorum servitus, the service of Images. It is you therefore, and not we, that are to be blamed for translation of that word. For where you charged us to depart from the Greek text, which we profess to translate, we do not, except your vulgar translation be false. But you professing to follow the Latin, as the only true, and authentical text, do manifestly depart from it, in your translation, for the Latin being Simulachrorum servitus, you call it the service of idols, appealing to the Greek word, which you have set in the margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and dare not translate according to your own Latin, for than you should have called covetousness even as we do, the worshipping or service of images. And yet you charge us in your notes, with a marvelous impudent, and foolish corruption. But I report me to all indifferent Readers, whether this be not a marvelous impudent, and foolish reprehension, to reprove us for saying the same in English, that your own interpreter sayeth in Latin. For Simulachrorum servitus, is as well the service of images, as Simulachrorum artifex, is a maker of images, whom none but a fool or a mad man, would call a maker of Idols, because not the crafts man that frameth the image, but he that setteth it up to be worshipped as God, maketh an idol, according to your own acception of an Idol. But of this matter enough at this time.    

MART. 6. If the Apostle say, A pagan idolater, and a 
1. Cor. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bib. an. 1562.  Christian idolater, by one and the same Greek word, in one and the same meaning: and they translate, A pagan idolater, and a Christian worshipper of images, by two distinct words and diverse meanings: it must needs be done wilfully to the foresaid purpose. See chap. 3. num, 8. 9  

FVLKE. 6. We translate not only pagan Idolaters, but also Jews Idolaters, nor Christians only worshippers of Images, but Pagans also: wherefore this is a foolish observation. 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 contrary to the sense of the Scriptures, in which we find the worshipping of images always forbidden, but never commanded or allowed.    

MART. 7. If they translate one and the same Greek 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  word, Tradition, whensoever the Scripture speaketh of evil traditions: and never translate it so, whensoever it speaketh of good and Apostolical traditions: their intention is evident against the authority of Traditions. See chap. 2 numb. 1. 2 3.  

FVLKE. 7. This is answered sufficiently in confutation of the Preface Sect. 51. The English word Tradition sounding in the evil part, and taken by the Papists for matter unwritten, yet as true, and as necessary as that which is contained in the holy Scriptures: we have upon just cause avoided in such places, as the Greek word signifieth good and necessary doctrine, delivered by the Apostles, which is all contained in the Scriptures, and yet have used such English words as sufficiently express the Greek word used in the original text. Do not you yourselves translate Tradere sometimes to betray, and sometimes to deliver?    

MART. 8. Yea if they translate, Tradition, taken in 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  ill part, where it is not in the Greek: and translate it not so, where it is in the Greek, taken in good part: it is more evidence 
Col. 2. ●. 20.  of the foresaid wicked intention. See chap. 2. numb. 5. 6.  

FULK. 8. Our intention can be no worse, than your vulgar Latin Interpreters was, who, where the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translateth it Traditions Act. 6. And the right understanding of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Apostles meaning, will yield traditions as well, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place before mentioned.    

MARTIN. 9 If they make this a good rule, to translate according to the usual signification, and not the original derivation of words, as Beza, and Master 
* Pag. 209.  whitaker's do: and if they translate contrary to this rule, what is it but wilful corruption? So they do in translating, Idolum, an Image, Presbyter, an Elder: and the like. See chap. 4. & chap. 6. numb. 6. 7. 8. etc. numb. 13. etc.  

FVLKE. 9 Neither Beza, nor Master Whitaker make it a perpetual rule, to translate according to the usual signification, for sometimes a word is not taken in the usual signification, as Foenerator used by your vulgar Latin Interpreter. Luke. 7. usually signifieth an Usurer: yet do you translate it a Creditor. Likewise Stabulum used Luke. 10. usually signifieth a Stable, yet you translate it, an Inn. So Navis which usually signifieth a Ship, you call it a Boate. Mark. 8. and Navicula which usually signifieth a Boat, you call a Ship▪ Luke. 5. And yet I think you meant no wilful corruption. No more surely did they which translated Idolum an Image, and Presbyter an Elder, which you can not deny. But they follow the original derivation of the words, whereas some of yours, both go from the usual signification, and also from the original derivation.    

MARTIN. 10. If Presbyter, by Ecclesiastical use, be appropriated to signify a Priest, no less than, Episcopus, to signify a Bishop, or Diaconus, a Deacon: and if they translate these two later accordingly, and the first never in all the New Testament: what can it be but wilful corruption in favour of this heresy, That 
* whitak p. ●99.  there are no Priests of the New Testament? See chap. 6. numb. 12.  

FVLKE. 10. The word Priest, by Popish abuse, is commonly taken for a Sacrificer, the same that Sacerdos in Latin. But the Holy Ghost never calleth the Ministers of the word and Sacraments of the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Sacerdotes. Therefore the translators to make a difference between the Ministers of the Old Testament, and them of the New, calleth the one, according to the usual acception, Priests, and the other according to the original derivation Elders. Which distinction seeing the vulgar Latin text doth always rightly observe, it is in favour of your heretical Sacrificing Priesthood, that you corruptly translate Sacerdos and Presbyter always, as though they were all one, a Priest, as though the Holy Ghost had made that distinction in vain, or that there were no difference between the Priesthood of the New Testament, and the Old. The name of Priest, according to the original derivation from Presbyter, we do not refuse: but according to the common acception for a Sacrificer, we can not take it, when it is spoken of the ministery of the New Testament. And although many of the ancient Fathers, have abusivelye confounded the terms of Sacerdos, and Presbyter: yet that is no warrant for us to translate the Scripture, and to confound that which we see manifestly the spirit of God hath distinguished. For this cause, we have translated the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Elder, even as your vulgar Latin translator doth diverse times, as Acts. 15. and 20. 1. Pet. 5. and else where calleth them Seniores, or Maiores natu. Which you commonly call, the ancients or Seniors, because you dare not speak English, and say the Elders. Neither is Presbyter by Ecclesiastical use so approprietated to signify a Priest, that you would always translate it so in the Old Testament, where your vulgar translator useth it for a name of Office, and Government, and not for Priests at any time. Neither do we always translate the Greek word Episcopus and Diaconus for a Bishop and a Deacon, but sometimes for an overseer, as Act. 20. and a minister generally oftentimes.  
The word Baptisma by Ecclesiastical use signifieth the holy Sacrament of Baptism, yet are you enforced Mark. 7. to translate Baptismata washings. Even so do we to observe that distinction, which the Apostles and Evangelists always do keep, when we call Sacerdotes Priests, for difference we call Presbyteros Elders. and not lest the name of Priests should enforce the Popish sacrifice of the Mass. For this word Presbyter will never comprehend a sacrificer, or a sacrificing Priesthood.    

MART. 11. If for God's altar, they translate, Temple: & for Bells idololatrical table, they translate, altar: judge whether it be not of purpose against our altars, and in favour of their communion table. See chap. 17. numb. 15. 16.  

FULK. 11. If there be any such mistaking of one word for an other, I think it was the fault of the Printer rather than of the Translator, for the name of altar is more than a hundred times in the Bible: and unto the story of Bell, we attribute so small credit, that we will take no testimony from thence, to prove or disprove any thing.    

MART. 12. If at the beginning of their heresy, when sacred images were broken in pieces, altars digged down, the Catholic Church's authority defaced, the king made supreme 
Bib. in king Edw. time printed again 1562.  head, than their translation was made accordingly, and if afterward when these errors were well established in the realm, and had taken root in the people's hearts, all was altered and changed in their later translations, and now they could not find that in the Greek, which was in the former translation: what was it at the first but wilful corruption to serve the time that then was? See chap. 3. 5. chap. 17. numb. 15. chap. 15. num. 22.  

FULK. 12. For images, altars, the Catholic Church's authority, the king's supremacy, nothing is altered in the later translations, that was falsely translated in the former, except perhaps the Printers fault be reform. Neither can any thing be proved to maintain the popish images, altars, churches authority, or Pope's supremacy, out of any translation of the Scriptures, or out of the original itself. Therefore our translations were not framed according to the time, but if any thing were not uttered so plainly or so aptly as it might, why should not one translation help an other.    

MART. 13. If at the first revolt, when none were noted for Heretics and Schismatics, but themselves, they did not once put the names of Schism or Heresy in the Bible, but in steed thereof, division, and, sect, in so much that for an Heretic, 
Bib. 1562. Tit. 3.  they said, an author of Sects, what may we judge of it but as of wilful corruption? See chap. 4. numb. 3.  

FULK. 13. Yes, reasonable men may judge, that they did it to show unto the ignorant people, what the names of schismatic, and heretic do signify, rather than to make them believe, that heresy, and schism was not spoken against in the Scripture. That they translated heresy, sect, they did it by example of your vulgar Latin Interpreter, who in the 24. of the Acts, translateth the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sectae. In which chapter likewise, as he also hath done, they have translated the same word, heresy.    

MART. 14. If they translate so absurdly at the first, that themselves are driven to change it for shame: it must needs be at the first wilful corruption. For example, when it was in the first, Temple, and in the later, Altar: in the first always, Congregation, in the later always, Church: in the first, To the King as chief head, in the later, To the King as having pre-eminence. So did Beza first translate, carcase, and afterward, soul. Which alteration in all these places is so great, that it could not be negligence at the first or ignorance, but a plain heretical intention. See chap. 17. numb. 15. chap. 5. numb. 4. 5. chap. 15. numb. 22. chap. 7. numb. 2.  

FULK. 14. Nay, it may be an oversight, or escape of negligence, or the Printers fault, as it is manifest in that quarrel you make of temple, for altar: for in Thomas Mathews translation, the first that was printed in English, with authority, there is altar in both places. 1. Cor. 9 & 10. For the term Congregation changed into Church, it was not for shame of the former, which was true, but because the other term of Church was now well understood, to show that the word of Scripture, agreeth with the word of our Creed: or perhaps to avoid your fond quarrel, not now first picked to the term Congregation. Whereas the former was: To the King or chief head, the later saying, the King as having pre-eminence, doth nothing derogate unto the former, and the former is contained under the later. For I hope you will grant, that the King is chief head of his people, or if the word head displease you, (because you are so good a french man) tell us what chief doth signify, but an head? Now this place of Peter, speaketh not particularly of the King's authority over the Church, or in Church matters, therefore if it had been translated Supreme head, we could have gained no greater argument for the supremacy in question, than we may by the word pre-eminence, or by the word extolling, which you use. That Beza altered the word Cadaver into Animam: I have showed he did it to void offence, & because the later is more proper to the Greek, although the Hebrew word which David doth use, may & doth signify a dead body or carcase.    

MART. 15. If they will not stand to all their translations, but fly to that, namely which now is red in their Churches: & if that which is now red in their Churches, differ in the points afore said, from that that was red in their Churches in King Edward's time: & if from both these, they sly to the Geneva Bible, & from that again, to the other afore said: what shall we judge of the one or the other, but that all is voluntary, and as they list? See chap. 3. num. 10. 11. 12. chap. 10. num. 12.  

FULK. 15. If of three translations, we prefer that which is the best, what sign of corruption is this? If any fault have either of ignorance, or negligence escaped in one, which is corrected in an other, and we prefer that which is corrected, before that which is faulty, what corruption can be judged in either? Not every fault is a wilful corruption, & much less an heretical corruption. The example that you quote out of your 3. chapter concerning the translation of Idolum, is no flying from our translation to an other, but a confuting of Owlets cavil against our Church service: because this word is therein red translated an image. 1. joan. 5. whereas in that Bible, which by authority is to be red in the church service, the word in the text is idols, & not images▪ & yet will we justify the other to be good & true, which readeth, Babes, keep yourselves from images, as your vulgar Latin text is à simulachris, wherein you fly from your own authentical text to the Greek, which except you think it make for your purpose, you are not ashamed to count falsified and corrupted.    

MART. 16. If they gladly use these words in ill part, where they are not in the original text, Procession, shrines, devotions, excommunicate, images: and avoid these words, which are in the original, Hymns, grace, mystery, Sacrament, Church, Altar, Priests, Catholic, traditions, justifications: is it not plain that they do it of purpose to disgrace, or suppress the said things and speeches used in the Catholic Church? See chap. 21. num. 5. & seq. chap. 12. num. 3.  

FULK. 16. Who would be so mad, but blind malice, to think they would disgrace or suppress the things, or names of Catholic Church, whereof they acknowledge themselves members: of grace by which they confess they are saved: of hymns, which they use to the praise of God: of justifications, when they profess they are of themselves unjust: of Sacraments & mysteries, by which the benefits of Christ are sealed up unto them: of altar, when they believe that jesus Christ is our altar: of Priests, when they hold that all good Christians are Priests: of devotions, when they dispute that ignorance is not the mother of true devotion, but knowledge, of excommunication, which they practise daily. As for the names and things of procession, shrines, images, traditions, beside the holy Scriptures in religion, they have just cause to abhor. Neither do they use the one sort of terms, without probable ground out of the original text: nor avoid the other, but upon some good special cause: as in the several places (when we are charged with them) shall appear.    

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

FULK. 17. I answer we strain no words, to signify otherwise, than the nature and use of them will afford us, neither do we spare to express that, which hath a show against us, if the property, or usual signification of the word, with the circumstance of the place, do so require it.    

MART. 18. If in words of ambiguous and diverse signification, they will have it signify here or there, as it pleaseth them: and that so vehemently, that here it must needs so signify, and there it must not: and both this, and that, to one end and in favour of one and the same opinion: what is this but wilful translation? So doth Beza urge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify, wife, 
Beza in ●. Cor. 7. v. 1. & 9 v. 5. Bib. an. 1579.  and not to signify, wife, both against virginity and chastity of Priests: and the English Bible translateth accordingly. See chap. 15. num. 11. 12.  

FULK. 18. To the general charge, I answer generally, we do not as you slander us. Nor Beza whom you shamefully belie, to urge the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Cor. 7. v. 1. not to signify a wife against virginity, and chastity of Priests. For clean contrariwise, he reproveth Erasmus restraining it to a wife, which the Apostle saith generally: it is good for a man not to touch a woman, which doth not only contain a commendation of virginity in them that be unmarried, but also of continency in them that be married. And as for the virginity or chastity of Priests, he speaketh not one word 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 truly translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sister to wife, because the word sister, is first placed, which comprehendeth a woman, and therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following, must needs explicate, what woman he meaneth, namely a wife. For it were absurd to say, a sister a woman. Therefore the vulgar Latin Interpreter, perverteth the words, & saith: Mulierem sororem. It is true, that many of the ancient fathers, as too much addict to the singleness of the Clergy, though they did not altogether condemn marriage in them, as the Papists do: did expound the sister whereof S. Paul speaketh, of certain rich matrons, which followed the Apostles, whithersoever they went & ministered to them of their substance, as we read that many did to our Saviour Christ. Math. 27. v. 55. Luc. 8. v. 3. But that exposition can not stand, nor agree with this text for many causes. First the placing of the words, which I have before spoken of. Secondly this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were needless, except it should signify a wife: for the word sister signifieth both a woman, & a faithful woman, and otherwise it was not to be doubted, lest the Apostle would lead a heathen woman with him. Thirdly the Apostle speaketh of one woman, & not many, whereas there were many that followed our Saviour Christ, whereas one alone to follow the Apostle, might breed occasion of ill suspicion, and offence, which many could not so easily. Fourthly, those that are mentioned in the Gospel, our Saviour Christ did not lead about, but they did voluntarily follow him: but the Apostle here saith, that he had authority, as the rest of the Apostles, to lead about a woman, which argueth the right, that an husband hath over his wife, or of a master over his maid. Fiftly, it is not all one, if women could travel out of Galilee to jerusalem, which was nothing near an hundred miles; that women could follow the Apostles into all parts of the world. Sixtly, if the cause why such women are supposed to have 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 forbore to use this liberty, because he would not be burdenous to the Church of Corinth, or to any of them. Seventhly, seeing it is certain that Peter had a wife, and the rest of the Apostles are by antiquity reputed to have been all married: It is not credible that Peter, or any of the rest, would leave the company of their own wives, & lead strange women about with them. As for the objection that you make in your note upon the text, to what end should he talk of burdening the Corinthians with finding his wife, when he himself clearly saith, that he was single? I answer, Although I think he was single, yet is it not so clear as you make it, for Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh he had a wife, which he left at Philippi, by mutual consent. But albeit he were single, it was lawful for him to have married, and Barnabas also, as well as all the rest of the Apostles. Again, to what end should he talk of burdening the Church with a woman, which was not his wife, when such women as you say ministered to the Apostles of their goods? Whereby it should follow that none of the Apostles burdened the Churches where they preached with their own finding, which is clean contrary to the Apostles words and meaning. Wherefore 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 Geneva English Bible, the other the Bible read in their Church: & if the Lutherans condemn the zwinglians & calvinists translations, and contrariwise: & if all Sectaries reprove each an others translation: What doth it argue, but that the translations differ according to their diverse opinions. See their books written one against another.  

FULK. 19 Here again is nothing but a general charge of disagreeing about translations, of Puritans, & Caluinists, Lutherans & zwinglians, and of all Sectaries reproving one an others translation, with as general a demonstration. See the books written one against an other, which would ask longer time, than is needful to answer such a vain cavil; when it is always sufficient to deny, that which is affirmed without certain proof. 
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. etc. 9 v. 6.     

MART. 20. If the English Geneva Bibles themselves dare not follow their Master Beza, whom they profess to translate, because in their opinion he goeth wide, and that in places of controversy: how wilful was he in so translating? See chap. 12. num. 6. 8. chap. 13. num. 1.  

FULK. 20. It is a very impudent slander. The Geneva Bibles do not profess to translate out of beza's Latin translation, but out of the Hebrew & Greek, & if they agree not always with Beza▪ what is that to the purpose, if they agree with the truth of the original text? Beza often times followeth the purer phrase of the Latin tongue, which they neither would, nor might follow in the English. If in dissenting from Beza, or Beza from them, they or he descent from the truth, it is of human frailty, & not of heretical wilfulness. The places being examined, shall discover your vanity.    

MART. 21. If for the most part they reprehend the old vulgar translation, and appeal to the Greek: and yet in places of controversy sometime for their more advantage (as they think) they leave the Greek, and follow our Latin translation: what is it else, but voluntary and partial translation? See chap. 2. num. 8. chap. 6. nu. 10. 21. chap. 7. nu. 39 chap. 10. nu. 6.  

FULK. 21. We never leave the Greek to follow your vulgar translation, as in the places by you quoted, I will prove manifestly: but I have already proved, that you leave the Latin, and appeal to the Greek, in translating Simulachra, Idols, both Col. 3. & 1. john. 5. 
* Beza. Luc. 1. Ro. 2. Apoc. 19 8. Beza in c. 1●. Apoc. v. 8.     

MART. 22. If otherwise they avoid this world, justifications, altogether, & yet translate it when they can not choose, but with a commentary that it signifieth good works that are testimonies of a lively faith: doth not this heretical commentary show their heretical meaning, when they avoid the word aliogither? See Chap. 3. Nu. 1. 2. 3.  

FULK. 22. To avoid the word altogether, and yet sometime to translate it, I see not how they can stand together, for he that doth sometimes translate it, doth not altogether avoid it. But you will say, they do altogether avoid it in all such places, where they do not translate it. That is altogether false; for the Geneva translation Luc. 1. telleth you that the Greek word signifieth justifications, and yieldeth a reason why it doth in that place otherwise translate it: and if to translate the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise than justification, must needs show an heretical meaning, then must you needs say▪ that your vulgar Latin translator had an heretical meaning, for in the second place by you quoted, namely Rom. 2. v. 26. he translateth it justitias, likewise Ro. 1. v. 32. justitiam, so likewise Rom. 5. v. 18. And if it be an heretical commentary, to say, that good works are a testimony of a lively faith, you will also condemn the Apostles of heresy, which teach it to be impossible to please God without faith, Heb. 11. and that what soever is not of faith, is sin, Rom. 14. If there be any good works that are not testimonies of a lively faith. But it is sufficient for you, to call what you will heresy, and heretical falsification, and corruption, for your disciples are bound to believe you, though you say the Gospel be heresy, and the Apostles themselves heretics. Gregory Martin calleth this an heretical commentary, what need you seek other proof?    

MART. 23. When by adding to the text at their pleasure, they make the Apostle say, that by Adam's offence, ●inne 
Ro ●. v. ●8. No. T●st. an. 1580. Bib. 1579.  came on all men, but that by Christ's justice, the benefit only abounded toward all men, not that justice came on all, whereas the Apostle maketh the case a like, without any such divers additions, to wit, that we are truly made just by 
* Ro. 5. v. 19  Christ, as by Adam we are made sinners: is not this most wilful corruption for their heresy of imputative and fantastical justice. See Chap 11. Nu. 1.  

FULK. 23. The Verse by you quoted Rom. 5. v. 18. is a manifest eclipsis or defective speech, to make any sense, whereof, there must needs be added a Nominative case, and a Verb. Now by what other Nominative case, and Verb, may the sense be supplied, but by that which the Apostle himself giveth before? Verse. 15. Unto which all that followeth must be referred for explication. Where he saith, as you yourselves translate it: If by the offence of one many died: much more the grace of God & the gift in the grace of one man jesus Christ hath abounded upon many. Seeing therefore that defective speech must be supplied for understanding in this probation, what is so apt as that which the Apostle himself hath expressed before in the proposition? Although you in your translation are not disposed to supply it, because you had rather the text should be obscure, & wondered at, than that it should be plain & easy, or able to be understood: albeit in other places you stick not to add such words as be necessary for explication of the text, as every translator must do, if he will have any sense to be understood in his translation. For that defective speech which in some tongue is well understood, in some other is altogether void of sense, and must be explicated by addition of that, which is necessarily or probably to be understood. So you translate Math. 8. Quid nobis. What is between us? Mark. 2. Post dies, after some days, Accumberet, he sat at meat and many such like. But where you charge our translation to say, the benefit (only) abounded toward all men, not that justice came on all: you do shamefully add to our translation, for the word only is of your own slanderous addition, and the rest is your malicious collection. For we mean not to extenuate the benefit of Christ's redemption, but by all means to set it forth to the uttermost: as the word (abounded) doth show, if you do not blemish the light of it, by your blockish addition of this word (only). And that we are truly made just by Christ, and yet by imputation, as we are truly made sinners by Adam, and yet partly by imputation, as we are actually by corruption, we do at all times and in all places most willingly confess, for the justice of Christ which is imputed unto us by faith, is no false or fantastical justice, as you do no less blasphemously, than fantastically affirm: but a true and effectual justice, by which we are so truly made just▪ that we shall receive for it the crown of justice, which is eternal life, as the Apostle proveth at large, Rom. 4. and 5. whom none but an hellhound will bark against, that he defendeth imputative and fantastical justice.    

MART. 24. But if in this case of justification, when the 
* ●a. 2. v. 14. Ro 3. v. 28. ●uth. tom. 2. fol. 405. edit. Witteb. an. ●551. Whitak. pag. 198.  question is whether only faith justify, and we say no, having the express words of S. james: they say, yea, having ne express scripture for it: if in this case they will add, only, to the very text: is it not most horrible and devilish corruption? So did Luther, whom our English Protestant's honour as their father, & in this heresy of only faith, are his own children. See ch. 12.  

FULK. 24. In the question of justification by faith only, where S. james saith no: we say, no also, neither can it be proved that we add this word only to the text in any translation of ours. If Luther did in his translation add the word only to the text, it can not be excused of wrong translation in word, although the sense might well bear it. But seeing Luther doth himself confess it, he may be excused of fraud, though not of lack of judgement. But why should our translation be charged with Luther's corruption? Because our English Protestant's honour him as their father. A very lewd slander: for we call no man father upon earth, though you do call the Pope your father, albeit in another sense Luther was a reverend father of the Church for his time. But as touching the doctrine of only faith justifying, it hath more patrons of the fathers of the ancient, primitive Church, than Martin can bear their books, though he would break his back, who in the same plain words do affirm it as Luther doth, that only faith doth justify. And the Apostle which saith that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, speaketh more plainly for justification by faith only, (as we do teach it), than if he had said a man is justified by faith only. Which text of Rom. 3. and many other, are as express scripture to prove that we teach and believe, as that S. james sayeth against justification by faith only, where he speaketh of an other faith, and of an other justification, than S. Paul speaketh of, and we understand, when we hold that a man is justified by faith only, or without works of the law, which is all one. 
Their ignorance of the Greek and Hebrew tongue, or their false & wilful translation thereof against their knowledge.     

MART. 25. If these that account themselves the great Grecians and Hebricians of the world, will so translate for the advantage of their cause, as though they had no skill in the world, and as though they knew neither the signification of words, nor propriety of phrases in the said languages: is it not to be esteemed shameless corruption?  

FULK. 25. Yes, but if it can not be proved that so they translate, then is this an impudent slander, as all the rest are, and so it will prove when it cometh to be tried.    

MART. 26. I will not speak of the Germane Heretics, 
●rentius Melancth. See ●inda. Dubi. Dial. 1. c. 1●▪ Psal. 51.  who to maintain this heresy, that all our works, be they never so good, are sin, translated, for Tibi soli peccavi, to thee only have I sinned▪ thus, Tibi solùm peccavi▪ that is, I▪ have nothing else but sinned: whatsoever I do, I sin: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  whereas neither the Greek nor the Hebrew will possibly admit 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that sense. Let these pass as Lutherans, yet wilful corrupters, and acknowledged of our English Protestant's for their good brethren. But if Beza translate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when 
* Whitak. pag. 1ST. Ro. 5. v. 6.  we were yet of no strength, as the Geneva English Bible also doth interpret it, whereas every young Grecian knoweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether without strength: is not this of purpose to take away man's free will altogether? See chap. 10. nu. 13.  

FULK. 26. I know not what German heretics those be which maintain that heresy, that all our works be they never so good are sin, except they be the Libertines with whom we have nothing to do. For we never say, that good works are sin, for that were all one to say that good were evil. But that all our good works are short of that perfection, which the law of God requireth, we do humbly confess against ourselves. Or else, what soever seemeth to be a good work, and is done of men void of true faith, is sin. For these assertions we have the scripture to warrant us. And if to prove the later any man hath translated those words of David in the 51. Psalm, Lecha, Lebadecha, Tibi solum, or tantummodo tibi peccavi, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  etc. To the only or altogether to thee I have sinned, in respect of his natural corruption which he doth express in the next verse, he hath not departed one whit from the Hebrew words, nor from the sense which the words may very well bear, which he that denieth, rather showeth himself ignorant in the Hebrew tongue, than he that so translateth. For what doth Lebad signify, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  but Solum or Tantum and therefore it may as well be translated Solum tibi, as Soli ●ibi. And the Apostle Rom. 3. proving by the later end of that verse, all men to be unjust, that God only may be true, and every man a liar, as it is written that thou mayest be justified in thy words etc. favoureth that interpretation of Bucer, or who soever it is beside. But if Beza translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when we were yet of no strength, as the Geneva English Bible doth also interpret it, whereas every young Grecian knoweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether without strength: is not this of purpose to take away man's free will altogether? Chapter tenth, Number. 13. Nay it is to show as the Apostles purpose is, that we have no strength to fulfil the law of God without the grace of Christ, even as Christ himself saith, without me you can do nothing, joan. 15. v. 5. But every young Grecian (say you) knoweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether with out strength. And is there then any old Grecian that will prove, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signifieth him that is weak, but not void of strength? Doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signify him that hath some strength? Certain it is that the Apostle speaketh here, of those that were void of strength, for the same he calleth in the same verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ungodly, or void of religion, for whom Christ died. How say you then, had ungodly persons any strength to be saved, except Christ had died for them? Therefore he that in this place translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, weak, feeble, infirm▪ must needs understand men so weak, feeble, and infirm, as they have no strength. For how might it else be truly said, what hast thou, which thou hast not received? 1. Cor. 4. v. 7. Yes, say you, we have some piece of free-will at least, some strength to climb to heaven, even without the grace of God, without the death & redemption of Christ. If you say no, why cavil you at beza's translation and ours? The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as great a Grecian as you would make yourself, signifieth weak or infirm, sometime that which yet hath some strength, sometime that which hath no strength at all, as I will give you a plain example out of S. Paul. 1. Cor. 15. v. 43. The dead body is sown 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in weakness: it riseth again in power. Doth not weakness here signify privation of all strength? It is marvel, but you will say a dead body is not altogether void of strength. Beza telleth you out of S. Paul, Rom. 8. v. 6. That the wisdom of the flesh without Christ is death, it is enmity against God, it is neither subject unto the law of God▪ neither can it be, where is the strength of free will that you complain to be taken away by our translation? Beza doth also tell you, that S. Paul calleth all the ceremonies of the law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as they are separated from the spirit of Christ, the weak and beggarly elements, Gala●. 4. Are they not void of strength, & riches which are void of Christ's grace and spirit? But your purpose was only to quarrel, and seek a knot in a rush, & therefore you regarded not what Beza hath written, to justify his translation.    

MART. 27. If Caluine translate, Non ego, sed gratia 
●. Cor. 15. 10.  Dei quae mihi aderat: may not mean Grecians control 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  him, that he also translateth falsely against free will, because the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth require some other participle to be understood, that should signify a cooperation with free will, to wit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which laboured with me? See chap. 10. numb. 2.  

FULK. 27. The Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace of God which is with me. A mean Grecian will rather understand the verb substantive, than the participle, as you do, and then must needs again understand the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath laboured. For thus the sense must be, if your participle be understood, I have laboured more than they all, yet not I but the grace of God which laboured with me hath laboured. Who would commit such a vain tautology. The sense is therefore plain, which the Apostles words do yield in the judgement of better Grecians than ever G. Martin was, or will be. I have not laboured more than the rest of the Apostles, of mine own strength or will, but the grace of God which is in me, or with me, hath given me greater strength & ability to travel in the Gospel than to them. But you are afraid lest it should be thought, that the Apostle had done nothing, like unto a block, forced only: a blockish fear, & a forced collection. For when the Apostle first saith, he hath laboured & after denieth & saith, I have not laboured: what sensible man will not gather, that in the former, he laboured as a man endued with life, sense, and reason, and in the later, that he laboured not by his own strength or virtue, 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 manifestly excludeth natural free will, to that which is good & appertaining to the glory 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 Hebrew beareth indifferently, to say, Sin lieth at the door: and unto thee the desire thereof 
Gen. 4. v. 7. an. 1579.  shall be subject, & thou shalt rule over it: the Geneva English Bible translate the first without scruple, & the later not▪ because of the Hebrew Grammar: is not this also most wilful against free will? See chap. 10. numb. 9  

FULK. 28. I grant this to be done willingly, against free will, but yet no false nor corrupt translation. For in the participle Robets, which signifieth lying, is a 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  manifest Enallage or change of the gender to declare that in Chataoth, which word being of the feminine gender, signifieth sin, is to be understood avon, or some such word as signifieth the punishment of sin, which may agree with the participle in the masculine gender, that the antithesis may be perfect. If thou dost well, shall there not be reward or remission, if thou dost evil, the punishment of thy sin is at hand. But that the later end of the verse can not be referred to sin, but unto Cain, not only the Grammar, but also the plain words, and sense of the place doth convince. For that which is said of the appetite, must have the same sense, which the same words have before, of the appetite of Eve towards her husband Adam, that in respect of the law of nature, and her infirmity, she should desire to be under his government, & that he should have dominion over her. So Abel the younger brother should be affected toward his elder brother Cain, to whom by the law of nature he was loving and subject, and therefore no cause, why Cain should envy him as he did. Otherwise it were a strange meaning, that sin which is an insensible thing, should have an appetite or desire toward Cain, who rather had an appetite to sin, than sin to him. But you are so greedy of the later part, that you consider not the former. I know what the jewisne Rabbins favourers of heathenish free will, absurdly do imagine to salve the matter, but that which I have said may satisfy godly Christian▪.    

MART. 29. If Caluine affirm that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can 
Calu. in 5. Hebr.  not signify, propter reverentiam, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not so used, & Beza avoucheth the same more earnestly, and the English Bible 
Bib. an. 1579.  translateth accordingly, which may be confuted by infinite examples in the Scripture itself, & is confuted by Illyricus the Lutheran: is it not a sign either of passing ignorance, or of most wilful corruption, to maintain the blasphemy that hereupon they conclude? See chap. 7. numb. 42▪ 43.  

FVLKE. 29. If Beza, Caluine, & the English translations be deceived about the use of the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it proveth not that they are deceived in the translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the matter in question. They have other reasons to defend it, than the use of the preposition, although you slander Caluine, in saying he affirmeth, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used for propter. For he saith no more, but that the preposition is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some such like, that may design a cause quae causam designet, that is, that certainly may point out a cause, & can not otherwise be taken. Likewise Beza saith, Atqui non facile mihi persuaserim, proferri posse ullum exemplum in quo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita vsurpe●ur. But I can not easily persuade myself, that any example may be brought forth, in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so used, that is, for propter, or secundum, for which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were more proper and usual. Now if Illyricus have helped you with a few examples where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken, what say Beza or Caluine against it, but that it doth not usually and certainly signify so. Their judgement upon the place remaineth still grounded upon other arguments, although that reason of the acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not so strong, as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had never been so taken. But as for the blasphemy, you say, they conclude upon that place, will redound upon your own neck, for their exposition is honourable and glorious to God the father, and Christ his son, and to the Holy Ghost, by whom that Epistle was indicted, to the confusion of your Popish blasphemies, of the sacrifice propitiatory offered in the Mass.    

MART. 30. If Beza in the self same place contend, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify reverence or piety, but such a fear as hath horror & astonishment of mind: & in an other place saith of the self same word, clean contrary: what is it but of purpose to uphold the said blasphemy? See chap. 7. nu. 39 40.  

FULK. 30. Beza in the same place, doth bring many examples to prove, that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify a great fear, and so is to be taken Heb. 5. But it is an impudent lie to say, he doth contend, that it never signifieth reverence, or piety: and therefore that he saith it signifieth piety in an other place, is nothing contrary to that he spoke in this place, for the word signifieth both, as no man that will profess any knowledge in the Greek tongue can deny.    

MART. 31. If he translate for, God's foreknowledge 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Act. 2. v. 23.  God's providence, for soul, carcase, for hell, grave: to what 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  end is this but for certain heretical conclusions? And if upon 
* Ibid. v. 27. Annota. in no▪ test, post. edit.  admonition he altar his translation for shame, and yet protesteth that he understandeth it as he did before, did he not translate before wilfully according to his obstinate opinion? See chap. 7.  

FULK. 31. Beza doth in deed translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 providentia, but he expoundeth himself in his annotation. id est, aeterna cognition, for what heretical conclusion he should so do, you do not express, neither can I imagine. To your other quarrels, of soul, and carcase, hell and grave, I have said enough in answer to your preface, Sect. 46. & 47. 
Annotat. in Act. 2. v. 24.     

MART. 32. If to this purpose he avouch that, Sheol, signifieth nothing else in Hebrew but a grave, whereas all Hebricians 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  know that it is the most proper and usual word in the Scripture for Hell, as the other word Keber, is for a grave: who would think he would so endanger his estimation in the Hebrew tongue, but that an heretical purpose against Christ's descending into hell, blinded him? See chap. 7.  

FULK. 32. Nay rather all learned Hebricians know that Sheol is more proper for the grave, than for hell, and that the Hebrews have no word proper for hell, as we take hell, for the place of punishment of the ungodly, but either they use figuratively Sheol, or more certainly 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 grave. That Keber signifieth the grave, it is no proof that Sheol doth not signify the same, & therefore you show yourself to be too young an Hebrician, to carp at beza's estimation in the knowledge of the tongue.    

MART. 33. And if all the English Bibles translate accordingly, to wit, for Hell, Grave, wheresoever the Scripture may mean any lower place that is not the Hell of the damned: and where it must needs signify that Hell, there they never avoid so to translate it: is it not an evident argument, that they know very well the proper signification, but of purpose they will never use it to their disadvantage in the questions of Limbus, Purgatory, Christ's descending into Hell? chap. 7.  

FVLKE. 33. I have said before, there is no place in the old Testament, where Sheol must needs signify, that hell, in which are the damned, but the place may be reasonably and truly translated the grave: although, as in diverse places, by death is meant eternal death, so by grave is meant hell, or damnation. Concerning the questions of Limbus, Purgatory, and the descending of Christ into hell, they are nothing like: for the last is an article of our faith, which we do constantly believe in the true understanding thereof, but the other are fables and inventions of men, which have no ground, in the Scripture, but only a vain surmise, builded upon a wrong interpretation of the words of the Scripture, as in the peculiar places shall be plainly declared.    

MART. 34. If further yet in this kind of controversy, 
Annot. in Act. 2. v. 24.  Beza would be bold to affirm (for so he saith) if the Grammarians would give him leave, that Chebel with ●iue points signifieth, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  funem, no less than Chebel with six points: is he not wonderfully set to maintain his opinion, that will change 
That is, he would translate, Solutis funibus mortis, not▪ Solutis dolorib●s inferni.  the nature of words, if he might, for his purpose?  

FULK. 34. wonderfully I promise you, for he translateth the word for all this doloribus, and sayeth. Nihil tamen ausus sum mutare ex coniectura. Yet I durst change nothing upon conjecture. Annotat. in Act. 2. v. 24. You say he would change the natures of words. Nothing so, but if the word might bear that signification, he thinketh it more agreeable to the Hebrew phrase, which the Evangelist doth often follow. Is not this a great matter to make an evident mark of corruption?    

MART. 35. If passives must be turned into actives▪ and actives into passives, participles disagree in case from their substantives, or rather be plucked & separated from their true substantives, solecisms imagined, where the construction is most agreeable, errors devised to creep out of the margin, & such like: who would so presume in the text of holy Scriptures, to have all Grammar, and words, and phrases, and constructions at his commandment, but Beza and his like, for the advantage of their cause? See chap. 5. numb. 6. and the numbers next following in this chapter.  

FULK. 35. But if all these be proved to be vain cavils, and frivolous quarrels, as in the chap. 5. numb. 6. and in the numbers following in this chapter it shall be plainly declared, than I hope all men of mean capacity and indifferent judgement will confess, that ignorance hath deceived you, malice hath blinded you, hatred of the truth hath overthrown you, the father of lies and slanders hath possessed you. 
Act. ●. 21.     

MART. 36. For example S Peter saith Heaven must 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  receive Christ. He translateth, Christ must be contained in heaven, which Caluine himself misliketh, the Geneva English Bible is afraid to follow, Illyricus the Lutheran reprehendeth: 
Pag. 43.  & yet M. whitaker's taketh the advantage of this translation, to prove that Christ's natural body is so cont●●ned in heaven, that it can not be upon the alt●r. For he knew that this was his masters purpose and intent in so translating. This it is, when the blind follow the blind, yea rather, when they see and will be blind: for certain it is (and I appeal to their greatest Grecians) that howsoever it be taken for good in their divinity, it will be esteemed most false in their Greek schools both of Oxford and Cambridge: and howsoever they may presume to translate the holy Scriptures after this sort, surely no man, no not themselves, would so translate Demosthenes, for saving their credit and estimation in the Greek tongue. See chap. 17. numb. 7. 8. 9  

FULK. 36. Beza translateth quem oportet caelo capi. Act. 3. v. 21. You say, Heaven must receive Christ. Beza saith, Christ must be received of heaven. Call you this turning of actives into passives, and passives into actives? Or will you deny us the resolution of passives into actives, or actives into passives? What difference is there in sense, between these propositions? Your purse containeth money, and money is contained in your purse. The Church must receive all Christians, or all Christians must be received of the Church. But Caluine, you say, misliketh this translation, and the Geneva Bible is afraid to follow it. Yet neither of them both misliketh this sense, nor can, for it is all one with that which you translate, whom heaven must receive. Caluine only saith, the Greek is ambiguous, whether heaven must receive Christ, or Christ must receive heaven. But when you grant that heaven must receive Christ, you can not deny for shame of the world, but Christ must be received of heaven: wherefore you understand neither Caluine, nor Illyricus, who speak of the other sense, that Christ must receive heaven. And Master Whitaker, not of beza's translation, but of the text, and even of your own translation, may prove, that Christ's natural body is contained in heaven. And as for your appeal to the greatest Grecians, and the Greek schools, both of Oxford and Cambridge, is vain and frivolous, for the least Grammarians that be in any country schools, are able to determine this question, whether these propositions be not all one in sense, and signification. Ego amo te, and Tu amaris à me, I love thee, or thou art loved of me. But it is strange Divinity, that Christ should be contained in heaven. Verily how strange so ever it seemeth to Gregory Martin, it was not unknown to Gregory Nazianzen, as good a Grecian, and as great a Divine as he is. For in his second Sermon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not far from the beginning, he writeth thus of our Saviour Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For he must reign until then, and be received or contained of heaven until the times of restitution. Here you see Nazianzen citing this very place of Saint Peter Acts. 3. For the mean verb of active signification, doubteth not freely to use the passive verb in the same sense, that Beza translateth the place, against which you declaim so tragically. And if you think it to be such an heinous offence, to render passively in the same sense, that which is uttered actively in the text, so that no man for his credit would so translate Demosthenes, as Beza doth Saint Luke: I pray you what regard had you of your credit and estimation? When Matth. the 4. you translate out of Latin, Qui daemonia habebant, such as were possessed: and Luke the second, Vt profiterentur, to be enroled. Belike you have a privilege to do what you list, when other men may not do that which is lawful.    

MART. 37. But there is yet worse stuff behind: to wit, the famous place Luke. 22. where Beza translateth thus, Hoc poculum nowm testamentum per meum sanguinem, qui pro vobis funditur: whereas in the Greek, in all copies without exception, he confesseth that in true Grammatical construction it must needs be said, quod pro vobis funditur, and therefore he saith it is either a plain soloecophanes (& according to that presumption he boldly trslateth) or a corruption crept out of the margin into the text. And as for the word Soloecophanes, we understand him that he meaneth a plain soloecism and fault in Grammar, and so doth M. 
Pag. 34. 35. Against D. Sand. Rock. pag. 308.  whitaker's▪ but M. Fulke saith, that he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancy and figurative speech, used of most eloquent authors: and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his devices striving to make S. Luke's speech here 
See Comm. ●●d. Figurata constr●c●io, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as he construeth the words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue. He sendeth us first to Budees' commentaries, where there are examples of Soloecophanes: and in deed Budee taketh the word for that which may seem a soloecism, and yet is an elegancy, and all his examples are of most fine and figurative phrases, but alas how unlike to that in S. Luke. And here M. Fulke was very foully deceived, thinking that Beza and Budee took the word in one sense: and so taking his mark amiss, as it were a counter for gold, where he found Soloecophanes in Budee, there he thought all was like to S. Luke's sentence, & that which Beza meant to be a plain soloecism, he maketh it like to Budees' elegancies. Much like to those good searchers in Oxford (as it is said) masters of art, who having to seek for Papistical books in a Lawyer's study, and seeing there books with red letters, cried out, Mass books, Mass books: whereas it was the Code or some other book of the Civil or Canon law.  

FULK. 37. This must needs be a famous place, for the real presence of Christ's blood in the sacrament, that never one of the ancient or late writers observed, until within these few years. But let us see what fault Beza hath committed in translation. The last word in the verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he hath so translated, as it must be referred to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying blood, with which in case it doth not agree. That is true: but that he confesseth that all Greek copies without exception have it, as it is commonly red: it is false: only he saith: Omnes tamen vetusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant▪ All our old Greek copies, had it so written. He speaketh only of his own, or such as he had, and not of all without exception, for since he wrote this note, there came to his hands one other ancient copy, both of Greek and Latin, in which this whole verse of the second delivery of the cup, is clean left out. For immediately after these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth follow, & so in the Latin, Veruntamen ecce manus qui tradet me, etc. Moreover Beza telleth you, that Basil in his Ethics 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. citing this whole text of S. Luke, readeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the dative case, agreeing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. Again, where you say, he confesseth that in true grammatical construction it must needs be said, Quod pro vobis funditur, his words are not so, but that those words, if we look to the construction, can not be referred to the blood, but to the cup, which in effect is as much as you say: His judgement in deed is of these words, as they are now red, that either it is a manifest Soloecophanes, or else an addition out of the margin into the text. And as for the word Soloecophanes, you understand him that he meaneth a plain soloecism, & fault in grammar, and so doth M. whitaker's. How you understand him it is not material, but how he is to be understood, in deed. M. whitaker's whom you call to witness, doth not so understand him, but showeth that if he had called it a plain soloecism, he had not charged S. Luke with a worse fault, than Hieronyme chargeth S. Paul. But what reason is there that you or any man should understand Beza, by Soloecophanes, to mean a plain soloecism? Think you he is so ignorant, that he knoweth not the difference of the one from the other, or so negligent of his terms, that he would confound those, whom he knoweth so much to differ? But Master Fulke (say you) saith that he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancy, and figurative speech, used of most eloquent authors: and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his devices, striving to make Saint Luke's speech here, as he construeth the words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue. Thus you writ, but if I give not all Grecians, and Latinistes just occasion, before I have done with you, to laugh at your proud ignorance, and to spit at your malicious falsehood, let me never have credit, I say not of a Grecian or learned man, which I desire not, but not so much as of a reasonable creature. Ah sir, and doth M. Fulke say, that this speech of S. Luke is an elegancy in the Greek tongue? I pray you where saith he so? you answer me quickly. Against D. Saunders Rock. pag. 308. I tremble to hear what words you have there to charge me withal. In deed in that page I begin to speak of that matter against Saunder, who chargeth Beza as you do, & moreover affirmeth that Beza should teach, that S. Luke wrore false Greek, because he saith, that here is a manifest Soloecophanes. But that neither you shall quarrel, that I chose some piece of my saying for my purpose, nor any man doubt how honestly you charge me, I will here repeat whatsoever I have written touching that matter, in the place by you quoted.  
But the Protestants do not only make themselves judges of the whole books, but also over the very letter (saith he) of Christ's Gospel, finding fault with the construction of the Evangelists, and bring the text itself in doubt. Example hereof he bringeth: Beza in his annotations upon Luke 22. of the words: This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you. In which text, because the word blood in the Greek, is the dative case, the other word that followeth is the nominative case, Beza supposeth that S. Luke useth a figure called Soloe●ophanes, which is appearance of incongruity, or else that the last word which is shed for you, might, by error of writers, being first set in the margin out of Matthew and Mark, be removed into the text. Hereupon M. Saunder out of all order and measure, ●ayleth upon Beza and upon all Protestants. But I pray you good sir, shall the only opinion of Beza, and that but a doubtful 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 soothe the Greek text is contrary to his sacramentary heresy. For thus he should translate it: This cup is the new Testament in my blood, which cup is shed for you. Not the cup of gold or silver (saith he) but the liquor in that cup, which is not wine, because wine was not shed for us, but the blood of Christ. Why then the sense is this. This blood in the cup which is shed for you, is the new Testament in my blood. What sense in the world can these words have? By which it is manifest, that the words which is shed for you, cannot be referred to the cup, but to his blood. For the cup was the new Testament in his blood, which was shed for us, which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the manifest word of God. Neither doth the vulgar Latin translation give any other sense, although M. Saunder is not ashamed to say it doth. The vulgar Latin text is this. Hic est calix nowm Testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur. What grammarian in construing, would refer qui to calix, and not rather to sanguine. Again Erasmus translateth it even as Beza. Hoc poculum nowm Testamentum per sanguinem meum qui pro vobis effunditur. Now touching the conjecture of Beza, that those words by error of the scrivener, might be removed from the margin into the text, is a thing that sometime hath happened, as most learned men agree, in the 27. of Matthew, where the name of jeremy is placed in the text, for that which is in Zachary, & yet neither of the Prophets was named by the Evangelist, as in most ancient records it is testified. The like hath been in the first of Mark, where the name of Esay is set in some Greek copies, & followed in your vulgar translation, for that which is cited out of Malachi, which name was not set down by the Evangelist, but added by some unskilful writer, & is reproved by other Greek copies. But this place you say is not otherwise found in any old copy, as Beza confesseth: then remaineth the second opinion, that S. Luke in this place, useth Soloecophanes, which is an appearance of incongruity, & yet no incongruity. Wherein I can not marvel more at your malice (M. Saunder) than at your ignorance, which put no difference between Soloecisinus & Soloecophanes, but even ●s spitefully, as unlearnedly, you affirm that Beza should teach, that S. Luke wrote false Greek, whereas Soloecophanes is a figure used of the most eloquent writers that ever took pen in hand, even Cicero, Demosthenes, Greek and Latin, profane and divine, and even of S. Luke himself in other places, whereof for examples, I refer you to Budaeus upon the word Soloecophanes. The appearance of incongruity is, that it seemeth, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the nominative case, should agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the dative case, whereas in deed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used as a relative for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is often, and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wanteth, is understood, as it is commonly in the Greek tongue, and so the translation must be hoc poculum nowm Testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effunditur, or effusus est. So that this is nothing else, but an impudent and unskilful quarreling, against Beza, whereas you Papists defend against the manifest institution of the cup, and the practice of the primitive Church, the communion in one kind of bread only. Con●. Const. Sess. 13. 21.  
Where find you that I affirm S. Luke's speech here to be an elegancy in the Greek tongue? Yea or Soloecophanes to be nothing else but an elegancy, and figurative speech? A figure in deed I say that it is, but are all figures elegancies, or all figurative speeches, elegancies of speech? Some figures I trow serve to excuse similitudes of faults in speech. But I say Soloecophan●s is used of the most eloquent writers. Very well, doth it thereof follow, that it is always an elegancy. Have not the most eloquent authors, used Hyperbatons, Perissologies, and other figures that are counted faults of speech, and not elegancies, and fine speeches? But all the examples of Budee (you say) to whose commentaries I send you, are of most sine and figurative phrases. If they be such, they do the better prove, that for which I called him to warrantize, namely, that Soloecophanes is not a soloecism, or false Greek, wherewith Saunder accuseth Beza to charge S. Luke. But where you utter your foolish pity, in saying, Alas how unlike they are to that in S. Luke. I think the case is not so clear as you make it, for I suppose those examples that he bringeth of the figure of the whole construction changed after a long Hyperbaton, or Parenthesis, may well be taken for figurative speeches, but not for elegancies and fine figurative phrases: as again those popular sayings which being taken out of the common people's speech, Budaeus sayeth, the most eloquent Orators have translated into their finest writings. Peradventure, as musicans use sometime a discord to set forth the h●rmonye of concords, so they by hardly avoiding of a soloecism, would show the grace of congruity, and elegancy. But of this whole matter let the judgement be with them that are learned and eloquent in both the tongues. It is sufficient for me that he which useth Soloecophanes in Greek committeth not a soloecism, or speaketh false Greek, as Saunder termeth it. But where you say, that Master Fulke was foully deceived and took his marks amiss, as it were a counter for gold, to think that Beza and Budee took the word in one sense, you say your pleasure, but you shall well know, that Master Fulke is not so young a babe, to take a counter for gold, as you are a bold bayard, to pronounce of all men's meanings what you list. For how are you able to prove, that Beza by Soloecophanes meaneth a plain soloecism? Think you that Beza is so simple a child also, to term copper by the name of gold? If he had meant a soloecism could he not have said so? But you must play Procustes part, for neither my saying, nor Beza his meaning, were large enough for you, to frame your slanderous cavil against the truth, and therefore with a loud lie, you must lengthen my saying, and with proud and false presumption, you must stretch out his meaning. These be your arts, this is your eloquence, these are the sinews of your accusations. What those good searchers in Oxford were, which being masters of Art, could not discern between mass books, and law books, for my part I never heard, but I think it to be a matter of as good credit as that you report of me and Beza.    

MART. 38. This was lack of judgement in M. Fulke at the least, and no great sign of skill in Greek phrases, and he must no more call D. Sanders unlearned for not understanding beza's meaning, but himself, who in deed understood him not. For, if Beza meant that it was an elegancy used of the finest authors, and such as Budee doth exemplify of, why doth he say. that he seethe not why Luke should use soloecophanes, but thinketh rather, it is a corruption crept into the margin? Tell us M. Fulke we beseech you, whether is the better and honester defence, to say, that it is an elegancy and fine phrase in S. Luke, or to say, it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin, the Gospel is here corrupted. Think you Beza such a fool, that he would rather stand upon this later, if he might have used the former, and had so meant by soloecophanes? yea what needed any defence at all, if it had been an usual and known elegancy, as you would prove it?  

FULK. 38. I had rather it should be counted want of judgement in me, so it were by a man of judgement, than to be taken so often with falsification, and lack of truth. For my skill in Greek phrases, although I never professed any, yet I see nothing brought by you, to change mine opinion of Saunders unlearned slander, in railing against Beza, for saying that S. Luke should write false Greek. And if Soloecophanes do differ as much from Soloecismus, as gold doth from copper (as you seem to say) when you write that I take a counter for gold, I might think myself very unlearned in deed, if I did understand Beza speaking of Soloecophanes, as though he spoke of Soloecismus. But you demand why Beza sayeth, that he seethe not why S. Luke should use Soloecophanes, if he meant that it was an elegancy used of the finest authores. Still you thrust in your lie, in every corner: who sayeth he meant it was an elegancy? Beza sayeth he seethe no cause why S. Luke should use Soloecophanes, that is, depart from the usual and ordinary construction: and therefore passeth to an other conjecture. But you speak me fair to tell you, whether is the better & honester defence, to say that it is an elegancy, and fine phrase, or to say it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin, the Gospel is here corrupted. First I answer you that Beza affirmeth neither, but rather translateth as basil did re●d. Secondly, I say there is no dishonesty in either of both conjectures, for this Soloecophanes though it be no elegancy, yet may be defended from soloecism, or false Greek. And certain it is that some words have crept out of the margin into the text, as the name of jeremy in all copies that are extant Math. 27. and, of Esay in many: Marc. 1. And yet we say not the Gospel is corrupted, which fowl phrase it seemeth, you have great pleasure in, not withstanding you yourself out of Lindanus, charge all the Greek copies of the epistle to the Corinthians to be corrupted by Martion the mischievous mouse of Pontus. You ask further, whether I think Beza such a fool to stand rather upon the later▪ if he might have used the former, and had so meant by Soloecophanes? Nay rather, think you Beza such a fool, that he would mean a plain soloecism, and call it only an appearance of soloecism? what he rather stood upon, his translation doth best show, which is both with S. basiles reading, and with the appearance of incongruity, which is none in deed. Yea what needed any defence at all, say you, if it had been an usual and known elegancy. So well you love a lie when you have made it, that you can never leave it until you have worn it all to nought. Now you have it, not only an elegancy, but an usual and known elegancy. Verily I never said it was an elegancy, as my words are plain to be red of every man, and much less that it was an usual and known elegancy. Only I say it is usual and common in the Greek tongue, that the praepositive article, is used for the relative, and so much in the next section you yourself do grant me: and as for defence you talk of, I see none needful, except it be for that this phrase here used of S. Luke, is lawful, though it be not so common, as the ordinary construction.    

MART. 39 For you say further, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is understood, and that this is a common thing in the best Greek authors, but you must add, that the said relative must always be referred to the antecedent of the same case, as this speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be resolved thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may be resolved, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you shall never be able to bring one example, and you wilfully abuse whatsoever knowledge you have of the Greek tongue, to deceive the ignorant, or else you have no skill at all, that speak so barbarously & rustically of Greek elegancies. For if you have skill, you know in your conscience, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is as great a soloecism in Greek, and no more elegancy, than to say in Latin, In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the school deserveth whipping. And yet you ask very vehemently (concerning these words, Hic calix nowm Testamentum in meo sanguine qui pro vobis fundetur:) what mean Grammarian would refer, qui, to calix, and not to sanguis? I answer that a mere latinist, for ignorance of the Greek tongue, would refer it rather as you say: but he that knoweth the Greek; as you seem to do, though he be a very young Grammarian, will easily see it can not be so referred: as in the like Act. 14 Sacerdos quoque iovis qui erat ante civitatem eorum. Here, qui, is ambiguous, but in the Greek we see 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that, qui, must be referred to, iovis, and can not be referred to, Sacerdos.  

FULK. 39 First I take that you grant me, that it is a common thing in the Greek tongue, that the article praepositive is taken for the subjunctive, and the Verb substantive may be understood, where it is not expressed: which if you would not have granted, might have been extorted from you by confession of all Grecians, and Greek writers. Secondly where you teach me a general rule, to add to the former concession, that the said relative must always be referred to the antecedent of the same case, as in the example you bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you shall pardon me to learn of you. I take you for no such▪ Aristarchus, that you have power to make new rules in the Greek Grammar, and such as shall control not only Homer, but all good authors that ever did write in that language, of soloecism and incongruity. For if the relative must always be referred to the antecedent of the same case, to agree with it in case, or else it is false Greek, I will abide by it, there is no Greek auctor whose works are extant, but he hath committed soloecism. The examples that hereof might be brought out of every several writer, if they were heaped together, would make a book as big as Ilias. But in this so clear a case, to cite any examples, I see not to what purpose it should be, unless it were to make little children that learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Grammar schools, to be witnesses of your intolerable arrogancy, and incredible ignorance. One example I will bring you out of S. Mark, not unlike this of S. Luke, but that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is expressed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they bring him to the place Golgotha, which is being interpreted the place of skulls. This example is more than sufficient, for so plain a matter. For although it be an elegancy for the relative to agree in case with the Antecedent sometimes, yet to make a perpetual rule thereof it proceedeth of too much rashness, want of knowledge and consideration. But I shall never be able to bring one example like to this of S. Luke, where the relative not agreeing in case with the Antecedent, the Participle may be resolved by the verb Substantive that is not expressed: and I wilfully abuse what so ever knowledge I have of the Greek tongue, to deceive the ignorant, or else I have no skill at all, to speak so barbarously, and rustically of Greek elegancies, and I know in my conscience, it is as great a soloecism in Greek, and no more elegancy than to say in Latin In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the school deserveth whipping: and I know not what beside. But touching the similitude of the Solecisms, if you had made your example a like, that is put in the relative in the Latin, as it is in the Greek, In meo sanguine qui fusus pro vobis, there is no more soloecism in the one, than in the other. But all this while I bring no example, and you urge an example, yea so extremelye, that you say confidently, I shall never be able to bring one: but what if I bring two or three? who then abuseth his knowledge in the Greek? who hath no skill at all? who deserveth whipping? Have you so red all authors, and bear them, and all their phrases so well in mind, that you dare before all the world avouch, that I shall never be able to bring one example? But to let all the world see your vanity, I will begin with Theognis, who in the 863. of his Elegiake sentences writeth thus:  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
See you here the relative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the nominative case not agreeing with his antecedent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the accusative case, but coming before the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is included in the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is included in the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; What can you here say? will you cavil at the subjunctive article, then read a few verses after, and see whether this Poet useth not as indifferently the prepositive article as the subjunctive, for the relative.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
And within two verses,  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
speaking of the same Wine.  
Also Theocritus in 25. Eidyll.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
And in the 24. Edyll.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
From Theocritus let us pass to Hesiodus, out of whom it were over tedious to cite, how often he useth the article prepositive for the relative, and not agreeing in case with the antecedent: but an example or two shall serve, where the verb substantive is understood, and not expressed, nor any other verb to govern the relative, yet not agreeing in case with the Antecedent.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Again in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Here me thinks, I hear you grudge against poetry, and poetical licence, as doubtless you would quarrel 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 Scriptures. First that Soloecophanes is found in S. Luke I will refer you to the first cap. of his Gospel, v. 74. and cap. 6. v. 4. Likewise Acts 27. v. 3. and act. 13. v. 6. But for the like Soloecophanes to this in question Luc. 22. I will send you first to S. Paul, Col. 1. v. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In this verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must needs be the accusative case, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, by apposition, then is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for all the world, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the nominative case, signifying Quod absconditum fuit, which the later part of the verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth most plainly declare. For what else should be the nominative case to the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and even so your vulgar Latin text hath it translated: ut impleam verbum Dei, mysterium quod absconditum fuit à saeculis & generationibus, nunc autem manifestatum est sanctis eius. But because this is not so evident, for that the nominative case & the accusative of the neuter gender be of one termination, I will bring you yet more plain examples out of the revelation of S. john, cap. 1. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Grace to you and peace from him, or from God, (as some copies have) which is, and which was, & which is to come. Would not your grammar say it is a plain soloecism, because he saith not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what have you here to quarrel? Is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same phrase that is in Luke, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Well, let us go a little further, to the next verse of the same chapter, where we read thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And from jesus Christ which is a faithful witness, the first borne from the dead, and Prince over the kings of the earth. The more usual construction would require, that he should have said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But that heuseth the same Soloecophanes, which S. Luke doth. ca 22. (If the reading be not altered) where the article prepositive is put in the place of the subjunctive, and agreeth not in case with the antecedent, as often it doth, but being the nominative case, cometh before the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is not expressed, but must needs be understood: as even your vulgar translator doth acknowledge, rendering it in both verses thus: ab eo qui est, & qui erat, & qui ven●urus est, and à jesu Christo qui est testis fidelis, etc. These examples I doubt not, but they are sufficient to satisfy any reasonable man, to show, that I have not invented a new construction that never was heard of, to save beza's credit, and whereof I am able to give not so much as one example. But that I may overthrow M. Martin's vain insultation, with a whole cloud of examples, I will yet add one or two more. In the same revelation, ca 8. v. 9 Thus we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and there died the third of all creatures which are in the sea, which had lives. Your vulgar Latin text turneth it thus. Et mortua est ●ertia pars creaturae, eorum quae habebant animas in mari. And there died the third part of the creatures, of those things which had life in the sea. In which translation, although the order of the words which Saint john useth, is somewhat inverted: yet the sense remaineth the same, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated, quae habebant, which agreeth not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in case, as every child that can decline a Greek noun, doth know: where otherwise the most common construction were to have said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Therefore the phrase and construction is the same, which is Luke 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What can fine M. Gregory, which carpeth at my skill, that speak so barbarously, and rustically of Greek elegancies, what can Master Gregory Martin I say, the great linguist of the Seminary of Rheims, allege, why these phrases are not alike? or rather changing the words, in figure the very same? And if he have any thing to cavil against this example, as I see not what he can have, yet have I an other out of the same book, cap. 3. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new jerusalem, which descendeth out of heaven from my God. The vulgar Latin translation differeth not from this, which saith: Et scribam super eum nomen dei mei, & nomen civitatis dei mei, novae jerusalem, quae descendit de coelo à deo meo. Here the antecedent is of the genitive case, the relative of the nominative, which cometh before the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, understood in the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in Luc. 22. it is in the participle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By these examples, in seeking whereof, I promise you, I spent no great time, you may learn to be wiser hereafter, & not to condemn all men, beside yourself, out of your reader's chair at Rheims, of ignorance, unskilfulness, barbarusnes, rusticity, yea wilfulness & madness, where you yourself deserve a much sharper censure, through your immoderate insultation, the matter thereof being both more false and forged, than we might justly have borne, if we had been overtaken with a little grammatical ignorance. By these examples I trust you see, or if you will needs be blind, all the young Grecians in England, may see, that as in the Latin translation, you confess the relative standeth more likely to be referred to the word Sanguine, than to the word Calix, so in the Greek, there is no help to remove it from the next manifest & necessary antecedent, to a word further of, with which the signification of the participle can not agree. For who would say that a cup is shed for us? And though you make a metonymy of the cup, for that which is in the cup, what is that I pray you? Not wine you will say, I am sure, but the blood of Christ. If you so resolve it, then followeth that vain nugation which I have noted against Saunder This blood in the cup, which blood is shed for you, is the new Testament in my blood. Is that blood in the cup diverse from that blood in which the new Testament is confirmed? If it be the same, how often was ●t shed? If it were shed in the cup, how holdeth your unbloody sacrifice? Or how can you say 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 blood was not separated from his body, in the supper, how can that which was in the cup, be his blood that was shed for us? for the word of shedding signifieth separation. Wherefore it can not be referred to that in the cup, but to his blood which was shed on the cross for us, 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 Evangelists, where the word of shedding, can be referred to nothing else, but to his blood shed upon the cross. wherefore the Greek text can here resolve you of no ambiguity, as in the place you cite, act. 14. Neither was there ever any ancient writer that stumbled upon this ambiguity, but all with one consent refer the word of shedding to his blood, and not to the cup, or the content thereof, so many as speak of it.    

MART. 40. And this is one commodity among others, that we reap of the Greek text, to resolve the ambiguity that is sometime in the Latin: whereas you neither admit the one nor the other, but as you list, neither doth the Greek satisfy you, be it never so plain and infallible, but you will devise that it is corrupted, that there is a soloecisine, that the same soloecism is an elegancy, and there upon you translate your own devise, and not the word of God. Which whence can it proceed, but of most wilful corruption? See chap. 17. nu. 10 11. 12.  

FULK. 40. This is nothing but general railing, & impudent slandering, as in the particular sections before is proved. For we neither devise that the text is corrupted, to alter any thing of the text, no not where it is undoubtedly corrupted, as in the name of jeremy. Math. 27. Neither devise we a soloecism, when we admonish that there is a Soloecophanes, which of no Papist that ever I heard of was before observed. Neither make we a soloecism to be an elegancy when we say against them that confound a soloecism with Soloecophanes, that Soloecophanes is a figure used sometimes of most eloquent writers, neither is it straight way a virtue or elegancy of speech what so ever eloquent writers sometimes have used: wherefore we translate nothing of our own devise, but we translate the word of God without any wilful corruption.    

MART. 41. If in ambiguous Hebrew words of doubtful signification, where the Greek giveth one certain sense, you refuse the Greek, and take your advantage of the other sense: what is this but wilful partiality? so you do in, Redime eleemosynis 
Ps. 118. Octo●. Nun. Ps. 138.  peccata tua. Dan. 4. and Inclinavi cor meum ad faciendas iustificationes tuas propter retributionem. and, Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus etc. and yet at an other time you follow the determination of the Greek for an other advantage: as Psal. 98. Adore his footstool, because he is holy. Whereas in the Hebrew it may be as in our Latin, because 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  it is holy. See chapt. 13. num. 18. chapt. 9 num. 23 24. chapt. 18. num. 1. 2. So you flee from the Hebrew to the Gre●ke, and from this to that again, from both to the vulgar Latin, as is showed in other places▪ and as S. Augustine 
●i. 11. con●. Faust. cap. 20  saith to Faustus the Manichee, You are the r●le of truth: whatsoever is for you, is true: whatsoever is against you, is not true.  

FULK. 41. If Hebrew words be ambiguous, we take that sense which agreeth with other places that are plain, and with out all ambiguity, and this is no partiality, but wisdom and love of the truth: not to ground any new doctrine upon such places only, where the Hebrew word is ambiguous, and may have diverse significations. As you do the redemption of sins by alms, upon that place of Daniel. 4. Where you confess that the Hebrew word is ambiguous, & are not able to bring any one plain text for it, where the words are not ambiguous. But we ground our refusal upon a hundred plain texts, that acribe the whole glory of our ransom & redemption from sins, to the only mercy of God. But as well this text, as the other two, that you cite in the chapters by you quoted, shall be thoroughly diseussed, to see if you can have any advantage at our translators of the same. But on the contrary side (you say) that at an other time we follow the determination of the Greek for an other advantage, as in that text, Psalm. 89. Adore his foot stool. because he is holy, whereas in the Hebrew it may be as in your Latin, because it is holy I answer, that we follow not the determination of the Greek, as moved by the only authority thereof, for any advantage, but because we learn our interpretation out of the very Psalm itself. For whereas the Prophet in the 5. verse hath said. Exalt ●e the Lord our God, and worship at the foot stool of his feet, for he is holy: in the last verse of the same, he repeateth again the like exhortation. Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship him in his holy hill, for the Lord our God is holy. In this verse for his foot stool he placeth the holy hill, which expresseth where his foot stool was, namely 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the holy A●ke, and for Cadhosh hu, holy is he, now he sayeth Cadosh I●houa, holy is the Lord our God, which putteth the other verse out of ambiguity. Wherefore if we take testimony of the Greek, we fly not to the Greek from the Hebrew, but show that the Hebrew may so be understood, having other more certain arguments, than the testimony of the Greek. Again it is utterly false that you say, we fly from both Hebrew and Greek to the Latin, for we never fly from the Hebrew, but acknowledge it as the fountain and spring, from whence we must receive, the infallible truth of God's word, of the old Testament, following the Latin or Greek so far, as they follow the truth of the Hebrew text, and no farther. As for the saying of S. Augustine to Faust●s the Manichee. (You are the rule of truth,) doth most aptly agree to you Papists and to your Pope: for you will not afford unto the Scriptures themselves, any authority or certainty of truth, but upon your approbation and interpretation. Wherefore not only that which he saith to Faustus the Manichee, agreeth aptly to you: what so ever is for you is true, what so ever is against you, is not true: but that also which he reporteth, Tyconius the Donatist said of his sect (Quod volumus sanctum est, what so ever we will is holy) you yourselves take upon you. For no doctrine is good nor holy, though it be proved never so plainly out of the holy Scripture, except it be allowed by you for catholic and holy.    

MART. 42. What shall I speak of the Hebrew particle vau? which (Gen. 14. vers. 18.) must in no case be 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  translated, because, lest it should prove that Melchisedec offered sacrifice of bread and wine, as all the ●athers, expound i●: but (Luc. 1. verse. 42.) where they translate the equivalent Greek particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there Beza proveth the said particle to signify, because, and translateth accordingly, 
Quia benedictus, for, & benedictus fructus ven●ris tui.  and the English Bezites likewise. I will not urge them why, we like the sense well, and Theophylacte so expoundeth it. But if the Greek copulative may be so translated, why not the Hebrew copulative much more, which often in the Scripture is used in that sense? See chap. 17. nu. 13. 14.  

FULK. 42. That the Hebrew particle Vau, is sometimes to be taken for a casual conjunction, & signifieth, because: no man denieth: but that it must be taken so. Gen. 14. because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken so. Luc. 1. 42. what reason is this? But all the fathers (say you) expound Melchisedechs' bringing forth of bread and wine, to be a sacrifice. I grant that many do, but not all: yet do not they ground upon the conjunction causal, for Cyprian Lib. 2. Epist. 3. ad Caecilium readeth thus, Fuit autem sacerdos, and he was a Priest. So doth Hierom Epist. ad Euagrium, expounding the very Hebrew text, say, Et Melchisedech rex Salem protulit panem & vinum, erat autem sacerdos dei excelsi. The word protulit also hath Ambrose, de mysterijs initiand. Augustine upon the title of the 33. Psalm. Cyprian in the epistle before named, and the vulgar Latin hath proferens. Jerome Ep. ad Euagrium, showeth that the best learned of the hebrews judgement was, that Melchisedech Victori Abraham ●buiam processerit, & in refectionem, tam ipsius, quam pugnatorum ipsius, panes vinumque protulerit. Melchisedech came forth to meet Abraham the conqueror, and for refection, as well of him, as of his warriors, brought forth bread and wine. And after many interpretations of the Greek writers which he rehearseth, in the end he will determine nothing of his own judgement. The author of Scholastica historia, Cap. 64. agreeth with the interpretation of the hebrews. At vero Melchisedech rex Salem obtulit ei panem & vinum: quod (quasi exponens) josephus ait: ministravit exercitui xenia, & multam abundantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit, & super epulas benedixit Deum, qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos. Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi. But Melchisedech king of Salem, offered unto him bread and wine, which josephus (as it were expounding of it) saith: he ministered to his army the duties of hospitality, and gave him great plenty of things necessary, and beside the feast, or at the feast, he blessed God, which had subdued unto Abraham his enemies: for he was a Priest of the highest God. Therefore not all the fathers so judged of Melchisedeches' bread and wine. But against all them that referred the same to his Priesthood, we oppose the Apostle to the hebrews ca 7. who searching of purpose whatsoever was in Melchisedech, wherein he resembled Christ, so that he omitteth not the interpretation of his name, nor of his city, maketh no mention of his sacrifice of bread and wine, whereas nothing seemeth to have greater resemblance, than that, which deceived many of the ancient fathers, but yet was not observed of the holy Ghost.    

MART. 43. But I would ask rather▪ why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Luc. 1. v. 28.  may not in any case be translated, full of grace: whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated, full of sores. Both words being of like 
Luc. 16. v. 20.  form and force. See chap. 18. numb. 4. 5.  

FULK. 43. The former word being a participle, is best translated by a participle freely beloved: for the other, if we had a participle in English to say, sored or botched, we would use it, but for lack of a participle, we are constrained to use the noun, full of sores. I may likewise ask you, whether you would translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full of gold, or gilded? And so of all other verbs of that form, where there is in English a participle: why ought not likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be translated by the participle?    

MART. 44. Again, why say they (Hebr. 13.) Let your 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  conversation be without covetousness, & say not, Let marriage be honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. Both 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  being expressed a like by the Apostle, and by way of exhortation, as the rest that goeth before and followeth? See chap. 15. numbr. 15.  

FULK. 44. Although the sense were not greatly different, yet the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following in the later part of the verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. but fornicators and adulterers God will judge, showeth that the former part of the verse, is an affirmation, rather than an exhortation. Again the purpose of the Apostle is plain, to dissuade them from whoredom and adultery, & not only to exhort married men to use marriage temperately, but for avoiding of whoredom and adultery, which God will punish, to show the remedy that God hath provided for man's infirmity, to be honourable and void of filthiness.    

MART. 45. Are we too suspicicious think you? how 
Hebr. 5. v. 7.  can fear, be translated, that which he feared: 
* Beza. Act. 26. v. 20. ●. Thess. 2. & ●.  repentance, them that repent or amend their life: tradition, the doctrine delivered: temples, shrines: idols, devotions: every human creature, all ordinances of man: foreknowledge, providence: soul, carcase: hell, grave: altar, temple: table, altar: and such like?  

FULK. 45. We think you not more suspicious, than malicious. From his fear, may well (for explications sake) be translated, from that which he feared, Heb. 5. v. 7. even as hope is sometime 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. signify them that repent, as circumcision often signifieth them that are circumcised, neither is there any change of the sense, to say the fruits worthy of repentance, or the fruits worthy of them that repent, or amend their life. And I pray you what doth tradition, 2. Thess. 2. & 3. signify, but the doctrine delivered? Doth not the Apostle declare, what his tradition was, when he delivereth this doctrine, that if any man will not work, let him not eat. 2. Thess. 3. v. 10. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is used, Act. 19 v. 24. signifieth neither temples nor shrines, but certain idolatrous coins, on which was stamped the figure of Diana's temple, more like to your Popish shrines, than to the temple of God. Where idols are translated devotions, I know not, except you mean, Act. 17. v. 23. where the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which your vulgar Latin translator, 2. Thess. 2. calleth quod colitur, that which is devoutly worshipped, & so the word signifieth whatsoever is religiously worshipped or adored, and not idols as you say, nor simulachra, images, as your translator calleth them, Act. 17. For it is derived of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to adore, to worship, to honour devoutly, or religiously. Every human creature, signifieth in that place, 1. Pet. 2. every magistrate, of what creation or ordination soever he be, and so is meant by that translation (all ordinances of men) not all laws of men, which yet were not impious, if you add the restraint, for the Lord, for whom nothing can be, that is against his law. The rest of your quarrels be all answered before.    

MART. 46. What caused these strange speeches in 
Psalm. 86. ●3. Bib. 1579.  their English Bibles. Thou shalt not leave my soul in the grave. Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave. A covetous man is a worshipper of images. By laying on of the hands of the Eldership. Hail freely beloved. SIN lieth at the door, and thou shalt rule over HIM. Break of thy sins with righteousness, for Redeem with alms. jealousy is cruel as the grave, for as hell. Cant. Cant. 8. Bib. an. 1579. The griefs of the grave caught me. Psalm. 116. And, God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave. O grave I will be thy destruction. 
Psalm. 4●.  Os. 13. and such like? what made Caluine so translate into Latin, that if you turn it into English, the sense is, that God powered water upon us abundantly, meaning the holy 
Tit. 3.  Ghost: what else but because he would take away the necessity of material water in Baptism, as in his commentary and beza's, it is evident?  

FULK. 46. These speeches are not strange in God's Church, how soever they sound in your ears. So many of them as translate for Sheol, the grave, have their answers sect. 32. and chap. 7. which is appointed for that question. The covetous 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 signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth a company of Elders, as it is translated by your own vulgar Latin interpreter. Luke 22. vers. 66. Seniore● plebis. The Elders of the people, and Act. 22. v. 5. he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Omnes maiores natu. And for a consistory of Elders, is the word Presbyterium used in Latin by Cyprian lib. 3. epist. 11. and lib. 2. epist. 8. 10. Of hail freely beloved we spoke lately, sect. 43. Of the text Gen. 4. v. 7. sin lieth at the door, etc. sect. 28. and chap. 10. sect. 9 of Dan. 4. break, for redeem thy sins. sect. 41.  
If Caluine Tit. 3. did wrongly interpret, that which is spoken of water, to be meant of the holy Ghost, what is that to our translation? But certain it is, that Caluine never meant to take away, the necessity of material water from the sacrament of baptism, although he taught that the want of the external sacrament, where it cannot be had, doth not deprive gods elect from eternal salvation: neither hath Beza any other meaning in his annotation.    

MART. 47. I had meant to have but briefly skimmed over these things, but multitude of matter maketh me too long, as it chanceth to a man that wadeth through miry and foul places, and yet the greatest demonstration that they are wilful corrupters, is behind, which only I will add, and for the rest, refer the reader to the whole book.  

FULK. 47. It is a small sign, that multitude of matter is cause of your length, when you repeat one matter in so many sections, your similitude of a man wading in foul and miry places, doth well agree unto you, for you have been all this while wading in the puddle of your slanders, misprisions, and false and false accusations, in which you have so bewrayed yourself, as you shall not easily purge yourself from the mire of them. But because you say the greatest demonstration, that we are wilful corrupters, is behind, though it be tedious for us to rake in such a gogmyre of your forgeries, and false accusations, yet we will take courage, and consider what main demonstration you can make, to prove us in our English translations to be wilful corrupters.    

MART. 48. Doubt you whether they translate of purpose and partiality, in favour of their opinions? you shall hear themselves say so, and protest it. If I dealt with Lutherans, this 
Tom. 2. fol. 405. edit. Witteb. anno 1551.  one testimony of Luther were sufficient, who being asked why he added only, into the text, Rom. 3. answered that he did it to explicate the Apostles sense more plainly, that is, to make the Apostle say more plainly, that faith only justified. And his Disciple Illyricus disputeth the matter, that the Apostle saying▪ by 
The express testimonies of Beza, (whom the English Heretical translations follow herein) that he doth wilfully and of purpose translate against such and such catholic assertions.  faith without works, saith in deed, only faith. But because I deal rather with our English Caluinists, and Beza is their chief translator, and a Captain among them, whom they profess to follow in the title of the new Testament, anno 1580. and by the very name of their Geneva Bibles, let us see what he saith.  

FVLKE. 48. I think there is no man doubteth, but they translated the Scripture, with purpose to maintain their opinions, but whether they have wittingly, and wilfully translated falsely, to maintain any errors, or heretical opinions, that is the matter in question, and which hath need of your greatest demonstration, to make it apparent. That Luther might rightly interpret the place Rom. 3. of only faith justifying, by the excluding of works, I have before acknowledged, & Illyricus doth rightly defend it. But that he did put in the word (only) in his translation, which is not in the original, I will not take upon me to excuse, seeing the truth of that doctrine is manifest, without that addition: and Luther himself in his later editions, hath reform it. Again, what fault soever other men have committed in their translation, we are unjustly charged therewith, except we follow the same in ours. That we profess to follow Beza by the very name of our Geneva Bibles, it is a very ridiculous argument. For our Bible's are so commonly called, because they were translated, and first printed at Geneva, not by Beza, who at that time, had scarce finished his translation of the new Testament, and never dealt with translating of the old, so far as we know, but by certain godly, and learned English men, which lived there in Queen Mary's time, to enjoy the liberty of a good conscience, which they could not have in their own Country.    

MART. 49. First, concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the vulgar Latin and Erasmus translate: Agite poenitentiam, Repent. or, Do penance. This interpretation (saith he) I refuse for many causes, but for this especially, that many ignorant persons have taken hereby an occasion of the false opinions of SATISFACTION, wherewith the Church is troubled at this day. Lo, of purpose against satisfaction he will not translate the Greek word, as it ought to be, and as it is proved to signify, both in this book, and in the annotations upon the new Testament. A little after speaking of the same word, he saith: why I 
Mat. ●. v. 8.  have changed the name, poenitentia, I have told a little before, protesting that he will never use those words, 
* Loco supra citato.  but resipiscere, and resipiscentia, that is, amendment of life: because of their heresy, that repentance is nothing else but a mere amendment of former life, without recompense or satisfaction or penance for the sins before committed. See chap. 13.  

FULK. 49. Of purpose against the heresy of satisfaction, Beza will not translate the Greek word, as the vulgar Latin translator doth, but yet as the Greek word ought to be translated. Erasmus finding the vulgar Latin unsufficient, hath added Vitae prioris, that is, repent ye of your former life. Neither doth Beza find fault with the English word repent, but with the Latin Agite paenitentiam, when you translate it, do penance, meaning thereby, pain or satisfaction for sins passed, to be a necessary part of true repentance, which is not contained in the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth changing of the mind, that is, not only a sorrow for the sin past, but also a purpose of amendment, which is best expressed by the Latin word Resipiscere, which is always taken in the good part as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Scripture, where as the Latin words paenitere and Paenitentia, are used in Latin, of sorrow or repentance that is too late. As paenitere and paenitentia may be said of judas grief of mind, which caused him to hang himself, but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or resipiscere and resipisscentia: and therefore the Holy Ghost speaking of his sorrow, useth an other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this is the cause, why Beza refused the word Paenitentia, having a Latin word that more properly doth express the Greek word, as we might lawfully do in English, if we had an other English word proper to that repentance, which is always joined with faith, and purpose of amendment, for want whereof, we are constrained to use the words repent and repentance, which may be taken in good part, or in evil. For we say, repentance too late, and judas repented too late, but there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that can be called too late. But where you say that resipiscere, and resipiscentia, is nothing but amendment of life, and that repentance in our heresy, is nothing else but a mere amendment of former life: you speak untruly: for those words do signify not only amendment of life, but also sorrow for the sins past, although without recompense or satisfaction, which you call penance, for the sins before committed: for we know no recompense or satisfaction made to God for our sins, but the death of Christ, who is the propitiation for our sins. 1. john. 1. Neither hath your blasphemous satisfaction any ground in the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but only a foolish colour by the Latin translation Agite poenitentiam, which, it is like your Latin interpreter did never dream of, and therefore he useth the word Resipiscere. 2. Tim. 2. Of them to whom God should give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, Et resipiscant, and so they may repent, or as you translate it, recover themselves from the snare of the Devil. Seeing therefore, repentance is the gift of God, it is no recompense or satisfaction made by us to God, to answer his justice: but an earnest and true grief of mind for our transgression of God's law, and offending against his majesty, with a certain purpose and determination of amendment, so near as God shall give us grace. hitherto therefore we have no demonstration of any wilful corruption, but a declaration of the cause that moved Beza, to use a more exact translation, and such as cometh nearer to the original word, than that which the vulgar translation hath used, upon which, occasion of a great blasphemy hath been taken, and is yet maintained.    

MART. 50. Again concerning the word, justifications, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which in the Scripture very often signify the commandments, he saith thus, The Greek interpreters of the Bible 
Luc. 1. v. 6.  (meaning the Septuaginta) apply this word to signify the whole Law of God, and therefore commonly it is wont to be translated word for word, justificationes: which interpretation therefore only I rejected, that I might take away this occasion also of cavilling against justification by faith, and so for, iustificationes, he putteth constituta, Tully's word forsooth, as he saith. Can you have a more plain tèstimonie of his heretic all purpose?  

FULK. 50. Concerning the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Beza translateth Constitutionibus, constitutions, and you confess that in Scripture it doth very often signify the commandments. He saith first, that as the whole Law of God is divided into three parts, Moral, Ceremonial, and judicial, so the Hebrews have three several words, to express the several precepts of those laws. For the Hebrew word which signifieth the Ceremonial precepts, the Greeks use to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So the sense is, that Zacharie, and Elisabeth were just, walking in all the Moral commandments, and observing the holy rites, and ceremonies, as much as concerned them: but the third word, which signifieth judgements, S. Luke doth not add, because the exercise of judicial cases, did not belong unto them, being private persons. After this he saith, that the Greek Interpreters of the Bible, transferred this word, unto the whole law of God, and especially to the holy ceremonies: so verily, exceedingly commending the law, that it is a certain rule of all justice. And therefore men are wont, commonly in respect of the word, to turn it, justifications. And this word in this place, Beza in deed confesseth, that he refused to use, for avoiding of cavillations against justification by faith, seeing he hath none other word, neither would he for offence, seek any new word, to express justification by faith, whereas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this text, Luc. 1. verse 6. signifieth not that, by which they were made just, but the commandments or precepts of God, by walking in which, they were declared to be just. For by the works of the law (such as Saint Luke here speaketh of) no flesh shall be justified before God. Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place, must have an other sense, than justifications, namely, commandments, as you say it is often taken, or constitutions, as Beza calleth them, which before God and the world, are not of such difference, that you should charge him with wilful corruption, for translating that word constitutions, which you confess, signifieth very often, commandments. Wherefore here appeareth no heretical purpose, except you will say, that justification by faith, which S. Paul so often, so diligently, and so purposedly doth teach, is an heresy.    

MART. 51. Again, when he had rejected this translation (Act. 2. verse 27.) Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell: because (as he saith) hereupon grew the errors of Christ's descending into Hell, of Limbus, and of Purgatory: atlength he concludeth thus: Whereas the doubtful interpretation of one or two words hath brought forth so many monsters, I chose rather 
* I o● how sin ●●● Anima, carcase. Infero nus, grave.  simply, for soul, to say, carcase, for hell, grave: than to foster these foul errors.  

FULK. 51. Beza showeth, that because the doubtful interpretation of the Hebrew word Sheol into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which doth not properly signify hell, but a dark place, such as the pit is, wherein the dead are put, and of the Poets is taken for hell, had bred such monsters, as Limbus patrum, Purgatory, and Christ's descending into them: therefore he did plainly translate that verse, as it is meant. of the raising up of Christ's body out of the grave, which if he had translated out of Hebrew, as he did out of Greek, had not been offensive, nor untrue, as I have showed in answer to your Preface, sect. 46. and of this chapter, sect. 32. But seeing Beza himself, hath altered that translation, and it was never followed of our English translators, what demonstration is this, that we are wilful corrupters of the holy Scriptures?    

MART. 52. Again, when he had translated for, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Whom heaven must receive, thus, who must be contained in heaven: he saith, whereas we have used the 
Act. 3. v. 21.  passive kind of speech, rather than the active (which is in the Greek:) we did it to avoid all ambiguity. For it is very expedient, that there should be in the Church of God, this perspicuous testimony against them, that for ascending by faith into heaven, so to be joined to our head, obstinately maintain that Christ must be called again out of heaven unto us. Meaning his presence in the ●. Sacrament, and inveighing no less against the Lutherans, than the Catholics, as the Lutherans do here against him, 
* Flac. Illyr.  for this wilful interpretation, and that by calvin's own judgement, who thinketh it a forced translation.  

FULK. 52. True it is, that he meant concerning the manner of Christ's presence in the blessed sacrament, and that so he translated, to exclude the carnal manner of presence, which the Papists have invented: but all this while the translation is true, and warranted by Gregory Nazianzene, as I have showed before, sect. 36. of this chapter. For he that saith, Heaven must receive Christ, (as you do) can not deny, except he be mad, but that Christ must be received of heaven. So that Beza doth none otherwise translate, than you do, Qui daemonia habebant, which is actively thus to be translated, those who had devils, and you say, which were possessed of devils, that is, were had of devils. That the Lutherans find fault with beza's translation, it proveth it not to be false, he hath justified it sufficiently in his answer to Selneccerus, and the Divines of jena. Neither doth Caluine (as you say untruly) think it a forced translation, but not weighing the sentence sufficiently, supposeth that the words are placed ambiguously, for that it seemeth to be doubtful, whether we should save, that heaven must receive Christ, or that Christ must receive heaven. But if it be once granted (as it is of you) that heaven must receive Christ, there is neither Caluine, nor Illyricus, nor any man that beareth the face, but of a young Grammarian, yea of a reasonable man, which can deny, that conversion by the passive: Christ must be received of heaven. Therefore if you had any respect of your credit, with men of understanding, you would not for shame, rehearse this quarrel so often, which hath not so much as any colour or show of reason to maintain it, but that you abuse the names of Illyricus and Caluine, as mislykinge it, whose arguments by no means will serve your turn, because that which is denied by them, or doubtful to them, is plain and confessed by you.    

MART. 53. But Beza goeth forward still in this kind. Rom. 5. verse. 18. whereas Erasmus had put propagatum est, indifferently, both of Adam's sin which made us truly sinners, and of Christ's justice, which maketh us truly just: he rejecting it, among other causes why it displeased him, saith: That old error of the Sophists (meaning Catholics) which for imputative justice put an inherent quality in the place, is so great, & so execrable to all good men, that I think nothing is so much to be avoided as it.  

FULK. 53. A manifest ecclipsis, or want of words, being in that verse, for which Erasmus hath put propagatum est, which word is ambiguous, and may give occasion of error, for men to think, that the righteousness of Christ cometh by propagation, as the guiltiness of Adam doth: Beza thought good to supply the lack, rather by such words as are warranted by the text, verse 12. 15. and 16. and can give no occasion of error. And therefore, thus he rendereth that verse, Nempe igitur, sicut per unam offensam reatus venit in omnes homines ad condemnationem: ita per unam justificationem, beneficium redimdavit in omnes homines ad justificationem vitae. Now therefore, as by one offence guiltiness came upon all men unto condemnation: so by one justification, the benefit abounded toward all men unto justification of life. In this verse these words, guiltiness came, and, the benefit abounded, are added for explication sake, and are taken out of the verses going before, in which the Apostle speaketh of the same matter. Therefore Beza to avoid occasion of the heresy of the Papists, of justice inherent, among other causes which he rehearseth, refuseth that word, by which Erasmus supplied the text, and useth such words for that purpose, as the Apostle himself in the verses precedent doth offer, for this necessary supply: which seeing it must be made, that there may be a sense and understanding: who can mislike that it should be made, by the Apostles own words? or who can suppose that the Apostle would leave any other words to be understood, than such as he himself had before expressed? And as for the heresy of inherent justice, can have no hold in this verse, except some such word be added for supply, as the Apostle never used in this case. That Christ's justice doth make us as truly just, as Adam's sin made us truly sinners, there is no question, but by what means we are made just, we say as the Scripture teacheth us to speak, that justice is imputed to us through faith, Rom. 4. The Papists say it is a quality inherent within us, for which words and matter, they have no warrant in the holy Scripture.    

MART. 54. These few examples prove unto us that the Scriptures translated verbatim, exactly, and according to the proper use and signification of the words, do by the Heretics confession make for the Catholics, and therefore Beza saith he altereth the words into other: and (I think) it may suffice any indifferent reader to judge 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 Caluinists, and Bezites. Many other ways there are to make mosta certain proof of their Wilfulness, as when the translation is 
* Cal. Heb. 5. 7. & Tit. 3. 6. Beza 2. Thess●l. 2. 15. & 3. 6.  framed according to their false and heretical commentary: and, When they will avouch their translations out of profane writers, Homer, Plutarch, Pliny, Tully, Virgil, and Terence, and reject the Ecclesiastical use of words in the Scriptures and Fathers: which Beza doth for the most part always. But it were infinite to note all the marks, and by these, the wise reader may conceive the rest.  

FULK. 54 These examples prove nothing less. For to run over them all briefly, the first two, we translate verbatim, A man is justified by faith, without the works of the law, and, repent, and, repentance, we say for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What make these for Popery? If Luc 1. v. 6. we should call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, justifications, what should Popery gain, but a vain cavil? when you yourselves confess, that those justifications are often used for commandments? Act. 2. v. 27. all our English translations are as you would have them. Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption, by which verse no descent into Limbus, but the resurrection from death can be proved. If we translate as you do Act. 3. v. 21. whom heaven must receive, we will easily convince that Christ must be received of heaven. In the last example the question is not, how the word is to be translated, but by what word the want of the text is to be supplied, which we supply not with words of our own, but with the Apostles own words.  
Have you not gained greatly by translating verbatim, exactly, and according to the proper use and signification of the words? I like well that every indifferent Reader may judge by these examples, of beza's purpose in other places of his translation. But you have two other ways, to make certain proof of their wilfulness: The first is, when the translation is framed according to their heretical commentary. A reasonable man would think rather, that the commentary were framed according to the text, than the text to the commentary. But to justify the truth of those translations, for the first text you quote, it is handled sect: 26. of this chapter, and so consequently Cap. 7. The second is answered sect: 46. the other two concerning tradition sect. 23. of the preface, and in the chapter following. The second way of proof is, when they will avouch their translations out of profane writers. I think there is no better way, to know the proper, or diverse signification of words, than out of ancient writers, though they be never so profane who used the words most indifferently, in respect of our controversies, of which they were altogether ignorant. As for the ecclesiastical use of words in the Scripture, and the Fathers, which Beza (you say) doth for the most part reject, it is untrue: except there be good and sufficient cause, why he should so do, warranted by the Scripture itself, or necessary circumstances of the places, which he doth translate. For if the Scripture have used a word in one signification sometimes, it is not necessary that it should always use it in the same signification, when it is proved by ancient writers that the word hath other significations, more proper to the place, and agreeable to the rule of faith, which perhaps the usual signification is not. As for example, the Scripture useth very often this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a boy, or servant: but when the same word is applied to our Saviour Christ, in the prayer of the Apostles, Act. 4. 27. Who would not rather translate it child, or son, as the word doth sometime, but more seldom signify? How the Fathers of the Church have used words, it is no rule for translators of the Scripture to follow, who oftentimes used words, as the people did then take them, and not as they signified in the Apostles tyme. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a public testification of repentance, which we call penance: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for imposition of hands, and such like, in which sense these words were never used before the Apostles times, and therefore it is not like, that they would begin a new use of them, without some manifest explication of their meaning, without the which no man could have understood them: as they have done in the use of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and such like. It is not a fault therefore, prudently to seek even out of profane writers, what is the proper signification of words, and how many significations a word may have, and reverently to judge, which is most apt for the place to be translated, and most agreeable with the holy ghosts meaning in that text: and not always to be tied to the usual signification of words, as they are sometimes taken in Scripture, and much less as they are used of the ancient Fathers.    

MART. 55. But would you think that these men could notwithstanding speak very gravely and honestly against voluntary and wilful translations of Scripture, that so notoriously offend therein themselves? hearken what Beza saith against 
Annot. act. 10. v. 46.  Castaleo and the like: The matter (saith he) is now come to this point that the translators of Scripture out of the Greek into Latin, or into any other tongue, think that they may lawfully do any thing in translating. Whom if a man reprehend, he shall be answered by and by that they do the office of a translator, not that translateth word for word, but that expresseth the sense. So it cometh to pass, that whiles every man will rather freely follow his own judgement, than be a religious interpreter of the Holy Ghost, he doth rather pervert many things than translate them. Is not this well said, if he had done accordingly? but doing the clean contrary, as hath ben● proved, he is a dissembling hypocrite in so saying, and a wilful Heretic in so doing, and condemned by his own judgement.  

FULK. 55. No wise man doubteth, but they could both speak very gravely and avoid most religiously all voluntary, & wilful translations of scripture, that might tend to maintain any error. And the rather they will be persuaded, that Beza hath avoided that lewd kind of translation, for which he reproveth Castaleo, when they shall see, that you so malicious an enemy unto him, having spent all your invention to seek holes in his translation, can find nothing but such childish cavils, as when they be discovered, men will marvel that you were not ashamed to move them.    

MART. 56. But after this general view of their wilful purpose and heretical intention, let us examine their false translations more particularly, and argue the case with them more at large, and press them to answer, whether in their conscience it be so or no, as hitherto is said: and that by several chapters of such CONTROVERSIES as their corruptions concern: and first of all (without further curiosity whence to begin, in cases so indifferent) of TRADITIONS.  

FULK. 56. The more particularly you examine our translations, the freer, I hope, they shall be found from falsehood, & wilful corruption. And the more at large you argue the case, and press us to answer, the more you shall make the case to appear worse on your side, and the truth clearer on our part. And as God is witness of our conscience and sincerity in setting forth his word, without adulteration, or corruption, so I appeal to the consciences of all indifferent readers, whether hitherto you have gotten any advantage against us in this whole chapter, which yet you profess to be the abridgement, and sum of your whole treatise.     

CHAP. II.  
Heretical translation of holy Scripture against Apostolical TRADITIONS.  

Martin.  
THis is a matter of such importance, that if they 
1.  should grant any traditions of the Apostles, and not pretend the written word only: they know that by 
c See the annotations of the new Testament 2. Thess. 2. 15.  such traditions mentioned in all antiquity, their religion were wholly defaced and overthrown. For remedy whereof, and for the defacing of all such traditions, they bend their translations against them in this wonderful manner. Wheresoever the holy Scripture speaketh against certain traditions of the jews, partly frivolous, partly repugnant to the law of God, there all the English translations follow the Greek exactly, never omitting this word, tradition. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Contrariwise, wheresoever the holy Scripture speaketh in the commendation of Traditions, to wit, such traditions a● the Apostles delivered to the Church, there all their said translations agree, not to follow the Greek, which is still the self same word, but for, traditions, they translate, ordinances, or instructions. Why so and to what purpose? we appeal to the worm of their conscience, which continually accuseth them of an heretical meaning, whether, by urging the word, traditions, wheresoever they are discommended, and by suppressing the word, wheresoever they are commended, their purpose and intent be not, to signify to the Reader, that all traditions▪ are nought, and none good, all reprovable, none allowable.  

Fulke.  
TRaditions in deed is a matter of such importance, as if you may be allowed whatsoever you will thrust upon us under the name of unwritten traditions, the written word of God shall serve to no purpose at all. For first as you plainly profess, the holy Scripture shall not be accounted sufficient to teach all truth necessary to salvation, that the man of God may be perfect, prepared to all good works. Secondly with the Valentinian heretics, you accuse the Scriptures of uncertain understanding without your traditions, under pretence of which, you will bring in what you list, though it be never so contrary to the holy Scriptures plain words, by colour of interpretation, as you do the worshipping of images, & many other like heresies. As for the mention that is made of Apostolical traditions in diverse of the ancient fathers, some of them are such, as you yourselves observe not, & not for the tenth part of those that you observe, can you bring any testimony out of the ancient fathers, as is proved sufficiently by so many propositions as were set down by the Bishop of Sarisburie M. jewel, whereof you can bring no proof for any one to have been taught within 600. years after Christ. Now concerning the traditions of the Apostles, what they were, who can be a better witness unto us than Ignatius the disciple of the Apostles, of whom Eusebius writeth, that when he was led towards Rome where he suffered martyrdom, he earnestly exhorted the Churches, by which he passed, to continue in the faith, and against all heresies which even then began to bud up, he charged them to retain fast the tradition of the Apostles, which by that time he protested to be committed to writing: for by that time were all the books of the new Testament written. The words of Eusebius concerning this matter are, li. 3. c. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And he exhorted them straightly to keep the tradition of the Apostles, which testifying that it was now for assurance committed to writing, he thought necessary to be plainly taught. Against this tradition of the Apostles, which for certainty & assurance is contained in their holy & undoubted writings, we say nothing, but strive altogether for it. But because the word traditions, is by you Papists taken to signify a doctrine secretly delivered by word of mouth, without authority of the holy Scriptures, we do willingly avoid the word in our translations, where the simple might be deceived, to think that the holy ghost did ever commend any such to the church, which he would not have to be committed to writing in the holy Scriptures: & in steed of that word so commonly taken, although it doth not necessarily signify any such matters, we do use such words, as do truly express the Apostles meaning, & the Greek word doth also signify. Therefore we use the words of ordinances or instructions or institutions or the doctrine delivered, all which being of one sense, the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify, and the same doth tradition signify, if it be rightly understood: but seeing it hath been commonly taken, and is urged of the Papists to signify only a doctrine delivered beside the word of God written in such places where the holy Ghost useth the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that sense, we translate by that word (tradition) where he useth it for such doctrine as is grounded upon the holy Scriptures, our translators have avoided it, not of any heretical meaning, that all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions are nought, but that all such as have not the holy Scripture to testify of them, and to warrant them, are evil, and to be avoided of all true Christians, which can not without blasphemy, acknowledge any imperfection in the holy Scriptures of God, which are able to make a man wise unto salvation, if they should think any doctrine necessary to salvation not to be contained therein.    

MART. 2. For example Matt. 15. Thus they translate, Why do thy disciples transgress the TRADITION of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Elders? And again, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your TRADITION? And again. Thus have you made the commandment of God of no effect by your TRADITION: Here (I warrant you) all the bells sound tradition, and the word is never omitted, and it is very well and honesty translated, for so the Greek word doth properly signify. But now on the other side, concerning good traditions, let us see their dealing. The Apostle 
2. Thess. 2. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tr●ditiones.  by the self same word both in Greek and Latin, saith thus: Therefore, brethren, stand and hold fast the TRADITIONS which you have learned either by word, or 
2. Thess. 3. 6.  by our Epistle. And again, Withdraw yourselves from every brother walking inordinately, and not according to the TRADITION which they have received of us. And again (according to the Greek which they profess to follow:) I praise you brethren, that in all things you are 
●. Cor. 15. 2.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  mindful of me, and as I have delivered unto you, you keep my TRADITIONS.  

FULK. 2. No marvel, though you can not abide the bells sounding against man's traditions, which sound must needs pierce your conscience more than it offendeth your ears, seeing you know that many of those things which you defend under the name of traditions, against the holy scriptures, have not God for their auctor, which forbiddeth to be worshipped in such sort, but man, or rather Satan, which hath inspired such things unto men, thereby to dishonour God, and to discredit his holy and most certain written word. Yet you say it is well and honestly translated. God knoweth how feign you would there were no such text extant in the Gospel against your superstition and will worshipping. But now let us see our crafty dealing (as you count it) against good traditions. In the first text 2. Thessal. 2. v. 15. You may see your understanding of traditions, quite overthrown. For the Apostle speaketh of such traditions as were delivered to them partly by preaching & partly by his Epistle. Therefore tradition doth not signify a doctrine delivered by word of mouth only. But yet you will say it signifieth here a doctrine delivered by word of mouth also, which is not written. How prove you that? because all that the Apostle preached was not contained 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 eat. Was this doctrine never written before? when God commandeth every man to labour in his vocation. As for the third place. 1. Cor. 11. 2. your own vulgar Latin translator both teacheth us how to translate it, and also dischargeth our translation of heresy and corruption, for he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place, praecepta precepts or instructions, or commandments, or ordinances, I see no great difference in these words. By which his translation he showeth, that in the other places, 2. Thes. 2. & 3. He meaneth the same thing by traditiones, traditions, that we do by ordinances or instructions, and might as well have used the word praecepta▪ in those two places, as he did in this one, if it had pleased him.    

MART. 3. Here we see plain mention of S. Paul's traditions, and consequently of Apostolical traditions, yea and traditions by word of mouth, delivered to the said Churches without writing or Scripture. In all which places look, gentle reader, and seek all their English translations, and thou shalt 
* Yet M. Fulke saith, it is found there. pag. 153. against D. Sand. Rock. If he give not us an instance, let him give himself the lie.  not once find the word, tradition, but in steed thereof, ordinances, instructions, preachings, institutions, and any word else rather than, tradition. In so much that Beza their master translateth it traditam doctrinam, the doctrine delivered, putting the singular number for the plural, & adding, doctrine of his own. So framing the text of holy Scripture according to his false commentary, or rather putting his commentary in the text, & making it the text of Scripture. Who would 
2. Thess. 2. & 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  think their malice and partiality against traditions were so great, that they should all agree with one consent so duly and exactly in these and these places to conceal the word, which in other places do so gladly use it, the Greek word being all one in all the said places?  

FULK. 3. There is no question but the Apostles by word of mouth, that is by preaching & teaching, delivered the doctrine of the Gospel to the Churches, but that they preached taught or delivered any doctrine, as necessary to salvation, which they proved not out of the holy Scriptures, and which is not contained in the new Testament or the old, this is not yet proved, neither ever can it be proved. Such matters of ceremonies, order, & discipline, which are mutable, no man denies, but they might & did deliver, but yet in them nothing but agreeable to the general rules set down in the Scripture. But in all these places the word tradition can not once be found. Yet M. Fulke saith it is found. Yea doth? where saith he so? You answer pag. 153 against D. Saunders Rock. Therefore if he give not an instance, let him give himself the lie. But he that chargeth Fulke to say it is found, lieth the more. For so he saith not: read the place who wil He speaketh against Saunder, who affirmed that the very name of tradition used in the better part, can not be suffered to be in the English Bible: as though there were some decree of the Synod, or Act of Parliament against it, and saith: it may be and is suffered in that sense, which the holy Ghost useth it, but not to bring prayer for the dead, or any thing contrary to the Scripture under the name of traditions apostolic. By which words I mean, that there is no prohibition or edict to the contrary, but if any man will use the word tradition in translation of the Bible, he is permitted so to do, I do not affirm it is so found. But as if I should say. The Papists in England are suffered to live as becometh good subjects, I affirm not that they are, or shall be found so to live. But to omit this foolish quarrel, Beza our Master is said to have translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the doctrine delivered, putting the singular number for the plural, and adding doctrine of his own. What an heinous matter here is, the word doctrine is a collective, comprehending many precepts or traditions, and in the next chapter, the Apostle useth the same word in the singular number. Again, the 1. Thes. 4. v. 2. he calleth the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, precepts or documents, which word signifieth the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, witness your vulgar latin translator, which gives one word for both, praecepta, 1. Cor. 11. & 1. Thes. 4. And that the word doctrine is added to the text, it is a fond cavil: for the word doctrine is contained in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth a delivery▪ but whereof? ●f not of doctrine. Our Saviour Christ also, Math. 15. v. 9 by the testimony of Esay, reproveth the tradition of the Pharisees, teaching the doctrines precepts of men, which testimony of Esay, could take no hold of them, if traditions were not doctrines & precepts. So that in this translation of Beza, (cry out as loud as you can) there is neither fraud nor corruption, malice nor partiality, but a prudent declining of that term, which might give occasion of error, & the Apostles meaning truly and faithfully delivered. To show that one word may be diversly translated, especially when it signifieth divers things, to wise men is needless. I have said before you yourselves translate, or else you should be taken for mad men, the Latin word tradere (of which tradition is derived) sometimes to deliver, sometimes to betray, and yet the Greek and Latin word being all one in all the said places.    

MART. 4. Yea they do else where so gladly use this word, tradition, when it may tend to the discredit thereof: that they put the said word in all their English Bibles, with the like full consent as before, when it is not in the Greek at all. As when they translate thus, If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments 
Col. 2. 20.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of the world: why as though living in the world, ARE YE LEDD● WITH TRADITIONS? and as an other 
* Of the year 1579.  English translation of theirs readeth more heretically, Why are ye burdened with traditions? Tell us sincerely you that profess to have skill in the Greek, and to translate according to the Greek: tell us we beseech you, whether this Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signify tradition, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be lead or burdened with traditions. You can not be ignorant 
Col. 2. 1●. Ephes. 2. 15.  that it doth not so signify, but as a little before in the same chapter, and in other places, yourselves translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordinances▪ 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  decrees: so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must be (as in the vulgar Latin it is) Quid decernitis? Why do you ordain or decree, or, why are you led with decrees?  

FULK. 4. It grieveth you that tradition should be mentioned so often in the ill part as it is. And it seemeth you would defend the Colossians against S. Paul, who reproveth them because they were led with ordinances according to the precepts and doctrines of men. But you seem to make light of such traditions, and therefore you count that the more heretical translation, which saith, why are you burdened with traditions? Wherefore I pray you is that more heretical? Do you not think that such traditions, as are the commandments & doctrines of men, are burdenous to men's consciences? But they that have skill in the Greek tongue must tell you sincerely whether this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signify tradition, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be led or burdened with traditions. I answer you if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you confess, signify ordinances and decrees or doctrines, and the word tradition signifieth the same, why should not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify to be led or burdened with traditions, as well as with ordinances, customs, or decrees. These words differ much in sound, but not greatly in signification. Dogmata Pythagoraea that might never be put in writing, what were they but the traditions of Pythagoras. Such were the Philosophical decrees called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof Tully speaketh in his book de finibus, which were dictata taught by word of mouth, which to set forth, among them was counted an heinous offence, might not those rightly be called traditions?    

MART. 5. justify your translation if you can, either out of Scriptures, fathers, or Lexicon. And make us a good reason 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they translate, ordinance: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tradition: clean contrary.  why you put the word, traditions, here, where it is not in the Greek: and would not put it in the places before, where you know it is most evidently in the Greek. Yea you must tell us, why you translate for tradition, ordinance, and contrary for ordinance, tradition: so turning ca●te in pan (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 among the people, be they never so authentical, even from the Apostles: which your conscience knoweth, and you shall answer for it at the dreadful day.  

FULK. 5. first out of Scripture I justify 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. Therefore these were traditions. Secondly out of the fathers, Chrysostom upon this place saith, Traditiones graecorum taxat, he reproveth the traditions of the Greeks, saying all is but a human doctrine. Secondly S. Ambrose upon this text. Love not the world saith he, nor those errors Quos humana adinuenit traditio, which the tradition of men hath invented. 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 burdened, that they cannot be joined to the head which is above. Yet burdening with traditions, is called of you the more heretical translation. Say as much to Ambrose, that he maketh an heretical commentary. The interpreter of Theodoret printed at colen 1573. hath translated in the very text, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, traditiones hominum traditions of men. You see now this matter is not so void of testimony of the fathers, as you supposed. The reason you require us to make, is made often before. We thought it not meet, to express the Greek word in both places, by the same english word, because the english word as it is used by you, is not so indifferent, to signify the doctrine of God delivered out of the Scriptures: as to signify doctrines of men devised beside the Scriptures. If we must answer why we call tradition ordinance, and ordinance tradition: let your vulgar Latin interpreter answer us, or you for him, why he calleth tradition precept, and usage or precept, tradition? The one he doth 1. Cor. 11. v. 2. the other Act. 6. v. 14. where the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying there precepts, or observations commanded, he translateth traditiones, as in the other place the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he translateth praecepta. If this be lawful for him why should it be counted corruption or false translation in us? seeing we are moved with as good reason, as can be yielded for him. As for authentical and apostolical traditions that are grounded upon the doctrine of the Apostles expressed in their writings, we shall be ready to receive them, when so ever they shall be brought forth. If they cannot be proved by the Scriptures, which are written that we might believe, and believing have eternal life, & which are able to make us wise unto salvation, we have nothing to do with them: we may well spare them: nay we dare not admit them, lest we should answer for blasphemy against the holy Scriptures, in that dreadful day, if by admitting of such traditions, we should profess, that the doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures, is unperfect or insufficient to salvation.    

MART. 6. Somewhat more excusable it is, but yet proceeding of the same heretical humour, and on your part (that should exactly follow the Greek) falsely translated, when you translate in S. Peter's Epistle thus: You were not redeemed 
1. Pet. 1. 18.  with corruptible things from your vain conversation received by the tradition of the fathers. Where the Greek is 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  thus rather to be translated, from your vain conversation delivered by the fathers. But your fingers itched to f●●st in the word, tradition, and for, delivered, to say, received, because it is the phrase of the Catholic Church, that it hath received many things by tradition, which you would here control by likeness of words in this false translation.  

FULK. 6. I marvel why you should count it an heretical humour, to use the word traditions in the evil part, which the holy ghost so useth, and your own vulgar translator also: but that you are more partial in allowing the traditions of men, than we in avoiding the term sometimes, only for doubt lest traditions of men, should creep into the place of God's commandments. But how is it falsely translated on our part, that profess to follow the Greek, which is truly translated in your vulgar Latin text, which professeth to translate the Greek, as well as we? belike because we say, received by the tradition of the fathers, which according to the Greek should be, delivered by the fathers, but that our fingers itched to foist in the word tradition. What I pray you? hath your vulgar translator foisted in that word? did his finger's itch against such catholic phrases, that he would control them by a false translation? do you not perceive that while you rail upon us▪ you revile your own vulgar Latin translation, which hath the same word tradition, for which you storm against us? But for, delivered, we have said, received. See whether frowardness driveth you, the Apostle saith, they were delivered from the vain conversation of their father's tradition. Do you then understand, that it was delivered by the fathers, but not received by their sons? Certainly they were delivered from that vain conversation which they had received. For receiving doth necessarily import delivering. And because you called for a Lexicon in the next section before, Scapula will teach you, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify, as indifferently A patre traditus as à patre acceptus, delivered by the father, and received by the father. What wrangling then is this, about the moon shine in the water, to cry out false translation, foisting, itching fingers, and I know not what?    

MART. 7. But concerning the word tradition, you will say perhaps the sense thereof is included in the Greek word, delivered. We grant. But would you be content, if we should always expressly add, tradition, where it is so included? then should we say 1. Cor. 11. 2. I praise you that as I have delivered 
Tradidi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  you (by tradition,) you keep my precepts or traditions. And again v. 23. For I received of our Lord, which also I delivered unto you (by tradition) etc. And Luc. 1. v. 2. As they (by tradition) delivered unto us, which from the beginning saw etc. and such like, by your example, we should translate in this sort. But we use not this licentious manner in translating holy Scriptures, neither is it a translators part, but an interpreters, and his that maketh a commentary: neither doth a good cause need other translation than the express text of the Scripture giveth.  

FULK. 7. We will say it is contained in the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth received by tradition or delivery from the Fathers, & not in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth otherwise many times, than simply to deliver, & when it signifieth to deliver, it doth not always signify to deliver by word of mouth, without writing, as you understand tradition: but as well by writing, as by preaching. As when S. Paul saith, I received of the Lord, that which I delivered unto you, speaking of the institution of the supper, he meaneth that which the Evangelists had written, & he himself doth write. So 2. Thess. 2. when he willeth them to hold the traditions, 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 expressly add the word tradition in your partial signification, wheresoever you find the word delivered, you should not only translate ridiculously, but also heretically and falsely. Words in derivation and composition, do not always signify according to their primitive.    

MART. 8. And if you will yet say, that our vulgar Latin translation hath here the word, tradition: we grant it hath so, and therefore we also translate accordingly. But you profess to translate the Greek, and not the vulgar Latin, which you in England condemn as Papistical, and say it is 
* Discover. of the Rock. pag. 147. Fraefat in nou●● Test. 1556.  the worst of all, though Beza your master pronounce it to be the very best: and will you notwithstanding follow the said vulgar Latin, rather than the Greek, to make traditions odious? Yea such is your partiality one way, and inconstancy an other way, that for your heretical purpose you are content to follow the old Latin translation, though it differ from the Greek, and again another time you will not follow it, though it be all one with the Greek most exactly. as in the place before alleged, where the vulgar Latin translation hath nothing of traditions, but, Quid decernitis, as it is in the Greek: you 
* Col. 2. 20.  translate, Why are ye burdened with traditions?  

FULK. 8. You may be sure we will say, that we know to be true, and sufficient to discharge our translation from your foolish and malicious quarreling. But we profess (you say) to translate the Greek, and not the vulgar Latin. And I pray you, what doth your vulgar Latin Interpreter profess to translate, but the Greek? if he then translating out of Greek, could find tradition in the Greek word, why should not we find 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 only authentical text. We follow not therefore the Latin translation, but join with it wheresoever it followeth the Greek, as we do in ten thousand places more than this, and willingly depart not from it, but where it departeth from the Greek, or else useth such words as would be offensive, if they were translated into English, or occasion of error, as you do likewise, when you depart from the proper and usual signification of words, which your Latin translator useth: as when you call foenerator, a creditor, which signifieth an usurer, Luc. 7. Stabulum, an Inn, and stabularius, an host, Luc. 10. una Sabathi, the first of the Sabaoth, john. 2. Ecclesia, the assembly, Act. 7. Baptismata, washings, Marc. 7. and such like. But we in England (you say) condemn the Latin translation, as papistical. We accuse it as not true, in many places, & we say it is the worst of all, though Beza, our master, pronounce it to be the very best. This toucheth me somewhat, for in the margin is noted Discovery of the Rock, pag. 147. where in deed speaking of the Hebrew text, of the old Testament, and the Greek of the new, the Greek translation of the Septuaginta, and the common Latin translation, I say the Tridentine Council alloweth none for authentical, but the common Latin translation, that is, the worst of all. Now what saith Beza contrary to this? speaking of the diverse Latin translations of the new Testament only, he saith of the vulgar Latin, that he followeth it for the most part, & preferreth it before all the rest, maxima ex part amplector & caeteris omnibus antepono. So that I speak of the whole Bible, Beza of the new Testament only. I speak of the vulgar Latin text, in comparison of the original Hebrew and Greek, and the Septuagintaes' translation: Beza of the Latin translation of the new Testament, in comparison of all other Latin translations, that were before him, as Erasmus, Castallion, and such like. According to your old manner therefore, you rehearse out of my writings, either falsifying the words, or perverting the meaning. These things considered, you have no cause to accuse us of partiality and inconstancy, for following, or leaving your Latin text, which we never did but upon good ground, and reason sufficient.    

MART. 9 So that a blind man may see, you frame your translations to bolster your errors and heresies, without all respect of following sincerely either the Greek or the Latin. But for the Latin no marvel, the Greek at the least, why do you 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not follow? Is it the Greek that induceth you to say ordinances 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for traditions, traditions for decrees, ordinances for justifications, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Elder for Priest, grave for hell, image for idol? tell us before 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  God, and in your conscience, whether it be, because you will 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  exactly follow the Greek: nay, tell us truly, and shame the devil, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  whether the Greek words do not sound, and signify most properly that, which you of purpose will not translate, for disaduantaging your heresies? And first let us see concerning the question of Images.  

FULK. 9 A blind man may see, that you cavil, and slander, quarrel and rail, without respect either of conscience towards God, or honesty toward the world: in so much, that most commonly, you forget the credit of your own vulgar Latin translation, so you may have a colour to find fault with ours. And yet again you ask, whether it be the Greek, which induceth us to say, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordinances, and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, traditions, etc. I tell you, the Greek alloweth us so to say, which is sufficient, when other godly causes move us beside, so to translate. Is it the Latin that induceth you to say, for an usurer, a 
Faenerator.  
Stabulum.  creditor: for a stable, an Inn: for, what was done, what 
Quod factum.  was chanced: for, fastening to, crucifying: for, be you saved, 
Act. 5.  save yourselves: for, creature, creation: for, confessed, 
Affigentes, act. 2.  promised: for a boat, a ship: for a ship, a boat: 
Saluamini, act. 7.  
Confessus, act. 7.  for singing, piping: for hay, grass: for refection, refectory: 
Naviculas, luc. 5.  for foolishness, madness: for an image, an idol, etc. I 
Navis, marc. 4.  blame not all these as false translations, yet every man 
Cecinimus, mat. 11.  
Fanum, mat. 14.  may see, they are neither usual, nor proper: yet as for 
Refectio, mar. 14.  some of these (though not for all) I know you may give 
Insipientia, luc. 6.  good reason, so may we, for any show of alteration, or 
Simulachrum.  departing from the usual signification of the Greek word, that you are able to allege against us.     

CHAP. III.  
Heretical translation against sacred IMAGES.  

Martin.  
I Beseech you, what is the next and readiest, 
1.  and most proper English of Idolum, idololatra, idololatria? is it not Idol, Idolater, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  idolatry? are not these plain English 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  words, and well known in our language? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Why sought you further for other terms and words, if you had meant faithfully? What needed that circumstance of three words for one, worshipper of images and, worshipping of images? whether 
Bib. 1577. Eph. 5. Col. 3.  (I pray you) is the more natural and convenient speech, either in our English tongue, or for the truth of the thing, to say as the holy Scripture doth, Covetousness is idolatry, & consequently, The covetous man is an idolater: or as you translate, Covetousness is worshipping of Images, and, The covetous man is a worshipper of images?  

Fulke.  
IF you ask for the readiest and most 
1.  proper English of these words, I must needs answer you, an image, a worshipper of images, and worshipping of images, as we have sometimes translated. The other, that you would have, Idol, Idolater, and Idolatry, be rather Greekish than English words: which though they be used of many English men yet are they not understood of all, as the other be. And therefore I say, the more natural, and convenient speech for our English tongue, & as convenient for the truth of the thing it is to say, covetousness is the worshipping of images, and the covetous man is a worshipper of images: as to say covetousness is idolatry, and the covetous man is an idolater, as I have proved before. Seeing Idolum by your own interpreter is called simulachrum, and simulachrum signifieth as much as imago an image, Cap. 1. numb. 5.    

MART. 2. We say commonly in English, Such a rich 
The absurdity of this translation, A covetous man is a worshipper of images.  man maketh his money his God: and the Apostle saith in like manner of some, Whose belly is their God, Phil. 3. and generally every creature is our idol, when we esteem it so exceedingly that we make it our God. But who ever heard in English, that our money, or belly, were our images, & that by esteeming of them too much, we become worshippers of images? Among yourselves are there not some even of your Superintendentes, of whom the Apostle speaketh, that make an idol of their money and belly, by covetousness and belly cheer? Yet can we not call you therefore in any true sense, worshippers of images, neither would you abide it. You see then that there is a great difference betwixt idol and image, idolatry & worshipping of images: and even so great difference is there betwixt S. Paul's words and your translation.  

FULK. 2. Before you can show that absurdity of this translation, a covetous man is a worshipper of images, you must defend your own vulgar Latin translation, which calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simulachrorum servitus, which I have proved to signify the serving or worshipping of images, cap. 1. nu. 5. Now to our English phrase, a rich man maketh his money his God, a glutton his belly, and so of other creatures honoured above measure. I say the worshipping of images may be after two sorts, either when they are worshipped as gods, (as among the grosser sort of the Gentiles & Papists) & than it is against the first commandment. Thou shalt have none other gods but me: or else when men pretend to worship God by them, as the Israelites did in the calf Ex. 32. & in jeroboams calves, & in the brazen serpent, & the wiser sort of the Gentiles and Papists pretend to do in worshipping their images: & than it is a sin against the second commandment. Thou shalt make to thyself no graven images. Thou shalt not fall down to them nor worship them. By similitude therefore of them that trusted in images as their gods, & so honoured them, which were not able to help them, the Apostle calleth the covetous man a worshipper of images, & covetousness worshipping of images: & not properly: but because their money is to them the same occasion of departing from God, that the images was to the worshipper of them. So if we will speak unproperly, as the Apostle saith, their belly is their God, we may say, it is their idol, or their image, which they worship 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 given that divine honour, which is due to God: but by worshippers of idols, and images, is given to idols or images. I confess the use of the English tongue in these speeches, is rather to call than idols, than images, and to extend the name idol (which is always taken in the evil part) to that which the word image can not so aptly signify: yet in truth of the thing there is no difference between idol and image, worshipping of idols, and worshipping of images, whether you speak of such as be idols & images so properly called, or of such as be only by similitude, figuratively so named. If any of our Superintendents be such as you speak of, I wish them amended or else removed. For my part I know none to be such, although I wish to the best, increase of God's grace, to despise the world, & to be more earnest in setting forth God's glory. As for the great difference you speak of, betwixt S. Paul's words, and our translation, I see none as yet.    

MART. 3. Will you see more yet to this purpose? In the English Bible printed the year 1562. you read thus: How 
2. Cor. 6.  agreeth the Temple of God with images? Can we be ignorant of Satan's cogitations herein, that it was translated of purpose to delude the simple people & to make them believe that the Apostle speaketh against sacred images in the Churches, which were then in plucking down in England, when this your translation was first published in print? Whereas in very truth you know, that the Apostle here partly interpreteth himself to 
Salomon'S Temple did well agree with images, but not with idols.  speak of men, as of God's temples wherein he dwelleth, partly alludeth to salomon's Temple, which did very well agree with images (for it had the Cherubins, which were the representations of Angels, & the figures of oxen to bear up the lavatory) but with idols it could not agree: and therefore the Apostles words are these, How agreeth the Temple of God with idols?  

FULK. 3. We had need to see more, before we be convicted of corruption: for hitherto we have seen nothing, but a foolish cavil, grounded upon the common use of the word idol in English, in which speech it is taken only for unlawful images, although in the Greek it signifieth as generally, as Imago in Latin, & by Tully himself is used for the same. But in the English Bible printed 1562. we read thus 2. Cor. 6. How agreeth the temple of God with images? Here you can not be ignorant of Satan's cogitations, that it was translated of purpose, to make the simple people believe, that the Apostle speaketh against sacred images in churches, which were then in plucking down in England when this translation was first published in print. You are so cunning in Satan's cogitations, that he hath inspired into you a manifest untruth: for this text was so translated, & printed near 30. years before 1562. in King Henry the eights time, when images were not in plucking down. And when it was printed again 1562. which was the fifth year of her majesties reign (God be thanked) there was no need to pluck down images out of churches, which were plucked down in the first and second years of her reign. Wherefore that purpose is vainly imagined of you, for the translator purpose was the same that the Apostles: to show that the religion of God, hath nothing to do with images, made by man's devise▪ to honour them as gods, or to honour God by them. And where you say that the Apostle alludeth to salomon's temple, which did well agree with images, but not with idols: I answer you, salomon's temple did not agree with images made by the devise of man, to honour God by them, or in them. For the Cherubins were not of man's devise: but of God's commandment: the oxen to hold up the lavatory, the pomegranates, & other ornaments, were not for any use of religion to worship God in them, or by them, but for use & garnishing of the house appointed by God in his law, and by direction of his spirit in Solomon. For the commandment, Thou shalt not make to thyself, is no restraint unto God, but unto men of their own brain, or private intent, to make images to serve in religion. Therefore the Apostle speaking of such images as were forbidden by God's law, is not otherwise to be understood, and no more is our translation.    

MART. 4. When Moses by God's appointment erected 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  a brazen serpent, and commanded the people that were stung 
The brazen serpent, first an image, and lawful: afterwards an idol, and unlawful.  with serpents, to behold it, & thereby they were healed: this was an image only, and as an image was it erected & kept & used by God's commandment. But when it grew to be an idol (saith S. Augustine) that is, when the people began to adore it as God, 
Numb. 21.  than king Ezechias broke it in pieces to the great commendation 
Lib. 10. de Civit. c. 8.  of his piety & godly zeal. So when the children of Israel in the absence of Moses made a caife, & said, These are thy Gods 
4. Reg. 18.  o Israel that brought thee out of Egypt, was it but an image 
Exod. 32.  which they made? was that so heinous a matter, that God 
The molten calf, an idol.  would so have punished them as he did? No they made it an idol also, saying, These are thy gods o Israel. And therefore the Apostle 
1. Cor. 10.  saith to the Corinthians, Be not idolaters, as some of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  them. Which also you translate most falsely, Be not worshippers of images, as some of them.  

FULK. 4. The brazen serpent first and last was an image, holy, when it was commanded by God to be made as a sacrament of our redemption by Christ, lawful, when it was reserved only for memory of that excellent miracle: unlawful, cursed, and abominable, when it was worshipped, and therefore justly broken in pieces, by the godly king Ezechias. You cite Augustine as it pleaseth you, to follow your own context. Quem sanè serpentem propter facti memoriam reseruatum, cum posteà populus errans, tanquam idolum colere cepisset Ezechias, etc. Which serpent truly being reserved for the memory of the fact, when afterward the people going astray, began to worship as an idol, Ezechias the king, serving God with religious power, with great praise of his piety, broke in pieces. Here it is certain, that Augustine as most Ecclesiastical writers, useth the word Idolum, for an image abused. But that the people began to adore it as God, he saith not, for they only worshipped God by it, falsely in deed, and superstitiously: but yet not believing that image to be God himself, but a holy representation of his power, which was showed by it in the days of Moses. That Ezechias by religious or Ecclesiastical power and authority, did put down idolatry you pass it by, as though you saw it not in S. Augustine. But you bring an other example to prove, that images except they be worshipped as gods, be no idols. In truth, seeing all religious worship is due only to God, although the idolaters intent not to worship their images as gods, yet by worshipping of them, they make unto themselves gods of them, and so offend both against the first, and second commandments. Yet how prove you, that the Israelites made a god of their calf. Because they said these are thy gods, o Israel, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt. But even by that same speech it is manifest, that they worshipped not the calf, as believing it to be God: but contrariwise protested thereby, that they meaned not to change their God, but to worship the same God, which brought them out of the land of Egypt by that image, which they could not be ignorant that it was made but yesterday, of their earrings, and therefore could not think it was the same god that brought them out of the land of Egypt, but that they would worship God by that visible shape, which they saw before them. And Aaron by his proclamation confirmeth the same. To morrow, (saith he) shall be holy day to jehova, that is, to the only true God, whom they dishonoured, pretending to worship him by that Image: so heinous a thing it is, to make Images to represent God, and to worship them for his honour, although the worshipper do not believe them to be Gods. Therefore where we have in some translations, 1. Cor. 10. called those Idolaters worshippers of Images, we have not erred: for an Image it was they worshipped, thinking to worship God thereby. But if either Image, or Idol; worshippers of Images or Idolaters, would please you, we have both in our translations, the one expressing what we mean by the other, that these cavillations were needless, but that malice against the truth incenseth you to pick quarrels, and that translation which useth the terms of Idols and Idolaters, was then in printing at Geneva, when Images were in pulling down in England, namely the first and second years of the Queen's reign, being finished the 10. of April 1560. which notably confuteth the fond purpose, that you slander our translators to have had.    

MART. 5. We see then that the jews had images without sin, but not idols. Again for having idols they were accounted like unto the Gentiles, as the Psalm saith, They learned 
Psalm. 165.  their works, and served their graven idols. But they were not accounted like unto the Gentiles for having images, which they had in salomon's Temple, and in the brazen serpent. S. Hierom writeth of the Ammonites and Moabites (who were 
In c. 25. Ezech. The protestāns are like to the Ammonits and Moabits.  Gentiles and Idolaters) that coming into the Temple of Jerusalem, & seeing the Angelical images of the Cherubins covering the Propitiatory, they said, Lo, even as the Gentiles, so juda also hath idols of their religion. These men did put no difference between their own idols, and the jews lawful images. And are not you ashamed to be like to these? They accused salomon's Temple of idols, because they saw there lawful images: you accuse the Churches of God of idolatry, because you see there the sacred images of Christ and his Saints.  

FULK. 5. We know that the jews had images without sin, and so have we: but to have images in any use of religion without God's express commandment, neither is it lawful for them nor us, because we have a general commandment to the contrary. They were accounted like the Gentiles therefore, for having images contrary to God's commandment, of their own appointment, & worshipping them: not for having images appointed by God, which yet it was not lawful for them to worship. But the protestāns (you say) are like to the Ammonits, and Moabits, of whom S. Hierom writeth, that 
In Ezech. cap. 25  coming into the temple, and seeing the Cherubins covering the propitiatory, they said, lo, even as the Gentiles, so juda also hath idols of their religion, as we accuse the church of God of idolatry, because we see there the sacred images of Christ, and his Saints.  
This that you say S Hierom writeth, he only reporteth it, as a ridiculous fable of the jews. Ridiculam verò in hoc loco, Haebrei narrant fabulam. The Hebrews in this place, tell a ridiculous fable. But fables are good enough, to bolster false accusations. Secondly, he reporteth them to say: Sicut cunctae gentes colunt simulachra, ita & juda habes suae religionis Idola. As all nations worship images, so hath juda also idols of their religion. By which words you see, that he calleth images, and idols, the same things. For simulachrum, to be taken as largely as Imago, I have proved before, in so much that man is called Simulachrum Dei, the image, not the idol of God, as idol is taken in the evil part. But neither are you like to juda, nor we to Ammon, and Moab, in this case. For juda had God's commandment, to warrant their images, so have not you, but his commandment against your images. Again, Moab and Ammon (if the tale were true) had idolatrous images of their own, so have not we.    

MART. 6. But tell us yet I pray you, do the holy Scriptures of either Testament speak of all manner of images, or rather of the idols of the Gentiles? your conscience knoweth that 
The holy Scripture speaketh against the idols of the Gentiles, not against all manner of images.  they speak directly against the idols and the idolatry that was among the Pagans and Infidels: from the which as the jews in the old Testament, so the first Christians in the new Testament were to be prohibited. But will you have a demonstration that your own conscience condemneth you herein, and that you apply all translation to your heresy? What caused you being otherwise in all places so ready to translate, images: yet isaiah. 31. and Zachar. 13. to translate, idols, in all your Bibles with full consent? Why in these places specially and so advisedly? No doubt because God saith there, speaking of this time of the new Testament: In that day every man shall cast out his idols of silver 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 translated, images, you had made the prophecy false, because images have not been destroyed out of the world, but are, and have been in Christian countries with honour and reverence, even since Christ's time. Marry in the idols of the Gentiles we see it verified, which are destroyed in all the world so far as Gentility is converted to Christ.  

FULK. 6. Verily the commandment of God, being a commandment of the first table, unto which what soever is said in the Scriptures of images, or the worship of them forbidden, must be referred, speaketh generally of all manner of images made by the devise of man, for any use of religion, whether they be of jews, Pagans, or false Christians. But we are offered a demonstration, that our own conscience condemneth us herein, and that we apply all translation to our heresy. And that is this. In isaiah 31. and Zacha. 13. with one consent all translate Idols, because God speaketh of the time of the new Testament, where if they had translated Images, they had made the prophecy false, because Images in Christian countries are with honour, but Idols of the Gentiles are destroyed out of the world so far as gentility is converted to Christ. A goodly demonstration I promise you. That the translators had no such respect, it is plain, for that they do not understand the 31. of Esay of the time of Christ: but of the reformation made by Ezechias. But in Esay 44. which is a manifest prophesy of the Church of Christ, they all use the word Image, also Micheas the 5. and in diverse other places, where the destruction of Idolatry is prophesied, by the religion of Christ, which is verified only in true Christians: for otherwise both the Idolatry of Pagans, and of false Christians, hath remained in many places, and yet remaineth to this day.    

MART. 7. And what were the Pagan's idols or their 
Rom. 1.  idolatry? S. Paul telleth us, saying: They changed the glory 
What were the idols of the Pagans.  of the incorruptible God into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, & of birds and beasts, and creeping things, and they served (or worshipped) the creature more than the creator. Doth he charge them for making the image of man or beast? Yourselves have hangings and clothes full of such paintings and embrodering of imagirie. Wherewith then are they charged? with giving the glory of God to such creatures, which was to make them idols, and themselves idolaters.  

FULK. 7. That the Pagans changed the glory of God into the similitude of the Image of man, etc. it was the extremity of their madness, but that they made Images of man or beast, If you will not confess▪ that jupiter, Mars, etc. were men, and Isis a cow or beast, yet remember that they made Images of their Emperors, and committed Idolatry to them: otherwise to make Images out of religion, was not the offence of Idolatry in them, nor us, that have them in hangings, and paintings, and other lawful Images.    

MART. 8. The case being thus, why do you make it two 
1. Cor. 5. Bib. 1562.  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 useth but one and the self same Greek word in speaking both of Pagans and Christians? It is a marvelous and wilful corruption, and well to be marked, and therefore I will put down the whole sentence, as it is in your English translation. I wrote to you that you should not company with fornicators: and I meant not at all of the fornificators of this world, either of the covetous, or extortioners, either 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the idolaters etc. but that ye company not together, if any that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  A WORSHIPPER OF IMAGES, or an extortioner. In the first, speaking of Pagans, your translator nameth idolater according to the text, but in the later part speaking of Christians, you translate the very self same Greek word, worshipper of images. Why so? forsooth to make the reader think that S. Paul speaketh here, not only of Pagan idolaters, but also of Catholic Christians that reverently▪ kneel in prayer before the Cross, the holy Rood, the images of our Saviour Christ and his Saints: as though the Apostle had commanded such to be avoided.  

FULK. 8. The reason is, because we count Idolaters and worshippers of Images to be all one. But it is a marvelous wilful corruption, that in one sentence 1. Cor 5. we call the Pagans Idolaters, and the Christians worshippers of Images, and yet the same Greek word in both. If this were a fault, it were but of one translation of the three, for the Geneva Bible, hath Idolater in both, the other worshipper of Idols, in the later place. And we think the later to be understood of Idolatrous Papists, which worship Idols made with hands of men, as Crosses, roods, and other Images, to as great dishonour of God, and danger of their souls, as Pagans did. So that if it had been worshippers of Images in both, the translation had not been amiss.    

MART. 9 Where if you have yet the face to deny this your malicious and heretical intent, tell us, why all these other words are translated and repeated alike in both places, covetous, 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 deny but it was of purpose done, to make both seem all one, yea and to signify that the Christians doing the foresaid reverence before sacred images (which you call worshipping of images) are more to be avoided than the Pagan idolaters. Whereas the Apostle speaking of Pagans and Christians that committed one and the self same heinous sin what soever, commandeth the Christian in that case to be avoided for his amendment, leaving the Pagan to himself and to God, as having not to do to judge of him.  

FULK. 9 I think the cause was, that Christians might understand, who was an Idolater, & what the word Idolater signifieth, which was used in the former part 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 ashamed thereof, seeing the Greek word signifieth as much as he saith: not as though Idols were proper only to the Gentiles, and Images to Christians, for in other places he useth the name of Images, speaking both of the Pagans, and the Christians, 1. Cor. 8. Although for my part, I could wish he had used one word in both places, & either called them both Idolaters, or both worshippers of Images.    

MART. 10. But to this the answer belike will be made, 
W. Fulke, Confutat. of john Howlet fol. 35.  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 even as we would have it corrected: and therefore (saith he) it had been good before we entered into such heinous accusations, to have examined our grounds that they had been true. As though we accuse them not truly of false translation, unless it be false in that one Bible which for the present is red in their Churches: or as though it pertained not to them how their other English Bibles be translated: or as though the people read not all indifferently without prohibition, and may be abused by every one of them: or as though the Bible which now is read (as we think) in their Churches, have not the like absurd translations. yea more absurd, 
Bib. 1577. Col. 3. v. 5.  even in this matter of images, as is before declared: or as though we must first learn what English translation, is read 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 years read in their Churches, and is yet in every man's hands, which hath this absurd translation whereof we have last spoken.  

FULK. 10. Mine answer was framed to Owlets reason, who would prove that our service was nought, because the Scriptures were therein red in false and shameless translations: example of which he bringeth. 1. john. 5. Children keep yourselves from Images. To whom mine answer was apt, when I said in the Bible appointed to be red in the service, it is otherwise, and as he himself saith, it ought to be, which answer as though it were made to the general accusation of our translations, you with many supposing, as though this, as though that, would make it seem to be unsufficient, whereas to Owlets cavil, it was not only sufficient, but also proper. And therefore this is a vain supposell, as though we accuse them not truly of false translation, unless it be false in that one Bible, which for the present is red in their Church. For we grant you not the other to be false, because this is true, and so are all the rest. As though it pertained not to them how their other English Bibles be translated. It pertaineth so far that if their were a fault in the former, we have amended it in the later. But in that text, for which I answered, I acknowledge yet no fault, neither is that mine only answer, for I prove that Image and Idol with the Apostle, signifieth the same thing. Or as though the people red not all without prohibition, and may be abused by every one of them: There is no such false translation in any of them, that the people can be abused there by, to run into heresy. Yet again: Or, as though the Bible which now is red (as we think) have not the like absurd translation, yea more absurd even in this matter of Images, as is declared before. As though you have proved, whatsoever you prate of: once again: Or, as though we must first learn, what English translation is red in their Church (which were hard to know, it changeth so often) before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation. If you will accuse that translation, which is red in our Church, as Owlet doth, reason would you should first learn which it is, and that is no hard matter, seeing there was never more appointed than two, as oft as you say we change. Or, (at last) as though it were not the same Bible, that was for many years red in their Churches, and is yet in every man's hands, which hath this absurd translation, whereof we last spoke. As though I could prophecy, when I answered Owlet, for the Bible appointed to be red in the Church, in 1. john. 5. that you would find fault with an other text, in that translation, that sometime was red in the church, and yet is in many men's hands? Which although it be well altered in that point, which you quarrel at, in the two later translations, yet I see no absurdity in the first, which for one Greek word, giveth two English words, both of one signification, yea, & the later being plainer, explicating the former, which to English ears is more obscure, and less understood.    

MART. 11. Surely the Bible that we most accuse, not 
Bib. 1562.  only in this point, but for sundry other most gross faults and heretical translations, spoken of in other places, is that Bible which was authorised by Cranmer their Archbishop of Canterbury, and red all King Edward's time, in their Churches, and (as it seemeth by the late printing thereof again, anno 1562) a great part of this Queen's reign. And certain it is, that it was so long red, in all their Churches, with this venomous and corrupt translation of images, always in steed of idols, that it made the deceived people of their sect, to despise, contemn, & abandon the very sign and image of their salvation, the cross of Christ, the holy rood, or crucifix, representing the manner of his bitter passion and death, the sacred images of the blessed virgin Mary, the mother of God, and of S. john Evangelist, representing their standing by the cross, at the very time of his 
joh. 19 v. 26.  passion. In so much that now by experience, we see the foul inconvenience thereof, to wit, that all other images and pictures of infamous harlots and heretics, of heathen tyrants and persecutors, are lawful in England at this day, and their houses, parlours, and chambers, are garnished with them▪ only sacredimages, and representations of the holy mystery of our redemption, are esteemed idolatrous, and have been openly defaced in most spiteful manner, and burned, to the great dishonour of our Saviour Christ, and his Saints.  

FULK. 11. That Bible perhaps you mislike more, than the other translations, because Archbishop Cranmer allowed it by his authority. But howsoever it be, (as I think, there be more imperfections in it, than in the other) it is not your accusation without due and substantial proof, that can make it less esteemed, with any indifferent, or wise man. If it have caused the people to contemn, and abandon all Popish Idols, there is cause, that we should give God thanks for it. Albeit not the translation only, but preaching of the Gospel, and Christ crucified especially, by which Christ hath been truly, and lively painted forth unto them, and even crucified among them, hath made them contemn, yea and abhor all carnal and human devices of the image of our salvation, or representation of his passion, by vain and dead images, to be any helps of faith, religion, or the worship of God. Where you say it is seen by experience, that all other images of infamous harlots, and heretics, of Heathen tyrants, and persecutors, are lawful in England, to garnish houses, when sacred images are esteemed idolatrous, defaced, and burned: I know not well your meaning. For if you have any true images of the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, or other holy persons, I think they be as lawful, to garnish private houses, as the other you speak of. Yea the stories of the whole Bible painted, both of the old Testament, and the new, are not forbidden, but in many places used. Provided always, that in the places appointed for the public service of God, such things are not lawful, for danger of idolatry, nor in private places to be abused, as they are of Papists, but rather, though they were as ancient, and as goodly monuments as the brazen serpent was, which no images at this day, can be, it is to the great honour of God, that they should be despised, defaced, burned, and stamped to powder, as that was, which sometime was erected by the commandment of God, by which not only great miracles were wrought, but the wonderful mystery of our salvation through faith in Christ, was prefigured.    

MART. 12. And as concerning the Bible, that at this day is red in their Churches, if it be that of the year 1577. it is worse sometime in this matter of images, than the other. For where the other readeth, Covetousness, which is worshipping 
Col. 3. v. ●.  of idols: there this later (where unto they appeal) readeth thus, Covetousness, which is worshipping of images. and Ephes. 5. it readeth as absurdly as the other, A 
W. Fulke Confut. fol. 35.  covetous man which is a worshipper of images. Lo, this is the English Bible, which they refer us unto, as better translated, and as correcting the fault of the former. But because it is evident by these places, that this also is partly worse, and partly as ill as the other, therefore this great confuter 
Fol. 36. Bib. 1579.  of Master john Houlet, fleeth once more, to the Geneva English Bible, saying, Thus we read, and, so we translate: to wit, A covetous person, which is an Idolater. Where shall we have these good fellows, and how shall we be sure that they will stand to any of their translations? from the first red in their Churches, they flee to that that is now red, and from this again, to the later Geneva English Bibles, neither red in their Churches (as we suppose) nor of greatest authority among them: and we doubt not but they will as fast flee from this, to the former again, when this shall be proved in some places more false and absurd, than the other.  

FULK. 12. It pleaseth you worse perhaps, that less favoureth your pelting distinction of images, and idols, but it is never the worse to be liked of them, that be wise, and learned, which know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Greek, do signify the same thing, which you can not deny. And where you say, in your scornful mood, lo, this is the Bible, which they refer us unto, as better translated, and as correcting the fault of the former, you follow your accustomed vain of lying. For I acknowledge no fault of the former, in this point of images, but confute the frowardness of that foolish reason, which accuseth our service, of reading the Bible, in shameless translations, in that text, 1. john. 5. whereas in the Bible appointed for the service, it is not as he saith, but even as he would have us to say. I fly not therefore (as it pleaseth your wisdom to say) from that translation also, to the Geneva Bible, neither do I allege the Geneva translation for that cause you pretend, but to show, that albeit we translate in such words, as you can not mislike, yet your venomous slandering pens, and tongues, can never give over your peevish quarreling. In the place by you quoted, I defend both as true, and answerable to the Greek, and of one sense and meaning, where the sound of words only, is divers, the signification of matter, one, and the same. And yet you must have your foolish flourish in roperipe terms. Where shall we have these good fellows, & c? You shall have us, by the grace of God, ready to justify all our translation, from shameless falsification, and heretical corruptions, which is your impudent charge against us. And if in matter of lesser moment, you can descry the least error, in any, or in all of our translations, we shall be willing to confess the same, and ready to reform it. For truth is dearer to us, than credit: although we think it better credit, to reform a fault, than being admonished, wilfully to continued it, or defend it.    

MART. 13. But what matter is it how they read in their churches, or how they correct their former translations by the later: when the old corruption remaineth still▪ being set of purpose in the top of every door within their churches, in these words: Babes keep yourselves from images? Why remaineth 
1. john. 5.  that written so often and so conspicuously in the walls of their churches, which in their Bibles they correst as a fault? their later Bible's say, Keep yourselves from idols: their church walls say, Keep yourselves from images. S. john speaking to the lately converted Gentiles, biddeth them beware of the idols from whence they were converted: they speaking to the old instructed Christians, bid them beware of the sacred image of Christ our Saviour, of the holy Crucifix, of the Cross, of every such representation and monument of Christ's passion, and our redemption. And therefore in the very same place where these holy monuments were wont to stand in Catholic times, to wit, in the rood fit, and partition of the Church and chancel: there now stands these words as confronting and condemning the foresaid holy monuments, Babes keep yourselves from images. Which words whosoever esteemeth as the words of Scripture, and the words of Saint john, spoken against Christ's image, is made a very babe in deed, and sottishly abused by their scribbled doors, and false translations, to count that idolatry, which is in deed to no other purpose, than to the great honour of him whose image and picture it is.  

FULK. 13. Still you harp on the old untunable string, that the former is a corruption, which saith, Babes keep yourselves from images, which sentence sore grieveth you, to be written in the top of church doors, or in place where the Rood fit stood. And you ask why it remaineth on the walls, which we correct as a fault in the Bibles? But who told you that they correct it as a fault in the Bibles? Is every alteration with you a correction? The one explicateth the other, that idols of which S. john speaketh, be images abused in religion. Not that all images be idols (as the word idol in the English speech is taken) nor that all idols be images, but as images that are worshipped. But S. john (you say) speaking to the converted Gentiles, biddeth them beware of the idols from whence they were converted. That is true, but not only from them, but from all other idols. Except perhaps you think, that Christians by that text should not abhor the images of Simon Magus, and Selene, and the images of the Valentinians, and Gnostikes, and other heretics, which worshipped the image of Christ, and of Saint Paul, as Irenaeus and Epiphanius 
Irenaus libr. 1. e●. 20 23. 24. Epiphanius. lib. 1. Tom. 2 H. 27.  do testify. And it seemeth you so think in deed. For you say soon after, whosoever esteemeth those words, as the words of Scripture (if images be put for idols spoken against Christ's image) is made a very babe. Suchs' babes were Irenaeus and Epiphanius, that they condemned this worshipping of images for heresy. Such a babe was Epiphanius, that finding the image of Christ painted in vail hanging in a Church at Anablatha, he judged it to be contrary to the Scriptures, and rend it in pieces. Such a babe was Tertullian, that speaking of that very text of Saint john, little children keep yourselves from idols, he writeth, Non iam ab idololatria quasi ab officio, sed ab idolis, id est ab ipsa effigie eorum. Indignum enim ut imago Dei vivi, Imago Idoli & mortui fiat, He biddeth them take heed, not now from idolatry, as from the service, but from the idols themselves, that is to say, from the very images, or shapes of them. For it is unworthy that the image of the living God, should be made the image of an idol, and that being dead. Finally, such a babe was your vulgar translator, that he saith. Filioli cust●dite vos à simulachris, Which is all one, as if he should have said ab imaginibus (as I have plentifully proved) children keep yourselves from images. As for the purpose you pretend to have in honouring Christ by images contrary to his commandment, is in deed nothing but dishonouring of him and destruction of yourselves.    

MART. 14. But the gay confuter with whom I began, 
V V Fulke. Fol. 35.  sayeth for further answer: Admit that in some of our translations it be, Children keep yourselves from images (for so he would have said if is were truly printed) What great crime of corruption is here committed? And when it is said again, this is the crime and fault thereof, that they mean by so translating to make the simple believe that idols and images are all one, which is absurd: he replieth that it is no more absurdity, than in steed of a Greek word, to use a Latin of the same signification. And upon this position he granteth that according to the property of the Greek word a man may say, God 
Gen 1.  made man according to his idol, and that generally, idolum 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  may as truly be translated an image, as Tyrannus a King (which is very true, both being absurd) and here he cited many authors and dictionaries idly, to prove that idolum may 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  signify the same that image. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

FULK. 14. But this scornful replier with whom I have to do, is so accustomed, to false and unhonest dealing, that he can never report any thing that I have written truly, and as I have written, but with one forgery or an other, he will clean corrupt and pervert my saying. As here, he shameth nothing to affirm, that I grant, that according to the property of the Greek word, a man may say. God made man according to his idol I will report mine own words, by which every man may perceive how honestly he dealeth with me.  
But admit that in some translation it be as you say: Children keep yourselves from images: what great crime of corruption is here committed? You say that it is to make simple men believe that idols and images are all one, which is absurd. This is no more absurdity, than in stead of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification. But you reply, that then where Moses sayeth that God made man according to his own image, we should consequently say, that God made man according to his idol. I answer, howsoever the name of idols in the English tongue for the great dishonour that is done to God in worshipping of images, is become so odious that no Christian man would say, that God made man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his lawful Prince a tyrant, yet according to the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be as truly translated an image, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a King.  
Here if I were disposed to give the rain to affection, as you do often being vnprouoked by me, were sufficient occasion offered, to insult against your falsehood. But I will forbear, and in plain words tell you, that if you be so simple, that you can not understand the difference of these two propositions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wheresoever it is read in Greek, may be truly translated an image: and this: wheresoever the word image is used in English, you may use the word idol, you are unmeet to read a Divinity Lecture in England, how soever you be advanced in Rheims. If not of ignorance, but of malice, you have perverted both my words and meaning, let God and all godly men be judge between you and me. My words are not obscure nor ambiguous, but that every child may understand my meaning to be no more but this. That this English word idol is by use restrained, only to wicked images. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth generally all images, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did all Kings, until Kings that were so called, became hateful for cruelty, which caused even the name tyrannus to be odious.    

MART. 15. But I beseech you Sir, if the dictionaries tell you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may by the original property of the word signify an image, (which no man denieth) do they tell you also that you may commonly and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signification thereof? or do they tell you that image and idol are so all one, that wheresoever you find this word image, you may truly call it, idol? for these are the points that you should defend in your answer. For an example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus, God hath 
Rom. 8. Imagini. 1. Cor. 15. Imaginem.  predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of his son. And again, As we have borne the idol of the earthly (Adam:) so let us bear the idol of the heavenly (CHRIST.) And again, We are transformed into the 
2. Cor. 3. Hebr. 10.  same idol, even as our lords spirit. And again, The Law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the 
Col. 1. 2. Cor. 4.  very idol of the things. And again, Christ who is the idol of the invisible God? Is this (I pray you) a true translation? yea, say you, according to the property of the word: but because the name of idols, in the English tongue, for the great dishonour done to God in worshipping of images, is become odious, no Christian man would say so.  

FULK. 15. No man denieth (you say) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may by the original propriety of the word signify an image. It is well, that being convicted by all Dictionaries, old and new, you will at length yield to the truth. But you demand whether the Dictionaries do tell me that I may commonly and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signification thereof. Sir I meddle only with the translations of the Scripture, and the Dicctionaries tell me that so it usually signifieth, and therefore so I may translate in the Scripture, or any other ancient Greek writer, that useth the word according to the original propriety thereof. Peradventure some later Greek writers restraining it only to wicked images, may so use the term, as the general signification thereof will not agree to the meaning in some odd place or other. But that is no matter to plead against our translation of the Scripture, when in that time it was written, the word was indifferent, to signify any image. Further than this, you ask of me, if the dictionaries do tell me, that image and idol are all one, and wheresoever I find the word Imago, I may truly call it idol? No forsooth sir, they teach me no such thing: neither do I say that the word image and idol may be confounded But the clean contrary, if your Mastership had not mistaken me, because it was not your pleasure to take me either according to my words, or according to my meaning. Why sir, These are the points you should defend in your answer, for an example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus: God hath predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of his son. And again, we have borne the idol of the earthly, etc. I pray you sir, pardon me to defend that I never said, ne thought, you yourself confess in the end, that I say, that no Christian man would say so: wherefore when you say that I affirm, this is a true translation according to the property of the word: can I say less? Then you lie like a Popish hypocrite.    

MART. 16. First note how foolishly and unadvisedly he speaketh here, because he would confound images and idols, and make them falsely to signify one thing: when he sayeth, the name of idol, is become odious in the English tongue because of worshipping of Images, He should have said, The dishonour done to God in worshipping Idols, made the name of Idols odious. As in his own example of Tyrant, and king: he meant to tell us that Tyrant sometime was an usual name for every king, and because certain such Tyrants abused their power, therefore the name of Tyrant became odious. For he will not say (I trow) that for the fault of kings, the name of Tyrant became odious. Likewise the Romans took away the name of Manlius for the crime of one Manlius, not for the crime of john at Nokes, or of any other name. The name of judas is so odious that men now commonly are not so called. Why so? because he that betrayed Christ, was called judas: not because he was also Iscariote. The very name of Ministers is odious and contemptible. Why? because Ministers are so lewd, wicked, and unlearned, not because some Priests be nought. Even so the name of idol grew to be odious, because of the idols of the Gentiles, not because of holy images. For if the reverence done by Christians to holy images were evil, as it is not, it should in this case have 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 Catholic Christians, but only among heretics and image-breakers, such as the second general Council of Nice hath condemned therefore with the sentence of Anáthema. No more than the Cross is odious, which to all good Christians is honourable, because our Saviour Christ died on a Crosse.  

FULK. 16. Nay first note how falsely, and then how foolishly, and yet how impudently he continueth a slander against me, of his own devising, that I would confound those English words, images, and idols. For first he will teach me to speak English, that where I said the name of idol is become odious in the English tongue, because of worshipping of images, I should have said. The dishonour done to God in worshipping of idols, made the name of idols odious. And what I pray you were those idols, the worshipping of which made the name odious, but images? May I not be so bold, under your correction, to use the general name images, which you say are not idols, until they be abused. When the image of jupiter, King of Crete, was first made, and nothing else done unto it, would you call it an image, or an idol. Sure I am, you called the brazen serpent, first an image, and then an idol. Even so I trust I may without offence of English men, say, that the abuse of images, called first without note of infamy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, idols, made the name idols to be odious, and therefore not applied, but to such abused images: and the example I brought of Tyrannus, which first did signify a king, is very play and like, but that you are disposed to play the peevish quarreler. 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 say, and so I said before, that for the fault of such cruel Kings, as were called Tyranni, though the name itself first signified not so, that name of tyrant became odious. As for your fomblitudes of Manlius, and judas, two proper names, compared with image, and idol, King, and Tyrant, which be common names, I will not vouchsafe to answer them. But the name of ministers (you say) is odious, for the faults of ministers, and not for the faults of priests. Popish priests are odious enough, for their own faults, so that they need not be charged unjustly, with the faults of our evil ministers. Which, I would wish, were fewer, than they be, but I trust there are not so many evil of them, as your popish priests have been, and are daily found to be. And whosoever of our ministers hath been found worst, I think there may be found, not a priest, but a Pope of your side, as evil, or worse than he. But if reverence done by Papists, (which you call Christians) to images, had been evil, (say you,) it should have made the name of images, odious also. No sir, that followeth not, so long as that reverence was accounted good, and lawful, and now that it is found to be abominable, the people having the other odious word of idols, in use, need not abandon the name of images, except they had an other, to signify lawful, and good images. The curse of the idolatrous Council of Nice the second, no Christian man regardeth, which knoweth that by Gods own mouth in the Scriptures, all makers and worshippers of idolatrous images are accursed.    

MART. 17. But to omit this man's extraordinary & vaduised speeches which be too many and too tedious (as when he sayeth in the same sentence, Howsoever the name Idol is grown odious in the English tongue, as though it were not also odious in the Latin & Greek tongues, but that in Latin & Greek a man might say according to his fond opinion, Fecit hominem ad idolum suum, and so in the other places where is imago) to omit these rash assertions I say, and to return to his other words, where he sayeth, that though the original property of the words hath that signification, yet no Christian man would say, that God made man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his lawful Prince, a Tyrant. Doth he not here tell us that, which we would have, to wit, that we may not speak or translate, according to the original property of the word, but according to the common usual, and accustomed signification thereof? As we may not translate, Phalaris tyrannus, Phalaris the King, as sometime Tyrannus did signify, and in ancient authors doth signify: but, Phalaris the tyrant, as now this word tyrannus is commonly taken, and understood. Even so we may 
Ab idolis.  not now translate, My children, keep you selves from images, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as the word may, and doth sometime signify, according 
1. joh. 5.  to the original property thereof, but we must translate, keep yourselves from idols, according to the common use and signification of the word, in vulgar speech, and in the holy Scriptures. Where the Greek word is so notoriously and usually peculiar to idols, and not unto images: that the holy fathers of the second Nicene Council, (which knew right well the signification of the Greek word, themselves being Grecians) do pronounce Anathema, to all such as interpret those places of the holy scripture, that concern idols, of images, or against sacred images, as now these Caluinists do, not only in their commentaries upon the holy Scriptures, but even in their translations of the text.  

FULK. 17. We can not yet be rid of this man's extraordinary, and unadvised surmises, which are too many, and tedious, as where I say, the name Idol is odious in the English tongue, he gathereth, that I mean, it to be odious only in the English tongue, and not in the Latin and Greek. I have showed before, that in Tully's time, it was not odious in Latin, and it is not long, since Master Martin confessed the Greek word, according to the original propriety, to signify as generally, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an image, which is not odious. Although in later times, among Christians, both of the Greek, and the Latin Church, the name of Idolum, became odious, as well as the word Idol in English. Therefore it is not my fond opinion, but. M. Martin's foolish collection, that a man may say in Latin, fecit hominem ad idolum suum: and yet I am charged with rash assertions, when nothing is reproved that I affirm, but that which he himself doth imagine.  
But now you will return to those words of mine, where I say, that though the original propriety of the words, hath that signification: yet, no Christian man would say, that God made man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his lawful Prince, a tyrant. These words (you say) do tell us, that we may not speak, or translate, according to the original propriety of the word, but according to the common, usual, and accustomed signification thereof. For speaking I grant, as the words are used in our time: but for translating, I say you must regard how the words were used in time of the writer, whose works you translate. As if you would translate out of Euripides, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, would you say, who is tyrant of this land? or rather, who is King? or in Aristophanes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, would you translate, jupiter, tyrant of the gods, or King of the gods? I think not. But in S. john, seeing at that time that he wrote, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signified an image generally, it may be translated, an image, generally, and seeing he speaketh of the unlawful use of images, it may also be translated an idol, as the word is now taken to signify. How the late petty Prelates of the second Nicene Council were disposed to use the word, to colour their blasphemous idolatry, it is not material. The ancient dictionaries of Suidas, Phavorinus, Hesychius, with the examples of Homer, Plato, and other ancient Greek Authors, are of more credit for the true and ancient signification of that word.    

MART. 18. This then being so, that words must be 
Loco citato. fol. 35  translated as their common use and signification requireth, if you ask your old question, what great crime of corruption is committed in translating, keep yourselves from images, the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; you have answered yourself, that in so translating, idol, and image, are made to signify one thing, which may not be done, no more than Tyrant and King, can be made to signify all one. And how can you say then, that this is no more absurdity, than in steed of a Greek word, to use a Latin of the same signification. Are you not here contrary▪ yourself? Are idol, and image. Tyrant, and King, of one signification? said you not that in the English tongue, idol is grown to an other signification, than image, as tyrant is grown to an other signification than King? Your false translations therefore, that in so many places make idols, and images, all one, not only forcing the word in the holy Scriptures, but disgracing the sentence thereby, (as Ephes. 5. & Col. 3.) are they 
Eph. 5. A covetous man is a worshipper of images, and Col. 3. Covetousness is worshipping of images.  not in your own judgement very corrupt: and as your own consciences must confess, of a malicious intent corrupted, to disgrace thereby the Churches holy images, by pretence of the holy Scriptures that speak only of the Pagan's idols.  

FULK. 18. Again, I repeat, that words must, or may be translated, according to that signification they had in time of the writer, whom you translate. And to my question, what absurdity is it in that text of Saint john, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to translate image: you answer by that means, idol and image, are made to signify one thing. But that is not so, for image signifieth more generally, than idol in English, and image answereth properly to the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, idol, to the meaning of Saint john, that is of wicked images, so that the translation is good. Even as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may be translated a King, generally, according to the word, and if the Author mean of a cruel King, it may be translated a Tyrant. For King is a general word, applied to good Kings, and to evil, as image is to lawful and unlawful images. Therefore our translations, that for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, say an image, are not false, much less any malicious corruptions. And if the translators in so doing, intended to disgrace popish images, I think they did well, and according to the meaning of the holy Ghost, who forbidding generally, all images, that may be had in religious reverence, did not restrain the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the wicked idols of the Gentiles, but left it at large, to comprehend all such images, and all kinds of worshipping them, as are contrary to the law and commandment of God.    

MART. 19 But of the usual, and original signification of words (whereof you take occasion of manifold corruptions) we will speak more anon, if first we touch some other your falsifications 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 Greek, as in that notorious example; 2. Par. 36. (Bib. 1562.) Carved images that were laid to his charge. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. subaud. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Num. c. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Again, Rom. 11. To the image of Baal. and Act. 19 The image that came down from jupiter. Where you are not content to understand image, rather than idol, but also to thrust it into the text, being not in the Greek, as you know very well.  

FULK. 19 Three places you note, where the word Image is thrust into the text, being neither in the Hebrew, nor Greek. The first, 2. Par. 36. bib. 1562. which I confess is a fault, but I marvel how it crept in. For Thomas Mathewes bible, which was printed before it, hath not that word, Carved images. It is reform also in both the translations that followed.  
The second, Rom. 11. is no corruption, for seeing you acknowledge, that a substantive must be understood, to bear up the feminine article, what reason is there, why we should not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seeing it is certain, Baal had an image, that was worshipped in his temple? 2. Reg. 10. The third place is, Acts the 19 where the word Image is necessarily to be understood, which fell down from jupiter, as it was feigned. Hereunto Pliny beareth witness, lib. 16. cap. 40. & showeth by whom it was made, & of what matter, of the like speaketh Herodianus. And the similitude of this Image, is yet to be seen, in those ancient Coygnes, that yet remain, which were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 temples. Wherefore your vulgar translation which turneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. iovis prolis, is not right, and therefore is corrected by Isidorus Clarius, a jove delapsi simulachri, with the consent of the deputies of the Council of Trent.    

MART. 20. Of this kind of falsification is that which is crept as a leprosy through out all your Bibles, translating, Sculptile and conflatile, graven image, molten image, namely in the first commandment, where you know in the Greek it is 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  idol, and in the Hebrew, such a word as signifieth only a graven 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  thing, not including this word image: and you know that God commanded to make the images of Cherubins, and of oxen in the Temple, and of the brazen serpent in the desert, and therefore your wisdoms might have considered, that he forbade not all graven images, but such as the Gentiles made and worshipped 
The meaning of the 1. Commandment concerning false Gods & graven idols.  as Gods: and therefore Non facies tibi sculptile, concurreth with those words that go before, Thou shalt have none other gods but me. For so to have an image as to make it a God, is to mke it more than an image: and therefore, when it is an Idol, as were the Idols of the Gentiles, than it is forbid by this commandment. Otherwise, when the Cross stood many years upon the Table in the Queen's Chapel, was it against 
The Cross in the Q. Chappel.  this commandment? or was it idolatry in the Queen's Majesty and her Counsellors, that appointed it there, being the supreme head of your Church? Or do the Lutherans your pew-fellows, at this day commit idolatry against this commandment, that have in their Churches the crucifix, and the holy 
Images in the Lutheran Churches.  Images of the mother of God, and of S. john the Evangelist? Or if the whole story of the Gospel concerning our saviour Christ, were drawn in pictures and Images in your Churches, as it is in many of ours, were it (trow you) against this commandment? fie for shame, that you should thus with intolerable impudency and deceit abuse and bewitch the ignorant people, against your own knowledge and conscience. For, wots you not, that God many times expressly forbade the jews both marriages and other conversation with the Gentiles, lest they might fall to worship their idols, as Solomon did, and as the Psalm reporteth of them? 
●. Reg. 11. Psalm. 105. v. 35.  This then is the meaning of the commandment, neither to make the idols of the Gentiles, nor any other like unto them, and to that end, as did jeroboam in Dan and Bethel.  

FULK. 20. This is a sore complaint, that we have falsified the Scripture, as it were with a Leprosy, in translating sculptile, and conflatile, a graven and a molten Image, and namely in the first commandment, where there is no word of Image, or imagery: but in deed in the second commandment, we translate▪ the Hebrew word Pesel a graven Image. You say it signifieth a graven 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  thing, not including the word Image. I answer you are not able to bring a place in the Bible, where it signifieth any other graven thing, but only an Image: & yet it is derived of a verb, that signifieth to grave or hew, as the word Pisilim, jud. 3. taken for quarries of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  stone doth declare. Beside this, the word next following, signifying a similitude or Image, sufficiently showeth, that it is not taken generally for any graven work, but for such, wherein the likeness or similitude of God, or any creature is meant to be resembled: and the same doth also the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testify; as for the Cherubins, Oxen, Brazen serpent, or any thing which God commandeth, is not forbidden by this precept: but that which man maketh of his own head, to honour as God, or to worship God by it. Wherefore very absurdly, to cloak such abominable Idolatry▪ you say that this commandment, Non facies sculptile, doth concur with those words, Thou shalt have none other Gods but me. By which not only two several commandments are confounded, but also a vain tautology committed: or else that added for interpretation▪ which is more obscure, than the text interpreted. Touching the cross that stood sometimes in the Queen's chapel, whereof you speak your pleasure, as also of her majesties councillors, it is not by and by Idolatry, what soever is against that commandment, neither is the having of any Images in the Church (which are had in no use of religion) contrary to this commandment. And although we will not accuse the Lutherans of Idolatry, neither can we, because they worship no Images: yet will we not excuse them, for suffering of Images to be in their Churches, whereof may ensue danger of Idolatry, but that in some part they go against this commandment, deceived in their judgement, and of us not to be defended in their error. After you have railed a fit, with fie for shame, and such like Rhetoric, you seem to make the prohibition of Images, none other, but such as the prohibition of marriage, and other conversation with the Gentiles, which was only for fear of Idolatry. But when you can show the like absolute commandment, to forbid marriage, and conversation with 
Hebr.  the Heathen, as this is for Images in religion, and worshipping 
Teraphim.  of them, we may have some regard of your similitude: 
Matsebah.  otherwise the meaning of this commandment, 
Temunah.  is generally to forbid all Images of God, and of 
M●schith.  
Pesel.  his creatures, to honour God by them: for to honour 
Tselamim.  them as Gods, is a breach of the first commandment, 
Tabnith.  as properly as of the second. 
Hamanim.     

MART. 21. This being a thing so plain as nothing more 
Samel.  
Massecah.  in all the holy Scriptures, yet your itching humour of deceit & 
Nesachim.  falfehood, for the most part doth translate still, images, images, 
Gillulim.  when the Latin, and Greek, and Hebrew have divers other 
Miphletseth.  
Gr.  words, and very seldom that which answereth to image. For 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  when it is image in the Latin, or Greek, or Hebrew, texts, your translation is not reprehended: for we also translate sometimes, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  images, when the text of the holy Scripture requireth it. And we 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  are not ignorant that there were images, which the Pagans adored for their gods: & we know that some idols are images, but not all images, idols. But when the holy Scriptures call them by so many names, rather than images, because they were not only images, but made idols: why do your translations, like cuckoos birds, sound continually, images, images, more than idols, or other 
All image and iages, in their translations.  words equivalent to idols, which are there meant?  

FULK. 21. In deed there is nothing more plain in all the holy Scriptures, than that the worshipping of Images, of all sorts, is forbidden▪ but that our itching humour of deceit, and falsehood, (as it pleaseth you to speak) hath corrupted the text, to establish any false opinion of the use of Images, it is not yet proved. But now you set upon us with 13. Hebrew words, and 9 Greek words at ones, which we for the most part do translate still Images, Images: and you say we sound with Cuckoo's birds continually Images, Images, more than Idols or other words equivalent to Idols. How many times the word Image is sounded, I never had care to seek, and now I have no leisure to number, but I am sure Idols and Idolatry, in that translation in which least, are named above forty or fifty times. But to a conscience guilty of worshipping of Images, contrary to the express commandment of God, the very name of Images must needs sound unpleasantly. That we have no greater change of words to answer so many of the Hebrew tongue, it is of the riches of that tongue, and the poverty of our mother language, which hath but two words, Image, and Idol, and them both borrowed of the Latin and Greek: As for other words equivalent, we know not any, and we are loath to make any new words of that signification, except the multitude of Hebrew words of the same sense coming together, do sometimes perhaps seem to require it. Therefore as the Greek hath fewer words to express this thing than the Hebrew, so hath the Latin fewer than the Greek, and the English fewest of all, as will appear if you would undertake to give us English words for the 13. Hebrew words. Except you would coin such ridiculous inkhorn terms, as you do in the new testament, Azymes, Prepuce, Neophyte, Scandal, , and such like.    

MART. 22. Two places only we will at this time ask you the reason of: first why you translate the Hebrew and Greek 
* Matsebah.  that answereth to Statue, image, so often as you do? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Whereas this word in the said tongues, is taken also in the better part, as when jacob set up a stone and erected it for a title, 
* Gen. 28. v. 22. Esa. 19 v. 19  pouring oil upon it: and the Prophet saith, Our lords altar shall be in Egypt, and his title beside it. So that the word doth signify generally a sign erected of good or evil, and therefore might very well (if it pleased you) have some other English than, image. Unless you will say that jacob also set up an image: &, Our Lord's image shall be in AEgipt: which you will not say, though you might with more reason than in other places.  

FULK. 22. Seeing you ask, why we translate the Hebrew word Matsebah so often an image? It had been reason you should have told us how often we do so, or at least noted some place, where it can not signify an image. We know the word being derived of the verb jatsab that signifieth to stand, may be taken for some thing erected, that is no image, but a pillar, or as your Latin text calleth it a title, in both the places by you noted Gen. 28. isaiah. 19 and else where Gen. 25. 2. Sam. 18. But when soever we translate it an image, the circumstance of the place so requireth, as 2. Reg. 10. where it is said, that Baal's 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 said, that the Ismaelites made unto themselves, Statuas, images, and groves under every high hill and under every thick tree: as appeareth by Ezechiel. 6. where they be called Gillulim idols, which had the similitude of men, as Baalim and such other.    

MART. 23. Secondly we demand, why your very last 
Of the year 1570.  English Bible hath (Esa. 30. 22.) For two Hebrew words, which are in Latin Sculptilia and Conflatilia, twice, images, 
Pesilim.  
Massechoth.  images: neither word being Hebrew for an image: no 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  more than if a man would ask, what is Latin for an image, and you would tell him Sculptile. Whereupon he seeing a fair painted image in a table, might happily say, Ecce egregium sculptile. Which every boy in the Grammar school would laugh at. Which therefore we tell you, because we perceive your translations endeavour and as it were affectate, to make Sculptile 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and image all one. Which is most evidently false and to your great confusion appeareth Abac. 2. v. 13. Where for these words, Quid prodest sculptile quia sculpsit illud fictor 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  suus, conflatile & imaginem falsam: Which is according to the Hebrew and Greek: your later English translation hath, What profiteth the image? for the maker thereof hath 
Of the year 1579.  made it an image, and a teacher of lies.  

FULK. 23. If it had said, the graven images of silver, and the molten or cast images of gold, I know not what advantage it had been to you, or loss to us. But neither word (you say) is Hebrew for an image. Alack this is poor sophistry, when all the world of Hebricians know, they are Hebrew for nothing else, but for graven or cast images, and by the figure Synecdoche, are taken generally for images of what making or matter soever they be. And the question is not, by what art images are made: but to what use, and how they be used, that they may be condemned for unlawful. This I take to be the cause, why the interpreter neglected the difference of the Hebrew words, which sometimes is not observed, & in English unpossible always, & unprofitable to be kept. As for your own conceit, whereat you think boys might laugh, I leave it to yourself. For if we were asked, what is Latin for an image, we could answer somewhat else than Sculptile. But if a boy should ask Pesilim or Massecath in this place of Esay doth signify, we would not answer a graven thing, or a molten thing, lest he might show us the mantilltree of a chimney, and a brass pot hanging over the fire, and demand further whether Esay in this text spoke of them, and all such things as they are. But it is most evidently false (you say) that Sculptile and Image are all one, and this appeareth to our great confusion, Abacuc the second etc. But I say to your shame, it will appear by this very text, that Pesel and Massecah signify one and the same thing and that most evidently. For thus the textis, What profiteth the Image (Pesel) for his maker iots●ro, hath made it, or (as you will have it) hath graven it Pesalo: what followeth now, but Massecah an Image? you had rather say Conflatile a molten Image. But than you must remember, that the maker of it by graving, made it a molten Image, which is a strange piece of work, except you will say, that first he did cast it, and then he did grave it, but say which way you will, the same Image is called Pesel and Massecah without difference. The last words are umoreh shaker, and a teacher of lies. For which words your translation hath Imaginem falsam, a false Image, whereas Moreh never signifieth an Image. But of that afterward.    

MART. 24. I would every common Reader were able to discern your falsehood in this place. first, you make Sculpere sculptile, no more than, to make an image: Which being absurd you know (because the painter or embroderer making an image, can not be said Sculpere sculptile) might teach you that the Hebrew hath in it no signification of image, no more than Sculpere can signify, to make an 
Sculptile.  image: and therefore the Greek and the Latin precisely (for 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the most part) express neither more nor less, than a thing graven: but yet mean always by these words, a graven idol, to which signification they are appropriated by use of holy Scripture, as Simulacrum, idolum, conflatile, and sometime imago. In which sense of signifying Idols, if you also did repeat images so often, although the translation were not precise, yet it were in some part tolerable, because the sense were so: but when you do it to bring all holy images into contempt, even the image of our Saviour Christ crucified, you may justly be controlled for false and heretical translators.  

FULK. 24. I would every common reader were able to discern your foolish malice in this place. For first while you cavil at the Etymology of the words, which the Prophet regardeth not, you make him say, that the ●●●h●o●er thereof, hath graven a graven thing, a ●●cl●ea thing. Secondly, where you say, that the Hebrew word Pes●● hath no signification of an image in it, leaning to the bare de●●●●tion from the verb Pasal, you control the only use of it, which is to signify an image, or idol, whether it be graven, or molten, or by what workmanship soever it be made, which you confess to be the sense of it. But when we do it (you say) to bring all holy images into contempt, we may justly be controlled, for false and heretical translators. First we know no holy images, made with hands at this time so accounted, but they are all profane and abominable idols. Secondly, if the translator's purpose were evil, yet so long as the words and sense of the original tongue will bear him, he can not justly be called a false and heretical translator, albeit he have a false and heretical meaning. As you Papists have in your late translation of the new Testament: yet where you translate, either according to the words, or according to the sense, no equity can condemn you for false translators.    

MART. 25. As in this very place (which is an other 
Abic. ●.  falsehood like to the other) conflatile you translate image, as you did sculptile, and so here again in Abacuk (as before in Esay is noted) for two distinct words, each signifying an other diverse thing from image, you translate, images, images. Thirdly, for imaginem falsam, a false image, you translate an other thing, without any necessary pretence either of Hebrew or Greek, avoiding here the name of image, because this place telleth you that the holy Scripture speaketh against false images, or as the Greek hath, false fantasies, or as you translate the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Hebrew, such images as teach lies, representing false gods which are not, as the Apostle saith, Idolum nihil est, And, Non 
1. Cor. 8. Act. 19  sunt Dij qui manibus fiunt. Which distinction of false and true images you will not have, because you condemn all images, even holy and sacred also, and therefore you make the holy Scriptures to speak herein accordingly to your own faasie.  

FULK. 25. Seeing the Prophet regardeth not the Etymology of the words, but useth both for one and the same Image, no nor regardeth the matter whereof it is made, as appeareth in the next verse, where he calleth this Idol wood, and stone, which cannot be melted, every reasonable man may see, that the word Massecah doth in this place signify generally an Image, which is made to be a teacher of lies. And whereas you repeat, that the two words doc signify each an other diverse thing from Image, because the one signifieth a graven thing▪ the other a molten thing, you speak with out all shame, and sense of honesty: for Pesel signifieth not every graven, carved, or hewn thing, but only an Image. For who would say, that a mortar, or a gutter of hewn stone were in Hebrew to be signified by the word Pesel, or a pewter pot, or a dish, by the word Massecah; Seing the use of the Hebrew tongue therefore hath appropried these names only to Images, it is great frowardness, & no learning to quarrel about the etymology or derivation of them. As this name building in English, is taken only for houses: as when we say here are goodly buildings, which if a man would extend according to the derivation, & showing nothing else but walls of brick or other matter, praise them for goodly buildings, he should be thought to speak strangely in our tongue, & yet according to the derivation, building may signify any thing that is builded. But for Imaginem falsam, a false image, you charge us to translate an other thing, without any necessary pretence, either of Hebrew, or Greek. Such affirmations will make us think meanly of your knowledge, in the Hebrew tongue. For what I pray you else, can Moreh in this place signify, but a teacher? or where 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  is it ever taken for an image, as your Latin text hath, or a fantasy, as the Greek readeth. Turn over your dictionary, and Hebrew concordance, and see if you can find it used for an image▪ or an idol. At least wise, give credit to Isidorus Clarius, who thus writeth in his notes upon the text. Quod ait imaginem falsam, in Heb. est docen●, vel annuncians mendacium. That he saith a false Image, in the Hebrew it is teaching or showing forth a lie The distinction you make of true and false Images, is vain for this purpose: for all Images that are used in religion, are false, and teachers of falsehood, which you with Gregory say are Say men's books; but what shall they teach 
Abac. 2. jerem. 10.  saith Abacuc and jeremy, but lies and vanity? where note that jeremy calleth the Image wood, by Synecdoche, signifying all Images made with hands, of any matter. Again he saith, every artificer is confounded in his Image, because it is false which he hath made, and there is no breath in it. In which verse it is to be observed, that he useth first the word Pesel, saying Mippasel and afterward Nifco, for the same Image made 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  by the artificer, without distinction of graving or melting, at leastwise for the sense, though the words be diverse. Even so your vulgar Latin translator useth Sculptile, conflatile, imaginem & simulachrum, for one and the same thing. The Scripture therefore telling us that all Images are false, because they being void of life, are set up to represent the living, it is not our fantasy, but the authority of God's word, that causeth us to reject your fantastical distinction, of true and false Images.    

MART. 26. Wherein you proceed so far, that when Daniel said to the King, I worship not idols 
Dan. 14. v. 4.  made with hands (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) you make him say thus, I worship not things that be made with hands, 
Bib. 1562. 1577.  leaving out the word idols altogether, as though he had said, nothing made with hand, were to be adored, not the Ark, the propitiatory, no nor the holy cross itself, that our Saviour shed his blood upon. As before you added to the text, so here you diminish and take from it at your pleasure.  

FULK. 26. That (thing) is put for idol, I confess it to be a fault in some translations, but in the Geneva Bible it is reform. Contempt of the authority of that Apocryphal chapter (as it seemed) did breed that negligence. Where you writ, that he should by saying, I worship not things made with hands, have denied the Ark, and the propitiatory to be worshipped, it is very true, for neither of both was to be worshipped, as they were made with hands, but God was to be worshipped where they were, and those things to be reverently esteemed, as the sacraments, of God's presence. As for the cross whereon Christ died, I see no cause why it should be worshipped, if it were to be had, but rather, if it were worshipped, it should be served as the brazen serpent was. None of the Apostles made any account of it: Nicodemus and joseph of Arimathia, if there had been any matter of religion in it, might have preserved it, and not have suffered it to be buried in the earth, with the two other crosses▪ as the story of the invention, sayeth, if it be true. At the finding whereof, Helena as Saint Ambrose writeth, Regem adoravit non lignum utique, quia hic gentilis est error & vanitas impiorum. She worshipped the King, not the tree verily, for this is an Hethenishe error and vanity of ungodly men. De obit. Theodosij.    

MART. 27. But concerring the word image, which you make to be the English of all the Latin, Hebrew, and Greek words, be they never so many and so distinct, I beseech you, what reason had you to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, images, Sap. 15. verse 13. doth the Greek word so signify? doth not the sentence following, tell you that it should have been translated, graven idols? for thus it saith. They judged all the idols of the nations to be Gods. Lo, your images, or rather, lo, the true names of the Pagan's gods, which it pleaseth you to call, images, images.  

FULK. 27. I think you are not able to prove, that we make, image the English to all the Hebrew words, though you boldly affirm it. But in the place by you mentioned, I suppose they translated the Greek word graven or carved images, rather than idol, because the writer in that place, Sap. 15. 13. speaketh of the first framing and fashioning of those images, which though the purpose of the workman be never so wicked, yet can not properly be called idols, before they be abused by them that worship them.    

MART. 28. But (to conclude this point) you might, & it would have well becomed you, in translating or expounding the foresaid words, to have followed S. Hierom, the great famous 
Comment. in Abac. 2.  translator, and interpreter of the holy Scriptures: who telleth you two senses of the foresaid words: the one literal, of the Idols of the Gentiles: the other mystical, of Heresies & errors. Sculptile, saith he, & conflatile: I take to be perverse opinions, which are adored of the authors that made them. See Arius, that graved to himself this idol, that Christ was only a creature, and adored that which he had graven. Behold Eunomius, how he molted and cast a false image, and bowed to that which he had melted. Suppose he had exemplified of the two condemned heretics, jovinian, & Vigilantius also: had he not touched your idols, that is, the old condemned heresies, which you at this day adore?  

FULK. 28. It becometh us best in translation, to follow the original text, and as near as we can, the true meaning of the holy Ghost. As for the two senses, which Hieronym telleth, stand whole and untouched, for our translation. There is a difference between a translation, and a commentary. In commenting upon the text, they that see it convenient, may apply the idols of the Gentiles, & the worship of them, to the heresies of our times, of the Papists, anabaptists, Libertines, and such like, as the Apostle doth by similitude to covetousness. As for old condemned heresies, which you charge us to worship, as idols, you are able to prove none, whatsoever you babble of Vigilantius, and jovinian, neither of both do we follow in any error, much less in any heresy.    

MART. 29. These only (I mean heresies and heretics) are the idols and idolaters (by the ancient Doctor's judgement) which have been among Christians, since the idolatry of 
Zach 13. Loco citato.  the Gentiles ceased, according to the Prophets. Therefore S. Hierom saith again: If thou see a man that will not yield to the truth, but when the falsehood of his opinions is once showed, persevereth still in that he began: thou 
Osee. 11.  mayst aptly say, Sperat in figmento suo, and he maketh dumb or deaf idols. And again, All Heretics have their gods: and whatsoever they have forged, they adore the same as Sculptile, and Constantile: that is as a graven and molten idol. And again, He saith well, I have 
Osee. 12.  found unto myself an idol: For, all the forgeries of heretics are as the idols of the Gentiles: neither do they much differ in impiety, though in name they seem to differ. And again, Whatsoever according to the letter 
In 5. Amos.  is spoken against the idolatry of the jews, do thou refer all this unto them, which under the name of Christ worship idols, and forging to themselves perverse opinions, carry the tabernacle of their king the devil, and the image of their idols. For they worship not an idol, but for variety of their doctrine, they adore diverse Gods. And he put in very well, which you made to yourselves: for they received them not of God, but forged them of their own mind. And of the idol of Samaria, he saith, we always understand Samaria, (and the 
In 8. Amos.  idol of Samaria) in the person of Heretics, the same Prophet saying, WOE BE TO THEM THAT DESPISE 
c. 6.  ZION, AND trust IN THE MOUNT OF SAMARIA. For Heretics despise the Church of God, and trust in the falsehood of their opinions, erecting themselves against the knowledge of God: and saying, when they have divided the people (by schism,) we have no part in David, nor inheritance in the son of Isay.  

FULK. 29. Not these only, but the idols of the Simonists, Valentinians, Gnostici, Carpocratits, Collyridians, and such like, made with hands, of Christ, and his mother, of Paul, and Simon, and Selene, and Pythagoras, etc. and such other, were idols of false Christians, since the idolatry of the Gentiles gave place, by the judgement of Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and other ancient doctors. And whatsoever you cite, or can cite out of Saint Hierom, against the idols of heresies, agreeth most aptly to yourselves, the Papists, who worship not only idols made with hands, but also the idols of your brains, which are abominable heresies.    

MART. 30. Thus the Reader may see, that the holy Scriptures which the adversaries falsely translate, against the holy images of our Saviour Christ, and his Saints, to make us Idolaters, do in deed concern their idols, and condemn them as idolaters, which forge new opinions to themselves, such as the ancient fathers knew not, and adore them, and their own sense and interpretation of Scriptures, so far and so vehemently, that they prefer it before the approved judgement of all the general counsels and holy doctors, and for maintenance of the same, corrupt the holy scriptures at their pleasure, and make them speak according to their fancies, as we have partly showed, and now are to declare further.  

FULK. 30. Thus the Reader may see, that when you have cavilled, quarreled, falsified, and slandered, as much as you can, to charge us with false translation of the Scripture, concerning images, you can find nothing worth the nothing: but if some small oversight, through negligence, or perhaps the Printers fault, hath escaped, you make a great matter of it, although it be corrected by ourselves in other translations, and when all other matter faileth, you return to your accustomed vein of railing, and reviling, which in no wise man's judgement, deserveth any answer, because it is so general.     

CHAP. four  
The ECCLESIASTICAL use of words turned into their ORIGINAL and PROFANE signification.  

Martin.  
WE spoke a little before of the double signification 
1.  of words, the one according to the original property, the other according to the usual taking thereof in all vulgar speech and writing. These words (as by the way, we showed before, upon occasion of 
Chap. 3. num. 17. 18. See also M. V Vhitaker pag. 200. and the 6. chap. of this book (num. 6. 7. 8. & num. 13. etc.) much more of this matter.  the Adversaries grant) are to be translated in their vulgar and usual signification, not as they signify by their original property. As for example: Mayor in the original signification▪ is greater. But when we say, The Mayor of London, now it is taken and soundeth in every man's ear, for such an Officer: and no man will say, The greater of London, according to the original property of it. Likewise Episcopus, a Greek word, in the original sense, is every overseer, as Tully useth it, and other profane writers: but among Christians, in Ecclesiastical speech, it is a Bishop. And no man will say, My Lord overseer of London, for my Lord Bishop. Likewise we say, Seven Deacons, S. Steven a Deacon. No man will say, Seven Ministers, S. Steven a Minister. Although that be the original signification of the word Deacon. But by Ecclesiastical use and appropriation being taken for a certain degree of the Clergy, so it foundeth in every man's ear, and so it must be translated. As we say, Nero made many Martyrs: not, Nero made many witnesses: and yet Martyr by the first original property of the word, is nothing else but a witness. We say Baptism is a sacrament: not, washing is a sacrament. Yet Baptism and washing, by the first original property of the word is all one.  

Fulke.  
WE have also answered before, that 
1.  words must not be always translated, according to their original and general signification, but according to such signification, as by use they are appropried to be taken. We agree also that words taken by custom of speech into an Ecclesiastical meaning, are not to be altered into a strange or profane signification. For such vanities and novelties of words, the Apostle prohibiteth, whereof the popish translation of the new Testament is fraught full. Notwithstanding our meaning is not, that if any Greek terms, or words of any other language, have of long time been usurped in our English language, the true understanding of which is unknown at this day, to the common people: but that the same terms may be either in translation, or exposition, set out plainly, to inform the simplicity of the ignorant, by such words, as of them are better understood. Also when those terms are abused by custom of speech, to signify some other thing, than they were first appointed for, or else be taken ambiguously for divers things: we ought not to be superstitious in these cases, but to avoid misunderstanding, we may use words according to their original signification, as they were taken in such time, as they were written by the instruments of the holy Ghost. As for example, if a Bishop be mistaken by the people, either for such an idol as the Papists used to make of their S. Nicolas bishops, or else for a great Lord only, 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 overseer of the flock of Christ, committed to his charge. Likewise if the word Deacon, be taken for such an one, as at a popish mass standeth in a disguised tunicle, holding a patten, or some other Idolatrous babble used of them: the people must be taught, that this name signifieth a minister, which was ordained not to serve the Popish altar, but the poor men's tables, that is, to provide for the poor, and to see the Church's alms bestowed upon them. Also if the name of Martyrs be not understood, but taken only for them that are tormented and rend in body, as the common speech is to say, of men & beasts, that they are martyred, when their bodies are wounded and mangled: here it is needful to show, that the Saints that suffered for Christ, had their name of their witness or testimony, not of their pains & torments. The name of Baptism is so common to Christians, that it need not to be changed into washing: but yet it may and aught to be explicated unto the unlearned, what this word doth signify, which is no profane signification, but a true and general understanding of the word, which is used of the Evangelist for other washings than the Sacrament of Baptism, and so, you are enforced to translate it, Marc. 7.    

MART. 2. Now then to come to our purpose, such are the absurd translations of the English Bibles, and altogether like unto these. Namely, when they translate congregation for Church, Elder for Priest, Image for Idol, dissension for schism, General for Catholic, secret for Sacrament, overseer for Bishop, 
* See chap. 15. nu. 18. & 3. 4. & chap. 21. nu.  messenger for Angel, ambassador for Apostle, minister for Deacon, and such like: to what other end be these deceitful translations, but to conceal and obscure the name of the Church and dignities thereof mentioned in the holy Scriptures: to dissemble the word schism (as they do also Heresy and Heretic) 
* Gal. 5. Tit. 3. 1. Cor. 11. Bib. 1562.  for fear of disgracing their schisms and Heresies, to say of Matrimony, neither Sacrament which is the Latin, nor mystery which is the Greek, but to go as far as they can possibly from the common usual and Ecclesiastical words, saying, This 
Eph. 5. v. 32.  is a great secret: in favour of their heresy, that Matrimony is no Sacrament.  

FULK. 2. Absurd translations of the English Bibles, you say are congregation for Church, Elder for Priest, Image for Idol and such like. The word Church being ambiguously taken of the people for the place of assembly, & the assembly itself, it was as lawful for us to call congregation, as for you to call it assembly, Acts 7. This word Priest, commonly taken for a sacrificer and the same that Sacerdos, and so by you translated: there was good occasion to use the word Elder, for which you use Senior, or ancient in your translation, which is a name of authority, as overseer is of diligence, minister of service▪ pastor of feeding all which names set forth a true Bishop, Pastor, and Elder, and if you will needs have it, of a true Priest Of Image for Idol is said enough in the next Chapter before, Schism I know not how English men should understand, except it were englished by dissension, division, rending, or some such like Of general for Catholic, we shall speak anon. Secret for Sacrament, we use, because we would retain the ecclesiastical use of this word Sacrament which is to signify the seals of God's promises, and not confound it, with every holy or unholy secret thing. The Greek word mystery, which you would enjoin us to use, was in the time of the first translation more unknown, than that we could well have used it, except we would have followed your vein, in vanity and novelty of terms, Praepu●e, neophyte, gratis, depositum, etc. or else made general and common the proper use of this Ecclesiastical term Sacrament, to every mystery, and called the Sacrament of preaching, of publishing the Gospel to the Gentiles, of the seven stars, as you do, and yet in the Sacrament of the whore of Babylon you leave it and call it mystery, Apoc. 17. v. 7. as you should be enforced to do, if you would translate the old Testament out of Latin, Dan. 2. diverse times, except you would call Nabuchadonosors dream, a Sacrament, and Dan 4. where the king saith, that to Daniel no secret is impossible; meaning unknown, or not understood, you would say, no Sacrament, & Tob. 12. you would translate Sacramentum regis abscondere bonum est. It is a good thing to hide the king's Sacrament, where you should say secret, and where the English phrase would hardly bear you to say the king's mystery. Of the other terms, in the places by you quoted, it shall be sufficient to speak. But I have rendered reasonable causes of these terms hitherto: so that no man, but mad with malice, would think we conceal the name of Church, & dignities thereof, in hatred of them, or do dissemble the names of schism & heresy, in favour of those abominations, which are as well set forth to their detestation, in the terms of dissension and sects: as for the name Sacrament, we find not in the Greek but mysterium we translate a secret or a mystery, as the word signifieth, which nothing favoureth the pretended Sacrament of Matrimony.    

MART. 3. S. Paul saith as plain as he can speak, I 
1. Cor. ●. v. 10.  beseech you brethren, that you all say one thing, and that there be no schisms among you. They translate for schisms, dissensions: which may be in profane and worldly things, as well as in matters of religion. But schisms are those that divide the unity of the Church, whereof they know themselves guilty. S. Paul saith as plainly as is possible, A man that is an Heretic 
Tit. 3.  avoid after the first and second admonition. They 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  translated in their Bible of the year 1562, A man that is an author of Sects. And where the Greek is, Heresy, reckoned among damnable sins, they say, Sects: favouring that 
Gal. 5.  name for their own sakes, and dissembling it, as though the holy Scriptures spoke not against Heresy or Heretics, Schism or Schismatics.  

FULK. 3. S. Paul in deed speaketh plainly in Greek, but if you speak English & say schisms, forty thousand of the people in England will swear they understand you not. But schisms (you say) are those that divide the unity of the Church: dissensions may be in profane and worldly things. Verily all schisms divide not the Church, for they were not all the Church, of whom it is said in S. john 9 There was a schism among them: for I think the best of the Pharisees, were scarce good members of the Church. Again where S. Paul doth say, lest there should be a schism in the body. 1. Cor. 12. He speaketh of the natural body, whereunto he compareth the Church. S. Paul also saith, as plainly as he can speak in Greek. 1. Cor. 11. v. 18. I hear that there be schisms among you: yet your vulgar Latin translator is bold to say Scissuras, cuttings or rendings, where you are bold to go from your Latin text and call them schisms. And for explicating the Greek name of heresy, by sects, why should we be more blamed▪ than the vulgar Latin translator, who commonly translateth it Sectas, and namely Gal. 5. 2. Pet. 2. Acts. 24. diverse times, 26. and 28 in all which places you yourselves translate sects. Is it because he, or you favour heresies and heretics? will you never leave this foolish wrangling, which always turneth you to the greater discredit?    

MART. 4. As also they suppress the very name Catholic, when it is expressly in the Greek, for malice toward Catholics and Catholic religion, because they know, themselves never shall be called or known by that name. And therefore their two English Bibles accustomed to be read in their 
An. 1562 1577.  Church (therefore by like most authentical) leave it clean out in the title of all those Epistles, which have been known by 
Euseb. li. 2. Eccl. bis●. c. 22. in fine. 1579.  the name of Catholicae Epistolae ever since the Apostles time: and their later English Bible (dealing somewhat more honestly) hath turned the word Catholic into General: saying, The General Epistle of james, of Peter, etc. As if a man should say in his Creed, I believe the general Church, because he would not say, the Catholic Church: as the Lutheran Catechisms say for that purpose, I believe the Christian Church. So that by this rule, when S. Augustine 
Lind. in Dubitantio.  telleth that the manner was in cities where there was liberty of religion, to ask, Qua itur ad Catholicam? We must translate it, Which is the way to the General? And when Saint Jerome saith, 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 stuff? Are they not ashamed thus to invert and pervert all words against common sense, and use and reason? Catholic and General or universal (we know) is by the original property of the word all one: but according to the use of both, as it is ridiculous to say, A Catholic Council, for a General Council: so is it ridiculous and impious to say, General for Catholic, inderogation thereof, and for to hide it under a bushel.  

FULK. 4. I do not know where the name of Catholic is once expressed in the text of the Bible, that it might be suppressed by us, which are not like to bear malice to the Catholic Church, or religion, seeing we teach, even our young children to believe the holy Catholic Church. But not finding the word Catholic in the text, you run to the title of the seven Epistles, called as commonly Canonical as Catholic or General. But Eusebius belike testifieth that they have been so called ever since the Apostles time, lib. 2. cap. 22. I marvel you are not ashamed to avouch such an untruth. Eusebius speaking of his own time, saith, they are so called, but that they have been so called ever since the Apostles time, he saith not. And so far off he is from saying so, that he pronounceth the Epistle of S. james in the same place, to be a bastard, and speaketh doubtfully of the Epistle of S. jude. But whereas in one translation we use the word General for Catholic, you make a great may game of it, showing your wit and your honesty both at once. For these 5. of james, 2. of Peter, one of Jude, and the first of john, which are properly & rightly so entitled, have that title, because they are not sent to any particular Church, or persons, but to all in general, as the Greek scholiast truly noteth. And OEcumenius before the Epistle of S. james saith expressly Catholicae id est universales dicuntur hae, etc. These Epistles are called Catholic, that is to say Universal or General because not distinctly to one nation or city (as S. Paul to the Romans, or Corinthians) this company of our Lords disciples doth dedicate these Epistles, but generally to the faithful, or to the jews that were dispersed, as also Peter: or else to all Christians living under the same faith. For otherwise, if they should be called Catholic, in respect of the soundness of the doctrine contained in them, what reason were there more to call them so, than to call all the Epistles of S. Paul? Wherefore in this title which yet is no part of the holy Scripture, it is rightly translated general. The other translators seeing seven to be called general, where only five are so in deed, and seeing them also called canonical, which should seem to be a controulling of S. Paul's Epistles, left out that title altogether, as being no part of the text▪ and word of God: but an addition of the stationer's or writers.    

MART. 5. Is it because they would follow the Greek, 
Catholica.  that they turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, general? even as just, as when they turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 image, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instruction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissension, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sect, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secret, and such like, where they go as far from the Greek as they can, and will be glad to pretend for answer of their word, sect, that they follow our Latin translation. Alas poor shift for them that otherwise pretend nothing but the Greek, to be tried by that Latin which themselves condemn. But we honour the said text, and translate it Sects also, as we there find it, and as we do in other places follow the Latin text, and take not our advantage of the Greek text, because we know the Latin translation is good also and sincere, and approved in the Church by long antiquity, & it is in sense all one to us with the Greek: but not so to them, who in these days of controversy about the Greek and Latin text, by not following the Greek, which they profess sincerely to follow, bewray themselves that they do it for a malicious purpose.  

FULK. 5. It is because we would have the Greek understood, as it is taken in those places, when we turn Catholic general, Idolum, image, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, instruction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordinance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dissension, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sect, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, secret, and such like. And where you say, we would be glad for our word sect, to pretend to follow your Latin translation, it is a fable. For in translating sect▪ we follow the Greek as truly, as your Latin translation doth, which if it be true and sincere, as you confess, what devilish madness possesseth your malicious mind to burden us with such purposes, as no reasonable man would once imagine or think of, that we should use that term in favour of heresy, and heretics, whom we think worthy to suffer death, if they will not repent, and cease to blaspheme, or seduce the simple.     

CHAP. V.  
Heretical translation against the CHURCH.  

Martin.  
AS they suppress the name, Catholic, 
1  even so did they in their first English Bible the name of Church, itself: because at their first revolt and apostasy from that that was universally known to be the only true Catholic Church: it was a great objection against their schismatical proceed, and it stuck much in the people's consciences, that they forsook the Church, and that the Church condemned them. Whereupon very wi●ily they suppressed the name Church in their English translation, so, that in all that Bible so long red in their 
Bib. 1562.  congregations, we can not once find the name thereof. judge by these places which seem of most importance for the dignity, pre-eminence, and authority of the Church.  

Fulke.  
How can we suppress the name Catholic, 
1.  which the holy Scripture never useth, as for the name of Church, I have already showed diverse times, that for to avoid the ambiguous taking of that term, it was at the first less used, but never refused, for doubt of any objection of the Catholic Church against us: the profession of which, being contained in our English creed, how could we relinquish, or not acknowledge to be contained in the Scripture, in which we taught, that all articles of faith necessary to salvation are comprehended? But we are content to be judged by those places which seem of most importance for the dignity, pre-eminence, & authority of the Church.    

MART. 2. Our Saviour saith, Upon this Rock I will 
Mat. 16.  build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. They make him to say, Upon this rock I will build 
Mat. 18.  my congregation. Again, If he hear not them, tell the Church: & if he hear not the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen and as a publican, they say, Congregation. Again, who would think they would have altered the word Church in the Epistle to the Ephesians? their English translation 
Eph. 5.  for many years red thus, Ye husbands love your wives as Christ loved the congregation, and cleansed it to make it unto himself a glorious congregation without spot or wrinkle. And, This is a great secret, but I speak of Christ & of the congregation. And to Timothee, The house 
1. Tim. 3.  of God, which is the congregation of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth. Here is no word of Church, which in Latin & Greek is, Ecclesia Dei vivi, columna & firmamentum veritatis. Likewise to the Ephesians again, He hath made him head of the congregation, which is his 
Ep. 1. Heb. 12. v. 23.  body. And to the hebrews they are all bold to translate: The congregation of the first borne, where the Apostle nameth heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God, etc.  

FULK. 2. In the first English Bible printed, where it was thus translated, Math. 16. upon this rock I will build my congregation: the note in the margin is thus, upon this rock, that is, as saith S. Augustin, upon the confession which thou hast made, knowledging me to be Christ, the son of the living God, I will build my congregation or Church. Was not this translator think you sore afraid of the name of the Church? What other thing should he understand, by the word congregation, in all places by you noted, or in any like, but the church, as he doth here expound himself. And this translation almost word for word, 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 congregation 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 congregation, above the name of Church. Whereas S. Augustine 
In ps. 81. in initio.  telleth them, that the jews Synagogue, was a congregation: the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Church, a convocation: and that a congregation, is of beasts also: a convocation, of reasonable creatures only: and that the jews congregation is sometime called the Church, but the Apostles never called the Church, Congregation. Do you see then what a goodly change they have made, for Church, to say congregation: so making themselves a very Synagogue, & that by the property of the Greek word, which (yet as S. Augustine telleth them most truly) signifieth rather a convocation?  

FULK. 3. A strange matter that the Church militant and triumphant should be excluded, by using 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 Church when he is head of the congregation, where the difference is only in sound of words, not in sense or meaning. Your vain and ridiculous surmise, why the name of Church should be left out of the Bible, I have before confuted: showing that in every Bible it is either in the text, or in the notes. But S. Augustin telleth us (say you) that the jews synagogue was a congregation, the church a convocation: & that a congregation is of beasts also, a convocation of reasonable creatures only. But S. Luke in the person of S. Stephen telleth us, and Augustine telleth us as much, that the synagogue of the jews 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 flock, and sheep of his pasture. But he that should say in English a congregation of beasts, might be taken for as wise a man, as he that said an audience of sheep. And whereas S. Augustine, telleth you, that the jews congregation is sometime called the church: what is the cause that you do translate it, the assembly, Act. 7. even as you do the congregation of the Idolatrous Ephesians, Act. 19? But further (you say) Augustine telleth us, that the Apostles never called the church congregation. It is a world to see what foolish fetches you have, to deceive the ignorant. Augustine sayeth the Apostles never called our assembly Synagoga, but always Ecclesia: and yet he is a little deceived: for S. Paul calleth our gathering together unto Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but Congregatio, a congregation, he saith not. And although he make a nice distinction between the words Congregation & Convocation, yet all men which know the use of these words, will confess no necessity of a jewish synagogue, to be implied in the word congregation more than in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which of the holy Ghost is used for an assembly or gathering together, either of jews, Christians, or Gentiles. And therefore it seemeth the translator used the word congregation, which is indifferent for all, even as the word Ecclesia is used both in the Greek, and vulgar Latin.    

MART. 4. If they appeal here to their later translations, we must obtain of them to condemn the former, and to confess this was a gross fault committed therein. And that the Catholic Church of our country did not ill to forbid & burn such books which were so translated by Tyndal and the like, as being not in deed God's book, word, or Scripture, but the devils word. Yea they must confess, that the leaving out of this word Church altogether, was of an heretical spirit against the Catholic Roman Church, because than they had no Caluinisticall Church in any like form of religion & government to theirs now. Neither will it serve them to say after their manner, And if a man should translate Ecclesiam, congregation: this is no more 
Consut. of M. Howlet sol. 35.  absurdity, than in steed of a Greek word, to use a Latin of the same signification. This (we trow) will not suffice them in the judgement of the simplest indifferent Reader.  

FULK. 4. We need not to appeal to the later translations, for any corruption or falsification of the former, no nor for any mistranslation. For seeing the spirit of God (as I have said before) useth the word Ecclesia generally for a company of Christians, jews, and Gentiles, the translator hath not gone from the truth, and use of the Scriptures, to use the word congregation, which signifieth indifferently all three. Wherefore there needeth no condemnation, nor confession of any gross fault herein committed, except you will count it a gross fault in S. Luke, to use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any scrupulosity for all three, as the translator doth the word congregation, and you in two significations the word assembly. Neither can your heathenish and barbarous burning of the holy Scriptures so translated, nor your blasphemy in calling it the devils word, be excused, for any fault in translation, which you have discovered as yet, or ever shall be able to descry. That stinking cavil of leaving out of the Bible this word Church altogether, being both foolish and false, I have answered more than once already. It is not left out altogether, that in contents of books and chapters, and in notes of explication of this word congregation is set down. Neither could there be any purpose against the Catholic Church of Christ in them that translated and taught the Creed in English, professing to believe the holy Catholic Church. As for our hatred of the malignant Antichristian Church of Rome, we never dissembled the matter, so that we were afraid openly to profess it, what need had we then after such a fantastical manner (as is fond imagined) to insinuate it.    

MART. 5. But, my Masters, if you would confess the former faults and corruptions never so plainly, is that enough to justify your corrupt dealing in the holy Scriptures? Is it not an horrible fault so wilfully to falsify and corrupt the word of God written by the inspiration of the holy Ghost? May you abuse the people for certain years with false translations, and afterward say, Lo we have amended it in our later translations? 
See his new Test. in Latin of the year 1556, printed by Robert Steven in fol. Act. 2. v. 27.  Then might the Heretic Beza be excused for translating in steed of Christ's soul in hell, his carcase in the grave. And because some friend told him of that corruption, & he corrected it in the later editions, he should nevertheless in your judgement, 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 oversights which may escape the best men: & in your gross false translations, who at the first falsify of a prepensed malice, and afterwards alter it for very shame. Howbeit, to say the truth, in the chiefest & principal place that concerneth the Church's perpetuity & stability, you have not yet altered the former translation, but it remaineth as before and is at this day red in your Churches thus, Upon this Rock 
Mat. 16. v. 18. Bib. 1577.  I will build my congregation. Can it be without some heretical subtlety, that in this place specially and (I think) only you change not the word congregation into Church? Give us a reason and discharge your credit.  

FULK 5. You are very hardly, & in very deed maliciously bend against us, that you will accept no confession of faults escaped, never so plainly made. As for corrupt dealing in the holy Scriptures, and falsifying of the word of god▪ you are not able no not if you would burst yourself for malice, to convict us. And therefore look for no confession of any such wickedness, whereof our conscience is clear before God, and doth not accuse us. As for beza's correction of his foremen translation, Act. 2. v. 27. if your dogged stomach will not accept, he shall notwithstanding with all godly learned men, be accounted, as he deserveth, for one who hath more profited the Church of God, with his sincere translation, and learned annotations, than all the popish Seminaries, and Seminarists, shall be able to hinder it, jangle of gross & false translations, as long as you will. But the chiefest & principal place that concerneth the Church's perpetuity, is not yet reform to your mind. For in the Bible 1577. we read still Math. 16. upon this rock I will build my congregation. If Christ have a perpetual congregation, builded upon the foundation of the Prophets, and Apostles, himself being the corner stone, his Church is in no danger ever to decay. Yet you ask, whether it can be without some heretical subtlety, that in this place specially, and (as you think) only, the word congregation, is not changed into Church. It is an homely, but a true proverb: the good wife would never have sought her daughter in the oven, had she not been there first herself. You are so full of heretical subtleties, and traitorous devices, that you dream of them in other men's doings, whatsoever cometh into your hands: yea, where you yourself can have no probable imagination what to suspect. And therefore we must give you a reason, in discharge of our credit For my part, I know not with what special reason the translator was moved, but I can give you my probable conjecture, that he thought it all one, (as in deed it is.) to say my congregation, or my Church. For what is Christ's congregation, but his Church? or what is Christ's Church, but his congregation? And yet to put you out of all fear, the Geneva translation hath the word 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 Heretics: being usurped first to signify the congregation of Christians, by a Metonymy of the place containing, for the people contained. For the etymology thereof is from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was used of Christians for the place of their holy meetings, signifying the lords house, therefore in the northern, which is the more ancient English speech, is called by contraction Kyrke, more near to the sound of the Greek word.    

MART. 6. What shall I say of Beza, whom the English Bible's also follow, translating actively that Greek word, (which in common use, and by S. Chrysostoms', and the Greek doctors exposition, is a plain passive:) to signify, as in his annotations is clear, that Christ may be without his Church, that is, a head without a body. The words be these in the heretical translation, He gave him to be the head over all things to the 
Eph. 1. v. 2●. 23.  Church, which (Church) is his body, the fullness of him 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that filleth all in all. S. Chrysostom. saith Beza, (he might have said, all the Greek & Latin ancient fathers) taketh it passively, in this sense, that Christ is filled all in all, because all faithful men as members, & the whole Church as the body, concur to the fullness & accomplishment of Christ the head. But this (saith he) seemeth unto me a forced interpretation. Why so Beza?  

FULK. 6. That Beza translateth the participle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, actively, it is plain, both in the text of his translation, & in his annotations. But that he doth it to signify, that Christ may be without his Church, that is a head without a body, it is a shameless slander. His words, upon which you weave this cobweb, are these. Omninò autem hoc addidit Apostolus, ut sciamus Christum per se non indigere hoc supplemento: ut qui efficia● omnia in omnibus revera: nedum ut suppleatur à quoquam, nisi quatenus pro immensasua bonitate Ecclesiam dignatur sibi quasi corporis instar adiungere. This the Apostle hath added altogether for this end, that we may know that Christ of himself hath no need of this supply: as he which worketh in truth all things in all so far it is, that he should be supplied by any body, but that of his infinite goodness, he vouchsafeth to adjoin his Church unto himself, as his body. Who but the devil, would find fault with this godly & Catholic saying? wherein it is affirmed, that Christ, which according to the perfection of his divine nature, needeth no supply, yet of his infinite mercy, vouchsafeth to become head of his Church, as of his body: so that he will not be counted perfect without it. Is this to say, Christ may be a head without a body? or is it for his benefit, or the benefit of his Church, that he is the head thereof? But the more to lay open this malicious slander, and impudent falsifying of beza's words, and meaning, I will set down his saying, going immediately before, upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he calleth complementum sive supplementum, a fulfilling or supplying. Is enim est Christi in Ecclesiam amor, etc. For such is the love of Christ toward his Church, that whereas he performeth all things, to all men, unto the full: yet he esteemeth himself as an unperfect head, & maimed of the members, unless he have his Church adjoined to him, as his body. Hereof it cometh, that Christ is taken sometime collectively for the whole Church, adjoined to her head, as 1. Cor. 12. v. 12. & 13. and Gal. 3. 16. Hereof cometh also that phrase, (in Christ) so often repeated, which signifieth something more expressly, than with Christ, or by Christ. Hereof that voice of Christ, Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me? whether also pertaineth that which is written, Col. 1. v. 24. Finally, hereof proceedeth all our hope and consolation. How think you, is not this man willing to separate the Church from Christ, the head from the body? O monstrous malices of godless Papists. His exposition of the place being such, as you see, let us now examine what can be said against his translation. For a man must not translate falsely, to make a true sense. It is alleged against him, that Chrysostom, and all the Greek and Latin fathers take the participle passively. Beza confesseth it of Chrysostom, whom the later Greek writers commonly do follow. But the participle, being derived of the mean verb, may have either passive or active signification. But why doth Beza say, that the exposition of Chrysostom is forced, which taketh it passively? he saith not in respect of Chrysostom's sense, which he himself followeth, and it is contained in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but in respect of the grammar, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be put absolutely without any word to govern it, seeing the participle of the mean verb, may be taken actively, and govern 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being the accusative case.    

MART. 7. Mark his Doctors whom he opposeth to the fathers, both Greek & Latin. Because Xenophon (saith he) in such a place, & Plato in such a place, use the said Greek word actively. I omit this miserable match, and unworthy names of Xenophon and Plato, in trial of S. Paul's words, against all the glorious Doctors: this is his common custom. I ask him rather of these his own Doctors, how they use the Greek word in other places of their works? how use they it most commonly? yea how do all other Greek writers either profane, or sacred, use it? What say the Greek readers of all Universities? Surely, not only they, but their scholars for the most part, can not be ignorant, that the use of this word, & the like, is passive, though 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  sometime it may also signify actively: but that is so rare in comparison of the other, that no man lightly will use it, & I am well assured, it would be counted a fault, & some lack of skill, if one now in his writings that would express this in Greek, God filleth all things with his blessing, should say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and, The wine filleth the cup, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ask them that have skill, and control me▪ Contrariwise, if one would say passively, All things are filled with God's blessing, The cup is filled with wine, Such a prophecy is fulfilled. What mean Grecian would not say, as S. Chrysostom here expoundeth this word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, using it possively?  

FULK. 7. Mark how malice carrieth this man almost into madness. For who but a mad man would think, that Beza opposeth profane writers to Ecclesiastical doctors, for understanding of the Scripture? The mean verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the meanest Grammarian in the world knoweth to be taken both actively & passively by the Grammar rule De verbo medio, Beza proveth out of Xenophon, and Plato, that it is and may be used actively. Why not therefore in this place of S. Paul, where both the sense requireth it, that one thing be not repeated twice without necessary cause, and the construction of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calleth for it, which otherwise is left at random, without any government? Seeing therefore we have the common rule of Grammar, and the example of eloquent writers for use, I marvel what M. Martin meaneth to waste so many words about so clear a matter. No man that knoweth any thing, doubteth but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be, and is often taken passively: But seeing it is also found to be a verb mean, who need to be afraid to use it actively (having Xenophon and Plato for his warrant) yea even in those examples you put of God's blessing filling all things, or the wine filling the cup, if any man would speak so. But if because the word is more usually taken passively, men would refrain so to speak, yet why should we think that S. Paul did not use it actively? when the active signification is more agreeable, both with his words, and with his meaning. But lest you should think Beza is alone, which taketh it actively, what say you to Philippus Montanus one of your own profession, which in his animadversions upon Theophlyactes translation, by him corrected, saith upon this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui adimplet, vel adimpletur, verbum enim est medium, passiuè autem videtur accipere Theophylactus. Which filleth, or which is filled: for it is a verb of indifferent signification, active or passive, but Theophylact seemeth to take it passively. What say you to Isidorus Clarius, who although in his text he readeth passively, yet in his note, confesseth it may be taken either passively or actively. For this is his note. Plenitudo eius\] per omnia enim membra adimpletur corpus Christi, quia omnia in omnibus implet, dum ipse agit in omnibus, vel per omnes homines haec implet membra. Sive pleni●udinem & complementum omne suum habet ipsa ecclesia ab illo, qui omnia in omnibus adimplet. That is the fullness of him\] for by all the members the body of Christ is filled, because he filleth all in all, while he worketh in all, or throughout all men filleth these members. Or else the Church herself hath all her fullness and accomplishment of him, which filleth all in al. These men both Papists, were as good Grecians (I warrant you) as M. Gregory Martin is, or ever will be, by whom if he will not be controlled, it were folly to press him with the judgement of our Greek readers, which he requireth.    

MART. 8. Yet (saith Beza) this is a forced interpretation, because Xenophon forsooth and Plato (once perhaps in all their whole works) use it otherwise. O heretical blindness or rather stubbornness, that calleth that forced, which is most common and usual: and seethe not that his own translation is forced, because it is against the common use of the word. But no marvel. For he that in other places thinketh it no forced interpretation, to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be contained, Which neither 
Recipere.  Xenophon, nor Plato, nor any Greek author will allow him to do, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 carcase, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. providence, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Animam.  them that amend their lives, may much more in this place dissemble 
●raescientiam.  his forced interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But why he should 
Poenitentiam.  call S. Chrysostoms' interpretation forced, which is the common and usual interpretation, that hath no more reason, than if a very thief should say to an honest man, Thou art a thief, and not I.  

FULK. 8. I have showed how it is enforced, because in taking the participle passively, you must either be enforced to admit a plain soloecism, where none needeth: or else you must hardly understand the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to govern, the accusative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Montanus telleth you in Theophylact, and as Oecumenius doth, & the sense will be no more than is contained in the word Complemenium. Whereas by taking it actively, the wonderful goodness of Christ shineth toward his Church, who although he needeth nothing to make him perfect, as Chysostome saith, but supplieth all things in all things, yet it is his gracious pleasure, to account himself imperfect without his Church, which he hath united to him as his body, in which he is not perfect without all his members.  
As for your vain and tedious repetition, like the Cuckoo's song, of beza's misprisions, I will not stand so often to answer, as you are disposed to rehearse them: Only I must admonish the reader, of a piece of your cunning, that in repeating the participle, you change the temps, and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as though it were the preterperfect temps, which can not be taken, but only passively. I know the Printer shall bear the blame of this oversight, but in the mean time it maketh a little show, to a young Grecian, that considereth it not.    

MART. 9 Is it forced Beza, that Christ is filled all in all by the Church? doth not S. Paul in the very next words before, call the Church the fullness of Christ, saying, Which 
Eph. 1.  is the fullness of him that is filled all in all? If the Church be the, fullness of him, then is he filled or hath his fullness of the Church, so that he is not a maimed head without a body. This would S. Paul say, if you would give him leave, 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) Christ needeth no such complement. And if he needeth it not, then may he be without a Church, and consequently it is no absurdity, if the Church hath been for many years not only invisible, but also not at all. Would a man easily at the first imagine or conceive that there were such secret poison in their translation?  

FULK. 9 You should urge Beza with a Latin Epistle, seeing you are so earnest in the matter. I have told you that the sense of Chrysostom is true, but not flowing easily from the words of S. Paul. That Christ hath his fullness of the Church, it is granted by Beza upon the word Plenitudo or Complemenium, as you can not be ignorant, if you have red beza's Annotations, as you pretend. But you charge Beza to say, that Christ needeth no such complement. beza's words are as I have set 'em down before, Vt sciamus Christum per se, non indigere hoc supplemento, that we may know that Christ of himself, needeth not this supply. Is this all one, with that you report him to say? No his saying was too long for your thievish bed, and therefore you cut of pierce of himself, or by himself. What say you? Dare you affirm that Christ of himself in respect of his divine nature, hath need of any complement? That Christ hath had always a Church since the beginning of the world, and shall have to the end, Beza doth plainly in an hundredth places confess: neither can it be otherwise proved by this translation, nor yet (by beza's words that Christ of himself is perfect and needeth no supply) but that it pleaseth him to become the head of the Church, as of his body, which his divine and merciful pleasure, seeing it is immutable, Christ can not be without his Church, nor the Church without him. Yea as Beza in plain words affirmeth, this is our whole hope and consolation, that Christ esteemeth himself an unperfect head, and maimed of his members, except he have his Church adjoined to him as his body.    

MART. 10. Again, it cometh from the same puddle of Geneva, that in their Bibles so called, the English Bezites 
Bib 1579.  translate against the unity of the Catholic Church. For whereas themselves are full of sects and dissensions, and the true Church is known by unity, and hath this mark given her by Christ himself, in whose person Solomon speaking saith, una est columba mea, that is, One is my dove, or, My 
Cant. 6. v. 8.  dove is one. Therefore in steed hereof, the foresaid Bible 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  sayeth, My dove is alone: Neither Hebrew nor Greek 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  word having that signification, but being as proper to signify one, as unus in Latin.  

FULK. 10. He that hath any nose may smell, that this censure cometh from the stinking puddle of Popish malice. For he that saith my dove is alone. Cant. 6. 8. doth a great deal more strongly avouch the unity of the Church, than he that sayeth my dove is one. For whereas Solomon sayeth in the verse going immediately before. There are three score Queens, and four score concubines, and of the damsels without number, if you add thereto my dove is one: it may be thought she is one of those last mentioned. But if you say as the Geneva Bible doth, but my dove is alone, and my undefiled is the only daughter of her mother: Now the church is excepted from all the rest of the Queens, concubines, and damsels. And where you say, the Hebrew hath not that signification, I pray you go no further, but even to the same verse, and tell me whether the sense be, that, she is one of her mother's daughters, or the only daughter of her mother? Here therefore (as almost every where) you do nothing, but seek a knot in a rush.    

MART. 11. But we beseech every indifferent Reader, even for his soul's health to consider that one point specially before mentioned of their abandoning the name of Church for so many years out of their English Bibles: thereby to defeat the strongest argument that might and may possibly be brought against them and all other Heretics: to wit, the authority of the Church which is so many ways and so greatly recommended unto all Christians in ho'y Scriptures. Consider (I pray you) what a malicious intention they had herein. First, that the name Church should never sound in the common people's ears out of the Scriptures: secondly, that as in other things, so in this also it might seem to the ignorant a good argument against the authority of the Church, to say, We find not this word (Church) in all the holy Scriptures. For as in other articles they say so, because they find not the express word in the holy Scripture, so did they well provide, that the word (Church) in the holy Scriptures should not stay or hinder their schismatical and heretical proceed, 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 Catholic Church's credit and authority altogether, among the ignorant by opposing the Scriptures thereunto, which themselves had thus falsely translated.  

FULK. 11. We trust every indifferent Reader will consider, that they which translated the Greek word Ecclesia, the congregation, and admonished in the notes that they did by that word mean the church, and they which in the creed might have translated Ecclesiam Catholicam, the universal congregation, taught all children to say, I believe the Catholic church, could have no such devilish meaning as this malicious slanderer, of his own head doth imagine. For who ever heard any man reason thus. This word church is not found in the Scripture, therefore the church must be despised, etc. Rather it is like (beside other reasons before alleged) that those first translators, having in the old Testament out of the Hebrew translated the words Cahal Hadath, and such other for the congregation (where the Papists will not translate the church, although their Latin text be Ecclesia, as appeareth, Act. 7. where they call it assembly) thought good to retain the word congregation, throughout the new Testament also, lest it might be thought of the ignorant, that God had no church in the time of the old Testament. Howsoever it was, they departed neither from the word, nor meaning of the holy Ghost: nor from the usage of that word Ecclesia, which in the Scripture signifieth as generally, any assembly, as the word Congregation doth in English.     

CHAP. VI  
Heretical translation against PRIEST and PRIESTHOOD.  

Martin.  
But because it may be, they will stand here upon 
1.  their later translations, which have the name Church, (because by that time they saw the absurdity of changing the name, & now their number was increased, and themselves began to challenge to be the true Church, though not the Catholic: and for former times when they were not, they devised an invisible Church) If then they will stand upon their later translations, and refuse to justify the former: let us demand of them concerning all their English translation, why and to what end they suppress the name Priest, translating it Elder, in all places where the holy Scripture would signify by Presbyter and Presbyterium, the Priests and Priesthood of the new Testament?  

Fulke.  
IF any error have escaped the former 
1.  translations, that hath been reform in the later, all reasonable men ought to be satisfied with our own corrections. But because we are not charged with oversights and small faults committed either of ignorance, or of negligence, but with shameless translations, wilful & heretical corruptions, we may not acknowledge any such crimes, whereof our conscience is clear. That we devised an invisible church, because we were few in number, when our translations were first printed, it is a lewd slander. For being multiplied (as we are God be thanked) we hold still that the Catholic church, which is the mother of us all, is invisible, and that the church on earth may at sometimes be driven into such straits, as of the wicked it shall not be known. And this we held always, and not otherwise. Now touching the word Presbyter, and Presbyterium why we translate them not Priest, and Priesthood of the new Testament, we have given sufficient reason before: but because we are here urged a fresh, we must answer as occasion shall be offered.    

MART. 2. Understand gentle Reader, their wily policy therein is this. To take away the holy sacrifice of the Mass, they take away both altar and Priest, because they know right well that these three (Priest, sacrifice, and altar) are dependentes and consequentes one of an other, so that they can not be separated. If there be an external sacrifice, there must be an external Priesthood to offer it, an altar to offer the same upon. So had the Gentiles their sacrifices, Priests, and altars: so had the jews: so Christ himself being a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec, had a sacrifice, his body: and an altar, his Cross, upon the which he offered it. And because he instituted this sacrifice to continue in his Church for ever, in commemoration and representation of his death, therefore did he withal ordain his Apostles Priests at his last supper, there & then instituted the holy order of Priesthood and Priests (saying, hoc faecite, Do this:) to offer the self same sacrifice 
Luc. c. 22. v. 19  in a mystical and unblouddie manner, until the worlds end.  

FULK. 2. In denying the blasphemous sacrifice of the popish mass, with the altar, & priesthood, that thereto belongeth, we use no wily policy, but with open mouth at all times, and in all places, we cry out upon it. The sacrifices, priests, and altars of the Gentiles, were abominable. The sacrifices of the jews, their priests, and altars, are all accomplished and finished in the only sacrifice of Christ our high Priest, offered once for all, upon the altar of the cross: which Christ our Saviour, seeing he is a Priest, according to the order of Melchisedech, hath an eternal priesthood, and such as passeth not by succession, Heb. 7. Therefore did not Christ at his last supper, institute any external propitiatory sacrifice of his body and blood, but a sacrament, joined with the spiritual sacrifice of praise, and thanks giving. Which sacrament being administered by the ministers thereto appointed, the sacrifice is common to the whole Church of the faithful, who are all spiritual priests, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, as much as the minister of the word and sacraments.    

MART. 3. To defeat all this, and to take away all external priesthood and sacrifice, they by corrupt translation of the holy Scriptures, make them clean dumb, as though they had not a word of any such Priests, or Priesthood as we speak of. Their Bibles (we grant) have the name of Priests very often, but that is when mention is made either of the Priests of the jews, or of the Priests of the Gentiles (specially when they are reprehended & blamed in the holy Scriptures) and in such places our Adversaries have the name Priests in there translations, to make the very name of Priest odious among the common ignorant people. Again they have also the name Priests, when they are taken for all manner of men, women, or children, that offer internal and spiritual sacrifices, whereby our Adversaries would falsely signify that there are no other Priests, 
whitaker's pag. 199.  as one of them of late freshly avoucheth, directly against S. Augustine, who in one brief sentence distinguisheth Priests properly so called in the Church, and Priests as it is a common name to all Christians. Lib. 20. de Civit. Dei, cap. 10. This name then of Priest and Priesthood properly so called (as S. Augustine saith) which is an order distinct from the laity and vulgar people, ordained to offer Christ in an unbloody manner in sacrifice to his heavenly father for us, to preach & minister the Sacraments, and to be the Pastors of the people) they wholly suppress in their translations, & in all places where the holy scripture calleth them, Presbyteros, there they never translate Priests, but Elders. And that they do observe so duly and so warily, and with so full and general consent in all their English 
See the Puritans reply, pag. 159. and Whitgifts' defence against the Puritans, pag. 722.  Bibles, as the Puritans do plainly confess, and M. Whit. gift denieth it not, that a man would wonder to see how careful they are, that the people may not once hear the name of any such Priest, in all the holy scriptures,  

FULK. 3. Now you have gotten a fine net to dance naked in, that no ignorant blind buzzard can see you. The masks of your net be the ambiguous and abusive significations of this word Priest, which in deed according to the original derivation from Presbyter, should signify nothing else, but an Elder, as we translate it, that is, one appointed to govern the Church of God, according to his word: but not to offer sacrifice for the quick and the dead. But by usurpation it is commonly taken, to signify a sacrificer, such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in Greek, and sacerdos in Latin, by which names, the ministers of the Gospel are never called by the holy Ghost. After this common acception, and use of this word Priest, we call the sacrificers of the old Testament, and of the Gentiles also: because the Scripture calleth them by one name Cohanin, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but because the Scripture calleth the ministers of the new Testament by diverse other names, and never by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we thought it necessary to observe that distinction, which we see the holy Ghost so precisely hath observed. Therefore where the Scripture calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we call them according to the etymology, Elders, and not Priests: which word is taken up by common usurpation, to signify sacrificers of jews, Gentiles, or Papists, or else all Christians, in respect of spiritual sacrifices. And although Augustine, and other of the ancient fathers, call the ministers of the new Testament, by the name of sacerdotes, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signify the ministers of the old Testament: yet the authority of the holy Ghost, making a perfect distinction between these two appellations, and functions, aught to be of more estimation with us. The Fathers were content to speak in Latin & Greek, as the terms were taken up by the common people newly converted from gentility, but yet they retained the difference of the sacrificing priesthood, of the one, and the ministerial office of the other. This may suffice therefore to render a reason, why we use not the word Priest for Ministers of the new Testament: not that we refuse it in respect of the etymology, but in respect of the use & common signification thereof.    

MART. 4. As for example in their translations. When there fell a question about circumcision, They determined 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem 
Presbyteros.  unto the Apostles and ELDERS, about this question. Act. 15. And again, They were received of the 
* The later Bible's read Church.  congregation and of the Apostles and ELDERS. Again, The Apostles and Elders came together to reason of this matter. Again, Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders with the whole congregation to send etc. Again, The Apostles and Elders and brethren send greeting etc. Again, They delivered them the decrees for to keep, 
Act 16.  that were ordained of the Apostles and ELDERS. If in all these places they had translated Priests (as in deed they should have done according to the Greek word) it had then disadvantaged them this much, that men would have thought, both the dignity of Priests to be great, and also their authority in Counsels, as being here joined with the Apostles, to be greatly reverenced and obeyed. To keep the people from all such holy and reverent cogitations of Priests, they put Elders, a name wherewith our holy Christian forefathers ears were never acquainted, in that sense.  

FULK. 4. In all those places by you rehearsed, Act. 15. and 16. your own vulgar Latin text hath seniores, which you had rather call ancients (as the French Protestants call the Governors of their Churches,) than Elders, as we do. That Popish Priests should have any dignity or authority in Counsels, we do flatly deny: but that the Seniors, Ancients, Elders, or Priests (if you will) of the new Testament, should have as much dignity and authority, as God's word doth afford them, we desire with all our hearts. That our Christian Forefathers ears were not acquainted with the name of Elders, it was because the name of Priest in their time, sounded according to the etymology, and not according to the corruption of the Papists: otherwise I think their ears were as much acquainted with the name of Elders, which we use, as with the name of ancients, and Seniors, that you have newly taken up, not for that they differ in signification from Elders, but because you would differ from us.    

MART. 5. But let us go forward. We have heard often and of old time, of making of Priests: and of late years also, of making Ministers: but did ye ever here in all England of making Elders? Yet by these men's translations it hath been in England a phrase of Scripture this thirty year: but it must needs be very strange, that this making of Elders hath not all this while been practised and known, no not among themselves in any of their Churches within the realm of England. To Titus they make the Apostle say thus, For this cause left 
Tit. 1.  I thee in Creta, that thou shouldest ordain ELDERS in every city, etc. Again of Paul and Barnabas: When 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  they had ordained Elders by Election, in every congregration. 
Presbyteros.  
Bib. an 1562.  Act. 14. If they had said plainly as it is in the Greek, and as our forefathers were wont to speak, and the truth is: Titus was le●t in Creta to ordain Priests in every city: and, Paul and Barnabas made Priests in every Church: then the people would have understood them they know such speeches of old, & it had been their joy & comfort to hear it specified in holy Scriptures. Now they are told an other thing, in such newness of speeches and words, of Elders to be made in every city & congregation, and yet not one city nor congregation to have any Elders in all England, that we know not what is profane novelty of words, which the Apostle 
●. Tim. 6.  willeth to be avoided, if this be not an exceeding profane novelty.  

FULK. 5. When you have gotten a babble, you make more of it than of the tower of London, for you have never done playing with it. It must needs be a clarkly argument, that is drawn from the vulgar speeches of making Priests, and making Ministers. Those Priests or Ministers, that are made among us, are the same Elders that the Scripture in Greek calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Bishop's letters of orders, testifying of their ordination, call them by none other name, but by the name of Presbyteri, which the Scripture useth: which term though in English you sound it Priests, Elders, Ancients, Seniors, or Ministers, which is the common people's word, it is the same office which is described by the holy ghost, Tit. 1. and in other places of Scripture. As for the profane novelty wherewith this word Elder is changed, we will consider of it in the next section.    

MART. 6. That it is novelty to all English Christian ears, it is evident. And it is also profane, because they do so English the Greek word of ordaining (for of the word Presbyter 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Act. 14.  we will speak more anon) as if they should translate Demosthenes, or the laws of Athens concerning their choosing of Magistrates, which was by giving voices with lifting up their hands. So do they force this word here, to induce the people's election, and yet in their Churches in England the people elect not ministers, but their Bishop. Whereas the holy Scripture 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saith, they ordained to the people: and what soever force the word hath, it is here spoken of the Apostles, and pertaineth not 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to the people, and therefore in the place to Titus it is another 
Tit. 1.  word which cannot be forced further, than to ordain and appoint. And they might know (if malice and Heresic would suffer them to see and confess it) that the holy Scriptures, and fathers, and Ecclesiastical custom, hath drawn this and the like words from their profane and common signification, to a more peculiar and Ecclesiastical speech: as Episcopus, an overseer in Tulite, is a Bishop in the new Testament.  

FULK. 6. The name Elders used in our translation, is neither more novel to English ears, nor more profane to godly ears, than the name Ancients, which your translation useth. And yet I think the Apostle 1. Tim. 6. spoke not of novelty to English ears, but of that which was new to the ears of the Church of God. But the word Elders (I ween) must be profane, because we English the Greek word of ordaining, as if we should translate Demosthenes, or the Laws of Athens concerning the choosing of Magistrates. Doth not this cavil redound more against the holy Ghost, to accuse his stile of profaneness, which useth the same words for the ordaining of Priests, that Demosthenes or the laws of Athens might use for choosing of their Magistrates? But this word we enforce (you say) to induce the people's election, and yet the Bishop, not the people, elect our ministers. We mean not to enforce any other election than the word doth signify. Neither doth our Bishops (if they do well) ordain any Ministers or Priests without the Testimony of the people, or at leastwise of such as be of most credit where they are known. Where you urge the pronoun, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to them, as though the people gave no consent nor testimony, it is more than ridiculous: and beside that, contrary to the practice of the primitive Church▪ for many hundredth years after the Apostles, as also that you would enforce upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used by S. Paul, Tit. 1. as though that word of constitution, did exclude election. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Fathers of the Church since the Apostles, hath been drawn to other signification than it had before, it is no reason to teach us how it was used by the Apostles. Election is an indifferent thing, the election of Bishops, Elders, or Priests is an holy thing, the holiness whereof is not included in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the holy institution of Christ, and authority by appointment delivered, by imposition of the hands of the Eldership.    

MART. 7. And concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we now speak of, S. Hierom telleth them (in c. 58. isaiah.) that it signifieth Clericorum 
Greg. Nazian. in titul. Ser. 1. 4. 5.  ordinationem, that is, giving of holy orders, which is done not only by prayer of the voice, but by 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  imposition of the hand: according to S. Paul unto Timothee, Manus citò nemini imposueris. Impose or put hands quickly on no man. That is, be not hasty or easy to give holy orders. Where these great etymologistes, that so 
Ignat. ep. 10. saith of Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  strain the original nature of this word to profane stretching forth the hand in elections, may learn an other Ecclesiastical erymologie thereof, as proper and as well deduced of the word as the other, to wit, putting forth the hand to give orders: and so they shall find it is all one with that which the Apostle calleth imposition of hands, 1. Tim. 4 2. Tim 1: and consequently, for, ordaining Elders by election, they should have said, ordaining or making Priests by imposition of hands: as else where S. Paul, 1. Tim. 5. and the Acts of the Apostles (Act. 6. and 13.) do speak in the ordaining of the seven Deacons and of S. Paul and Barnabas.  

FULK. 7. The testimony of S. Jerome whom you 
In Esa. cap. 58.  cite, you understand not, for speaking there of the extension of the finger, which the septuaginta translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and God requireth to be taken away: he saith, Many of our interpreters do understand it of the ordination of Clerks, which is performed not only at the imprecation of voice, but also at the imposition of hands, lest as we have laughed at in some men, the secret imprecation of the voice should ordain Clerks, being ignorant thereof. And so proceedeth to inveigh against the abuse of them, that would ordain Clerks, of their basest officers, and servitors, yea at the request of foolish women. By which it is manifest, that his purpose is not to tell what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. properly doth signify, but that imposition of hands, is required in lawful ordination, which many did understand by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. although in that place it signified no such matter. And therefore you must seek further authority to prove your Ecclesiastical etymology, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth putting forth of the hands to give orders. The places you quote in the margin, out of the titles of Nazianzens sermons, are to no purpose, although they were in the text of his Homilies. For it appeareth not, although by Synecdoche the whole order of making Clerks were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that election was excluded where there was ordination by imposition of hands. As for that you cite out of Ignatius, proveth against you, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differeth from imposition of hands: because it is made a distinct office from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that signifieth to lay on hands? and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by your own author do differ.    

MART. 8. But they are so profane and secular, that they translate the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all the new Testament, as if it had the old profane signification still, & were indifferent to signify the ancients of the jews, the Senators of Rome, the elders of Lacedemonia, and the Christian Clergy. In so much that they say, Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the Elders 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of the Church: Act. 20. and yet they were such as had their flocks, and cure of souls, as followeth in the same place. They make S. Paul speak thus to Timothee, Neglect not the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  gift (so they had rather say than grace, lest holy orders should 
Bib. 1579. 1577.  be a Sacrament) given thee with the laying on of the hands of the Eldership. or, by the authority of the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Eldership. 1. Tim. 4. What is this company of Eldership? 
Presbyterij.  Somewhat they would say like to the Apostles word, but they will not speak plainly, lest the world might hear out of the Scriptures, that Timothee was made Priest or Bishop even as the use is in the Catholic Church at this day. Let the 
Ca 3. in the year 436. Where S. Augustine was present and subscribed.  fourth Council of Carthage speak for both parts indifferently, and tell us the Apostles meaning, A Priest when he taketh his orders, the Bishop blessing him and holding his hand upon his head, let all the Priests also that are present, hold their hands by the Bishop's hand upon his head. So do our priests as this day, when a Bishop maketh priests: and this is the laying on of the hands of the company of Priests, which S. Paul speaketh of, & which they translate, the company of the Eldership. Only their former translation of 1562. in this place (by what chance or consideration we know not) let fall out of the pen, by the authority of Priesthood.  

FULK. 8. We desire not to be more holy in the english terms, than the holy Ghost was in the Greek terms. Whom, if it pleased to use such a word, as is indifferent to signify the ancients of the jews, the Senators of Rome, the Elders of Lacedemonia, and the Christian Clergy, why should we not truly translate it into English?  
But I pray you in good sadness, are we so profane, and secular, Act. 20. in calling those whom Saint Paul sent for out of Ephesus, Elders? What shall we say then of the vulgar Latin text, which calleth them Maiores natu? as though they obtained that degree by years, rather than by any thing else? and why do you so profanely, and secularly call them the Ancients of the Church? Is there more profaneness and secularity in the English word Elders, than in the Latin word Maiores natu, or in your Frenchenglishe term, Ancients. Surely you do nothing but play with the noses of such as be ignorant in the tongues, and can perceive no similitude or difference of these words, but by the sound of their ears. But now for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used by Saint Paul, 1. Tim. 4. which we call the Eldership, or the company of Elders, I have showed before, how it is used by Saint Luke, in his Gospel, cap. 22. and Act. 22. You say, we will not speak plainly, lest the world should hear, that Timothy was made Priest, or Bishop, even as the use is in the Catholic Church at this day. And then you tell us out of the Council of Carthage, 4. cap. 3. that all the Priests present should lay their hands on the head of him that is ordained, together with the Bishop. We know it well, and it is used in the Church of England, at this day. Only the term of Eldership displeaseth you, when we mean thereby the company of Elders. But whereas the translators of the Bible, 1562. call it Priesthood, either by Priesthood they meant the same that we do by Eldership: or if they meant by Priesthood, the office of Priests, or Elders, they were deceived. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth, a company of Elders, as it is twice used by S. Luke, and oftentimes by the ancient writers of the Church, both Greeks and Latins.    

MART. 9 Otherwise in all their English Bibles, all the bells ring one note, as, The Elders that rule well, are worthy of double honour. And, Against an Elder receive no accusation, but under two or three witnesses, 1. Tim. 5. And, If any be diseased among you, let him 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, and anoint him with oil, etc. jacob. 5. Whereas 
Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio.  Saint Chrysostom out of this place, proveth the high dignity of Priests in remitting sins, in his book entitled, Of Priesthood, unless they will translate that title also, Of Eldership. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Again, they make S. Peter say thus: The Elders which are among you, I exhort, which am also an Elder, feedeye Christ's flock, as much as lieth in you, etc. 1. Pet 5.  

FULK. 9 In these three texts you triumph not a little, because your vulgar Latin text hath the Greek word Presbyter. The high dignity of Priests, or Elders, in remitting sins, we acknowledge with Chrysostom, in his book entitled of Priesthood: which seeing it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we will never translate Eldership. But we may lawfully wish, that both Chrysostom, and other ancient writers, had kept that distinction of terms, which the Apostles and Evangelists did so precisely observe. In the last text, 1. Pet. 5. your vulgar Latin saith, Seniores and Consenior, yourselves in English, seniors, and fellow signior. What trespass then have we committed, in saying Elders, & fellow Elder, or an Elder also?    

MART. 10. Where if they will tell us (as also in certain 
S. Hierom readeth, Presbyteros ego compresbyter Ep. 85. ad evag. & in 1. ad Gal. proving the dignity of Priests. and yet in 4. Gal. he readeth according to the vulgar Latin text, Seniores in vobis rogo consenior & ipse. Whereby it is evident, that Senior here, and in the Acts, is a Priest, and not contrary, Presbyter, an Elder.  other places) that our Latin translation hath Seniores, and maiores natu: we tell them, as heretofore we have told them, that this is nothing to them, who profess to translate the Greek. Again we say, that if they meant no worse than the old Latin translator did, they would be as indifferent as he, to have said sometime Priests, & Priesthood, when he hath the words Presbyteros & Presbyterium: as we are indifferent in our translation, saying Seniors and Ancients, when we find it so in our Latin: being well assured that by sundry words he meant but one thing, as in Greek it is but one, & as both Erasmus, & also Beza himself always translate it, keeping the name Presbyter & Presbyteri: of whom by reason they should have learned, rather than of our Latin translator, whom otherwise they condemn. And if they say, they do follow them, & not him, because they translate not Senior, & maior natu, but the word Presbyter, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Elder, in all places: we tell them, and herein we convent their conscience, that they do it to take away the external Priesthood of the new Testament, and to suppress the name Priest, against the Ecclesiastical, & (as now since Christ) very proper & usual signification thereof, in the new Testament, counsels, & fathers, in all common writing and speaking: specially the Latin Presbyter, which grew to this signification out of the Greek, in the foresaid places of holy scripture.  

FULK. 10. I have told you already, & you could not but know, that it should be told you, that seeing we translate none otherwise, than your vulgar Latin translator, we are no more to be blamed of falsehood, corruption, profaneness, novelty, than he is, who professed to traslate the Greek as much as we do. But if we had meant no worse (say you) than he, we would have been as indifferent to have said sometimes priest & priesthood, where he hath the word Presbyteros, & Presbyterium. I answer, Presbyterium he hath but once, and for that you have Priesthood once, as you confessed before. And if the name Priest were of the same understanding in common English, that the word Presbyter is, from whence it is derived, we would never have sought more words for it, than we do for the words Bishop, Deacon, and such like.  
The words Presbyter, and Presbyterium, you confess, that Beza doth always use, and so do we, when we writ or speak Latin, but we can not use them in English, except we should be as fond as you in your gratis, depositum, and such fantasies. And to tell you plainly, as our conscience beareth us witness, we will never dissemble, that we avoid that word Priest, as it is used to signify a sacrificer, because we would show a perfect distinction, between the priesthood of the law, and the ministry of the Gospel: between Sacerdos, and Presbyter, a sacrificer, and a governor of the Church. And I appeal to your own conscience, whether if the English word Priest, were as indifferent as Presbyter, and sounded no more towards a sacrifice, than either Presbyter, or your own English words, Ancient, and Senior, whether (I say) you would make so much a do about it, for to have it in all places of the New Testament, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Greek. But seeing your popish sacrificing power, and blasphemous sactifice of your Mass, hath no manner ground at all in the holy Scriptures, either in the original Greek, or in your own Latin translation, you are driven to seek a silly shadow for it, in the abusive acception and sounding of the English word, Priest, and priesthood. And therefore you do in the second section of this chapter, in great earnest affirm, that Priest, sacrifice, and altar, are dependants, and consequents, one of another, so that they can not be separated. If you should say in Latin Sacerdos, sacrificium, altar▪ or in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be such consequents, we will all subscribe unto you: but if you will change the first word, and say Presbyter, sacrificium, altar, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every learned man's ears will gloe, to hear you say, they are dependants and consequentes inseparable. Therefore we must needs distinguish of the word Priest, in your Corollary, for you mean thereby Sacerdotem, we grant the consequence of sacrifice and altar, but if you mean Presbyterium, we deny that ever God joined those three in an unseparable band, or that Presbyter in that he is Presbyter, hath any thing to do with sacrifice, or altar, more than Senior, or Maicr natu, or Ancient, or Elder.    

MART. 11. Insomuch that immediately in the first Canons 
See can. Apost. Conc. 1. Nic. Epist. Ignat. Conc. Carth. 4. Beza in 1. Pet. 5.  and Counsels of the Apostles and their successors, nothing is more common than this distinction of Ecclesiastical degrees and names, Si Episcopus, vel Presbyter, vel Diaconus, etc. If any Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon do this or that. Which if the Protestants or calvinists will translate after their manner thus, If a Bishop, or Elder, or Deacon, etc. they do against themselves, which make Presbyter or Elder a common name to all Ecclesiastical persons: and not a peculiar degree, next unto a Bishop. So that either they must condemn all antiquity for placing Presbyter in the 2. degree after a Bishop, or they must translate it Priest as we do, or they must make Elder to be their second degree, and so put Minister out of place.  

FULK. 11. The distinction of Episcopus▪ and Presbyter to signify several offices, we grant to be of great antiquity, albeit we may not admit the counterfeit Canons of the Apostles, nor the Epistles of Ignatius, for such men's writings as they bear the name to be. We make Presbyter, or Elder, a common name to all Ecclesiastical persons, none otherwise, than you do this word Priest. For Deacons with us, are not called Presbyteri, or Elders. As for the distinction of Bishops and Elders names, which the Scripture taketh for the same, doth no more condemn all antiquity in us, than in you. Who acknowledge that the Scripture useth those names without distinction, in your note upon Act. 20. v. 28. where they are called Bishops, which before ver. 17. are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which you translate Ancients, and expound Priests: and thus you writ. Bishops or Priests (for those names were sometime used indifferently, Governors of the Church of God, and placed in that room and high function by the holy Ghost. But it seemeth you have small regard to defend your own notes, so you might find occasion to quarrel at our words.    

MART. 12. And here we must ask them, how this name 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Minister came to be a degree distinct from a Deacon, whereas 
Diaconus.  by their own rule of translation, Deacon is nothing else but a Minister: & why keep they the old and usual Ecclesiastical 
S. Tim. 3. Bib. 1577. 1579.  name of Deacon in translating Diaconus, and not the name of Priest, in translating Presbyter? Doth not Priest come of Presbyter as certainly and as agreeably as Deacon of Diaconus? 
Prebstre. Prete.  Doth not also the French and Italian word for Priest come directly from the same? Will you always follow fancy and not reason, do 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 yourselves have them whom you call Bishops, the name Bishops is in your English Bibles, which otherwise by your own rule of translation, should be called an Overseer or superintendant: likewise Deacon you are content to use as an Ecclesiastical word so used in antiquity, because you also have 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 have no Priests, nor will none of them, and because that is in controversy between us. And as for Elders, you have none permitted in England, for fear of overthrowing your Bishop's office and the Queen's supreme government in all spiritual things and causes. Is not this to follow the humour of your heresy, by Machiavels' politic rules without any fear of God?  

FULK. 12. Here I must answer you, that we have no degree of Ministers distinct from Deacons, but by vulgar and popular use of speaking, which we are not curious to control. Otherwise, in truth, we account Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, all Ministers of the Church. It is no more therefore, but the common speech of men, which useth that word, which is common to all Ecclesiastical persons, as peculiar to the Elders, or Priests. Why we keep the name of Deacons in translating Diaconus, rather than of Priests, in translating Presbyter, I have told you often before. The name Priest being by long abuse of speech applied to signify Sacrificers of the old Testament, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we could not give the same name to the Ministers of the new Testament, except we had some other name whereby to call the Ministers of the old Testament, wherein we follow reason, and not fancy, for it is great reason, we should retain that difference in names of the Ministers of both the Testaments, which the holy Ghost doth always observe. But you follow fancy altogether, imagining that Priests only are put out of the text, because we have no Priests. Whereas we have Priests as well as we have Bishops, and Deacons, and so are they called in our book of common prayer indifferently Priests, or Ministers. And where you say, we have no Elders permitted in England, it is false, for those that are commonly called Bishops, Ministers, or Priests among us, be such Elders as the Scripture commendeth unto us. And although we have not such a consistory of Elders, of government, as in the Primitive Church they had, and many Churches at this day have: yet have we also Elders of government to exercise discipline, as archbishops, and Bishops, with their Chancellors, archdeacon's, Commissaries, officials, in whom if any defect be, we wish it may be reform according to the word of God.    

MART. 13. Apostles you say for the most part in your translations (not always) as we do, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and Angels, and such like, & wheresoever there is no matter of controversy between you and us, there you can plead very gravely for keeping the ancient Ecclesiastical 
Beza in cap. 5. Mat. nu. 25. etc. 10. nu. 2.  words, as your master Beza for example, beside many other places where he bitterly rebuketh his fellow Castal●ons translation, in one place writeth thus: I can not in this place dissemble 
In 3. cap. Mat. nu. 1●.  the boldness of certain men, which would God it rested within the compass of words only. These men 
Baptizo.  therefore concerning the word Baptizing, though used of sacred writers in the mystery or Sacrament of the new Testament, and for so many years after, by the secret consent of all Churches, consecrated to this one Sacrament, so that it is now grown into the vulgar speeches 
Baptism.  almost of all nations, yet they dare presume rashly to change it, and in place thereof to use the word washing. Delicate men forsooth, which neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so many ages, nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speech, can be brought to think that lawful for Divines, which all men grant to other Masters and professors of arts: that is, to retain and hold that as their own, which by long use and in good faith they have truly possessed. Neither may they pretend the authority of some ancient writers, as that Cyprian sayeth, TINGENTES, for BA●PTIZANTES, and Tertullian in a certain place calleth SEQVESTREM, for MEDIATOREM. For that which was to those ancients as it were new, to us is old: and even then, that 
Baptizo. Mediator.  the self same words which we now use, were familiar to the Church, it is evident, because it is very seldom that they speak otherwise. But these men by this novelty seek after vain glory, etc.  

FULK. 13. If in any place we use not the name of the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Angels, and such like, we are able to give as sufficient a reason why we translate those words according to their General signification, as you for translating sometime Baptismata, washings, and not baptisms, Ecclesia the assembly and not the Church, with such like. Therefore as Castaleo & such other Heretics, are justly reprehended by Beza, for leaving (without cause) the usual Ecclesiastical terms, so when good cause or necessity requireth not to use them, it were superstition, yea and almost madness sometimes in translating to use them, as to call the Pharisees washings Baptisms, or the assembly of the Ephesian Idolaters the Church, yet both in Greek and Latin the words are Baptismata, ecclesia.    

MART. 14. He speaketh against Castaleon, who in his new Latin translation of the Bible, changed all Ecclesiastical words into profane and Heathenish, as Angelos into genios, Prophetas into Fatidicos, Templum into fanum, and so forth. But that which he did for foolish affectation of fineness and stile, do not our English calvinists the very same when they list, for furthering their Heresies? When the holy Scripture saith idols according as Christians have always understood it for false gods, they come and tell us out of Homer and 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the Lexicons, that it may signify an image, and therefore so they 
Confut. of the Reas. fol. 35.  translate it. Do they not the like in the Greek word that by Ecclesiastical use signifieth, penance, and doing penance, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  when they argue out of Plutarch, and by the profane sense thereof, that it is nothing else but changing of the mind or amendment of life? Whereas in the Greek 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 Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Dionys. Ec. Hier. c. 3.   

FULK. 14. That Castaleo did for foolish affectation of fineness, you slander us to do for furthering of heresy. And here again with loathsomeness, you repeat your rotten quarrel of idols, translated images, which was to discover your abominable idolatry, cloaked under a blind & false distinction of images and idols. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we translate repentance, as you do sometimes, when you can not for shame use your Popish term penance, by which you understand satisfaction for sin, which in diverse places you are enforced to give over in the plain field, and to use the term repentance: as in the fift of the Acts. This Prince and Saviour, God hath exalted with his right hand to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins, likewise Act. 11. where the Scripture speaketh of God giving repentance to the Gentiles. And when you speak of judas, you say also repenting him, so that the repentance of judas, and that which God gave to Israel, and to the Gentiles is uttered in one term, whereas else you have almost every where penance, and doing of penance. Where you say we make repentance nothing but changing of the mind, or amendment of life, you speak untruly, for not every changing of the mind is godly repentance, neither is only amendment of life all repentance: but there must be contrition, and sorrow for the life past. That in the Greek Church they that were Catechumeni, and Energumeni, were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as are in repentance it maketh nothing against the true use of the Greek word, as it is used in the Scriptures. We know the discipline of the Church appointed an outward exercise of praying, fasting, and other humbling, for a trial, and testimony of true and hearty repentance, which was some times called by the name of repentance by a Metonymia signi, which he that will enforce by that name to be parts of true and inward repentance, is as wise as he that will contend the ivy bush to be a part of wine, because some men seeing it hang over the house, will say, lo here is wine.    

MART. 15. They therefore leaving this Ecclesiastical signification, and translating it according to Plutarch, do they not much like to Castaleo? Do they not the same, 
Latrîa. Dulîa. Beza in 4. Mat. nu. 10.  against the famous and ancient distinction of Latrîa, and Dulîa, when they tell us out of Eustathius upon Homer, and Aristophanes the Grammarian, that these two are all one? Whereas we prove out of S. Augustine in many places, the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures, almost always used for the service & honour proper to God. August▪ de Civit. Dei. li. 10. c. 1. Bib. an. 1562.  second Council of Nice, Venerable Bede, and the long custom of the Church, that according to the Ecclesiastical sense and use deduced out of the Scriptures, they differ very much. Do they not the like in Mysterium and Sacramentum, which they translate a Secret in the profane sense, whereas they know how these words are otherwise taken both in Greek and Latin, in the Church of God? did they not the like in the word Ecclesia, when they translated it nothing else but congregation? Do they not the like in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they translate, ordaining by election, as it was in the profane court of Athens: whereas S. hieron's telleth them, that Ecclesiastical writers take it for giving holy orders by imposition of hands? Do they not the like in many other words, wheresoever it serveth their heretical purpose? And as for profane translation, is there any more profane than Beza himself, that so often in his annotations, reprehendeth the old translation, by the authority of Tully, and Terence, Homer, and Aristophanes, and the like profane authors? yea so fond and childishly, that for Olfactum, which Erasmus useth, as Pliny's word, he will needs say, odoratum, because it is Tully's word.  

FULK. 15. In translating the Scripture, we use the word repentance, in the same signification, that the scripture useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In other Ecclesiastical writers, we can nevertheless understand it, as they mean it. Concerning that unlearned distinction of Latria and Dulia, we do rightly, to show out of profane writers, that it is vain, and that the terms signify all one, and you yourself confess in your marginal note, that sometimes in the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do not signify the service and honour that is proper to God, as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is in more than an hundred places, used for the service & honour proper to God. S. Augustine you confess afterward, knew well but one tongue, & therefore he is no meet judge of distinction of Greek words. Bede followeth Augustine's error. The idolaters of the 2. Nicene council, were glad of a cloak for the rain, contrary to the property of their tongue. As is proved by Eustathius, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Suidas, and by later writers, no Protestants, Laurentius Valla, and Ludovicus vives. Mysterium we translate a secret, or a mystery, indifferently, the word signifying no more an holy secret, than a profane and abominable secret, as the mystery of iniquity, the mystery of Babylon. For the words Ecclesia, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we have said sufficiently, and very lately. To use Tully's words, when they answer the Greek, as properly as any barbarous words, or less commendable words, I know not why it should be counted blame worthy in Beza, or in any man, except it be of such a Sycophant, as liketh nothing, but that which savoureth of his own spittle.    

MART. 16. But to return to our English translators: do not they the like to profane Castaleo, and do they not the very same that Beza their Master so largely reprehendeth, when they translate Presbyterum, an Elder? Is it not all one fault to translate so, and to translate, as Castaleo doth Baptismum, washing? Hath not Presbyter been a peculiar and usual word for a Priest, as long as Baptismus for the Sacrament of regeneration, which Castaleo altering into a common and profane word, is worthily reprehended? We will prove 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.  

FULK. 16. If it be as great a fault in us to translate Presbyterum, an Elder, as for Castaleo to translate Baptismum, washing: your vulgar translator must be in the same fault with us, which so often translateth Presbyteros, seniores, or maiores natu, which signify Elders, and not Priests: it is a vain thing therefore that you promise to prove, that Presbyter hath been a peculiar, and usual word for a Priest, as long as Baptismus for the Sacrament of regeneration. For peculiar you can never prove it, seeing it is used in the Scripture so often, for such Elders & Ancients, as you yourself would not call Priests. So that if you did translate the whole Bible out of your own vulgar Latin▪ you must translate Presbyter thrice, an Elder or Ancient, for once a Priest.    

MART. 17. In the first and second Canon of the Apostles 
That Presbyter hath signified a Priest, from the Apostles time, not an Elder.  we read thus, Episcopus à duobus aut tribus Episcopis ordinetur. Presbyter ab uno 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. Council of Carthage the diverse manner of 
Can. 23. 4.  consecrating Bishops, Priests, Deacons, etc. Where S. Augustine was present and subscribed. Again, Si quis Presbyter contemnens 
Can. Apost. 32.  Episcopum suum etc. If any Priest contemning his Bishop, make a several congregation, and erect another altar, (that is, make a Sehisme or Heresy) let him be deposed. So did Arius being a Priest against his Bishop Alexander. Again, Priests and Deacons, let them attempt to do nothing 
Can. 40.  without the Bishop. The first Council of Nice saith, 
Can. 3.  The holy Synod by all means forbiddeth, that neither Bishop, nor Priest, nor Deacon etc. have with them any foreign woman, but the mother, or sister, etc. in whom there is no suspicion. Again, It is told the holy Council, 
Can. 14.  that in certain places & cities, Deacons give the Sacraments to Priests. This neither rule nor custom hath delivered, that they which have not authority to offer the sacrifice, should give to them that offer, the body of Christ. The 3. Council of Carthage wherein S. Augustine was, and to the which he subscribed, decreeth, That in the Sacraments 
Can. 24.  of the body & blood of Christ, there be no more offered than our Lord himself delivered▪ that is, bread and wine mingled with water. Which the sixth general Council of Constantinople repeating and confirming, ad doth If 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  therefore any Bishop or Priest do not according to the order given by the Apostles mingling water with wine, but offer an unmingled sacrifice, let him be deposed etc. But of these speeches all Councils be full: where we would gladly know of these new translators, how Presbyter must be translated: either an Elder, or a Priest.  

FULK. 17. I think you have clean forgotten your promise so lately made, that this word Presbyter hath always been peculiar for a Priest, you bring many testimonies, some counterfeit, some authentical, in which the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Presbyter is found, but that in all them it is peculiar for a Priest, you show not at all. Some colour it hath of that you say, in the 14. Can. of the Nicene Council, & Carth. 3. c. 24. repeated Const. 6. where mention is made of sacrifice and offering, for so they did unproperly call the administration of the lords supper, in respect of the sacrifice of thanks giving that was offered therein. After which phrase also, they called the Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Sacerdotes, sacrificers. So they called that which in deed was a table of wood an altar, and the inferior ministers levites, by which it appeareth they did rather allude to the names used in the old Testament, than acknowledged a sacrificing Priesthood, that might as properly be so called, as the Priesthood after the order of Aaron was. Sometime they used the name of sacrifice & Sacerdos generally, for religious service, & the minister of religion as the Gentiles did. And hereof it is that we 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, than that which is made of grapes and corn. This was bread and wine, not the natural body and blood of Christ. Wherefore these unproper speeches prove not a sacrificing priesthood, whereby the natural body and blood of Christ should be offered in the Mass, which is the mark you shoot at.    

MART. 18. Do not all the fathers speak after the same manner, making always this distinction of Bishop and Priest, 
Ep. 2. ad Trallianos.  as of the first and second degree? S. Ignatius the Apostles scholar doth he not place Presbyterium as he calleth it, and Presbyteros 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (Priests, or the College of Priests) next after Bishops, and Deacons in the third place, repeating it no less than thrice in one Epistle, and commending the dignity of all three unto the 
Comment. in c. 7. Michea.  people▪ doth not S. Hierom the very same, saying▪ Let us honour a Bishop; do reverence to a Priest, rise up to a Deacon? 
Ep. 85. ad Euagrium.  And when he saith, that as Aaron & his sons & the Levites 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 
Epitaph. Nepotiani. c. 9  〈…〉 priests slain, and diverse of other Ecclesiastical o●●ers: Churches overthrown, the altars of Christ made stables for horses, the relics of Martyrs digged up, etc. When he saith of Nepotian, fit Clericus, & per solitos gradus Presbyter ordinatur: he becometh a man of the Clergy, and by the accustomed degrees in m 〈…〉 at? a Priest, or an Elder? when he saith, Mihi ante Presby●●●ū sedere non licet etc. doth he mean he could not sit above an Elder, or above a Priest, himself as then being not Priest? When he▪ & Vincentius (as S. Epiphanius writeth) of reverence to the 
Ep. 60. apud Hie●●●. ca 1.  degree, were hardly induced to be made Presbyteri: did they refuse the Eldership? What was the matter that john the B. of Jerusalem, seemed to be so much offended with Epiphanius & S. Hierom? was it not because Epiphanius made Pauliamus, S. 
Ep. 1. ad Heliod.  hierom's brother, Priest within the said john's Diocese?  

FULK. 18. Before the blasphemous heresy of the Popish sacrifice of the Mass was established in the world, the fathers did with more liberty use the terms of sacrifice, and sacrificing Priests: which improper speeches, since they have given occasion in the time of ignorance, to maintain that blasphemous heresy, there is good reason that we should beware how we use any such terms, especially in translation of the Scriptures. All the rest of the authorities you cite in this section, & 500 more such as they are, speak of Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words we embrace: but of the English word Priest, as it is commonly taken for a sacrificer, or against this word Elder, they speak nothing, for in all those places, we may truly translate for Presbyter an Elder.    

MART. 19 When all antiquity saith, Hieronymus Presbyter, Cecilius Presbyter, Ruffinus Presbyter, Philippus, I●●encus, Hesychius, Beda, Presbyteri: and when S. Hierom so often in his catalogue saith, Such a man Presbyter: is it not for distinction of a certain order, to signify that they were Priests, and not Bishops? namely when he saith of S. Chrysostom, joannes Presbyter Antiochenus, doth he not mean, he was as then but a Priest of Antioch? Would he have said so, 〈…〉 had written of him, after he was Bishop of Constantinopl 〈…〉  

FULK. 19 All this while here is nothing for the English word Priest, in that respect we avoid it in translation, nor against the word Elder, which we use, by which we mean 〈…〉 other thing, than the Scripture doth give us to un 〈…〉 d by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As for the distinction of Episcopus, & Presbyter which came in afterward, you yourself confessed as we heard of late, that it is not observed in the Scriptures, but the same men are called Episcopi, which before were called Presbyteri. And according to that distinction, you can allow but one Bishop of one city at once: yet the Scripture in diverse places speaketh of many Bishops of one city, as Act. 20. the Bishops of Ephesus called before Presbyteri, Elders, also he saluteth the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi, Phil. 1. where your note saith, that, In the Apostles time, there were not observed always distinct names of either function of B. & Priest. Would you have us to translate the Scripture with distinction of names which the holy ghost maketh not, nor your vulgar Latin observeth, nor you yourself for shame can observe? And if we should have translated for Elders, Priests, that distinction taken up after the Apostles times, or the writing of the Scripture, had been never the more confirmed.    

MART. 20. But of all other places, we would desire these gay translators to translate this one place of S. Augustine, speaking of himself a Bishop, and S. Hierom a Priest. Quanquam 
Inter Epistolas Hiero. Ep. 97. in ●ine.  enim secundum honorum vocabula, quae iam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio maior fit: tamen in multis rebus, Augustinus Hieronymo minor est. Is not this the English thereof? For although according to the titles or names of honour, which now by use of the church have prevailed, the degree of Bishop be greater than Priesthood, yet in many things, Augustine is less than Hierom. Or, doth it like them to translate it thus, The degree of Bishop is greater than Eldership, & c? Again, against julian the heretic, when he hath brought many testimonies of the holy doctors, that were all Bishops, as of S. Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Nazianzene, Chrysostom: at length he cometh to S. Hierom, who was no Bishop, and saith: Nec sanctum Hieronymum, 
Lib. 1. ca 2. in fine.  quia Presbyter fuit, contemnendum arbitreris, that is, Neither must thou think, that S. Hierom, because he was but a priest, therefore is to be contemned: whose divine eloquence, hath shined to us, from the East, even to the West, like a lamp, and so forth to his great commendation. Here is a plain distinction of an inferior degree to a Bishop, for the which the Heretic julian did easily contemn him. Is ●ot S. Cyprian full of the like places? is not all antiquity so full, that whiles I prove this, me thinketh I prove nothing else, but that snow is white?  

FULK. 20. Of all other importune and unreasonable judges, you are one of the worst, that would enforce us to translate the Scriptures, which you confess observeth not the distinction of Bishops, and Priests, according to the fathers, which do almost always observe it. If we should translate those sentences of S. Augustine, we might use the word Priest, for Presbyter, and priesthood, for presbyterium, and if we use the words Elder, and Eldership, what offence I pray you, were it, when by these names we understand nothing, but the same function & minister which Augustine doth? That Episcopus, a Bishop, was of very old time used, to signify a degree Ecclesiastical, higher than Presbyter, an Elder or Priest, we did never deny, we know it right well. We know what S. Hierom writeth upon 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 before that by the instinct of the devil, factions were made in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by common council Presbyterorum, of the Elders. But afterward, when every one thought those whom he had baptized to be his own, and not Christ's, it was decreed in the whole world, that one de Presbyteris, of the Elders, being elected, should be set over the rest, to whom all the care of the Church should pertain, and the seeds of schisms should be taken away. This and much more to this effect, writeth Saint Hieronyme of this distinction, in that place, and in diverse other places, which nothing proveth, that we are bound to translate Presbyter in the Scripture, a Priest, and least of all, that we are bound in terms, to keep that distinction, which the Scripture maketh not, and the Papists themselves can not observe in their most partial translation.    

MART. 21. In all which places, if they will translate Elder, and yet make the same a common name to all Ecclesiastical degrees, as Beza defineth it, let the indifferent Reader consider 
Annot. in 1. Pet. 5.  the absurd confusion, or rather the impossibility thereof: if not, but they will grant in all these places, it signifieth Priest, and so is meant: then we must beat them with beza's rod of reprehension 
beza's words in the place a▪ 'bove alleged.  against Castaleon: that we can not dissemble the boldness of these men, which would God it rested within the custom of words only, and were not important matter, concerning their heresy. These men therefore touching the word Priest, though used of sacred writers in the mystery of the new Testament, and for so many years after, by the secret consent of all Churches, consecrated to this one Sacrament, so that it is now grown to be the proper vulgar speech almost of all nations: yet 
Prete. Prebstre. Priest.  they dare presume rashly to change it, and in place thereof, to use the word Elder delicate men forsooth (yea worse a great deal, because these do it for heresy, & not for delicacy) which neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so many ages, nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speech, can be brought to think that lawful for divines, which all men grant to other masters & professors of arts, that is, to retain & hold that as their own, which by long use, & in good faith, they have truly possessed. Neither may they pretend the authority of any ancient writer (as that the old Latin translator saith, Senior, & Seniores) 
* Presbyter, for a Priest. Baptismus for the Sacrament of Baptism.  for that which was to them as it were new, to us is old: & even then, that the self same words which we now use, were more familiar to the Church, it is evident, because it is very seldom that they speak otherwise.  

FULK. 21. I see no impossibility, but that in all places where we read Presbyter, we may lawfully translate Elder, as well as Priest, and make it still in Scripture, a common name to all Ecclesiastical degrees, at least, to as many as the Scripture maketh it common, without any absurdity or confusion. And albeit in the fathers, we should translate it Priest, because they understood by the name Presbyter, a distinct degree from Episcopus: yet the saying of Beza against Castaleo, could not by any wise man be applied to us. For Castaleo changed the name of the Sacrament Baptismus, by which both the Scriptures, and the fathers uniformly, did use to signify one, and the same Sacrament: whereas the name of Presbyter, in the Scripture, signifieth one thing, and in the fathers an other. For in the Scripture it is taken indifferently for Episcopus, and Episcopus for Presbyter: but in the fathers these are two distinct degrees. Therefore he is worthy to be beaten in a Grammar school, that can not see manifest difference between the use of the word Baptismus, which being spoken of the Sacrament▪ in the Scriptures, and fathers, is always one and of Presbyter, which in the Scriptures is every Ecclesiastical governor, in the father's one degree only, that is subject to the Bishop.    

MART. 22. Thus we have repeated beza's words again, only changing the word Baptism into Priest, because the case is all one: and so unwittingly Beza the successor of Calvin in Geneva, hath given plain sentence against our English translators in all such cases, as they go from the common received and usual sense, to another profane sense, and out of use: as namely in this point of Priest and Priesthood. Where we must needs add a word or two, though we be too long, because 
See M. Whitgifts' defence against the Puritans reply. pag. 721. where he affirmeth that this word Priest, cometh of the word Presbyter, and not of the word Sacerdos.  their folly and malice is too too great herein. For whereas the very name Priest, never came into our English tongue, but of the Latin Presbyter, (for thereupon Sacerdos also was so called, only by a consequence) they translate Sacerdos, Priest, and Presbyter, not Priest, but Elder, as wisely, and as reasonably, as if a man should translate, Praetor Londini, More of London: & Maior Londini, not More of London: but Greater of London: or Academia Oxoniensis, the University of Oxford: and Vniversitas Oxoniensis, not the University, but the Generality of Oxford: and such like.  

FULK 22. beza's words agree to us, as well as Germans lips, that were nine mile asunder. For if this english word Priest, by custom of speech, did signify no more than the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we would no less use it in our translations, than Bishops and Deacons: which offices though they be shamefully abused by the Papists, yet the abuse of the words, maketh no confusion between the ministers of the law, and of the Gospel, as this word Priest doth, by which the jewish sacrificers are rather understood, than preachers of the Gospel, and ministers of the Sacraments. But whereas the etymology of this English word Priest, cometh from Presbyter, you charge us with great folly and malice, that for Sacerdos, we translate Priest, and for Presbyter, Elder. To this I answer, we are not Lords of the common speech of men, for if we were, we would teach them to use their terms more properly, but seeing we can not change the use of speech, we follow Aristotels council, which is to speak, and use words▪ as the common people useth, but to understand and conceive of things, according to the nature and true property of them. Although for my part, I like well of the French translation, which for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacerdotes always translateth sacrificateurs, sacrificers, and for Presbyteri, where they signify the Ministers of the word and Sacraments, Prestres, Priests. But this diversity being only of words and not of matter, or meaning reasonable men will take an answer, fools and quarrelers will never acknowledge any satisfaction.    

MART. 23. Again, what exceeding folly is it, to think that by false and profane translation of Presbyter into Elder, they might take away the external Priesthood of the new Testament, whereas their own word Sacerdos, which they do and must needs translate Priest, is as common and as usual in all antiovitie, as Presbyter: and so much the more, for that it is used indifferently to signify both Bishops and Priests, which Presbyter lightly doth not but in the new Testament. As when Constantine the Great said to the Bishops assembled in the Council of Nice, Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, etc. God 
Ruffin. lib. 1. ca 2.  hath ordained you Priests, and hath given you power to judge of us also. And Saint Ambrose, When didst thou 
Epist. 32. ad Valentinianum Imp.  ever hear, most clement Prince, that lay men have judged Bishops. Shall we bend by flattery so far, that forgetting the right of our Priesthood, we should yield 
juris Sacerdotalis.  up to others, that which God hath commended to us? And therefore doth Saint Chrysostom entitle his six books De Sacerdotio, Of Priesthood, concerning the dignity and calling not only of mere Priests, but also of Bishops: and S. 
In Apolog. pro sua f●g. orat. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epist. 1. ad Hieronem. Sacerdotes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Gregory Nazianzene handling the same argument saith, that they execute Priesthood together with CHRIST. And S. Ignatius saith, Do nothing without the Bishops, for they are Priests, but thou the Deacon of the Priests. And in the Greek Liturgies or Masses, so often, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Then the Priest saith this, and that▪ signifying also the Bishop when he saith Mass. and 
* Ec. Hiera. c. 3.  S. Denys sayeth sometime Archisacerdotem cum sacerdotibus. The high Priest or Bishop with the Priests: whereof come the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the ancient Greek fathers, for the sacred function of Priesthood, and executing of the same.   

MART. 24. If then the Heretics could possibly have extinguished Priesthood in the word Presbyter, yet you see, it would have remained still in the words Sacerdos & Sacerdotium▪ which themselves translate Priest and Priesthood: and therefore we must desire them to translate us a place or two after their own manner: first Saint Augustine speaking thus, Q●is unquam audivit sacerdotem ad altare stantem etiam 
Lib. 8 cap. 27. De Ciu. Dei.  super reliquias Martyrum▪ dicere: offero tibi Petre, & Paul vel Cyprian? Who ever heard that a PRIEST standing at the altar▪ even over the relics of the Martyrs, said, I offer to thee Peter, and Paul, or Cyprian? So (we trow) they must translate it. Again, Nos uni Deo & 
Lib. 22. Civit. c. 10.  Martyrum & nostro, sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrificium sicut homines Dei, suo loco & ordine nominantur, non tamen à sacerdote invocantur. Deo quip, non ipsis sacrificat, quamuis in memoria sacrificet eorum, quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum. Ipsum verò sacrificium corpus est Christi. We think 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 invocated of the Priest that sacrificeth. For he sacrificeth 
* So as he said before, I offer to ●●ee Peter, etc.  to God, and not to them (though he sacrifice in the memory of them) because he is God's Priest, and not theirs. And the sacrifice itself is the body of Christ.  

FULK. 23. 24. Nay, what exceeding folly is it to think that an external sacrificing office, can be established in the new Testament (which never calleth the Ministers thereof, Sacerdotes, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) because men of later time have unproperly transferred those terms unto the Elders or Priests of the new Testament. Certainly among so many names as the Scripture giveth them, if sacrificing for the quick and the dead, had been the principal part of their function, as by you Papists hath been accounted: is it credible, that the holy Ghost would never have called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as well, yea, and rather than the Sacrificers of the old Testament? Seeing therefore the holy Ghost had made such a broad difference, between their names, and offices, those ancient fathers that confounded those names, which the spirit of God would have to be distinct can not be excused: although they never dreamt of the mischief that followed, that the altar of the cross being overthrown, & the only & sufficient sacrifice, which Christ our high Sacrificer offered once for all, being judged imperfect, a new altar, a new sacrifice, and a new sacrificing Priesthood should be set up in the steed of it. Wherefore the unproper speeches of the ancient writers, are no warrant for us, either to translate the Scripture according to their unproper speaking, or to set up a new sacrifice and function of sacrificing, contrary to their meaning. They named sacrifice and offering, but they meant not propitiatory sacrifiee, but only of prayers, or praises and giving of thanks. They named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Sacerdotes, but they meant according to the general etymology of those words, such as were occupied in distributing holy things, not such as should verily sacrifice the body of Christ again to his father, but offer the sacrifice of thanks giving in the Sacrament of the lords supper, which after a certain manner (as Saint Augustine sayeth) is called the body of Christ, 
Epist. 23. ●onifac. De consec. dissinct. 2. cap. hoc est, & Glossa ibidem calestis.  when in deed it is the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And it is called the sacrificing of the body of Christ, not in truth of the thing, but a signifying mystery▪ as Gracian citeth out of Jerome.    

MART. 25. Likewise when Saint Ambrose saith▪ The 
Lib. de Sacram. c. 4.  consecration (of the body of Christ) with what words is it, and by whose speech? Of our Lord jesus. For in the rest that is said there is praise given to God, prayer made for the people, for Kings, and others: but when it cometh that the venerable Sacrament must be consecrated, 
Sacerdos.  now the Priest useth not his own words, but he useth the words of Christ. And S. Chrysostom in very many places 
Hom▪ 2. in 2. Timoth.  saith, The sacred oblation itself, whether Peter, or Paul, or any meaner Priest whatsoever offer it, is the very 
Sacerdos. Sacerdote.  same that Christ gave unto his disciples, and which now the Priests do make or consecrate Why so I pray thee? because not men do sanctify this, but Christ himself. which before consecrated the same. And again, It is not man that maketh the body and blood of Christ, but he that was crucified for us, Christ: the words are uttered 
Sacerdotis.  by the priests mouth, and by God's power & grace are the things proposed, consecrated. For this, saith he, is my body. With this word are the things proposed, consecrated.  

FULK. 25. These testimonies are heaped up without any need, for the unproper usage of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Sacerdos in the ancient writers, we do acknowledge: but in the holy Scripture you are not able to bring one place, where Presbyteri of the new Testament are called Sacerdotes, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Wherefore of the unproper applying of these names, to the Ministers of the new Testament, can follow no consequence of external sacrifice, or altar which you urge, except sacrifice and altar be likewise used unproperly, 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 sanctify the man, but the conscience of the man being pur●, sanctifieth the sacrifice, and causeth God to accept it as of a friend cap▪ 34. Which can not in any wise be true of the natural body of Christ.    

MART. 26. And so be these places, where themselves translate Sacerdos a Priest, they may learn also how to translate Presbyteros in S. Jerome saying the very same thing, 
Presbyteri.  that at their prayers, the body and blood of our Lord is made. And in an other place, that with their sacred mouth, they make our lords body. Likewise when they read S. Ambrose against the novatians, that God hath granted licence to his Priests to release & forgive as well great sins as 
Sacerdotibus.  little without exception: & in the Ecclesiastical history, how the Novatian Heretics taught that such as were fallen into great sins, should not ask for remission of the Priest, but of God 
a Sacerdote.  only: they may learn how to translate Presbyteros, in S. Hierom, and in the Ecclesiastical history, where the one saith thus: Episcopus & Presbyter, cùm peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, qui soluendus: and the other 
Sozom. lib. 7. c. 16▪ Socrat. lib. 5. c. 19  speaketh de Presbytero Poenitentiario, of an extraordinary Priest, that heard confessions, and enjoined penance, who afterward was taken away, and the people went to diverse ghostly fathers, as before. And especially Saint Chrysostom ●ill make them understand what these Presbyteri were, and how they are to be called in English, who telleth them in their own word, that Sacerdotes, the Priests of the new law 
Lib. 3. de Sacerd.  have power, not only to know, but to purge the filth of the soul, therefore whosoever despiseth them, is more worthy to be punished, than the ●ebell Dathan, and his complices.  

FULK. 26. Where S. Hierom useth the word Presbyteri, we will make no great courtesy to translate Priests: knowing that when he saith, at their prayers, the body and blood of Christ is made, he meaneth the Sacrament of the body and blood: of Christ, as he himself saith in an other place. Dupliciter sanguis Christi, & ●ar● intelligitur. The blood and flesh of Christ is understood two manner of ways either that spiritual and divine, whereof he himself said: my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed: and except ye shall eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have eternal life: or else the flesh and blood which was crucified, and which was shed by the spear of the soldier. This and such other places teach us to understand S. Jerome, if he speak anywhere obscurely or unproperly of the mystery of our lords supper. We grant with Ambrose, that God hath given authority to all the ministers of the word, to remit all sins that be remissible. But this do not you grant, for you reserve some to the Bishops, and some to the Pope alone to remit, wherein you go clean against Ambrose, who favoureth you not so much by the term Sacerdos, which you say he useth, as he condemneth your partial & Popish reservation of cases, when he alloweth every Priest to forgive, as well great sins as little▪ without exception. S. Hierom you cite at large, as it seemeth, to insinuate auricular confession. But the whole saying you liked not, because it▪ showeth how they forgive sins. It is written in Math. lib. 3. cap. 16. upon those words spoken to Peter. Unto thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven etc. Istum locum episcopi & presbyteri nonintelligentes etc. This place Bishops & Priests not understanding, take upon them somewhat of the pride of the Pharizees: so that they think they may either condemn the innocentes, or lose the guilty persons: whereas with God not the sentence of the Priests, but the life of the persons accused is inquired of. We read in Leviticus of the Lepers, where they are commanded to show themselves to the Priests, and if they have the Leprosy, then by the Priest they are made unclean. Not that Priests make Lepers and unclean persons, but that they may have knowledge of him that is a Leper▪ and him that is no Leper: and may discern who is clean or who is unclean. Therefore even as the Priest doth there make the Leper clean or unclean: So here also the Bishop and Priest doth bind or lose, not them that be innocent or guilty, but according to his office, when he shall hear the variety of sinners, he knoweth who is to be bound, and who is to be loosed. But where you say, the people went to diverse ghostly fathers, as before, when that extraordinary penitentiary Priest was taken away, for the adultery of a Deacon at Constantinople, you speak beside the book, to make the ignorant believe that the people went to auricular shrift. For in Constantinople, where this privy confession was taken away, the people were left to their own consciences. At Rome the same time, great offenders did open penance, neither were there any such diverse ghostly fathers, as you speak of. That Chrysostom saith, lib. 3. de sacerdotio, we receive it, being so understood, as i● be not contrary to that I cited even now our of High 〈…〉 But what maketh all this against translating Presbyter, an Elder?    

MART. 27 Now then (to conclude this point) seeing 
Heb 12:  we have such a cloud of witnesses (as the Apostle speaketh) even from Christ's time, that testify not only for the name▪ but for the very principal functions of external Priesthood, in offering the sucrifice of Christ's body & blood▪ in remitting sins, and so forth: what a pe●●ish, malicious, and impudent corruption is this, for the defacing of the testimonies of the holy scriptures tending thereunto, to seek to scratch advantage of the ●ord Presbyter, and to make it signify an Elder, not a Priest: Presbytenum Eldership rather than Priesthood: as if other new fangled companions that would forge an Heresy that there were no Apostles, should for that purpose translate it always legates: or that there were no Angels▪ & should translate it always Messengers: & that Baptism were but a judaical ceremony, & should translate it washing: which Castalio did much more tolerably in his transiation than any of these should, if he did it only of curiosity & folly. And if to take away all distinction of clergy & lai●y the Protestants should always translate clerum▪ 
Clerus.  
* In ●. Pet. 5. See S. Jerome ad Nepot. de vit. Clericorum ep. 2. c. 5.  lot or lottery, as they do translate is for the same purpose parish and heritage: might not Beza himself control them, saying, that the ancient fathers transferred the name clerus to the College of Ecclesiastical Ministers?  

FULK. 27. A cloud of testimonies in deed you have heaped together, not as the Apostle did to uphold the certainty of faith: but to obscure the light of truth. For our translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Elder is true, clear & plain, without ambiguity. Insomuch as the vulgar Latin interpreter▪ who as it seemeth was a Graecian, & therefore useth gladly many Greek terms, doth yet translate this wo●d almost twice as often signior or maior natu, as he doth Presbyter, when he speaketh of the ministers of the gospel. How the ancient writers applied unto them improperly the name of sacrificer, as unto the sacrament the name of oblation or sacrifice, I have spoken already sufficiently. Our translation therefore is nothing like your vai 〈…〉 supposal of of new fangled companions, which to 〈…〉▪ Apostles, Angels, and Baptism, would turn the words into Legates, Messengers, & washing. Whereas we have no purpose to deny any office or function of the Church appointed by Christ, but to distinguish in name, as his spirit in the Scriptures doth always, the sacrificers of the old Testament, from the Ministers of the new Testament. The word Clerus, 1. Pet. 5▪ which we translate parish or heritage, yourselves in your notes of that place confess, to comprehend in signification all Christians, which you are not able to prove, that in S. peter's time it was transferred unto the college of ecclesiastical ministers, as Beza saith it was afterward: wherefore it is one of your accustomed slanders, to say we translate it so of purpose, to take away all distinction of Clergy and laity, when all men know, that wheresoever our Churches are established, we retain the distinction, and so think it necessary always.    

MART. 28. But al●s, the effect of this corruption and heresy concerning Priests, hath it not wrought within these few years such contempt of all Priests, that nothing is more odious in our country than that name: which before was so honourable & venerable, & now is, among all men? If ministry or Eldership were grown to estimation in steed thereof, somewhat they had to say but that is yet more contemptible, and especially Elders and Eldership, for the Queen's Majesty and her Counsellors will permit none in government of any Church in England, and so they have brought all, to nothing else, but profane lai●ie. And no marvel of these horrible inconveniences, for as the Sacrifice and Priesthood go together, and therefore were both honourable together: so when they had according to daniel's prophecy, abolished the daily sacrifice out of the church, what remained, but the contempt of Priests and Clergy and their offices, so far forth, that for the holy Sacrifice sake, Priests are called in great despite, Massing Priests▪ of them that little consider, or less care, what notable holy learned fathers of all ages since Christ's time, this their reproach toucheth and concerneth, as by the testimonies before alleged is manifest, and whereof the Reader may see a peculiar Chapter in the late Apology 
Chap. 6.  of the English Seminaries.  

FULK. 28. A marvelous corruption, for us to call them Elders, whom you in your translation call Ancients, and the vulgar Latin before us both called Seniores. But what is come to pass I pray you by this wonderful corruption? The name of Popish Priests is so contemptible, that nothing is more odious in England. And good cause why: both for their blasphemy against God, and traitorous practices against the honourable state of the realm▪ and our most gracious Queen. But Elders and Eldership (you ween) is more contemptible because the Queen's Majesty & her Counsellors will permit none in government of any Churches in England, and so they have brought all to nothing else, but profane laity. This traitorous slander of yours, is as true, as all the rest. For although the Queen's Majesty and the Counsel do not permit such consistories of Elders for only discipline and government, as be in some other Churches, yet do they not only permit, but also maintain and reverence, such Elders, being signified by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as are necessary for the government of the Church in doctrine, Sacraments, and discipline to the salvation of God's people. The daily sacrifice mentioned in Daniel, was the Morning and Evening sacrifice of the old Law, whereunto your blasphemous sacrifice of the Mass hath no resemblance. You may not therefore look to recover the credit of Massing Priests, by that sacrifice, which being once instituted by God, was at length taken away by the only sacrifice of Christ's death: Against which all the Apologies in the world shall never be able to defend your Massing Priesthood. As for the chapter of Allens apology, whereunto you refer us, containeth certain quotations, & a few sentences of the ancient writers which have been answered an hundredth times, to justify massing Priests, but all in vain, for never shall he prove, that any one from the Eldest which he nameth unto Beda, which is the youngest, was such a Massing Priest in all points, as those traitors are, which by the Queen's laws and edict are proscribed and prohibited. I mean not for their manners, but for their Mass and all opinions incident thereunto.     

CHAP. VII.  
Heretical translation against PURGATORY, LIMBUS PATRUM, CHRIST'S DESCENDING INTO HELL.  

Martin.  
HAVING now discovered their corrupt translations 
1  for defacing of the Church's name, and abolishing of Priest and Priesthood: let us come to another point of very great importance also, and which by the wont consequence or sequel of error, includeth in it many erroneous branches. Their principal malice then being bend against Purgatory, that is, against a place were Christian souls be purged by suffering of temporal pains after this life, for surer maintenance of their erroncous denial hereof, they take away and deny all third places, saying that there was never from the beginning of the world any other place for souls after this life, but only two: to wit, heaven for the blessed: and hell for the damned. And so it followeth by their heretical doctrine, that the patriarchs, Prophets, and other good holy men of the old Testament, went not after their deaths, to the place called Abraham's bosom, or Limbus patrum. But immediately to heaven: & so again by their erroneous doctrine it followeth, that the fathers of the old Testament were in heaven, before our saviour Christ had suffered death for their redemption: and also by their erroneous doctrine it followeth, that our saviour Christ was not the first man that ascended and entered into heaven: and moreover by their heretical doctrine it followeth, that our saviour Christ descended not into any such third place, to deliver the fathers of the old Testament out of their prison, and to bring them triumphantly with him into heaven, because by their erroneous doctrine they were never there ● and so that article of the Apostles Creed concerning our saviour 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 body in the grave, or (as Caluine and the purer Caluinists 
Caluins' Institutions li. 2. c. 16. Sect. 10. and in his Catechism.  his scholars will have it) the suffering of hell pains & distresses upon the Crosse. Lo the consequence and coherence of these errors and heresies.  

Fulke.  
WE may be bold to say with S. Augustine, 
1  We believe according to the authority of God▪ that the kingdom of heaven is the first place appointed for Gods elect, and that hell is the second place, where all the reprobrate & such is be not of the faith of Christ, shall suffer eternal punishment. Tertium penitus ignoramus, imo nec esse in scriptures sanctis invenimus. The third place we are utterly ignorant of, yea and that it is not, we find in the holy Scriptures. But hereof it followeth, say you, that the godly of the old Testament, went not after their deaths to Abraham's bosom, or Limbus patrum, but immediately to heaven. Of Limbus patrum. which is a border of the Pope's hell, I grant it followeth▪ but of Abraham's bosom it followeth none otherwise, than if I should say, Gregory Martin went into Chepeside, Ergo, he went not to London. That the fathers of the old Testament were in Heaven, before our Saviour Christ had suffered death for their redemption, it is no inconvenience: for his death was as effectual to redeem them that lived before he suffered actually, as them that live since, because in God's sight, he is the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world. And the fathers that were justified by faith in his blood, received the same crown and reward of righteousness, that we do being justified by the same means. And yet our Saviour Christ was the first man, that in his whole manhood ascended and entered into heaven, into the fullness and perfection of glory which is prepared for all Gods elect, to be enjoyed after the general resurrection. That our Saviour Christ descended into no prison after his death, we verily believe, and yet we do also constantly believe the article of our Creed, that he descended into hell, by suffering in soul the pains due to God's justice, for the sins of all whom he redeemed, and by vanquishing the Devil, and all the power of hell, in working the redemption of all the children of God. If Beza in his confession had clean left out that article, which is untrue, he had been no more to be blamed than the authors of the Nicene Creed, and many other Creeds in which it is not expressed, because it is partly contained under the article of his sufferings, partly it is in part of the effect and virtue of his death and redemption.    

MART. 2. These now being the heretical doctrines which they mean to avouch and defend what soèuer come of it: first, they are at a point not to care a rush for all the ancient holy Doctors, that writ with full consent to the contrary 
Beza in 1. Pet. 3. 19 Caluins Institur. li. 2. c. 16. Sect. 9  (as themselves confess, calling it their common error) secondly, they translate the holy Scriptures in favour thereof most corruptly and wilfully, as in beza's false translation (who is calvin's successor in Geneva) it is notorious, for he in his new Testament of the year 1556. printed by Robertus Stephanus in folio, with Annotations, maketh our Saviour Christ say thus to his father, Non derelinques cadaver meum in sepulchro, Thou shalt not leave my carcase in the grave, Act. 2. For that which the Hebrew, and the Greek, and the Latin, 
Hiero. in Ps. verso ex Hebraeo.  and S. Jerome according to the Hebrew, say: Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, as plainly as we say in English, Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell. Thus the Prophet 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  David spoke it in the Hebrew▪ Psal. 15. Thus the Septuaginta uttered it in Greek, thus the Apostle S. Peter allegeth it, thus the holy Evangelist S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, cap. 2. recordeth it, and for this, S. Augustine calleth him an infidel that denieth it: yet all this would not suffice to make Beza translate it so, because of certain errors (
* See his Annot. in 2. Act.  as he heretically termeth them) which he would full gladly avoid hereby, namely the Catholic true doctrine of limbus patrum, and Purgatory. What need we say more? he translateth animam, a Carcase: (so calling our Saviour Christ's body, irreverently, and wickedly) he translateth infernum, grave.  

FULK. 2. That many of the Christian fathers held this error, that the godly of the old Testament were not in heaven before Christ's death, it is no cause why we should be afraid to confess the truth, revealed to us out of the holy Scriptures, to the glory of God. And if the wrong or ambiguous translation of one Hebrew word Sheol, deceived them, that were for the most part ignorant 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  of the Hebrew tongue, what reason were it that we should not in translation reform that error? But as for beza's first translation of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dead body, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grave, I have answered at large, Cap. 1. sect. 31. where also it is showed how vainly you take hold of the English word carcase, to charge Beza with unreverent calling of our Saviour Christ's body, when it was dead, because he calleth it in Latin Cadaver.    

MART. 3. Need we take any great labour to prove this to be a foul corruption, or that it is done purposely, when he confesseth that he thus translateth because else it would serve the Papists? Which is as much to say, as, the word of God if it be truly and sincerely translated, maketh in deed for them. For the first part, we will not stand upon it, partly because it is of itself most absurd, and they are ashamed of it: partly because it shall susfise to confute Beza, that two other as famous heretics as he, Castalio and Flaccus Illyricus write against him in this point, and confute him: partly also, because we speak not here universally of all heretical translations, but of the English corruptions specially, & therefore we may only note here, how gladly they also would say somewhat else for, soul, even in the text, if they durst for shame: for in the margin of that English translation, 
Bib. an. 1579.  they say, or life, or person: thereby advertising the Reader, that he may read thus, if it please him, Thou shalt not leave my life in the grave, or, Thou shalt not leave my person. As though either man's soul or life were in the grave, or, anima, might be translated person, which the self same English Bible doth not, no not in those places where it is evident 
Act. 7. v. 14.  that it signifieth the whole person. For though this word soul, by a figure, is sometime taken for the whole man, yet even there they do not, nor must not translate it otherwise than soul: because our tongue beareth that figure as well as Latin, Greek, or Hebrew: but here, where it can not signify the whole person, it is wicked to translate it so.  

FULK. 3. If you take more labour than you are well able to bear, yet shall you prove it no heretical corruption. As Castaleo, and Illyricus, the one an heretic, the other a schismatic, have inveighed against Beza, so hath he sufficiently confuted them. But to our English translation, where in the margin, they say, life, or person, when in the text they say soul: what doth this offend you? They render the usual English word for the Greek word, but they admonish the reader, that the word soul in this place signifieth not the soul separated from the body▪ but either the life, or the whole person. Because that although the body only be laid in the grave▪ yet according to vulgar speech and sense, the whole man is said to be buried, and his life seemeth to be enclosed in the grave, according to which popular and human conceit, the Prophet in that Psalm speaketh, as appeareth in the later part of that verse, which is all one in sense with the former. Neither wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption: where corruption which is proper only to the body is there spoken generally of the whole man. If this exposition please you not, yet you have no cause to find fault with the translation, which in that place is according to the common and ordinary signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, soul. Which as it is sometime taken 
Act. 2.  for the whole person, as you note, Act. 7. 14. So is it here, as the later part of the verse doth most plainly declare.    

MART. 4. But as for the word grave, that they put boldly in the text, to signify that howsoever you interpret, soul, or whatsoever you put for it, it is not meant according to S. Augustine and the faith of the whole Catholic Church, that his soul descended into Hell, whiles his body was in the grave: but that his soul also, was in the grave, howsoever that is to be understood. So making it a certain and resolute conclusion, that the holy Scripture in this place speaketh not of Christ's being in Hell, but in the grave: and that according to his soul, or life, or person, or (as Beza will have it) His carcase or body: and so his soul in Hell, as the holy Scripture speaketh, shall be, his body in the grave, as Beza plainly speaketh, & the Bezites covertly insinuate: & white shall be black, 
See Vigors sermons pag. 110. 115. & dei●ceps.  and chalk shall be cheese, and every thing shall be any thing that they will have it. And all this their evident false translation, must be to our miserable deceived poor souls, the holy Scripture and God's word.  

FULK. 4. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well beareth to be translated in some places a grave, & here the later part of the verse, speaketh of corruption, which can not be understood to be but in the grave, & so doth S. Peter understand it, saying▪ that David the Patriarch died and was buried, and his sepulchre remaineth with us unto this day: and S. Paul upon the same verse of the Psalm saith, he saw corruption. Both the Apostles therefore interpreting this verse of the resurrection of Christ, we think it in deed a resolute conclusion, that the Scripture in this place, speaketh not of Christ's being in hell, which we acknowledge in the article of our Creed, but of his burial and resurrection. Your trifling of white and black, chalk and cheese, may seem pleasant Rhetoric to gross ears, whom you seek to fill with such vanities. But the wiser sort, that are acquainted with figurative speeches, will think it nothing strange, if words be not always taken in their usual & proper signification. That the Hebrew word Nephesh, which the Prophet in that 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  verse of the Psalm useth, is taken diverse times in the Scripture for a dead body, I have before proved more plainly, than ever you shall be able to deny: where you may, if you be disposed to sport yourself, use your figurative comparison of white & black, chalk & cheese, but you shall sooner of white make black, of chalk cheese, than you can possibly avoid the clear light of those texts, which was seen even of your own vulgar Latin interpreters.    

MART. 5. Where we can not but marvel, why they are afraid to translate the words plainly in this place, of his soul being in Hell: Whereas in the Creed they admit the words, and interpret them, that by suffering Hell pains upon the Cross, so he descended into Hell, and no otherwise. Why did they not here also keep the words for the credit of their translation, and afterward (if they would needs) give them that gloze for maintenance of their heresy? This mystery we know not, and would gladly learn it of the Puritan calvinists, whose English translation perhaps this is. For, the grosser calvinists (being not so pure and precise in following Caluine as the Puritans be, that have well deserved that name above their fellows) they in their other English Bibles have in this place 
Bib. an. 1562. and 1577.  discharged themselves of false translation, saying plainly. Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell. But 
* See Lind. dubit. pag. 19  in what sense they say so, it is very hard to guess: and perhaps themselves can 
whitak pag. 165. M. Hues B. of S. Asaph in Walls.  not tell yet what to make of it, as appeareth by M. whitaker's answer to F. Campion. And he is now called a Bishop among them, and proceeded Doctor in Oxford, that could not obtain his grace to proceed Doctor in Cambridge, because he preached Christ's descending into hell, and the Puritans in their second admonition to the Parliament, pag. 43. cry out against the politic Caluinists, for that in the Creed of the Apostles (made in English meeter, and song openly in their Churches, in these words: His spirit did after this descend, into the lower parts, to them that long in darkness were, the true light of their hearts,) they favour his descending into Hell very much, and so consequently may thereby build Limbus Patrum, and Purgatory. And the Puritans in their second reply against M. Whitgifts' defence, pag. 7. reprehend one of their chiefest Caluinisticall martyrs, for affirming (as they term it) a gross descending of our Saviour Christ into Hell. Thus the Puritans confess plainly their heretical doctrine, against Christ's descending into Hell.  

FULK. 5. By confessing in our Creed, that Christ descended into hell, you might know, but that you had rather be ignorant, that you might marvel still, that we purposed not in translating this place, to deny that article, as you falsely slander us: but because this place might seem unto the ignorant, to confirm the error of Christ's descending into Limbus patrum, as it doth not, if it be rightly understood, it was thought good of some translators, (that seeing this verse must have the same sense in the Greek Sermon of Peter, that it hath in the Hebrew Psalm of David, and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used by the Evangelist, in steed of the Hebrew word Sheol, may bear to signify a 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  grave, as the Hebrew word doth most usually,) by translating it the grave, to show that this verse in Greek, maketh no more for that error of descending into Limbus, than the same doth in Hebrew. As for your distinction of gross calvinists and Puritans, it may be packed up among the rest of your quarrels, and slanders. What Master Whitaker hath written in his answer, to Friar Campion, he is able to explain unto you himself, if you do not understand him. That the Bishop of Saint Asaph did once favour your error in some part, and for that was misliked of the University of Cambridge, it is as true, as that afterward reforming his judgement at Oxford, where he proceeded, he was also incorpored Doctor at Cambridge. The English meeter upon the Creed, except it be drawn to an allegory, in my judgement, can not be defended, which judgement I declared openly at Paul's cross fourteen or fifteen years ago. Master Latimers' error of Christ suffering torments in hell, after his death, is justly reprehended, by whom soever it be. By all which, I know not what may be rightly gathered, but that we flatter not one another in errors, but if any among us be deceived, of what account or credit soever he be, we spare not to reprove his error, preferring God's truth before all worldly and private respects of friendship, countenance, credit, and whatsoever.    

MART. 6. The truth is, howsoever the politic Caluinists speak, or write in this point, more plausibly and covertly to the people, and more agreeably to the article of our faith, than either Caluine, or their earnest brethren, the Puritans, do, which writ and speak as fantastically and madly, as they think: yet neither do they believe this Article of the Apostles Creed, or interpret it, as the Catholic Church, and ancient holy fathers always have done, neither can it stand with their new profession so to do, or with their English translations in other places. It can not stand with their profession: for than it would follow that the patriarchs, and other just men of the old Testament, were in some third place of rest, called Abraham's bosom, or Limbus Patrum, till our Saviour Christ descended thither, and delivered them from thence, which they deny in their doctrine, though they sing it in their metres. Neither can it stand with their English translations: because in other places where the holy Scriptures evidently speak of such a place, calling it Hell, (because that was a common name for every place and state of souls departed, in the old Testament, till our Saviour Christ, by his Resurrection and Ascension, had opened heaven) there, for Hell, they translate Grave.  

FULK. 6. The truth is, howsoever you slander us with odious names of schism, and diverse interpretations, we all agree in the faith of that article, and in the true sense and meaning thereof. As also we consent against your errors of Limbus patrum, or any descending of Christ into that fantastical place. As for Abraham's bosom, we account it no place of descent, or going down, but of ascending, even the same that our Saviour Christ upon the cross, called Paradise, Luc. 23. saying to the penitent thief, this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise, which of Saint Paul is called the third heaven, 2. Cor. 12. saying, that he was taken up into the third heaven, whether in the body, or out of the body, he knew not, (but he was taken up into Paradise, and there heard words that could not be uttered, which it is not lawful for a man to speak. And that Abraham's Bosom is a place far distant from hell, that only text where it is named, Luc. 16. doth evidently declare. First the Angels carry the soul of Lazarus into Abraham's bosom, he might as well have said Hell, if he had meant Hell. But Angels use not to go down into Hell. Secondly, it is a place of comfort, for Lazarus was there comforted. Thirdly, there is a great Chaos, which signifieth an infinite distance between Abraham and the rich glutton, which utterly overthroweth that dream of Limbus, which signifying a border or edge, supposeth that place to be hard adjoining to the place of torments. Last of all, if the Article of our faith had been of Limbus Patrum, or of Abraham's bosom, we should have been taught to say, he descended into Limbo patrum, or he descended into Abraham's bosom, which all Christian ears abhor to hear. The word Sheol used in the old Testament 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  for a common receptacle of all the dead, signifieth properly a place to receive their bodies, and not their souls: and therefore most commonly in our translations, is called the grave.    

MART. 7. As when jacob saith, Descendam ad filium 
Gen. 37.  meum lugens in infernum: I will go down to my son into Hell, mourning: they translate, I will go down into the grave unto my son, mourning: as though jacob thought, that his son joseph had been buried in a grave, whereas jacob thought, and said immediately before, as appeareth in the holy Scripture, that a wild beast had deucured him, and so could not be presumed to be in any grave: or as though, if joseph had been in a grave, jacob would have gone down to him into the same grave. For so the words must needs import, if they take grave properly: but if they take grave unproperly, for the state of dead men, after this life, why do they call it grave, and not Hell, as the word is in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  No doubt they do it, to make the ignorant Reader believe, that the Patriarch jacob spoke of his body only, to descend into 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the grave, to joseph's body: for as concerning jacob's soul, 
Infernus.  that was by their opinion, to ascend immediately after his death to heaven, and not to descend into the grave. But if jacob were to ascend forthwith in soul, how could he say, as they translate, I will go down into the grave, unto my son? As if according to their opinion, he should say, My sons body is devoured of a beast, and his soul is gone up into heaven: well, I will go down to him into the grave.  

FULK. 7. A proper quiddity you have found out of jacob, supposing his son to be devoured of wild beasts: yet saith, I will go down unto him mourning, which you think can not be into the grave, because he did not think he was buried. But you must remember, it is the common manner of speech, when men say in mourning, they will go to their friends departed, they mean, they will die, although their friends perhaps were drowned in the sea, or their bodies burned, or perhaps lie in desolate places unburied: So jacob's descending to the grave, signifieth no more, but death, by which he knew he should be joined to his son in soul, though he were not in body. The name of grave is used, because it is usual, that dead men are buried, though it be not universal. And that the grave is taken commonly for death, it appeareth by that phrase, so often used in the Scriptures. He slept with his fathers. and was buried, which being spoken indifferently of good men, and evil, can not be understood of one place of their souls, but of death, which is common to all, and is proper to the body, not unto the soul, for the souls of the departed sleep not. The like is to be said of the phrase used in Gen. of Ishmael, as well as of the godly patriarchs, he was laid up to his people. And lest you should please yourself too much in your childish conceit of joseph's being devoured, whereof yet his father was not certain. You shall hear how Isydorus Clarius translateth the same place, in his Bible censured by the Deputies of Trent Council, Descendam ad filium meum, lugens in sepulchrum. I will go down to my son, mourning, into the grave. This is one of the places which he thought mere to be corrected, according to the Hebrew, and in other places, where he is content to use the old word Infernus, he signifieth in his notes, that he meaneth thereby Sepulchrum, the grave. And in deed this word Infernus signifieth generally any place beneath, as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Greek translators used for Sheol, the Hebrew word, signifieth a place that is dark, and obscure, where nothing can be seen, such as the grave or pit is in which the dead are laid, which therefore of job is called the land of darkness, and the 
job 10.  shadow of death.    

MART. 8. Gentle Reader, that thou mayst the better conceive these absurdities, and the more detest their guileful corruptions, understand (as we began to tell thee before) that in the old Testament, because there was yet no ascending into heaven, the way of the holies (as the Apostle in his epistle to 
Hebr. 9 v. 8.  the hebrews speaketh) being not yet made open, because our saviour Christ was to dedicate and begin the entrance in his 
Hebr. ●0. v. 20.  own person, and by his passion to open heaven: therefore (we say) in the old Testament the common phrase of the holy Scripture is, even of the best men, as well as of others, that dying they went down ad inferos, or ad infernum: to signify that such was the state of the old Testament before our saviour Christ's Resurrection and Ascension, that every man went down, and not up: descended, and not ascended: by descending I mean not to the grave, which received their bodies only: but ad inferos, that is, to hell, a common receptacle or place for their souls also departed, as well of those souls that were to be in rest, as those that were to be in pains and torments. All the souls both good and bad that then died, went downward, and therefore the place of both sorts was called in all the tongues, by a word answerable to this word, hell, to signify a lower place beneath, not only of torments, but also of rest.  

FULK. 8. Where you reason that there was no ascending into heaven, because the way of the holies was not yet made open, when the first tabernacle was standing, you abuse the Reader, and the Scripture. For the Apostles meaning is, in that verse, to show that to the great benefit of Christians, that first tabernacle is fallen, because that now we have more familiar access unto God, by jesus Christ. For whereas the High Priest only, but once in the year, and then not without blood, entered into the second most holy Tabernacle, because the way of the holies, that is unto the Holiest, or sancta sanctorum, was not then opened, now our Saviour Christ having once entered into the holiest place, by his own blood, and found eternal redemption, we have 
Heb. 4. v. 16.  by him without any ceremonies, sacrifices, or mediation of any mortal Priest, free access unto the throne 
Heb. 10. v. 19  of grace, even into the holy place, by the new and living way, which he hath prepared for us. But all this is to be understood of the clear revelation of the mercy of God in Christ, which was obscurely set forth unto the fathers of the old Testament, and not of the effect & fruit of his passion, which was the same for their salvation, that it is for ours. Neither have the souls of the faithful, since the coming of Christ, any other place of rest, than the fathers had before his incarnation, God 
Heb. 11. v. 40.  providing most wisely, that they without all the rest of their brethren, that shall be unto the worlds end, shall not be made perfect. And whereas you say, that all the souls of good and bad, then went downward, you are controlled by the wise man, Eccles. 3. Where he speaketh in the person of the carnal man, doubting of that which is not comprehended by reason, but believed by faith: who knoweth whether the spirit of man ascend upward. And more plainly in the last chapter of that book, where he exhorteth to repentance, showing in the end that though dust return to the earth from whence it was, yet the spirit returneth to God that gave it. It returneth to God therefore, it goeth not down. For who would abide to hear this speech, the souls of the faithful went downward to God, yea went into hell to God. Nay returned downward into hell to God that gave them. That common receptacle 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 receptacle of their bodies, but not of their souls. For the soul of Lazarus was not carried by the Angels into hell, but into Abraham's bosom, which was not only a place of rest, but also of joy, and comfort, contrary to torments: between which and hell, was an infinite distance. Who would call that a common receptacle, when there was an infinite distance, unpassable from one to the other.    

MART. 9 So we say in our Creed, that our saviour Christ himself descended into hell, according to his soul: So 
Epitaph. Nepot. ca 3.  S. Hierom speaking of the state of the old Testament, saith: Simo Abraham, Isaac, jacob in inferno, quis in caelorum regno, that is, If Abraham, Isaac, and jacob were in hell, who was in the kingdom of heaven? And again, Ante Christum, Abraham apud inferos: post Christum, latro in Paradiso, that is, before the coming of Christ, Abraham was in hell: after his coming, the thief was in Paradise. And lest a man might object, that Lazarus being 
Luc. 16.  in Abraham's bosom, saw the rich glott●n a far of in hell, and therefore both Abraham and Lazarus seem to have been in heaven: the said holy doctor resolveth it, that Abraham and 
See S. August. in Psal. 85. v. 13.  Lazarus also were in hell, but in a place of great rest and refreshing, and therefore very far off from the miserable wretched glutton that lay in torments.  

FULK. 9 We say in our Creed, that Christ descended into hell, which being an article of our faith, must have relation to such benefit, as we receive by his descending, namely, that thereby we are delivered from the pains of hell. But that he should descend into Limbus patrum, to fetch out the fathers, which before you said were in prison, now you say in rest, we neither say it in our Creed, neither doth it pertain unto us. But Jerome is cited as a favourer of your opinion, who, I confess in some part held as you do, but not altogether. For thus he writeth in Epitaph. Nepos. After he hath given thanks to Christ for our redemption by his death. Quid ante miserius homine, qui aeternae mortis terrore prostratus vivendi sensum ad hoc tantum acceperat ut periret, etc. What was more miserable than man before, which being cast down with terror of eternal death, received sense of living for this end only, that he might perish. For death reigned from Adam unto Moses, yea upon those which have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam. If Abraham, Isaak, and jacob in hell, who in the kingdom of heaven? If thy friends were under the punishment. If Adam and they which sinned not, were held guilty by other men's sins, what is to be thought of them which said in their heart there is no God etc. And if Lazarus be seen in the bosom of Abraham and in a place of rest, what like hath hell and the kingdom of Heaven? Before Christ Abraham in hell, after Christ the these in Paradise. In these words Jerome after his Rhetorical manner, amplifying the benefit of our redemption by Christ, doth rather touch this error, than plainly express it. For first he maketh all men miserable before Christ, and cast down with terror of eternal death, which is true, if ye consider them without Christ, in which state are all men since Christ, but of all men that lived before the time of Christ's death, and yet embraced their redemption by him, it is not true. As also that there are some which have not sinned. But that all this is to be understood, specially of the death of their bodies, and allegorically of their souls, he addeth immediately, Et id●●rco in resurrectione eius multa dor●●ntium corpora, etc. And therefore at his resurrection, many bodies of them that slept arose, & were seen in the heavenly jerusalem. See you not how he turneth all into an Allegory, to set forth the virtue of Christ's redemption? who brought all his elect by his death, from hell, and the power of darkness, into the kingdom of heaven. Furthermore you bid us see Augustine in Ps 85. v 13. Where in the beginning he professeth his ignorance in discussing the question of the nethermost hell. First supposing this world in which we live, to be Infernum superius, and the place whether the dead go Infernum inferius, from which God hath delivered us, sending thither his son, who to this Infernum or 
Nascendo.  lower place came by his birth, to that by his death: he 
Moriendo.  addeth an other opinion. Fortassis enim apud ipsos inferos est aliqua pars inferior etc. Peradventure even in hell itself there is some part lower, in which the ungodly, which have much sinned are delivered. For whether Abraham had been now in certain places in hell we can not sufficiently define. And afterward when he hath spoken of the diverse places of Lazarus, and the rich glutton, he concludeth as uncertainly as he began. Ergo inter ista fortasse duo inferna, quorum in uno, etc. Therefore peradventure between these two hells, in one of which the souls of the righteous rested, the souls of the wicked are tormented, one attending prayeth in the person of Christ, etc. Here you may see, what an article of belief this was with S. Augustine, when he hath nothing to define, but only bringeth his conjectural opinions and peradventures. Also how he taketh Infernum for any lower place, in so much that he calleth this world, Infernum. Wherefore much more may Infernum signify the grave, and be so sometimes translated.    

MART. 10. His words be these in effect: If a man will say unto me, that Lazarus was seen in Abraham's bosom, and a place of refreshing even before Christ's coming: true it is, but what is that in comparison? Quid simile infernus & regna caelorum? What hath hell and heaven like? As if he should say, Abraham in deed and Lazarus (and consequently many other) were in place of rest, but yet in hell, till Christ came, and in such rest, as hath no comparison with the joys of heaven. And S. Augustine disputing this matter sometime, & doubting 
Epist. 99 ad Euod. & de Gen. ad lit. li. 12. c. 33.  whether Abraham's bosom be called hell in the Scripture, and whether the name of hell be taken at any time in the good part (for of Christ's descending into hell, and of a third place where the patriarchs remained until Christ's coming, not heaven, but called Abraham's bosom: he doubted not, but was most assured) the same holy doctor in an other place, as being better resolved, doubted not upon these words of the Psalm. Thou hast delivered 
In Psal. 85 v. 13.  my soul from the lower hell, to make this one good sense of this place, that the lower hell is it, wherein the damned are tormented▪ the higher hell is that, wherein the souls of the just rested, calling both places by the name of hell.  

FULK. 10. I have set down his very words in deed, which being well weighed, make nothing so clearly for your phantasied Limbus, as you would have men ween. You say Augustine doubteth whether Abraham's bosom, in the Scripture be called hell, Ep. 99 & de gen. ad lit. lib. 12. ca 33. But there he doth utterly deny it, & in Ps. 85. as by his words cited before appeareth, he doubteth. So that where he flatly denieth, with you he doubteth, & where he doubteth, with you he is better resolved. Wherefore this matter of Abraham, & the faithful being in hell, is no article of faith, except you will say that S. Augustine was not resolved in the articles of our faith, who touching the third place, whatsoever at diverse times he speaketh doubtingly in his Hypognosticon, he affirmeth resolutely, that he findeth in the scriptures, that there is none.    

MART. 11. And surely of his marvelous humility and wisdom, he would have been 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 speak most plainly, that Abraham's bosom or the place where the 
Loco citato.  patriarchs rested, was some part of hell. Tertullian, (Li. 4. adverse. Martion.) Saith, I know that the bosom of Abraham was no heavenvly place, but only the higher hell, or, the higher part of hell. Of which speech of the fathers, rose afterward that other name, Limbus patrum, that is the very brim or uppermost and outmost part of hell, where the fathers of the old Testament rested. Thus we see that the patriarchs themselves were as then in hell, though they were there in a place of rest: in so much that S. Hierom saith again, Ante Resurrectionem Christi notus in judaea Deus, & ipsi qui noverant eum, tamen ad inferos trahebantur. that is, Before the Resurrection of Christ, God was known in jury, and they themselves that knew him, yet were drawn unto hell. S. Chrysostom upon that place of Esay, 
Hom. quod Christus sit Deus to. 5.  I will break the brazen gates, and bruise the iron bars in pieces, and will open the treasures darkened, etc. So he calleth hell, saith he, for although it were hell, yet it 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  held the holy souls, and precious vessels, Abraham, 
Infernus.  Isaac, and jacob. Mark that he saith, though it were hell, yet there were the just men at that time, till our saviour Christ came to deliver them from thence.  

FULK. 11. As wise & humble as he was, he was not ready to yield to every opinion of Hierom, as his Epistles written to Hierom do declare. Neither was Jerome sore solute in this matter, whereof he speaketh under a cloud▪ and in an Allegory, as it is plain, where he saith the bodies that were raised at the resurrection of Christ, were seen in the heavenly jerusalem, whereas it is certain they were seen only in the earthly jerusalem actually. But he meaneth, the effect of Christ's redemption, was acknowledged either in the Catholic Church, which is jerusalem above in one sense, or else that they shall be seen in the new jerusalem & blessed felicity of the godly at the worlds end: whereof a testimony was given in that sight of their appearing and particular resurrection known at jerusalem on earth. But you cite an other place out of Tertullian lib. 4. adversus Marcionem, and in the margin you say, Loco citato, but I wot not where. And these be tertullian's words, if you be an honest man. I know that the bosom of Abraham was no heavenly place, but only the higher hell, or the higher part of hell. I see you will be as bold with the ancient doctors works, as you are with my poor writings, whom you make to say even what you list. In the last Section before you said S. Augustine Epistol. 99 & de gen. ad lit. Lib. 12. Cap. 33. Doubted whether Abraham's bosom were called hell. Quod si nusquam etc. If it be never read in the holy Scriptures (scilicet that hell is taken in the good part) verily that bosom of Abraham that is the habitation of a certain secret rest, is not to be believed, to be any part of hell. And again by reason of the infinite Chaos, Satis ut opinor appareat, It may appear as I think sufficiently, that the bosom of that so great felicity, is not a certain part, and as it were a member of hell. In the other place he speaketh to the same effect, & upon the same ground, that he never findeth in the Scriptures hell, taken in good part, and cap. 34. where he proveth that paradise is heaven, he saith: Quanto magis ergo. How much more then, may that bosom of Abraham, after this life be called paradise? This saith Augustine, and much more to this purpose, wherein I thought to have forborn you, but that you come upon us still with new forgeries. Tertullian in the book by you quoted, pag. 274 of Frob. printed 1550 thus writeth. Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit, etc. But Martion driveth it another way, so forsooth, that he determineth both the rewards of the Creator, either of torment, or of refreshing, to be laid up for them in hell, which have obeyed the law and the Prophets. But of Christ, and his God, he defineth an heavenly bosom, and heaven. We will answer and even by this self same Scripture, convincing his blindness, which against hell discerneth this Abraham's bosom, to the poor man. For one thing is hell, (as I think) and abraham's bosom, an other thing. For a great depth he saith, is between those regions, and that doth let the passage to and fro. But neither should the rich man have lifted up his eyes, and that truly from a far of, but into higher places, and that of an exceeding height, by that infinite distance of height and depth. Whereof it appeareth to every wise man, that hath ever heard of the Elysian fields, that there is some local determination, which is called Abraham's bosom, to receive the souls of his sons, even of the Gentiles, he being the father of many nations, to be accounted of Abraham's family, and of the same faith, by which Abraham believed God, under no yoke of the law, nor in the sign of circumcision. That region therefore I call the bosom of Abraham, and if not heavenly, yet higher than hell, which shall give rest in the mean season, to the souls of the just, until the consummation of things do finish the resurrection of all, with the fullness of reward. This is as much as I can find in Tertullian, touching Abraham's bosom, which is clean contrary to that you affirm him to speak. For by this saying it is manifest, that your opinion is Martions' heresy. Secondly, that Abraham's bosom is not hell, but higher by an infinite distance, although not in full perfection of heavenly glory. Thirdly, that it is not Limbus patrum, but the receptacle of all the just souls, to the end of the world. tertullian's authority therefore doth you small pleasure, and less honesty, unless you did cite him more truly. But I am unwise to look for plain dealing, and sincerity, at your hands. Well, your Limbus patrum, the very brim, or uppermost, or outmost part of hell, wherein all the patriarchs should rest, we have now found from whence it came, even from your old acquaintance, the Mouse of Pontus, Martion the abominable Heretic. The other saying of Jerome, but that the opinion of the fathers in hell, had by that time taken some strength, might be understood of the mortality, whereunto they were subject, and never should have been raised, but by the resurrection of Christ, as it seemeth by that which he opposeth of all nations, since the passion and resurrection of Christ, acknowledged to speak like Philosophers, of the immortality of the soul, and rejoicing in the resurrection of the dead, as the fathers mourned at their death. Chrysostoms' place is more apparent for your error, although he also may be understood to speak allegorically of the effect of Christ's death and resurrection, by which all the patriarchs were delivered from death, and hell was spoiled: not that they were in prison there, but that the justice of God had condemned them thither, if Christ's death had not redeemed them: but I will not stand to clear Chrysostom of this error, which it is sufficient for me to have found that Martion the old Heretic, was the first author thereof, by tertullian's confession, howsoever it came to pass, that many good men afterward deceived by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & Infernus, did hold it.    

MART. 12. Therefore did jacob say, I will go down 
Gen. 4●.  to my son unto Hell. And again he saith: If any misfortune happen to (Benjamin) by the way, you shall bring my grey head with sorrow unto Hell, which is repeated again twice in the Chapter 44. by which phrase the holy Scripture will signify, not only death, but also the descending at that time of all sorts of souls into hell, both good and bad. And therefore it is spoken of all sorts in the holy scripture, both of 
3. Reg. 2.  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 saith, speaking of hell, according to the old Testament, Hell is a place wherein souls are included: 
In cap. 13. Osee. Aug. in Psal. 85. v. 13.  either in rest, or in pains, according to the quality of their deserts.  

FULK. 12. jacob said he would be joined to his son by death, as in the other text you bring, it is more manifest, than the Sun at noon days. For jacob speaking of his grey head, must needs mean of his body, and therefore of the grave, and not of Hell. So in the 3. Reg. 2. which you quote, David chargeth Solomon, that he suffer not the grey head of joab, to go down to the grave in peace, and that he shall cause the hoar head of Shemei to go down to the grave with blood, which by no means can be understood of his soul going to hell, which goeth not with blood, although it is plain enough by the word hoar head, that he meaneth his body in age, or his old body. And this text Pagnine, in his Dictionary, thought necessary to be understood of the grave, although he make the word Sheol indifferent to signify Hell, and the Grave. That all went to Hell, some to rest, and some to torments, it was first devised by Martion, the Heretic. But Saint Jerome is once again cited in Oseam cap. 13. where he saith, that Hell is a place wherein souls are included, etc. by which you see that he speaketh not of Limbus, wherein souls were included before Christ, but of such a place wherein they are now included, taking the word Infernus, generally for any place▪ that receiveth the souls of the departed, as he saith most plainly himself, in the same place: Quicquid igitur separat sratres, infernus est appellandus. Whatsoever doth separate brethren▪ is to be called hell. Augustine is quoted, to multiply a lie, and for nothing else, as I have showed before.    

MART. 13. And in this sense it is also often said in the holy Scriptures, that such and such were gathered, or laid ●o 
The Scriptures speak of an other Hell, besides that of the damned.  their fathers though they were buried in diverse places, and died no: in the same state of salvation, or damnation: In that sense Samuel being raised up, to speak with Saul, said, To morrow thou and thy sons 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 have the word Inferi, or Infernus, correspondent both to the Greek and Hebrew, aught to be, and may be most conveniently translated by the word, Hel. As when it is said, Thou hast delivered my soul from the 
Ab inferno infer●ori.  lower hell, Psal. 85. v. 13. that is, as S. Augustine expoundeth it, Thou hast preserved me from mortal sins, that would have brought me into the lower hell, which is for the damned. Which place of holy Scripture, and the like, when they translate grave, s●e how miserably i● soundeth: Thou hast delivered my soul 
Bib. 1579.  from the lowest grave. Which they would never say for very shame, but that they are afraid to say in any place (be the holy Scriptures never so plain) that any soul was delivered or returned from hell, lest thereof it might follow by and by, that the patriarchs, and our Saviour Christ, were in such a Hell.  

FULK. 13. That which is spoken indifferently of the elect, and reprobate, must needs be understood of that which is common to both, that is, corporal death. How can it be verified of their souls, that they were laid to the fathers, when between the godly, and the wicked, there is an infinite distance: but the earth, the grave, or pit▪ is a common receptacle of all dead bodies. That Samuel, which being raised up, spoke to Saul▪ might truly say of his soul, though not of all his sons, that he should be with him in hell, for it was the spirit of Satan, and not of Samuel, although counterfeiting Samuel, he might speak of the death of Saul, and▪ his sons. As for that verse of the eighty and five Psalm, whereupon you do falsely so often allege S. Augustine's resolution, what absurdity hath it, to translate it, from the lowest grave, or from the bottom of the grave: whereby David meaneth extreme danger of death, that he was in, by the malice of his persecuting enemies Saul and his complices. But we are afraid to say in any place, that any soul was delivered and returned from hell. We say that the souls of all▪ the faithful, are delivered from hell: but of any which after death is condemned to hell, we acknowledge no return. And these words are spoken by David while he lived, and praised God, for his deliverance, which might be not only from the grave, but also from hell, saving that here he speaketh of his preservation from death.    

MART. 14. And that this is their fear, it is evident, because that in all other places where it is plain that the holy scriptures speak of the hell of the damned, from whence is no return, they translate there the very same word Hell▪ and not grave. As for example, The way of life is on high to the prudent, 
Proverb. 15. 24.  to avoid from Hell beneath. Lo, here that is translated Hell beneath, which before was translated the lowest grave. And again, Hell, and destruction are before the Lord, how much more the hearts of the sons of men? But when in the holy Scriptures there is mention of delivery of a soul 
Bib. 15●9. De manu inferi.  from Hell, than thus they translate: God shall deliver my soul from the power of the grave: for he will receive me. Can you tell what they would say? doth God deliver them from the grave, or from temporal death, whom he receiveth to his mercy? or hath the grave any power over the soul? Again when they say, 
Psal. 89. 48.  What man liveth and shall not see death? shall he deli●er his soul from the hand of the grave?  

FULK. 14. I have showed before diverse times, that although the Hebrew word Sheol do properly signify a receptacle of the bodies after death, yet when mention is of the wicked, by consequence it may signify hell, as the day signifieth light, the night darkness, fire heat, peace signifieth prosperity, and an hundredth such like speeches. But where you say that Proverb. 15. v. 24. that is translated hell beneath, which before was translated the lowest grave, Psalm. 85. v. 13. You say untruly, for although in both places there is the word Sheol, yet in that Psalm there is Tachtyah, in the proverbs Mattah, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  for which if it were translated the grave, that declineth, or is downward, it were no inconvenience. In the other texts, you trifle upon the word soul, whereas the Hebrew word signifieth not the reasonable soul, which is separable from the body, but the life, or the whole person of man, which may rightly be said, to be delivered from the hand or power of the grave, as the verse. 48. doth plainly declare, when in the later part is repeated, the sense of the former, as it is in many places of the Psalms.    

MART. 15. If th●y take grave properly, where man's body is buried: it is not true either that every soul, yea or every body is buried in a grave. But if in all such places, they will say they mean nothing else but to signify death, and that to go down into the grave, and to die, is all one: we ask them why they follow no● the words of the holy Scripture to signify the same thing, which call it, going down to Hell, not going down to the grave? Here they must needs open the mystery of Antichrist working in their translations, and say, that so they should make Hell a common place to all that departed in the old Testament, which they will not▪ no no● in the most important places of our belief concerning our Saviour Christ's descending into Hell, and triumphing over the same. Yea, therefore of purpose they will not, only for to defeat that part of our Christian Creed.  

FULK. 15. We can not always take the word grave properly, when the Scripture useth it figuratively. But if we say, to go down to the grave, and to die is all one, you ask us why we follow not the words of the holy Scripture. I answer, we do, for the Scripture calleth it grave. and not hell. Where is then your vain clattering of the mystery of Antichrist, that we must open? Because we will not acknowledge that heretical common place, invented by Martion the heretic, we purpose to defeat the article of Christ's descending into hell. A monstrous slander, when we do openly confess it, and his triumphing over hell in more triumphant manner than you determine it. For if he descended into that hell only, in which were the souls of the faithful, which was a place of rest, of comfort, of joy, and felicity, what triumph was it to overcome such an hell, which if you take away the hateful name of hell by your own description, will prove rather an heaven than an hell. But we believe that he triumphed over the hell of the damned, and over all the power of darkness, which he subdued by the virtue of his obedience and sacrifice. so that it should never be able to claim or hold any of his elect, whom he had redeemed.    

MART. 16. As when the Prophet first, Osee. 13. and afterward the Apostle, 1. Cor. 15. in the Greek, s●y thus▪ Ero 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  mors tua ô mors, morsus tuus ero inferne. Vbi est, mors stimulus tuus? ubi est, inferne, victoria tua? O death, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  I will be thy death: I will be thy sting▪ o Hell. Where is, o death, thy sting? where is, o hell, thy victory? They translate 
Bib. 1579.  in both places, O grave, in steed of, o Hel. What else can be their meaning hereby, but to draw the Reader from the common sense of our Saviour Christ's descending into hell, & conquering the same, and bringing out the fathers and just men triumphantly from thence into heaven? which sense hath always been the common sense of the Catholic church & holy Doctors, 
See S. Hier. Con▪ meant. in 13. Osee.  specially upon this place of the Prophet. And what a kind of speech is this, and out of all tune, to make our Saviour Christ say, O grave I will be thy destruction? as though he had triumphed over the grave, & not over hell: or over the grave, that is, over death: and so the Prophet should say death twice, and Hell not at all.  

FULK. 16. S. Hierom whom you quote in the margin, to prove that all the Catholic Doctors understood this text of Osee, of Christ's descending into hell, and thereby reprove our translation, which for hell sayeth grave, after he hath repeated the words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 15. upon this text, thus he concludeth. Itaque quod ille in resurrectionem interpretatus est Domini, no● aliter interpretari nec possumus nec audemus. Therefore that which the Apostle hath interpreted of our lords resurrection, we neither can, nor dare interpret otherwise. You see therefore by Hieromes judgement, that in this text, which is proper of Christ's resurrection, it is more proper to use the word of grave, than of hell. How vainly the same Jerome interpreteth the last words of this chapter, of spoiling the treasure of every vessel that is desirable▪ of Christ's delivering out of hell the most precious vessels of the Saints, etc. I am not ignorant, but we speak of translation of the 14. verse, which being understood of Christ's resurrection, it argueth, that the grave is spoken of, rather than hell. As for the repetition of one thing twice for vehemency, and certainties sake, is no inconvenient thing, but commonly used in the Scriptures.    

MART. 17. Why, my Masters, you that are so wonderful precise translatoures, admit that our saviour Christ descended not into Hell beneath, as you say, yet I think you will grant that he triumphed over Hell, and was conqueror 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 grave? You abuse your ignorant reader very impudently, & your own selves very damnably, not only in this, but in that you make grave, and death, all one, and so where the holy Scripture often joineth together death and Hell▪ as things different and distinct: you make them speak but one thing twice, idly and superfluously.  

FULK. 17. For our faith of Christ's triumphing over hell, I have spoken already sufficiently, but of the prophets meaning beside the words themselves, the Apostle is best expounder, who referreth it to the resurrection, and his victory over death, which he hath gained not for himself alone, but for all his elect. Where you say we make grave and death all one, it is false. We know they differ, but that one may ●e signified by the other, without any idle or superfluous repetition in one verse. I refer me to a whole hundred of examples, that may be brought out of the Psalms, the Prophets, and the proverbs, where words of the same, like, or near signification, are twice together repeated, to note the same matter, which none but a blasphemous dog, will say to be done idly, or superfluously.    

MART. 18. But will you know that you should not confound them, but that Mors, & Infernus, which are the words of the holy Scripture in all tongues, are distinct: hear what S. Jerome saith, or if you will not hear, because you are of them which have stopped their ears, let the indifferent Christian Reader hearken to this holy Doctor, and great interpreter of the holy Scriptures according to his singular knowledge in all the learned tongues. Upon the foresaid place of the Prophet, after he had spoken of our Saviour Christ's descending into hell, and overcoming of death, he addeth: Between death and 
Hierom in Os●● cap. 13.  hell, this is the difference, that death is that whereby the soul is separated from the body: Hell is the place where souls are included, either in rest, or else in pains, according to the quality of their deserts. And that death is one thing, and Hell is another: the Psalmist also declareth, 
Psal. 6.  saying: THERE IS not in death, that is mindful of thee, but in Hell who shall confess to thee? And in another place. Let death come upon them, and let them go down into Hell alive. Thus far S. Hierom.  

FULK. 18. He that by the grave understandeth a place to receive the bodies of the dead, and figuratively death, doth no more confound the words of death, and the grave, than he that by a cup, understandeth a vessel to receive drink properly, and figuratively, that drink which is contained in such a vessel. Therefore that you cite out of Jerome, maketh nothing against us, for he himself, although deceived by the Septuagintes, or rather by the ambiguity of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they use, in the signification of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet by Infernus understandeth them that be In inferno, and the dead, as we do by the word grave oftentimes. As for his opinion of the godly souls in happy hell before Christ's death, or his interpretation of any other part of Scripture, we profess not to follow in our translations, but as near as we can the true signification of the words of holy Scripture, with such sense (if any thing be doubtful) as the proper circumstances of every place will lead us unto, that we may attain to the meaning of the holy Ghost.    

MART. 19 By which differences of death and Hell, (whereof we must often advertise the Reader) are meant two things: death, and the going down of the soul into some receptacle of Hell, in that state of the old Testament, at what time the holy Scriptures used this phrase so often. Now, these impudent translators in all these places, translate it grave, of purpose 
Bib. 1579.  to confound it and death together, and to make it but one thing, which S. Hierom showeth to be different, in the very same sense that we have declared.  

FULK. 19 The difference of Mors & Infernus which Jerome maketh, can not always stand, as I have showed of the hoar heads of jacob, joab, and Shemei, which none but mad men will say, to have descended into a receptacle of souls, beside other places of Scripture, where Sheol must of necessity signify a place for the body. And even those places of the Psalms, that S. Hierom calleth to witness, do make against his error. For where David saith, Psal. 6. In hell who shall confess unto thee? How can it be true of the souls of the faithful being in that holy hell Abraham's bosom? Did not Abraham confess unto God, & acknowledge his mercy? Did not Lazarus the same, did not all the holy souls departed confess God in Abraham's bosom? Were all those blessed souls so unthankful, that being carried into that place of rest, and comfort, none of them would confess God's benefits? It is plain therefore, to the confusion of your error, that Sheol in that place of David must needs signify the grave, in which no man doth confess, praise, or give thanks unto God, of whom in death there is no remembrance. Therefore he desireth life and restoring of health, that he may praise God in his Church or congregation. Likewise in the Psal. 54. where he prophesieth unto the wicked a sudden death, such as befell to Chore, Dathan, & Abiram, which went down quick into the grave. Not into hell, whether come no bodies of men living, but the souls of men that are dead.    

MART. 20. But alas, is it the very nature of the Hebrew, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Greek, or Latin, that forceth them so much to English it grave, rather than hell? we appeal to all Hebricians, Grecians, & Latinists in the world: first, if a man would ask, what is Hebrew, 
Infernus.  or Greek, or Latin for Hell: whether they would not answer, these three words, as the very proper words to signify it, even as panis signifieth bread: secondly, if a man would ask, what is 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin, for a grave: whether they would answer these words, and not three other which they know, are as proper words for grave, as lac, is for milk. 
Sepulchrum.   

FULK. 20. The very nature of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is most properly to signify a grave, or receptacle of dead bodies, as all that be learned in that tongue, do know. About the Greek and Latin terms, is not our question, and therefore you deal deceitfully, to handle them all three together. Although neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor Infernus are so proper for hell, but that they may be taken also sometimes for the grave, and so perhaps were meant by the Greek and Latin translators in diverse places. You speak therefore as one void of all shame, to say they are as proper for hell, as panis, for bread. Where you ask what is Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, for hell: you must understand, that if you speak of a proper word, for those invisible places, wherein the souls departed, are either in joy or torments, I answer, there is no proper word for those places▪ either in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. For that which of all these tongues is translated heaven, is the proper word for the sensible sky, in which are the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and by a figure is transferred to signify the place of God's glory, in which he reigneth with the blessed spirits of Angels, and men, above this sensible world. Paradise and Abraham's bosom, who is so childish, not to acknowledge them to be borrowed words, and not proper. So fo●▪ 〈…〉 of the reprobate souls in the Hebrew tongue T●phe●● or Gehinnom which properly are the names of an abominable place of Idolatry, are used, & Sheol sometimes figuratively may signify the same. In Greek & Latin G●henna is used for the same, which is borrowed of the Hebrew. Sometimes also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek is taken for the place of the damned, and the kingdom of darkness. The Latin word Infernus is any low place. Wherefore I can not marvel sufficiently at your impudency, which affirm these three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Infernus, to be as proper for our English word hell, as Panis is for bread. That there be other words beside these in all the three tongues to signify a grave, I marvel to what purpose you tell us, except you would have ignorant folk suppose, that there cannot be two Hebrew, Greek, or Latin words for one thing.    

MART. 21. Yea, note and consider diligently what we will say. Let them show me out of all the Bible one place, where it is certain and agreed among all, that it must needs signify grave▪ let them show me in any one such place, that the holy Scripture useth any of those former three words for grave. As when Abraham bought a place of burial, whether he bought Infernum: or when it is said the kings of Israel were buried in 
Gen. c. 49.  the monuments or sepulchres of their fathers, whether it say, in infernis patrum suorum. So that not only Divines by this observation, but Grammarians also and children may easily see, that the proper and natural signification of the said words, is in English Hell, and not grave.  

FULK. 21. We note well your foolish subtlety, that will have us to show you one place, where it is oertaine and agreed among all, that, sheol must needs signify grave I am persuaded that you and such as you are, that have sold yourselves to Antichrist, to maintain his heresies with all impudency, will agree to nothing that shall be brought, though it be never so plain and certain, that it must needs so signify. I have already showed you three places, where the hoar head is said to go down into sheol, that is into the grave For whether should the hoar head go but into the grave? Nothing can be more plain to him that will agree to truth, that sheol in all such places is taken for the grave. But to omit those places, because I have spoken of them all ready: what say you to that place, Numb. 16? where the earth opened her mouth, & swallowed up the rebels with their tents, and all there substance of cat-tail, and what soever they had: where the text sayeth. They went down, and all that they had alive sheolah into the pit or grave. God made a great grave or hole in the earth, to receive them all. Where no man will say that euther the bodies of these men or their substance of Tents, cat-tail, and stuff went into hell, as it is sure their souls went into torment. And if authority do way more with you than good reason, hear what S. Augustine writeth upon the same text▪ and how he taketh your inferos or infernum, which in the Hebrew is sheol, Quest. super Num. lib. 4. c. 29. Et descenderunt ipsi & omnia quaecunque sunt eis viventes ad inferos. Notandum secundum locum terreni●m dictos esse inferos, hoc est, etc. And they themselves descended, and all that they had alive unto Inferas, the lower parts. It is to be noted, that Inferi are spoken of an earthly place, that is in the low parts of the earth. For diversly and under manifold understanding even 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 as much as it is said that those descended alive ad inferos, & by the very narration it appeareth sufficiently what was done: it is manifest, as I said, that the lower parts of the earth are termed by this word inferi, in comparison of this upper part of the earth in which we live. Like as in comparison of the higher heaven, where the dwelling of the holy Angels is, the Scripture saith, that the sinful Angels being thrust down into the darkness of this air, are reserved as it were in prisons of a lower part or hell, to be punished. S. Augustine here doth not only understand this place of the grave or receptacle of bodies: but also showeth that the Latin word inferi or infernus, doth not always signify hell, as you made it of late, as proper for hell, as Panis for bread. But because you shall not complain of the singularity of this example, although you require but one, I will add out of the Psalm 141. where the Prophet saith, our bones are scattered at the very brink or mouth of sheol the grave. How can you understand him to speak of hell? For the grave and not hell is a place for dead men's bones: as he speaketh of the faithful, by the wicked counted 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 grave and not hell.    

MART. 22. And therefore Beza doth strangely abuse 
Annot. in Act. 2. 25. 27. & in 1. Cor. 15. 55.  his Reader, more than in one place, saying that the Hebrew word doth properly signify grave, being deduced of a verb that signifieth, to crave or ask, because it craveth always new corpses. As though the grave craved more than Hell doth, or swallowed 
Bib. 1579. prover. 1. 12. 30. 15. 16.  more, or were more hardly satisfied and filled than Hell. for in all such places they translate grave. And in one such place they say, The grave and destruction can never be full. 
Prou 27. 20.  Whereas themselves a little before, translate the very same words, Hell & destruction: and therefore it might have pleased 
Cap. 15. 11.  them to have said also, Hell and destruction can never be full, as their powfellowes do in their translation, and again, We shall 
Bib. 1562. 1577. Proverb. 1. 1. Pet. 5.  swallow them up, like Hel. The Devil (we read) goeth about continually like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may de●ou●. Who is called in the Apocalypse, Abaddon, that 
Apoc. 9 11.  is, destruction. And so very aptly Hell and destruction are joined together, and are truly said never to be filled. What madness and impudency is it then for Beza to write thus: Who 
Beza before alleged.  is ignorant that by the Hebrew word, rather is signified a grave, for that it seemeth after a sort to crave always new carcases?  

FULK. 22. Beza doth not abuse his reader, to tell him that sheol is derived of a verb that signifieth craving, or ask: but you do unhonestly abuse Beza, as you do every man, when you take in hand, to affirm that he standeth only upon the etymology of sheol, to prove that it signifieth the grave.    

MART. 23. And again, concerning our Saviour Christ's descending into hell▪ and delivering the fathers from thence, it 
Annot. in 2. Act. v. 24.  is marvel, f●i●lr Be●a, that the most part of the ancient fathers were in this error, whereas with the hebrews the word SHEOL, signifieth nothing else but GRAVE. Before, he pleaded upon the etymology or nature of the word, now also he pleadeth upon the authority of the hebrews themselves. If he were not known to be very impudent and obstinate, we would easily mistrust his skill in the Hebrew, saying that among the hebrews, the word signifieth nothing else but 
Nihil aliud.  grave.  

FULK. 23. Beza saith that the word Sheol properly signifieth nothing but the grave, nevertheless he saith, it is taken figuratively, for tribulation, which is near to extreme destruction, yea and sometime for the bottomless pit of hell.    

MART. 24. I would gladly know, what are those hebrews: doth not the Hebrew text of the holy Scripture best tell us the use of this word? Do not themselves translate it Hell very often? do not the Septuaginta always? If any Hebrew in the world, were asked, how he would turn these words into Hebrew, Similes estis sepulchris dealbatis: you are like to whited graves: And, Sepulchrum eius apud vos est: His grave is among you: would any Hebrew I say translate it by this Hebrew word which Beza saith among the hebrews signifieth 
Sheoli●●. Sheol.  nothing else but grave▪ Ask your Hebrew Readers in this case, and see what they will answer.  

FULK. 24. The best of the hebrews, that either interpreted Scriptures, or made Dictionaries, jews, or Christians, do acknowledge that sheol doth properly signify the grave. That the Septuaginta do always translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it proveth not that it always signifieth hell, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not always hell, as in the place of Numb. 16. As for the turning of Latin into Hebrew, is not our controversy, but of translating Hebrew into English, sheol may signify the grave, the hole, the pit, as F●●ea, though it be not all one with the Latin word Sepulchrum. And yet Rabbi Solomon whom you boldly cite in the 27. Section, saith plainly that the true and proper interpretation 
In Gen. 37.  of Sheol is Keber, which you say, is as proper for grave, as Lac is for milk.    

MART. 25. What are those hebrews then, that Beza 
The Protestant's in interpretation of Scriptures, follow the late Sarazens, rather than the ancient fathers, and Apostolical church.  speaketh of? forsooth certain jews or later Rabbins, which, as they do falsely interpret all the holy Scriptures against our Saviour Christ in other points of our belief, as against his Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection: so do they also falsely interpret the holy scriptures against his descending into Hell, which those jewish Rabbins deny, because they look for another Messiah that shall not die at all, and consequently shall not after his death go down into Hell & deliver the father's expecting his coming as our saviour Christ did. And therefore those jewish Rabbins hold as the heretics do, that the fathers of the old Testament were in heaven before our saviour Christ's Incarnation: & these Rabbins are they which also pervert the Hebrew word to the signification of grave, in such places of the holy scriptures as speak either of our Saviour Christ's descending into hell, or of the father's going down into Hell, even in like manner as they pervert other Hebrew words, of the holy scripture, as 
Esa. 7.  namely, alma, to signify a young woman, not a virgin, against our saviours birth of the B. Virgin Marie.  

FULK. 25. Beza speaketh of the holy men of God, which did write the Scriptures, and so use that word Sheol, as it can not be taken to signify any thing properly, but the grave or pit. And as for the jewish Rabbins, what reason is there, why we should not credit them in the interpretatiou of words, of their own tongue, rather than any ancient Christians ignorant of the Hebrew tongue? And although they do sometimes frowardly contend about the signification of a word or two, against the truth of the Gospel, that is no sufficient cause why they should be discredited in all words. But beside them. Beza hath also the best Hebritians that have been in this last age, among the Christians, not only Protestants, but Papists also, namely Pagninus, and Masius, in their Dictionaries.    

MART. 26. And if these later Rabbins be the Hebrews that Beza meaneth, and which these gay English translators follow, we lament that they join themselves with such companions, being the sworn enemies of our Saviour Christ. Surely the Christian Hebrews in Rome, and elsewhere, which of great Rabbins are become zealous Doctors of Christianiti●, and therefore honour every mystery and article of our Christian faith, concerning our Saviour Christ, they dispute as vehemently against those other Rabbins, as we do against the Heretics, and among other things, they tell them, thus Saul said, 
1. Reg. 28.  Raise me up Samuel, and that the woman said, I see Gods ascending out of the earth, and, An old man is ascended or come up, and that Samuel said, Why hast thou disquieted me, that I should be raised up? and, To morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me. And the book of Ecclesiasticus 
Eccl. 46. 23.  saith, that Samuel died, and afterward lifted up his voice out of the earth, etc. All which the holy Scripture would never have thus expressed, (whether it were Samuel in deed o● not) if Saul and the jews than had believed, that their Prophets and patriarchs had been in heaven about. And as for the Hebrew word, they make it (as every boy among the jews doth well know) as proper a word for Hell▪ as panis is for bread, and as unproper for a grave (though so it may be used by a figure of speech) as Cymba Charontis is Latin for death.  

FULK. 26. If we followed the jews 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 learn the propriety of Hebrew words of the learned Rabbinsi, as Hierom was glad to do of his Rabbin, who as it appeareth by his scholar in some places, was not excellently learned, there is no cause why any man should pity us, but them rather, that to cloak their ignorance in the Hebrew tongue, pretend as if it were more unlawful to learn Hebrew of the Hebrew Rabbins, than Latin of Quintilian or Priscian, and Greek of Gaza, Suidas, and such like. That you tell v● of the romish Rabbins converted from Iudai●me, to Papistry, is not worth a straw. For their argument of saul's and a witch's opinion, that the dead might be raised, proveth nothing in the world, that they were in Hell. And the son of sirach showeth himself not to be directed by the spirit of God, which affirmeth, Samuel did lift up his voice after his death▪ out of the earth, contrary to the judgement of Catholic Doctors of the Church. For that the Scripture speaketh of Samuel raised by the witch, is meant of a wicked spirit counterfeiting the shape and similitude of Samuel. For the souls of the faithful, and holy Prophets, be not at the commandments of witches, but at rest with God, where they can not be disquieted. As for the authority of those unknown authors, that teach boys to say, Sheol is as proper for hell, as panis for bread, we may esteem it to be of as good credit, as Charon's boat, Pluto's palace, and Cerberus three heads, etc.    

MART. 27. But what speak I of these? do no: the greatest and most ancient Rabbins (so to call them) the Septuaginta 
Geneb. lib. 3. de Trin.  always translate the Hebrew word, by the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is properly hell? do not the Talmudistes, and Chaldee paraphrases, and Rabbi Solomon jarhi, handling these places of the Psalms, He will deliver my soul from the hand of Sheol, interpret it by Gehinum, that is, Gehenna, hell? and yet the Caluinists bring this place for an example that it signifieth grave. Likewise upon this place, Let all sinners be turned into SHEOL: the foresaid Rabbins interpret it by Gehinum, Hell. Insomuch that in the Proverbs, and in job, it 
Proverb. 15. job. 26.  is joined with Abaddon. Where Rabbi Levi according to the opinion of the Hebrews, expoundeth Sheol, to be the lowest region of the world, a deep place opposite to heaven, whereof it is written, If I descended into Hell, thou art present: and so doth Rabbi Abraham expound the same word in chap. 2. Ion●.  

FULK. 27. Although the Septuaginta do always translate Sheol by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet do they not thereby always understand hell: as it is manifest in all those places, where the Scripture speaketh of a receptacle of dead bodies. But now you will bear us down with Rabbins, Talmudists and Chaldee paraphrases. And first you say that all these, handling that verse of the 49. Psalm. He will deliver my soul from the hand of Sheol, interpret it by Gehinnom, that is, hell. I grant that Rabbi joseph using the liberty of a Paraphrast, rather than a translator, interpreteth the word by Gehinnom, that signifieth hell fire, and so the sense is true. For God delivered David from eternal damnation. But Rabbi David Chimchi, expounding the same place according to the proper signification of Sheol, sayeth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. The Prophet said when he saw the destruction of the souls of the wicked in their death: In the day in which my body shall go down to (Sheol) the grave, God shall deliver my soul from the hand of (Sheol) the grave, that my soul shall not perish with my body. You see therefore that all the Rabbins be not of your side, no nor Rabbi Solomon jarchi, whom you cite. For upon 37. of Genesis, verse 35. where jacob saith, he will go down to the grave, mourning, thus he writeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mourning to Sheol, according to the plain and literal sense the interpretation thereof is the grain, in my mourning I will be buried, and I will not be comforted, all my days: but after the Midrash, or exposition, not according to the letter, it is hell. This sign was delivered by hands, or by tradition, from the mouth of his power, (that is from a divine oracle) if not one of my sons shall die in my life time, I had confidence, that I should not see hell. By this saying, it is manifest, that this rabbin acknowledged the true and proper translation of this word Sheol, was to the grave, although after figurative, and sometimes fond expositions, it was interpreted for hell. Likewise you say, but untruly, of this verse, Psal. 9 v. 18. Let all sinners be turned to Sheol, for there the Chaldee Paraphrast retaineth the word Sheol, and doth not give any other word for it. David Chimchi interpreteth it according to the literal sense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the wicked be turned into the grave, which is so strange with you to be answerable to Sheol, although as R. Solomon he saith, it may be understood of their burial in hell. That Sheol in the Proverbs, & job is joined with abaddom, 
Prou. 1●. job. 26.  it hindereth it not to signify the grave, where is the destru ction and consumption of the body. And Prou. 15. v. 11. the Chaldee Paraphrast retaineth Sheol, which Kabuenaki expoundeth thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. It is said of Sheol, and Abaddon, that Sheol is the grave, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Abaddon is hell, which is deeper than the grave, etc. And although in job Rabbi Levi, and others expound Sheol for a secret place about the centre of the earth, which should seem to be 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  hell: yet they say not that this is the proper signification of the word Sheol. For in the 21. of job. v. 13. the Chaldee Paraphrast for Sheol, interpreteth Kebureta, the grave, and in the 14. verse. 13. beith kebureta, the house of the grave, and 17. v. 12. and 15. the grave. In both which places Rabbi Abraham Peritsol joineth Sheol, and Keber together, both signifying the grave, and in the later verse, he maketh job to say to his friends 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The bars of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  lies with which you comfort me into the midst of the pit of the grave shall go down with me when I die. By all which testimonies it is manifest, that Sheol is not the proper for hell, the receptacle of souls, but for grave, the common dwelling house of men's bodies.  
But you will press us yet further, with the authority of Rabbi Abraham upon jonas. 2. In deed in Abraham Aben Ezra, I read as you say, but this is only his opinion of the figurative sense of that place. for upon Hosee cap. 13. v. 14. he expoundeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus, I have been a redeemer of thy fathers, now I will be a destruction of death which is to thee. And so do R. Shelomo jarchi, and Rabbi David Chimchi: yea, so doth Saint Paul, more worth than all the Rabbins that ever were, expound it.    

MART. 28. This being the opinion and interpretation of the hebrews, See the skill or the honesty of Beza, saying that Sheol, with the hebrews signifieth nothing but grave. Whereas in deed (to speak skilfully, uprightly, and not contentiously) it may signify grave sometime secondarily, but Hell, principally and properly, as is manifest, for that there is no other word so often used and so familiar in the Scriptures to signify Hell, as this, and for that the Septuaginta do always interpret it by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  

FULK. 28. The opinion of the hebrews being as I have rehearsed out of their own words, see the skill or honesty of Martin, which dare open his mouth against Beza in this matter, and tell us that Sheol may secondarily signify a grave, whereas it doth first and principally so signify, how soever the Septuaginta do interpret it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth an obscure dark place under the earth, and not hell properly.    

MART. 29. The which Greek word is so notorious and peculiar for Hell, that the Pagans use it also for Pluto, whom they feigned to be God of hell, and not God of graves: and and if they would stand with us in this point, we might beat them with their own kind of reasoning, out of poets and profane writers, and out of all Lexicons. Unless they will tell us (contrary to their custom) that we Christians must attend the Ecclesiastical use of this word in the Bible, and in Christian writers, & that in them it signifieth grave. For so Beza seemeth 
Annot. in Act. 2● 27.  to say, that the Greek Interpreters of the Bible translated the Hebrew word aforesaid by this Greek word, as signifying a dark place: whereas the Greek poets used it for that which the Latins called Inferos, that is, Hell. Which ambiguity (sayeth he) of the word, made many err, affirming Christ's descending into Hell. So was LIMBUS builded, whereunto afterward Purgatory was laid.  

FULK. 29. That Pluto of the Poets is feigned to be the God of Hell, it was here of that they imagined Hell to be a place under the earth, which was his palace, as earth was his kingdom: or else what becometh of the triple division of all the world, if jupiter having heaven, Neptune the Sea, Pluto should not have the earth? who had his name of the riches enclosed in the earth, and was also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Homer Il. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. jupiter and I, and Pluto the third that ruleth over the dead. Whereof it is put in the genitive case; after such prepositions as govern an Accusative or Dative, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the house of Pluto is to be understood. I might here cite divers places out of Nonius the Christian Greek Poet, who seemeth to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the grave, speaking of the resurrection of Christ, joan. 2. & of Lazarus cap. 11. But of the translation of the Greek word is not our question, but of the Hebrew word Sheol, which the septuaginta turning into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean a place generally to receive the dead, which sometimes is the grave of the bodies, sometimes hell of the souls.    

MART. 30. I see Beza his wiliness very well in this point. For here the man hath uttered all his heart, and the whole mystery of his crafty meaning of this corrupt translation: that to avoid these three things, Christ's descending into Hell, Limbus patrum, and Purgatory, he and his companions wrest the foresaid words of the holy Scriptures to the signification of grave, But let the indifferent Christian reader only consider Beza his own words in this place, point by point.  

FULK. 30. Beza useth no wiliness or craft at all, for he doth always openly detest the dreams of Limbus and Purgatory, and whatsoever may depend upon them. But let us see what you can gather out of his words.    

MART. 31. First he sayeth, that the Greek poets were wont to use the Greek word for Hell: secondly, that they which interpreted the Bible out of Hebrew into Greek, used the very same word for that Hebrew word whereof we have now disputed: thirdly, that the ancient fathers (for of them he speaketh, as a little before he expresseth) understood the said Greek word for Hell, and 
Ibid. v. 24.  thereby grew to those errors (as he impudently affirmeth) of Christ's descending into Hell, and of the place in Hell where the fathers rested expecting the coming of our Saviour, etc. Whereby the Reader doth easily see, that both the profane and also the Ecclesiastical use of the word is for Hell, and not for grave.  

FULK. 31. I looked for some great matter, when you began to consider so diligently from point to point: but I see we shall have nothing, but this cold collection, that both the profane and Ecclesiastical use of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is for hell, and not for the grave. That it is used for hell, no man denieth: but that it is used only for hell. Beza sayeth not, and I have proved that it is not. As also it may be proved by diverse other places out of the Apocryphal writings, namely Sap. 16. v. 13. where it is translated for death by your own Latin translator, being the same verse, that is in the song of Anna 1. Sam. 2. where Sheol is used, and is repeared in that signification Tob. 13. v. 12. Likewise Sap. 2. v. 1. where the ungodly that profess the mortality of the soul say, that none was known to return from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word can signify nothing but grave. For hell it can not signify in their speech, that believe no hell, & say plainly that their souls shall vanish like smoke, or light air. Likewise in Baruch. 2. it is taken for the grave, where he sayeth the dead which are in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall not give honour to God, where it is certain, that by that word is meant the grave, seeing the souls of the righteous that were in Abraham's bosom, did praise God, and moreover, he maketh it plain that he speaketh of the dead bodies, when he saith their spirit is taken out of their bowels.    

MART. 32. And for the Latin word, it is the like 
Infernus, inferi.  case for all the world: and if a man will ask but his child that cometh from the Grammar, what is Infernus, he will say Hell, and not grave: what is Latin for grave? He will answer Sepulchrum, or monumentum. But never Infernus, unless one of these Caluinisticall translators taught him so, to deceive his father.  

FULK. 32. I hope they that be wise will believe S. Augustine, rather than you, that the word Inferi, which is the same that Infernus, hath diverse and manifold understandings in the Scripture, as I have declared before sect. 21. But with the Latin word Infornus, we have little to do, which translate not out of Latin, but out of Hebrew or Greek.    

MART. 33. Now then, to draw to a conclusion of this their corruption also in their English translation: whereas the Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin words do most properly and usually signify Hell: and both Greek, and Latin interpreters precisely in every place use for the Hebrew word, that one Greek word, and that one Latin word, which by all custom of speaking & writing▪ signify Hell: 
c If they object unto us some Catholics, that translate it Sepulchrun, as they do: it is a fault in them also, but so far less than in the Protestants, as chance medley is in respect of wilful murder.  it had been the part of sincere and true meaning translators, to have translated it also in English always by the word Hell: and afterward to have disputed of the meaning thereof, whether and when it is to be taken for Hell, or grave, or lake, or death, or any such thing. As i● one place they have done it very exactly & indifferently, namely when jonas saith (c. 2. v. 2.) out of the Whale's belly. Out of the belly of hell, cried I, and thou heardest my voice. So all translate it, and well, whatsoever it signify in this place. They think that Hell, here signifieth nothing else but the Whale's belly, and the affliction of jonas, and so the word may signify by a Metaphorical speech, as when we say in English, It 
* See their marginal annot. jonae 22. Bib. 1577.  is a hell to live thus: and therefore no doubt they did here translate it so, to insinuate that in other places it might as well signify grave, as here the Whale's belly.  

FULK. 33. Your conclusion is as good as your premises, because the Greek and Latin Interpreters had before us translated amiss, which gave occasion to diverse errors, therefore we also knowing the true signification of the word, must have followed them in wrong and doubtful translation, and afterward debated the meaning of the several places. But in the margin, you tell us, that such Catholics as have translated the word Sheol▪ for a grave, have also done amiss. Pardon us M. Martin, we take you for no such learned Hebritian, that you should control Pagninus, Isidorus Clarius, and all other Hebritians of this time upon such slender sleeveless reasons, as you have brought hitherto. And you show an intolerable proud stomach, that being a man so little seen in the Hebrew tongue (as you show yourself to be) you should condemn such grave and learned persons of your own side, of rashness, or ignorance. For you make them in the case of chance medley, that have translated sheol a grave. Think you the deputies of the Council of Trent had no more discretion in perusing Isidorus Clarius correction of the Bible, than to suffer him to change life & safety into chance medley and manslaughter? you may in time to come if you apply your study, prove learned in that language wherein as yet you are but a smatterer not worthy to be heard against so many, so learned, so famous professors of the Hebrew tongue, jews, and Christians, Protestants, and Papists, authors of Grammars, Dictionaries, and translations. But in the second of jonas, it pleaseth you well, that our Geneva Bible translateth this word Hell, out of the belly of hell, etc. but you like not that they should interpret it a metaphorical Hell, or the extremity of affliction, whereinto the Prophet was brought: where you make it no doubt what they would insinuate, you show yourself more bold to affirm, than ready or able to prove.    

MART. 34. But then they should have translated it also hell in other places, as they did in this, and afterward have interpreted it grave in their commentaries, and not presumptuously to straighten and limit the word of the holy Ghost, to their private sense and interpretation, and to prejudice the ancient & learned holy fathers, which look farremore deeply and spiritually 
* ●at. 12.  into this prophecy, than to jonas, or the Whale, our Saviour himself also applying it to his own person, and to his being in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. And therefore S. Jerome saith, This belly of Hell, according to 
Comment. in 2. ●o●●.  the story, is the Whale's belly, but it may much better be referred to the person of Christ, which under the name of David singeth in the Psalm▪ Thou shalt not leave my 
Psalm. 15. In inferno. Psalm. 87.  soul in Hell: Who was in Hell alive, and free among the dead. And that which our Saviour saith. The Son of man shall be in the heart of the earth, he doth interpret of his soul in hell. For as the heart is in the mids of the body, so is Hell said to be in the mids of the earth.  

FULK. 34. They have in other places translated it according to the propriety of the word. & if in this place they had done so likewise, I see not what fault they had committed. Certain it is that the whales belly, did rather resemble a grave, wherein jonas seemed to be buried, than hell the receptacle of separated souls. It is the office of a translator not so much to regard what other have written upon the place he translateth, be they ancient, be they godly, be they learned, as what sense the interpretation of the words will best bear. Without prejudice therefore of any man's credit, the truth in this case must be sought out.  
That you report out of Hierom upon this place, showeth that both the Hebrew word sheol, and the Latin infernus, are not proper & peculiar for hell, as in other places you tell us. That S. Hierom interpreteth the saying of Christ, Math. 12. v. 40. of his being in the heart of the earth, to be meant of his being in hell, which is said to be in the midst of the earth, it is confuted by the words of our Saviour Christ, who sayeth, that he shall be there three days, and three nights, that is, all the time of his death, which is true of his body in the grave, but not of his soul in hell: for both he said he would be that day in Paradise, and you yourselves hold, that he made no tarriance in hell. Beside that it is a fantastical opinion to limit hell into the midst of the earth, which is rather a place without the sensible world, than any dungeon within the earth.    

MART. 35. Thus then presupposing (as we must) that jonas speaketh in the person, of our Saviour Christ, the principal sense is not of the whales belly, but of that hell whether our Saviour Christ descended, and from whence he delivered the fathers of the old Testament, himself ascending into heaven, as their King and general captain before them, and opening the way of heaven unto them, as is signified in an other Prophet: 
Mich. 2. 13.  and was the first that entered heaven.  

FULK. 35. That which jonas spoke, was first true of his own person, and then of Christ, as jonas was in this a resemblance of him. But by this similitude of Christ remaining so many days and nights in the heart of the earth, as jonas did in the whales belly, it is manifest that he speaketh of his body remaining in the grave, not of his soul tarrying in hell. Wherefore the descending of Christ into Limbus patrum, hath no manner of hold, either of the saying of Christ in the Gospel▪ Math. 12. or of jonas in his prayer, jon. 2.    

MART. 36. Against all which truths and every point thereof, these translators are so watchful and wary, that where the Apostle saith, Christ began, and dedicated unto us 
Heb. 10. 20.  the way into heaven, they say, in their English translations with 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  full consent nothing else bus, He prepared. Why are they fals●● 
Initiavit.  here than their Masters, Calvin, Beza, Illyricus, who read, Dedicavit? Is there nothing in the Greek word, but bare preparation? where be these etymologistes now, that can strain 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and wring other words to the uttermost advantage of their heresy, and here are content for the like advantage, to dissemble the force of this word, which by all use and property signifieth, to make new, to begin a thing, to be the first author, to dedicate: as S. Augustine might have taught them, and their Lexicons, 
Aug. tract. 48. in joan.  and the Scriptures in many places. This translation (no doubt) is not done sincerely and indifferently of them, but for their own deceitful purpose, as is all the rest. When Saint Paul speaketh of preparation only, they know right well that he useth the usual word to prepare: as, He hath prepared them 
Heb. 11. 16.  a city: and wheresoever is signified preparation only, let them 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  bring us one example where it is expressed by the other Greek word, which now we speak of.  

FULK. 36. I grant the translations had been more proper, and agreeable to the Greek word, to have said, which he hath dedicated, or by dedication prepared. But here is no fraud, against any truth or error of yours. For the Apostle speaketh not of the way by which we ascend immediately to heaven, but of the way by which we have free access to God through faith, without the veils and ceremonies of the law, as it is manifest by his exhortation. And whereas you said before, that Christ ascending into heaven, to those whom he had brought out of hell, you must tell us then, where they remained all those forty days that were between his resurrection and ascension, except you will make two ascensions of Christ into heaven, one in soul alone, the other in body & soul: which hath not been heard of in the church before. For that his soul was first received into heaven or Paradise immediately after his death, it proveth not an ascension: seeing the same was common to him, with other saints. Again, seeing the mystery of our redemption is divided into the death, & resurrection of Christ, and that by his death we are delivered from sins, by his resurrection we are justified: if you will not allow his death to have purchased equal redemption to the fathers of the old Testament and us, but measure the virtue thereof by the instance of time, in which it was actually performed: you must stay your prisoners from entering into the kingdom of heaven, at least until his resurrection. For none can enter into the kingdom of heaven, but justified persons. Seeing therefore that justification dependeth upon his resurrection, you must either grant, that it was communicated to the fathers in their time before his incarnation, or else you must stay them from entering into heaven before they were justified by his resurrection. The place of Micha 2 that you quote▪ is nothing to the purpose of Christ's ascending For there the Prophet threateneth the Israelites with the violence of their enemies the Chaldees, whom God himself would prosper against them, to have the victory, and to drive them into captivity.    

MART. 37. But it is of more importance, which followeth, and appart●yning altogether to this controversy Hebr. 5. v 7. your trauslation is thus, in the very English Bible that 
Of the year 1577.  now is read in your Churches: Which in days of his flesh 
Against Christ's descending into H●●.  offered up prayers with strong crying, unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that which he feared. Is the Greek here, In that which he 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  feared? You know that no Grammar nor Lexicon doth allow you this translation. But either thus for reverence, or as one of your own English Bibles hath it, because of his reverence.  

FULK. 37. Your first quarrel against the truest translation of that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 5. is that it sayeth in that which he feared, whereas the Greek is from fear or out of fear: which afterward you confess though distant in word, yet to be agreeable in sense. The second, that in the margin, our translation is against Christ's descending into hell. How so I pray you? do you according to your translation expound that word of Christ's descending into hell? no verily. But we do expound it of his descending into hell, therefore our translation is to prove Christ's descending into hell: and if our exposition were not true, yet even your opinion of Christ's descent were nothing hindered thereby: you will say, that by our exposition, we exclude his descent after his death: we do in deed in such sort as your error teacheth, altogether without the Scripture. For if there had been an history of Christ's going into hell, & delivering the patriarchs and others the faithful from thence, all the evangelists would not have omitted so notable a matter, and that also an article of our belief.    

MART. 38. How is it then, that in your later English 
●●x meru.  Bibles you changed your former translation from better to worse? or who taught you so to translate it? for soothe the Heretic Beza, whose translation you follow for the most part in your later Bibles, though here, in sense rather than in word. And who taught Beza? he saith, Calvin was the first that ever found out this interpretation. And why? surely for defence of no less blasphemy 
Calu. Catech. & Institut. li. 2. c. 16.  than this, that our Saviour JESUS Christ upon the Cross was horribly afraid of damnation, that he was in the very sorrows and torments of the damned, and that this was his descending into Hell, and that otherwise he descended not. Let the Reader note these new teachers upon this place, and judge to what wicked end this translation tendeth.  

FULK. 38. If we have in the later reform an error escaped in the former, what skilleth it, by whom we were admonished, so to correct it? But Beza you say affirmeth, that Caluine was the first that ever found out this interpretation. It appeareth you were never well beaten for lying, it is such a common fault with you. Beza speaking of the interpreters of this age, saith that Calvin (as he thinketh) was the first that showed the true & natural interpretation of this place. He saith not, the first that ever found it. Yea clean contrary wise he saith, Denique ut non dubium sit, etc. Finally that it should not be doubtful, but that some of the ancient fathers also have interpreted this place even so, Nazianzenus Conc. de fill 2. doth plainly number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this fear among the infirmities of Christ's manhood. As for that which you call a blasphemy, is a holy and comfortable true doctrine, that Christ for the redemption of our souls, suffered the wrath of God in his soul, as those tears, and that strong cry declareth, in which he complained according to the sense of his humanity, that he was forsaken of God.    

MART. 39 A wonderful thing: when all antiquity with a general, and full consent hath in that place of the holy Scripture read thus, that Christ was heard (of his father) for 
Io. 11. 42.  his reverence (according as our Saviour himself also saith in the raising of Lazarus, and signifieth in his long prayer Io. 17:) how a blasphemous and presumptuous Heretic should be so malapert thus to alter it, that he was heard in that which he feared, that is, that he was delivered from damnation and the eternal pains of hell, which he was sore afraid of. To the maintenance of which blasphemy, Beza will seem to force the Greek thus. First (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not here signify reverence or 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  piety, but fear, and such a fear which he calleth pavorem & consternationem animi, that is, dreadfulness and astonishment of mind, and other like words, to insinuate an exceeding horror and fear in our Saviour Christ. For confutation whereof, we might easily bring the common use of this Greek word in the holy Scriptures to signify not every fear, but that religious fear which is in the best men, joined with godliness, holiness, and devotion, as when in the Acts they that buried S. Steven, 
Act. 8.  are called Viri timorati, devout men, such as feared God. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

FULK. 39 How know you, that all antiquity hath so red? if we had the commentaries of many of the ancient fathers upon this text, we might perhaps prove unto you, that they read otherwise. Nazianzenus as I showed before among Christ's infirmities, reckoneth this fear. Primasius although he expoundeth it of reverence, yet allegeth out of Cassiodorus that the word is taken sometime for love, sometimes for fear. Theodoretus also interpreteth this place of Christ's fear, according to his human nature, showing that he feared death, which S. Paul feared not, both to show himself a man, and to have experience of all our infirmities without sin. But where you say, that Caluine maketh him to fear damnation, and the eternal pains of hell, it is false. Caluine saith plainly, his fear came not of distrust, but of the sense of his human nature, forbearing the judgement of God, which without vehement endeavour, could not be overcome. Therefore was the astonishment, the tears, the strong cry, the drops of blood, the Angel needful to comfort him, the last extreme conflict, in which he cried, my God my God why hast thou forsaken me. As for the signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although it be so often taken for piety and religion, yet it is also taken for fear. As Acts 23. Where S Luke saith the Tribune was greatly afraid, lest Paul should have been rent in pieces, between the Pharizees and Saducees, he useth this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for being afraid, which was of no piety or religious fear in him, that was a pagan, but a natural and civil fear, lest a prisoner being a Roman, of whom he had charge, should be violently murdered amongst them.    

MART. 40. But we need not go far, for Beza will help us himself, who telleth us in an other place the very same. His words be these: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat non quemuis 
Anno. in Luc. 2. v. 25.  timorem, sed cum reverentia potius quàm cum animi trepidatione coniunctum latini religionem vocant. That is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify every fear, but that which is joined with reverence, rather than with astonishment of mind, the Latins do call it religion, or religious fear. If this be the true signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Beza himself confesseth, why doth he not so translate it in the foresaid place to the Hebrews? Why forsaketh he the old approved Latin translation, and general consent of all ancient Interpreters, and translateth it, that fear or astonishment of mind, which he saith the word doth not signify?  

FULK. 40. You have great leisure thus to trifle, or rather intolerable malice thus to cavil. Beza in the place by you cited, speaketh of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it is taken for religion, for than it is rather joined with reverence, than with astonishment.    

MART. 41. And mark that in his foresaid annotation upon Saint Luke, he telleth not a peculiar signification of the Greek word in that place, as though in some other places it might have an other signification, but he telleth generally what the very nature of the Greek word is, that is, that it signifieth not every fear, but a fear joined with reverence. And he said truly: and they shall hardly give an instance, where it signifieth that fear of astonishment, which both he and they translate in the foresaid place of S. Paul. Such a force hath heresy to lead a man even contrary to his own knowledge, to falsify gods holy word.  

FULK. 41. Any reasonable man reading the note upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, religious, used by S. Luke of simeon, will understand Beza to speak of the signification of that word, as it is taken in that place, for he speaketh against the barbarous word Timoratus, used by the vulgar Interpreter, which signifieth, if it have any signification, one made afraid, rather than fearing God, with love and reverence. But where you say, we shall hardly give an instance, where the word signifieth that fear of astonishment, which they translate, if you would have taken pains to read beza's annotations yourself, upon this text in question, you should have found, that he bringeth many instances out of Aristotle, Sophocles, Plutarch, Nazianzen, and S. Luke, Act. 23. If you had remembered what S Mark writeth of our Saviour Christ, Mar. 14. v. 33. it should not have been so strange a matter unto you, to hear that our Saviour Christ with great astonishment, and terror of mind, was afraid of death, where he useth the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which was not for bodily pain or bodily death. (which not only thousands of holy Martyrs have joyfully embraced, but infinite wicked persons have contemned) but for the feeling of God's wrath, which was infinitely more heavy upon his soul, than any torments were upon his body.    

MART. 42. Yea Beza saith further to this purpose (much more against his skill in the Greek tongue, if he had any at all) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preposition can not bear this sense, For which, or in respect whereof, and therefore he translateth the Greek into Latin, thus. Exauditus est ex metu, he was heard from fear: not, for fear, or, for his reverence. And because from fear, is a hard speech, and dark, that seemeth to be the cause why our English translators say, In that which he feared, far from Beza in word, but agreeably in sense.  

FULK. 42. When Beza hath showed his skill in the Greek tongue, not only in his translation, and annotations, but also in divers Greek Epigrams, which he hath set forth, who but one stark mad with malice, & blind with conceit of his own slender skill, would doubt whether Beza had any skill at all in the Greek tongue. As for that he saith of the signification of the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ he speaketh in respect of the property of the Greek tongue, for yet you bring no examples, but Hebraisms out of the Scripture, for that signification of the preposition.    

MART. 43. But for this matter we send them to Flaccus 
Flac. Illyric.  Illyricus, a Captain Lutheran, who disputeth this very point against the calvinists: and teacheth them that no thing is more common, than that signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For proof whereof, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  we also refer them to these places of the holy scripture. Mat. 13. Luc. 22. and 24. Act. 12. Psal. 87. And Machab. 5. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  21. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a genitive, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an accusative, signify all one, which Beza denieth. Gentle Reader, bear with these tedious grammatications, fit to be handled in Latin, but necessary in this case also, good for them that understand, & for the rest an occasion to ask of them that have skill in the Greek tongue, whether we accuse our adversaries justly or no, of false translating the holy Scriptures.  

FULK. 43. And we by the same authority, send you to beza's answer, in his last edition of his annotations. And yet the Reader must know that Beza did not simply deny, that the preposition might have such sense. But he said, Non facile mihi persuaserim, I can not easily persuade myself, that any example can be brought, wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so used. And in all these examples that you have brought, it signifieth rather prae, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than propter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as your vulgar translator observeth the difference, 2. Mac. 5. verse 27. translating prae superbia, and propter elationem mentis. But Beza requireth an example of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that may answer to the vulgar Latin, pro reverentia. For who would translate in Saint Matthew, 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pro gaudio, propter gaudium, or secundum gaudium, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pro dolore, and so of the rest, but of these, let Beza himself give account. As for these tedious grammatications, which you confess to have been fit to be handled in Latin, it seemeth you uttered in English, for that of many ignorant, you might be thought to bring some great learning out of the Hebrew and Greek tongues against us, whereas the learned, if you had written in Latin, of other nations, as well as ours, might have been witnesses of your fond trifling, and quarreling against our translations. As for the necessary cause you pretend, that the unlearned may ask them that have skill in Greek, is very ridiculous. For neither can they have at hand always such as be able to resolve them, neither if they be of your faction▪ will they ask any indifferent man's judgment, but only such as will avouch before the ignorant, that all which you writ, is good and perfect.    

MART. 44. And we beseech them to give us a good reason, why they professing to follow precisely the Greek, do not observe truly the Greek points, in such place as concerneth this present controversy. For the place in the Apocalypse, which they allege of our Saviour Christ's suffering from the beginning (thereby to infer that the just men of the old Testament might enter heaven then, as well as after his real and actual death) according to the Greek points, saith thus, All that dwell upon the earth, shall worship him▪ (the beast) whose names have not been written in the book of life of the Lamb slain, from the beginning of the world. Where it is evident, that the Greek text saith not, the Lamb slain from the beginning, but that the names of those Antichristian Idolaters were not written in Gods eternal book of predestination, from the beginning, as it is also most plain without all ambiguity, in the 17. chapter, v. 8. If in a place of no controversy they had not been curious in points of the Greek, they might have great reason sometime to alter the same.  

FULK. 44. How feign would you obscure the light of that excellent testimony, even contrary to your own vulgar Latin translation? that you might not have such a faithful witness against your Limbus patrum? You require a reason, why we keep not the Greek points, Apoc. 13. I answer, we keep those points, which the most ancient written copies have, which the Complutensis Edify hath, and which the best Greek prints now have. If you would know a reason why we follow not them that point otherwise▪ I answer you, the composition of the words, is against that pointing. For except Saint john had meant that the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world, he would not have placed those words, from the beginning of the world, next to those words, the Lamb which is slain, but next the word written. And therefore Aretus that could not understand how the lamb was slain from the beginning of the world is forced to imagine Hyperbaton in this text, where none needeth, the sense being good and plain without it, as the words do lie. Whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb, that hath been slain since the beginning of the world. And although it be true, that the names of the Antichristian Idolaters, were not written in Gods eternal book of predestination, from the beginning, as it is said Apoc. 17. v. 8. Yet is that no reason, why this also should not be true, that the lamb was slain since the beginning of the world, seeing without violence you can not distract 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the lamb slain whom it doth immediately follow.    

MART. 45. But if in points of controversy between us, they will say, divers pointing is of no importance, they know the contrary by the example of ancient heretics, which used this mean also to serve their false heretical purpose. If they say, our vulgar Latin sense pointeth it so, let them profess before God and their conscience, that they do it of reverence to the said ancient latin text, or because it is indifferent, and not for any other cause, and for this one place we will admit their answer.  

FULK. 45 We say that wrong pointing may greatly alter the sense, but good composition and placing of words in a sentence is a good rule to direct pointing, where it is either lacking, or falsely signed. We refuse ●ot the testimony of the vulgar Latin, where it agreeth with the truth of the Greek or Hebrew, yea before God & our consciences, we reverence it, as a monument of some antiquity, from which we neither do, nor are willing to dissent, except the same dissent from the original text. Otherwise the truth of this assertion, that Christ was slain from the beginning of the world, hath not only testimony of the ancient fathers, but also may be confirmed out of the Scripture. For by the obedience of Christ Saint Paul Rom. 5. teacheth that many are justified, meaning all the elect of God, who except Christ's death had been effectual to them, before he suffered actually on the cross, must have gone, not into Limb● patrum, but into hell Diabolorum, which is the place appointed for all them that are not justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption of Christ jesus, whom God before hath set forth, to be a propitiatory in his blood, Rom. 3. v. 24. etc. The title of this chapter threateneth a discovery of heretical translations against Purgatory especially: but in the whole discourse thereof, which is shameful long one, containing 45. sections, there is not one place noted against Purgatory, Amphora coepit institui, curren●e rota cur urceus exit?     

CHAP. VIII.  
Heretical translation concerning JUSTIFICATION.  

Martin.  
ABout the article of justification, as it hath 
1.  many branches, and their errors therein be manifold, so are their English translations accordingly many ways false and heretical. First, against justification by good works and by keeping the commandments, they suppress the very name of justification in all such places where the word signifieth the commandments or the Law of God, which is both in the old and new Testament most common and usual, namely in the books of Moses, in the Psalm 118. that beginneth thus, Beati immaculati: in the Psalm 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 Greek signifieth justices and justifications most exactly, according as our vulgar latin 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  translateth, iustitias & iustificationes: there the English translations say jointly & with one consent, ordinances, or, statutes. For example, Rom. 2. If the uncircumcision keep the ORDINANCES 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of the law, shall it not be counted for circumcision? And Luc. 1, 6. They were both righteous before 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  God, walking in all the commandments and ORDINANCES of the Lord, blameless. Why translate 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  you it ordinances, and avoid the term, justifications? is it because you would follow the Greek? I beseech you is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, just, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be justified, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, justifications or justices? In the old Testament you might perhaps pretend, that you follow the Hebrew word, and therefore there you translate, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  statutes, or ordinances. But even there also, are not the seventy Greek interpreters sufficient to teach you the signification of the Hebrew word: who always interpret it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in English, justifications?  

Fulke.  
THese matters were driven so thin in 
1.  the first chapter, that you shall sooner press out blood, than any more probable matter. For the old Testament, which we translate out of the Hebrew, you yourself do set forth our answer, that we give the English of Chukim, when we say, ordinances, or statutes, and not 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which of the Septuaginta is used in the same sense for precepts, and commandments, as you yourself confess cap. 1. sect. 50. that very often in the Scripture it signifieth commandments. But the Septuaginta, you say, are sufficient to teach us the interpretation of the Hebrew word, who always interpret it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If they had always interpreted it so, it is not sufficient to teach us: then there needed none other translation, but according to theirs, then must you departed from your vulgar translation, which in many things departeth from them. But where, you say they always interpret the Hebrew word Chukim, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is false. For Exod. 18. v. 20. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  they translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Praecepta, which your vulgar translation calleth Ceremonias, ceremonies, as it doth also Gen. 26. v. 5. where the Septuaginta translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: by which you see, that justification, is not always the English for the Greek word, which the Septuaginta do use. Also Num. 9 v. 3. for Chukoth they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the law, which the vulgar Latin calleth 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Ceremonias, ceremonies, and for the Hebrew word Misphatim, they give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, comparation, the vulgar 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Latin justification, by which you may see, how your translator useth even the Latin word, that you make so much a do about. Likewise in the fourteenth verse of the same Chapter, the Septuaginta translate Chukath, twice together 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that which the vulgar Latin calleth justification of the passover, the Greek calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the order of the paschal, Deut. 4. your vulgar Latin turneth Chukim, thrice Ceremonias, ceremonies. And 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Deut. 5. twice, and Deut. 6. twice, Deut. 7. once, and so commonly almost in every chapter. But in the chap. 11. v. 32. the Greek for Chukim hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  as in the beginning of the chapter, he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Latin in both Ceremonias, ceremonies. By which it is evident what the Greeks and Latins meant by those words. chap. 20. for this Hebrew word, and in an other the Greek hath nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commandments. So hath he 1. Reg. 2. v. 3. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commandments. Also 1. Reg. 8. v. 58. for Chukim, he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  for Misphatim, he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he hath it twice in the next verse, where Solomon prayeth that God will defend his cause, and the cause of his people Israel, as the cause shall require. More examples might I bring, but for tediousness, to convince the bold rashness of this quarreler, but these may suffice all indifferent Readers: and answer sufficiently for us, within the new Testament, we translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordinances, or statutes, seeing it is proved, both by the Septuaginta which calleth the same Hebrew word, not only justifications, but often commandments, statutes, precepts, judgements, & by the vulgar Latin Interpreter, which commonly calleth it ceremonies or precepts.    

MART. 2. But be it, that you may control them in the Hebrew, which none but fools will grant unto you: in the new Testament, what pretence have you? do you there also translate the Hebrew word, or rather the Greek? the Greek undoubtedly you should translate. What reason then can you have, why you do not? none other surely, than that which Beza giveth for himself▪ saying, that he rejected the word, justifications, (notwithstanding it expressed the Greek, word for word, notwithstanding the seventy Greek Interpreters, used it to signify the whole law, and in Latin it be commonly translated, iustificationes,) notwithstanding all this, for 
Annot. in 1. Lu●.  this only cause (saith he) did I reject it, to avoid the cavillations that might be made by this word, against justification by faith. As if he should say, This word truly translated, according to the Greek, might minister great occasion to prove by so many places of scripture, that man's justification is not by faith only, but also by keeping the law, and observing the commandments, which therefore are called according to the Greek and Latin, justifications, because they concur to justification, and make a man just, as by S. Luke's words also is well signified, which have this allusion, that they were both just, because they walked in all the justifications of our Lord. Which they of purpose suppress by other words.  

FULK. 2. None but fools considering what I have brought of the usage of that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will judge that it signifieth only justifications: and all wise men may see that we have good warrant to translate it otherwise in the Greek Testament, where it must needs have an other signification. The concurrence of works with faith to justification before God, which the Apostle doth exclude. Rom. 3. we may not admit. But justification by works, as Saint james teacheth, we do acknowledge. I hope you will not say, that your Latin translator against justification by works, translated the word so often ceremonies, or that ceremonies of the law do concur to justification by faith. The commandments in deed are called justifications, because the works of the law, if a man keep it wholly, are able to justify. Not that every ceremony or observation of any piece of the law, is a justification, ●or maketh a man just: which you may better say, upon the etymology of the word, than that every particular observation of the law, or good work, doth concur with faith unto justification.    

MART. 3. And hereof also it riseth, that when he can not possibly avoid the word in his translation (as Apoc. 19 8. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Bissinum enim iustificationes sunt sanctorum, The silk is the justifications of Saints:) there he helpeth the matter with this commentary, That justifications, are those good 
Beza Annot. in Apoc. 19  works which be the testimonies of a lively faith. But our English translators have an other way to avoid the word even in their translation. For they say here, the righteöusnes of Saints: because they could not say, ordinances of Saints: and they would not say, justifications of Saints: knowing very well (by beza's own commentary) that this word includeth the good works of saints: which works if they should in translating call their justifications, it would go sore against justification by only faith. Therefore do they translate in steed thereof, ordinances, and, statutes, where they can, which are terms furthest of from justification: and where they can not, there they say, righteousness, making it also the plural number, whereas the more proper Greek word for righteousness is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Dan. 6, 22.) which there some of them translate unguiltiness: because they will not translate exactly, if you would hire them.  

FULK. 3. When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apoc. 19 are translated iustificationes, they signify just works, as I have already proved the signification of the word to bear, beside that it is so used by Aristotle in his Ethics, who of justification before God (whereof we speak) understood never a whit. Therefore, if in steed of righteousness, which is the singular number, it were translated righteous or just works, it were not amiss in mine opinion. Although by righteousness in that place, is nothing meant, but good or righteous works, as beza's note doth tell you. 
Bib. of the year 1577. most approved.     

MART. 4. And therefore as for, justice, and, justifications, they say righteousness: so for, just, they translate, righteous. and by this means, joseph was a righteous man, 
Mat. 1. 19  rather than a just man: and Zacharie and Elisabeth were 
Luc. 1. 6.  both righteous before God, rather than just: because when a man is called just, it soundeth that he is so in deed, and not by imputation only: as a wise man, is understood to be wise in deed, and not only so imputed. Therefore do they more gladly and more often say, righteous men, rather than, just men, & when they do say, just men, as sometime they do lest they might sleme wilful inexcusably: there they understand, just by imputation, & not in deed, as is to be seen in beza's Annotations upon the Epistle to the Romans. Note also that they put the word, just, when faith is joined withal, as Rom. 1. The just shall live by faith, to signify that justification is by faith. But if works be joined withal, and keeping the commandments, as in the place alleged Luc. 1. there they say, righteous, to suppress justification by works.  

FULK. 4. This is a marvelous difference, never heard of (I think) in the English tongue before, between just & righteous, justice & righteousness. I am sure there is none of our translators, no nor any professer of justification by faith only, that esteemeth it the worth of one hair, whether you say in any place of Scripture just or righteous, justice or righteousness: and therefore freely they have used sometimes the one word, sometimes the other. Therefore, it is a monstrous falsehood, that you fain them to observe this distinction, that they join just with faith, and righteous with works. Do they not translate Rom. 2. ver. 13. the hearers of the law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Have you not again, the righteousness of God is made manifest without the law etc. by the faith of jesus Christ. And where you read the just shall live by faith, have you not immediately, the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the just shall live by faith? Who then but the Devil, which hath his name of slandering, would here invent a distinction of just and righteous?    

MART. 5 And certain it is, if there were no sinister meaning, they would in no place avoid to say, just, justice, justification, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justum est. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Non enim iniustus est Deus.  where both the Greek and Latin are so, word for word, as for example. 2. Tim. 48. In all their Bibles▪ Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of RIGHTEOUSNESS, which the Lord the RIGHTEOUS judge shall GIVE me at that day. And again 2. Thess. 1. Rejoice in tribulation which is a token of the RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God for which ye suffer. For it is a RIGHTEOUS THING with God, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you: and to you that are troubled, rest with us, in the revelation of our Lord JESUS from heaven. And again Heb 6. 10. God is not VNRIGHTEOUS to forget your good work and labour, etc. These are very pregnant places to discover their false purpose in concealing the word, justice, in all their Bibles. For if they will say, that justice is not an usual English word in this sense, and therefore they say, righteousness: yes I trow, just, and unjust, are usual and well known. Why then would they not say at the least, in the places alleged, God the JUST judge, A token of the JUST JUDGEMENT of God, It is a JUST thing with God, God is not VNIVST to forget & c? Why is it not at the least in one of their English Bibles, ●eeing so both in Greek and Latin?  

FULK. 5. Certain it is, that no Englishman knoweth the difference between just and righteous, unjust & unrighteous, saving that righteousness & righteous are the more familiar English words. And that we mean no fraud between justice and righteousness, to apply the one to faith, the other to works, read Rom. 10. v. 34. 5. and 6. of the Geneva translation, where you shall see, the righteousness of the law, & the righteousness of faith. Read also against this impudent lie, in the same translation Luc. 1. Zacharie and Elizabeth were both just. Cap. 2. Simeon was just. Matthew the first, joseph a just man; and else where often times, and without any difference in the world, from the word righteous. Who ever heard a difference made, between a just judge and a righteous judge, this trifling is too too shameful abusing of men's patience, that shall vouchsafe to read these blotted papers.    

MART. 6. Understand gentle Reader, and mark well, 
The Scriptures most evident for justification, by works, against only faith.  that if S. Paul's words were truly translated thus, A crown of JUSTICE is laid up for me▪ which our Lord the JUST judge will RENDER unto me at that day, and so in the other places: it would infer, that men are justly crowned in heaven for their good works upon earth, and that i● is God's justice so to do, and that he will do so because he is a just judge, and because he will show his JUST JUDGEMENT, and he will not forget so to do, because he is not unjust: as the ancient fathers (namely the Greek doctors S. Chrysostom, Theodorete, 
Psal. 57 Si utique est fructus justo, utique est Deus iudicans eos in terra.  and Oecumenius upon these places) do interpret and expound. In so much that Oecumenius saith thus upon the foresaid place to the Thessalonians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. See here, that to suffer for Christ procureth the kingdom of heaven according to JUST JUDGEMENT, and not according to grace. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Which lest the Adversary might take in the worse part, as though it were only God's justice or just judgement, and not his favour or grace also. S. Augustine excellently declareth how it is both the one and the other: to wit, his grace and favour and mercy, in waking us by his grace to live and believe well, and so to be worthy of heaven: his justice and just judgement, to render and repay for those works which himself wrought in us, life everlasting. Which he expresseth thus: How should he render or repay as a just judge, unless he 
Aug. de gra. & lib. arb. ca 6.  had given it as a merciful father? Where S. Augustine urgeth the words of repaying as due, and of being A JUST JUDGE therefore. Both which the said translators corrupt, not only▪ saying, righteous judge, for, just judge: but, that he will give a crown, which is of a thing not due, for that 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which is in the Greek, He will render or repay: which is of a thing due and deserved, and hath relation to works going before, for the which the crown is repaid. He said not (saith Theophylacte upon this place) he will give, but, he will render or repay, as a certain de●te. For he being just, will define and limit the reward according to the labours. The crown therefore is due debt, because of the judges justice. So saith he.  

FULK. 6. What so ever you may cavil upon the words just and justice, you may do the same, with as great advantage, upon the words righteous and righteousness. That God as a just judge rewarde●● good works, of them that are justified freely by his grace, by faith without works, with a crown of justice, it proveth not either justification by works, or the merit or worthiness▪ of men's works, but all dependeth upon the grace of God, who promiseth this reward of his mere mercy, and of the worthiness and merits of Christ, which is our justice, whereby we being justified before God, our works also, which he hath given us, are rewarded of his justice, yet in respect of Christ's merits, and not in respect of the worthiness of the works. Again, God is not unmindful of his promise, to reward our works, for than he should be unjust: he is just therefore to perform what so ever he hath promised, though we nothing deserve it. Neither hath Chrysostom, or Theodorete, any other meaning. That you cite out of Oecumenius a late writer in comparison, is blasphemous against the grace of God, neither is S. Augustine, that lived 500 years before him, a sufficient interpreter of his saying, to excuse him. With Augustine we say, God 
In psal 70. & in Psal. 101.  crowneth his gifts, not our merits. And as he acknowledgeth God's mercy, and also his justice, in rewarding our works, so do we. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated he will give, I confess it had been more proper, and agreeable to the Greek, to have said, he will render, or repay, which yet is wholly of mercy in respect of us, or our deserving, but of justice in respect of his promises, and of Christ's merits, unto which is rendered, and repaid, that which he deserved for us. The crown therefore is due debt, because it is promised to us for Christ's sake, not because any works of ours are able to purchase it.    

MART. 7. Which speeches being most true as being the express words of holy Scripture, yet we know how odiously the Adversaries may and do misconstrue them to the ignorant, as though we challenged heaven by our own works, and as though we made God bound to us. Which we do not, God forbid. But because he hath prepared good works for us (as the Apostle saith) to walk in 
Ephe. 2. v. 10.  them, and doth by his grace cause us to do them, and hath promised life everlasting for them, and telleth us in all his holy Scriptures, that to do them is the way to heaven▪ therefore not presuming upon our own works as our own or as of ourselves, but upon the good works wrought through God's grace by us his silly instruments, we have great confidence (as the Apostle speaketh) and are assured that these 
Heb. 10.  works proceeding of his grace, be so acceptable to him; that they are esteemed and be worthy and meritorious of the kingdom of heaven. Against which truth, let us see further, their heretical corruptions.  

FULK. 7. If you would abide by your first protestation▪ we should not need to contend much about this question. But after you have in the beginning magnified the grace and mercy of God, and abased your own merits, you come back again with a subtle compass, to establish your own free will, the worthiness of your works, and your merit of the kingdom of heaven. First, you say God telleth us in all his holy Scriptures, that to do good works, is the way to heaven. In deed to fulfil the law, is to deserve heaven. But who so ever is guilty of sin, must seek an other way, than by good works to come to heaven, namely to jesus Christ, who is the only way to heaven, the truth, and the life, by whose blood, when he is purged from his sin, and reconciled unto God, and the kingdom of heaven purchased for him, than he hath the way of good works appointed him to walk in, toward the same. Secondly, you say you presume not upon your own works, as your own, or as of yourselves, but upon the good works wrought by God's grace, by you his silly instruments, you have great confidence. Thus while you would seem to fly from Pelagia●isme, you fall into flat Pharisaism. For you trust that you are righteous in yourselves, though not as of yourselves. Such was the Pharisee of whom Christ telleth the parable, which 
Luc. 18.  ascribing all his works to the grace of God, had confidence in them, that he was just before God by them. God I thank thee (saith the Pharisee). He acknowledgeth the grace of God, as author of all his works: yet against such as he was, Christ telleth that parable. And whereas you call the Apostle, Heb. 10. to witness of your error, you do him great wrong, for he speaketh not of any confidence to be had upon good works, wrought by the grace of God by us: but in the new covenant of remission of sins, by the sacrifice of Christ's death, by whom we have access to God, that we may be acceptable to him, not for any meritorious works wrought by us, but by the only oblation of his body once for all, by which he hath made perfect for ever, those that are sanctified.     

CHAP. IX.  
Heretical translation against MERITS, or MERITORIOUS WORKS, and the REWARD for the same.  

Martin.  
WHen they translate (Rom. 8. 18.) thus, I 
Bib. 1577.  am certainly persuaded, that the afflictions of this time, ARE NOT WORTHY OF THE GLORY which shall be showed upon us: do they not mean to signify to the Reader, & must it not needs so sound in his ears, that the tribulations of this life, be they never so great, though suffered for Christ, yet do not merit nor deserve the heavenly glory? but in the Greek it is far otherwise. I will not stand 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  upon their first words, I am certainly persuaded, which is 
I suppose.  a far greater asseveration, than the Apostle useth, and I marvel how they could so translate that Greek word, but that they were disposed, not only to translate the Apostles words falsely against meritorious works, but also to avouch and affirm the same lustily, with much more vehemency of words, than the Apostle speaketh. Well, let us pardon them this fault, and examine the words following. Where the Greek 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Non sunt condignae ad futuram, gloriam. S. Chrysostom upon this place.  saith not, as they translate with full consent in all their English Bibles, The afflictions are not worthy of the glory, etc. but thus, The afflictions of this time, are not equal, correspondent, or comparable to the glory to come. because the afflictions are short, the glory is eternal: the afflictions small and few, in comparison, the glory great and abundant above measure.  

Fulke.  
ALthough an invincible argument against 
1.  merits, and desert of good works, may be drawn out of this text, yet the meaning of the translators is to show, no more, than the Apostle saith, that the heavenly glory is incomparably greater, than all the tribulations of this life. And this the Apostle speaketh, not doubtingly, as our english word (I suppose) doth signify, when a man may be deceived in his supposel, but he avoucheth it constantly, as a thing, which being well considered, with the reasons thereof, he concludeth of it with certainty. And so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify in this place, and in diverse other, by the judgement of better Grecians, than Gregory Martin will be these seven years, as Rom. 3. 28. where the Apostle having discussed the controversy of justification by faith, or works, concludeth, as of a certainty, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. we determine therefore, that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. Likewise, Rom. 6. v. 11. after he hath proved, that sanctification is necessary to all them that shall▪ or have put on the justice of Christ, he saith with great asseveration unto the Romans, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Make you full account therefore, that you are dead to sin, & not uncertainly think or suppose it so to be. Therefore for the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this place, we will accept no pardon of you, it is better translated than your wit or learning serveth you to understand. Now let us come to the other words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are not worthy of the glory. Where you say, it should be not equal, correspondent, or comparable, to the glory. Verily those words we use, have none other sense in this place, than the words which you supply us withal, but our words do express the most usual signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, even as your vulgar Latin doth, calling it in the same sense condignae, which you in your own translation dare not render, equal, correspondent, or comparable, but condign: lest following the sense, you might be accused to forsake the word, even so we think it best, where the usual signification of the word will bear the sense in our English, to retain the same, and not to change it.    

MART. 2. This is the Greek phrase and the Apostles meaning, which we need not greatly to prove, because their own Doctors Calvin, and Beza, do so interpret it, and therefore wonder it were, that the Geneva English Bibles also should forsake their masters, and follow the error of the other English Bibles, but that they thought the more voices the better. In the mean time, the people s●eth no other translation, and thinketh it is the Apostles very words. But Beza himself kelleth them the contrary, translating thus: Statuo minimè esse paria quae praesenti tempore perpetimur, futurae gloriae nobis revelandae, that is, I am of this opinion, that the things which we suffer in this present time, are not equal to the glory that shall be revealed to us. And in his commentary, thus, S. Paul's discourse and matter handled in this place, declare, that he speaketh not of the valour or price of the afflictions which we suffer for Christ, but rather by comparing their quality, and quantity, with life everlasting, he gathereth that we shall be infinitely more happy with Christ, than we are miserable here. Therefore did he use the▪ Greeke word rightly, and properly, which 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Grammarians say is spoken of such things, as being poised or weighed, are found of one weight. Thus far Beza.  

FULK. 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 prove therefore, that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth not signify worthy, or that this English word worthy, can not express the meaning of the Apostle in this text, your accusation is just, but if you can prove neither of both, you multiply words, as your manner is, without matter, to no purpose, but to weary the Reader. And wisely you translate▪ beza's Latin word Statuo, I am of opinion, which signifieth more truly, I determine, or as our translation hath, I am certainly persuaded, and not, I am of an opinion, whereof there is no certain knowledge, for an opinion may be false, and is of uncertainties.    

MART. 3. If then a comparison only be signified, why do 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 should say in English, according as they translate, Good works are not worthy of heaven, this man is not worthy of my favour, he is not worthy of such a living, of so great praises: every English man understandeth it thus, that they deserve not heaven, and that such a man deserveth not this or that. Even so must the Reader needs take it in this place, & they must needs have intended that he should so take it. For 
Prou. 3.  though the Greek phrase may signify a comparison, being so 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  uttered, yet not the English. And if it might, yet obscurely, and ambiguously: and if it might, yet here they do falsely translate so, because here the Greek phrase is otherwise, and therefore should otherwise be englished▪ For it is not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is, as they translate, worthy of the glory: but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which can not be so translated. For if it might, than these Greek phrases were alone, and might be used indifferently. And then I must desire them to turn me this into Greek, He is not worthy of thanks. And if they turn it by the Apostles phrase in this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to all Grecians they shall be ridiculous. And yet this is as well turned out of English into Greek, as they have turned the other out of Greek into English.  

FULK. 3. Verily I can not see, nor any wise man else, I think, what this English word, worthiness, doth signify, but a comparison of equality in price, valour, goodness, excellency, or such like. And even in those English phrases, that you bring for example: Good works are not worthy of heaven, the meaning is. There is not an equality of excellency in good works and heaven: or good works compared to heaven, are not equal in valour. And even so: this man is not worthy of my favour. The goodness of this man, is not so great, as the goodness of my favour. And so of the rest. And where you say, every English man understandeth it thus: that they deserve not heaven, and such a man deserveth not this, etc. I grant they may of worthiness gather desert, in such as may deserve, and so may they of the comparison of equality, conclude desert in the like case. For to deserve, is by doing, to make himself equal in good or evil to that reward, or punishment which is valued with such doing. Therefore whether you say worthy, or equal, it is all one. And in this text▪ by either of both, merit or desert is necessarily excluded. For if the heavenly glory be incomparably greater, than the afflictions of this life, it followeth of necessity, that the afflictions of this life deserve not, that is, make not an equality of excellency with heavenly glory. But the Greek phrase (you say) is otherwise, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not joined with a Genitive case, but with an Accusative, and a Preposition: In deed this later construction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not so usual, and doth more fully set forth the comparison, but the same also is set forth by the Genitive case, as you yourself can not deny. Now our English phrase would not bear, that we should say, worthy to the glory, & therefore we said worthy of the glory. But if that were good, you say, the Greek phrases were all one, and might be used indifferently. I see no great difference between the Greek phrases, and yet it followeth not, that they may be used indifferently. For unusual phrases are not to be used as indifferently, as common phrases. And therefore your example of turning English into Greek, is not all one, with turning Greek into English. If I translate our of Greeke into English, I must observe the English phrase, as near as I can, and so if I translate into Greek, must I have respect to the usual Greek phrase. And to speak of your ridiculous translation, out of English into Greek. I think he that should say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for worthy of thanks, should deserve no great commendation. But he that should say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for worthy of the king's favour, though it be no usual phrase▪ I see not why he should be ridiculous. And if you should translate these words into English, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Would you not, or might you not translate it thus? Nero was not worthy of the kingdom. Therefore we have not done amiss, to translate, worthy of the glory.    

MART. 4. Marry, if they would express a comparison of equality or inequality between thing and thing, than this is the proper Greek phrase thereof, and much more proper for this purpose, than by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and a Genitive case. Which notwithstanding 
The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth a comparison. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is often so used in Scriptures by way of comparison, as Proverb. 3. concerning the praise of wisdom. Where S. Augustine to express the comparison, readeth thus, Omne pretiosum non est illi dignum: and S. Jerome according to the Hebrew thus, Omnia quae desiderantur non valent 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  huic comparari. or, adaequari. and Eccles. 26. we have the very like speech proceeding of the said Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Omnis ponderatio non est digna continentis animae. Which the English Bibles thus, There is no weight to be compared unto a mind that can rule itself. or, with a continent mind.  

FULK. 4. You can not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but it will include a comparison, whether it be with a Genitive case, as in the examples you bring, or with an Accusative, as in this text of S. Paul. And even so the English word (worthy) doth comprehend an equality in good or evil. Wherefore the sense is all one, whether you say in this text equal or worthy: but that the usual signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is worthy, as no man will deny, that is not past all shame.    

MART. 5. And if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a genitive case signify a comparison, and themselves so translate it in all their Bibles, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  should not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostles phrase much more be so translated? I appeal to their own consciences. Again, if here in Ecclesiasticus they say not according to the Greek words, There is no weight worthy of a continent mind, because 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  they would by an English phrase express the comparison: is it not more than evident, that when they translate the Apostle by the very same words, Worthy of the glory, etc. they know it can not, and they mean it should not signify a comparison? I can not sufficiently express, but only to the learned & skilful reader, their partial and heretical dealing. Briefly, I say, they translate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Not to be compared with a continent mind, being in Greek word for word. Not worthy of a continent mind: and contrariwise they translate in S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Not worthy of the glory to come, being in the Greek, Not to be compared to the glory to come. according to the very like Latin phrase by dignus, Eccl. 6. Amico fideli nulla est comparatio, & non est DIGNA ponderatio auri & argenti CONTRA BONITATEM FIDEI, that is, according to their own translation, A faithful friend hath no peer, weight of gold and silver is not to be compared to the goodness of his faith.  

FULK. 5. If the English word (worthy) did not signify a comparison▪ as well as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it were somewhat that you say, but seeing one signifieth as much as the other, there is no more savour in your disputation, than in an egg without salt. When we say, there is no weight of gold to be compared to a continent mind, it is all one, as if we said, worthy of a continent mind, for we meant, to be compared in goodness, price, excellency, etc. And therefore you speak out of measure falsely, & impudently, when you say, we mean not that the word (worthy) in this text of S. Paul, should signify a comparison, for it is not possible that it should signify otherwise. Doth not the Geneva note in the margin say, or of like valour. If you be so blind, that you can not see a comparison in the word worthy, at the least shore up your eyes, and behold it in those words of like or equal value. For all comparison is either in quantity or quality. And where you say, that you can not express your conceit, but only to the learned, there is none so meanly learned, but they may well laugh at your foolish and unlearned trifling.    

MART. 6. Now if they will say, though their translation of Saint Paul's words be not so exact and commodious, 
How good works merit life everlasting, though one incomparably exceed the other.  yet the sense and meaning is all one (for if these present afflictions be not equal or comparable to the glory to come, than neither are they worthy of it, nor can deserve or merit it) let the Christian Reader mark 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 Saviour suffered all his life, were not comparable to the eternal glory which he obtained thereby: yet did he thereby deserve and merit eternal glory, not only for himself, but for all the world: yea by the least affliction he suffered, did he deserve all this. Unless you will deny also that he merited and deserved his glory, which your opinion a man might very well gather by some of your false translations, but that you would 
* Heb. 2. ●. in the new Testament of the year 1580. & Bib. 1579.  think us too suspicious, which perhaps we will examine hereafter. Thirdly, the present pleasure of adultery during a man's life, is not comparable to the eternal torments of hell fire: and yet it doth merit and deserve the same. Fourthly, the Apostle by making an incomparable difference of the glory to come with the afflictions of this time, doth (as Saint Chrysostom saith) 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  exhort them the more vehemently and move them to sustain all things the more willingly: but if he said as they translate, The afflictions are not worthy of heaven, you are never the nearer heaven for them, only believe: this had not been to exhort 
●. Cor. 4. v. 17.  them, but to discourage them. Fiftly, the Apostle when he will else where encourage them to suffer, sayeth plainly, Our tribulation which presently is for a moment and light, WORKETH above measure exceedingly, an eternal 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  weight of glory in us.  

FULK. 6. We say our translation, both in word, and sense, is the same in English, that S. Paul did write in Greek. As for the argument, against merit, or desert which doth follow thereof, we affirm that it is as necessarily gathered of the words equal, or comparable, or correspondent, as of the word, worthy. But to overthrow this argument, you have five reasons. The first is of the authority of Beza, and Caluine, which you say telleth us, that the Apostle speaketh of the one, and not of the other. To this I answer, that they both affirm the consequence against merits out of this text, although it be not the Apostles direct purpose, to abase the merit of works, by comparison of the excellency of the glory. To your second argument, I answer, that though the afflictions that Christ our Saviour suffered, were not comparable in respect of the length of time, with the eternal glory that he obtained thereby: yet in respect of the excellency of his person, and the perfection of his obedience, they were comparable, and of equal value tó deserve eternal glory according to the justice of God, by which one man's disobedience was sufficient, to eternal condemnation, Rom. 5. What the least of his afflictions, separated from all the rest, was in valour, I have not learned out of the Scripture, only I think, he suffered nothing superfluously,▪ nor less than was needful to answer the justice of God. Your other fond surmises, I omit, until you express them. To your third argument, I say, that one act of adultery is worthy of damnation, and deserveth eternal torment, not by comparison of the short pleasure, with infinite pain: but because it is a sin committed against the majesty of the eternal God: and therefore is worthy of eternal punishment. For the sin is to be measured after the excellency of the person, against whom it is committed. Therefore that word▪ which being spoken against a poor man, is a light fault, as to say he is a knave, the same being spoken against a Lord, is an heinous offence, and deserveth the pillory, hut being spoken against a King, is high treason, and is worthy of death. Seeing therefore the eternal majesty of God is contemned in every sin, that sin doth justly deserve eternal torments. Fourthly, it is true, that the Apostle doth exhort us cheerfully to abide the small and momentary afflictions of this life, in respect that they shall be rewarded with incomparable glory. But hereof it followeth not, that the glory is deserved, by short and small sufferings, but is given of the bountiful liberality of God, to them that for his sake patiently suffer such small afflictions. Therefore, if it be an encouragement for a man to labour, to hear that he shall be paid his hire, as much as his work deserveth: it is a much greater encouragement for him to hear, that he shall receive a thousand times more, than his labour deserveth. The words you add, (you are never the nearer heaven, only believe) are yours, and none of ours: for we say with the Apostle, we must suffer with Christ, if we will reign with him, and the patiented suffering of the faithful, is nothing repugnant to the justification before God, by faith only. To the last argument of the Apostles authority, I answer, our patiented suffering worketh infinite weight of glory, not by the worthiness, merit, or desert of our suffering, but by the bountiful liberality of God, who hath promised so incomparable reward, to small tribulation, suffered for his sake. Wherefore all your five reasons notwithstanding, our translation is sound and true.    

MART. 7. See you not a comparison between short and eternal, light tribulation, and exceeding weighty glory: and yet that one also worketh the other, that is, causeth, purchaseth, and deserveth the other? For, like as the little seed being not comparable to the great tree, yet causeth it and bringeth it forth: so our tribulations and good works otherwise incomparable to eternal glory, by the virtue of God's grace working in us, worketh, purchaseth, and causeth the said glory. For so they know very well the Greek word importeth: though here 
See this Greek word, 2. Cor. 7. thrice. Where themselves translate it, causeth▪ worketh, v. 10. 11.  also they translate it most falsely, prepareth. Bib. an. 1577.  

FULK. 7. We see the comparison well, but we see not, that worketh or causeth, is all one with purchaseth and deserveth. Your comparison of seed, and tribulation, is not like. For in the seed is the formal cause of the great tree, so is not the formal cause of eternal glory in our tribulation. But as if an Emperor for one days valiant service in war, do give unto his son one of his kingdoms, we may truly say, that days service wrought him this great reward, or caused him to be advanced to this kingdom: but we can not say truly, it purchased or deserved a kingdom: for then every one that served as well as he deserved the like reward: so is the reward of eternal life, which is the gift of God, incomparably greater than our tribulation, not by the desert of the sufferer, but by liberality of the giver. That translation, that useth the word of preparing, is not so proper, according to the word, but it differeth not much in sense, showing how those afflictions do work, or cause, namely by preparing, & making us conformable to the sufferings of Christ.    

MART. 8. Lastly, for most manifest evidence, that these present tribulations and other good works are meritorious and worthy of the joys to come, though not comparable to the same: you shall hear the holy Doctors say both in one passage or sentence. S. Cyprian thus: O what manner of day shall come, 
Ep. 56. nu. 3. Singulorum met rita.  my brethren, when our Lord shall recount the MERITS of every one, and pay us the reward or stipend of faith and devotion? Ep. 56. here are merits and the reward for the same. It followeth in the said Doctor, What glory shall it be, and how great joy, to be admitted to see God, so to be honoured that thou receive the joy of eternal life with Christ thy Lord God, to receive there that which neither eye hath seen, nor ear hath heard, nor hath ascended into the heart of man, for, that we shall receive greater things, than here either we do, or suffer, the Apostle pronounceth, saying, The passions of this time are not condign or comparable to the glory to come. Here we see, that the stipend or reward of the merits aforesaid, are incomparably greater than the said merits.  

FULK. 8. For lack of Scriptures, you fly to the Doctors, to find merits, in whom nevertheless being Catholic, and sound Doctors, you shall sooner find the word Meritum, than your meaning of it. The place of Cyprian, I marvel why you geld, except it be to join the reward that he speaketh of, with the word merits, which he useth, either generally for works, as it is often used in the ancient writers: or if he mean thereby deserts, he speaketh but of examination only of all men's deserts, that he may give to the wicked that they have deserved, and to the godly that which he hath promised, therefore he calleth it the reward of their faith and devotion. His words are these: O diesille qualis & quantus advenies, fratres dilectissimi, cum caeperit populum suum dominus recensere, & divinae cognitionis examine singulorum meritum recognoscere, mittere in gehennam nocentés & persecutores nostros, flammae paenalis perpetuo ardore damnare, nobis verò mercedem fidei & devotionis exoluere. O that day what manner a one and how great shall it come, my dearest beloved brethren, when the Lord shall begin to recount his people, and by examination of his divine knowledge consider the merits of every one, to send into hell fire the guilty, and to condemn our persecutors with perpetual burning of penal flame? but unto us to pay the reward of faith and devotion. The reward of faith is not that which belief deserveth: but which it looketh for, according to God's promise, whereunto it leaneth. For in respect of desert of God's favour, he saith, and bringeth diverse texts for proof: Fidem tantum prodesse & tantum nos posse quantum credimus. That 
Ad Quirin. lib. 1. ca 42.  faith only doth profit, and that so much we can do, how much we believe. Wherefore, we see not in Cyprian the incomparable glory to be a reward of deserts.    

MART. 9 Likewise S. Augustine: The exceeding 
Ser 37. de Sanctis.  goodness of God hath provided this, that the labours should soon be ended, but the rewards of the MERITS 
Praemia meritorum.  should endure without end: the Apostle testi fying, THE PASSIONS OF THIS TIME ARE NOT COMPARABLE etc. For we shall receive greater bliss, than are the afflictions of all passions what soever. Thus we see plainly, that short tribulations are true merits of endless glory, though not comparable to the same: which truth you impugn by your false and heretical translation. But let us see further your dealing in the self same controversy, to make it plainer that you bend your translations against it, more than the text of the Scripture doth permit you.  

FULK. 9 A man may see you are driven to extreme shifts, when you will seek Praemia meritorum, in S. Augustine, & can find it no where, but among the Sermons de sanctis, which bear no credit of Augustine's works: but of some later gatherer. The true Augustine in Ps. 70. Con. 1. thus writeth. Nihil es per te, deum invoca, tua peccaia sunt, merita dei sunt, supplicium tibi debetur▪ & cum praemium venerit, sua dona coronabit non merita tua▪ Thou art nothing by thyself, call upon God, thine are the sins, the merits are Gods, to thee punishment is due, and when the reward shall come, he will crown his gifts not thy merits. Finally Augustine in nothing is more earnest than in denying the reward which is of grace, to be due in respect of merit or worthiness of works.    

MART. 10. In the book of wisdom, where there is honourable mention of the merits of Saints and their rewards in heaven, you translate the holy Scripture thus: God hath 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dignos se. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  proved them, and findeth them MEET FOR HIMSELF. To omit here that you use the present tense, whereas in the Greek they are preter tenses (God knoweth why, only this we know, that it is no true nor sincere translation) but to wink at smaller faults, why say you here in all your Bibles, that God findeth his Saints and holy servants meet for himself, and not, worthy of himself? See your partiality, and be ashamed.  

FULK. 10. The book of wisdom written by Philo the jew, as S. Jerome thinketh, is no holy Canonical Scripture, to confirm the credit of any article of belief. Therefore whether he thought that men's merits were worthy of the favour and grace of God, & the reward of eternal life, or no, it is not material. But somewhat it is that you say, that our translators for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have not translated worthy, but meet. For my part, I wish they had retained the usual signification of that word, and said worthy of himself, only to take away your cavil. For otherwise in the sense, there is no difference, if that he saith be true, none is meet for God, but they that are worthy of him, which are not meet or worthy of themselves, but made such by grace, not for merit of their works, but by the righteousness of Christ, imputed to them by faith. This if the wiseman meaneth not, but that their virtues were such as deserved God's favour and eternal life, we may boldly reject him, as going against the wisdom of God revealed in the Canonical Scriptures.    

MART. 11. In the Apostles places before examined, you said negatively, that the afflictions of this time were NOT WORTHIS OF the glory to come, the Greek not bearing that translation: but here, when you should say affirmatively, and that word for word after the Greek, that God found them WORTHY OF HIMSELF, there you say, MEET 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  FOR HIMSELF, avoiding the term, worthy, because merit is included therein. So that when you will in your translation deny merits, then condignae ad, signifieth worthy of: 
Condignae ad gloriam.  when you should in your translation affirm merits, than Dignus with an ablative case doth not signify, worthy of. No 
Dignosse.  marvel if such wilfulness will not see the word merit, or that which is equivalent thereto, in all the Scripture. For when you do see it, & should translate it, you suppress it by another word. But this is a case worthy of examination, whether the Scripture 
Merit of good works plainly proved by the Scriptures.  have the word, merit, or the equivalent thereof▪ For we will force them even by their own translations, to confess that it is found there, and that they should translate it accordingly often when they do not, yea, that if we did not see it in the vulgar Latin translation yet they must needs see it and find it in the Greek.  

FULK. 11. In the Canonical Scripture it seemeth the translators had a religious care, to keep both the property of the words, and the true meaning of the holy Ghost. In the Apocryphal books, they had a wise consideration, to translate them according to the best meaning, that their words would bear. Now whether you say, worthy of God, or meet for God: you must understand this meetness, or worthiness, to be of grace, and not of merit: or else the saying is blasphemous against the grace of God. For merit is not necessarily included in worthiness. The King's son is worthy to succeed his father▪ by right of inheritance, not by merit of virtue always. A stranger may be worthy of the kings service▪ which never deserved the king's entertainment but for such good qualities, as are in him. But after this tedious trifling, it would somewhat awake our spirits▪ if you could (as you threaten in the margin) prove the merit of good works plainly by the Scriptures: either by the word merit, which you can never do, or by any thing that is equivalent unto it: and to force us by our own translations to confess, that it is found there, if not in the vulgar Latin yet in the Greek.    

MART. 12. First when they translate the foresaid place thus, The afflictions of this time are not worthy of the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  glory to come: they mean this, deserve not the glory to come, for to that purpose they do so translate it, as hath been declared. Again, when it is said, The workman is worthy of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  his hire or wages: What is meant, but that he deserveth his 
Dignus mercede s●●a.  wages? And more plainly Tob. 9 they translate thus: Brother 
Non ero cōdignu● providentiae.  Azarias, if I should give myself to be thy servant, I shall not DESERVE thy providence. And such like. If then in these places, both the Greek and the Latin signify, to be worthy of, or, not to be worthy of▪ to deserve, or, not to deserve: then they must allow us the same signification and virtue of the same words in other like places. Namely Apoc. 5. of our saviours merits, thus: The lamb that was 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  killed, IS WORTHY to receive power, and riches, etc. What is that to say, but, DESERVETH to receive? For so I trust they will allow us to say of our Saviour, that he in deed deserved. Again, of the damned, thus: Thou hast given them blood to drink, for they ARE WORTHY, 
Apoc. 16.  or, THEY HAVE DESERVED. is it not all one? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  lastly of the elect, thus: They shall walk with me in white, because they are worthy, Apocal. 3. that is, because they deserve it. And so in the place before by them corrupted, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Digni sunt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dignos se.  God found them worthy of him: that is, such as deserved to be with him in eternal glory. Thus by their own translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and dignus, are plainly deduced, worthiness, desert, and merit of saints, out of the Scriptures.  

FULK. 12. Your first foundation is false, therefore all your building falleth to the ground. For when we translate that text thus: The afflictions of this time, are not worthy of the glory to come, we mean not thus: deserve not the glory to come, but even as you do, they are not equal or comparable: but thereof it followeth, that they deserve not, for to deserve, is to do a thing equal unto the reward: the afflictions be not equal, therefore they deserve not. But when it is said the workman is worthy of his hire, we acknowledge that he deserveth his wages, yet we should not do well to translate it, that he deserveth his hire: because worthiness may be where there is no desert. Gold is worthy to be esteemed before silver, and yet there is no merit, or desert of gold, if we speak properly. That of Tob. 9 is not in the Greek, but in some Bible's translated out of Latin according to the usual phrase of English, rather than to the property of the word, where it is said Apoc. 5. The Lamb, that was killed, is worthy to receive power, and riches, though we will not contend of the deserts of Christ, yet we may be bold to say, that in respect of the godhead, he was worthy of all honour and glory from everlasting, before he had created any thing: and therefore worthiness doth not always import desert, as no worthiness doth no desert. Likewise, when it is said of the wicked, Apoc. 16. they are worthy to drink blood, it is true, that they deserved that plague, because their cruel works were justly recompensed with that punishment: but yet some may be worthy of their punishment, that have not deserved it. The son of a traitor, is worthy to bear the punishment of his father's attainder; yet he hath not always deserved it by his own deeds. Therefore it is not all one: they are worthy, and they have deserved. The infants of the reprobate, as soon as they have life▪ are worthy of eternal damnation, and yet they have not deserved the same, by their own deeds. Therefore where it is said of the elect, They shall walk with me in white, because they are worthy, it is not meant, that they have deserved by their own works, to walk with Christ: but because they are made worthy by Christ, who hath given them grace, not to defile their garments, who also shall give them the reward of white garments, that is, of innocency, which no man can deserve, because no man is clear from sin, but only by forgiveness of sins, in the blood of Christ. Therefore you have performed nothing less, than your promise, which was to prove the equivalent of merit, out of the Scripture, and to force us, by our translation, to confess the same. Fos worthiness doth not always argue or enforce desert▪ as desert doth worthiness, worthiness being a more general word, than merit or desert.    

MART. 13. But to proceed one step further, we prove 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify desert.  it also to be in the Scriptures, thus. Themselves translate thus, Heb. 10. 29. Of how much sorer punishment shall he be worthy, which treadeth under foot the son of God? though one of their Bibles of the year 1562. very falsely and corruptly, leaveth out the words, worthy of, saying thus. How much sorer shall he be punished▪ etc.: Fearing no doubt by translating the Greek word sincerely, this consequence that now 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  I shall infer, to wit, If the Greek word here, by their own translation, signify to be worthy of, or, to deserve, being spoken of pains and punishment deserved: then must they grant us the same word so to signify elsewhere in the new Testament, when it is spoken of deserving heaven, and the kingdom of God. as in these places, Luc. 21. Watch therefore▪ all 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  times praying, that you MAY BE WORTHY to stand before the son of man. and, c. 20. THEY THAT ARE WORTHY to attain to that world, and to the resurrection from the dead, neither mary, nor are married. and, 2. Thess. 1. That you may BE WORTHY 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of the kingdom of God, for which also ye suffer.  

FULK. 13. You think to have great advantage at our translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 10. shall be worthy: which is true according to the sense, but not so proper for the word, which signifieth rather to be judged, or accounted worthy, whether he be worthy in deed, or not. And so it should have been translated, if the nature of the word had been exactly weighed. But the translators looked rather to the purpose of the Apostle, which is by all means to terrify such contemners and backeslyders, of whom he speaketh. The Greek word therefore doth not signify to deserve, but to be judged worthy, although it is true, that those of whom the Apostle there speaketh, deserved extreme pains of damnation. And even so it signifieth in all other places, as Luc 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they that shall be counted worthy to attain to that world. and, Luc. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that you may be counted worthy and, 2. Thess. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that you may be counted worthy. And so the word doth signify in other places, without controversy, as Luc. 7. the Centurion said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I accounted not myself worthy. and, 1. Tim. 5. The Elders that govern well, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let them be counted worthy of double honour. For it is the imperative mode, therefore it is a fault in our translations, to make it the indicative. For we can not say, let them be worthy, or let them be made worthy: but let them be judged, reputed, or accounted worthy.    

MART. 14. Thus you should translate in all these places, according to your translation of the former place to the Hebrews: or at the leastwise you should have this sense & meaning, as the old vulgar Latin hath, translating in all these places, counted worthy, but meaning worthy in deed: as when 
Quidigni habebuntur. Vt digni habeamini.  it is said, Abraham was reputed just, it is meant, he was just in deed. If you also have this meaning in your translations, which here follow the vulgar Latin: then we appeal to yourselves, whether, to be counted worthy, and to be worthy, and to deserve, and to merit, be not all one: and so here also Merit is deduced. But if you mean according to your heresy, to signify by translating. counted worthy, that they are not in deed worthy: then your purpose is heretical, and translation false, and repugnant to your translating the same word in other places, as is declared, and now further we will declare.  

FULK. 14. I have showed you how we should translate that word in any place▪ wheresoever it is red, even as the vulgar Latin hath in the places by you noted▪ and in those three texts, Luc. 20. 21. 2. Thess. 1. We mean not falsely counted worthy, but worthy in deed, as when it is said, that Abraham was reputed just, we acknowledge that he was truly so reputed, and that he was just in deed. But where you appeal to our consciences, whether to be counted worthy, and to be worthy, and to deserve, and to merit, be not all one. I answer you plainly▪ and according to my conscience, they be not. But even as Abraham was reputed just, and was just in deed, not by desert, but by faith, so in those three texts, the faithful are counted worthy, and are worthy in deed, not by their merit, and desert, but for jesus Christ's sake. For herein your heresy is greatly deceived, to imagine, that he which is just by Christ, by faith, or by imputation, is not truly just, or not just in deed. For Christ, faith, and imputation, are not contrary, or opposed to truth, but to merit or desert of the party, that is just by Christ, by faith, or by imputation, and so we say of them that are accounted worthy for Christ's sake, and not for their own merits.    

MART. 15. They whom God doth make worthy, they 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make worthy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made, or to be worthy. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  are truly and in deed worthy: are they not? but by your own translation of the same word in the active voice, God doth make them worthy. Therefore in the passive voice it must also signify to be made, or to be in deed worthy. For example, 2. Thess. 1, 11. You translate thus, we also pray for you, THAT OUR GOD MAY MAKE YOU WORTHY of this calling. According to which translation, why did you not also in the self same chapter, a little before, translate thus: That you MAY BE MADE WORTHY (and so be worthy) of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the kingdom of God, for which also you suffer? You know the case is like in both places, and in the Greek Doctors you specially▪ should know (by your ostentation of reading them in Greek) that they according to this use of holy Scripture, very often use also this word, both actively and passively, to make 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  worthy, and, to be made, or, to be worthy. See the Greek Liturgies.  

FULK. 15. They must needs be worthy, whom God maketh worthy: but then are they not worthy by their merits or deserts, but by his grace in jesus Christ, & so our translators mean, when they say, 2. Thess. 1. 11. that our God may make you worthy of this calling, although the clearer translation had been, that God may account you worthy, as the vulgar Latin hath, ut dignetur. For dignor is not to make worthy, but to vouchsafe, or to account worthy. Wherefore, you do vainly here snatch at a word, contrary to the meaning, both of the translator, and of the text. For those whom God maketh worthy, are not worthy by their desert, but by his grace accepting them. How the Greek Doctors use the word, it is not now the question, but how it signifieth in the Scripture: although I see not how you prove that the doctors use it, to make worthy, or to be made worthy by desert.    

MART. 16. Which Saint Chrysostom, to put all out 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of doubt, explicateth thus in other words, That he make us worthy of the kingdom of heaven. Ser. 1. de orando Deo. And upon the Epistle to Titus cap. 3. in the same sense passively, God grant we may all BE MADE WORTHY 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (or be worthy) of the good things promised to them that love him. And in an other place of the said Doctor it must needs signify, to be worthy▪ as when he sayeth, In Colos. 1. No man liveth such a trade of life, that he is worthy 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of the kingdom, but all is his gift. For to say thus, No man so liveth that he can be counted worthy of the kingdom of heaven: is false, is against the Protestants own opinion, which say they are counted worthy, that are not. Again, to say, No man so liveth that he can be made worthy: is false, because God can make the worst man worthy. It remaineth then to say, No man so liveth that he is worthy. Which a little before he declareth thus, No man by his own proper 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  merits obtaineth the kingdom of heaven, that is, as his own, and of himself without the grace of God. And yet we must show further out of the Scriptures, that God maketh us worthy, and so we are in deed worthy, and here also we must convince you of false and partial interpretation.  

FULK. 16. Saint Chrysostom 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 having mercy upon us all, will make us worthy of his kingdom. Where you might have seen, if you had not been blind with frowardness, that God maketh us worthy, by his mercy, not by our merits. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his prayer upon the 3. to Titus is taken to be made worthy, rather than to be accounted worthy, you have no proof, but your own authority: although for God to make worthy by his mercy, & to account worthy, is all one in effect. The third place▪ in Epist. ad Col. cap. 1. is altogether against you. Where he saith, no man liveth such a trade of life, that he may be judged or accounted worthy of that kingdom, but all is the gift of God. Is not his meaning plain, that no man can be accounted worthy by works or merits, but altogether by the grace and gift of God?  
With this distinction therefore which is plain, even by those words which you cite, that Chrysostom maketh, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without any inconvenience▪ may signify in this place, to be accounted worthy. No man by his own proper merits obtaineth the kingdom of heaven (saith he) but even as a lot is rather by hap & chance, so it is here: meaning that God giveth his kingdom no more according to man's deserts, than lots do fall to men by chance, which yet God disposeth, as it pleaseth him. Finally, the whole discourse of the Doctor being against man's merits, using the word in the same place so often of God's dignation, vouchsafing or accounting worthy, you had great scarcity of examples out of the Doctors, that bring this place to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to be made worthy by merit, and not by mere mercy.    

MART. 17. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (I pray you) what doth it signify ● you must answer that it signifieth not only, meet, but also, worthy. For so Beza reacheth you, and so you 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  translate Mat. 3. 11. & cap. 8. & 1. Cor. 15. 9 I am not worthy, in all three places. And why (I pray you) did you not likewise follow the old Latin interpreter one step further, saying, Giving thanks to God the father THAT HATH MADE US WORTHY, but translating rather thus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Col. 1. v. 12.  Which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light. Here was the place where you should have showed your sincerity, & have said that God maketh us worthy of heavenly bliss. Because you know if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be worthy, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make worthy. But you are like to Beza your Master, who (as though all interpretation of words were at his commandment) sayeth, here and here and so forth I have followed the old Latin interpreter, translating 
Annot. in 3. Mat. no. Test. 1556.  it, worthy: but in such and such a place (meaning this for one) I choose rather to say, MEET. But that both he & 
Idoneum dicere malui.  you should here also have translated, worthy, the Greek fathers shall teach you, if we be not worthy▪ or able to control so mighty Grecians, as you pretend to be when you crow upon your own dunghill, otherwise in your translations showing small skill, or great malice.  

FULK. 17. If you be not able to draw merit out of word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifieth worthy: you shall have somewhat a do to wring it out of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifieth, apt, or meet, and sometime sufficient, according to which later signification, Beza in three places translateth dignus, because sufficiens is no Latin word in that sense to be used. But now you ask, why we went not a step further▪ to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Collos. 1. v. 12. which hath made us worthy. I answer you, first there is no reason that a word which hath diverse significations, should always be translated after one. Secondly, when a word hath one most usual signification, and two or three other significations not so usual: by translating it once or twice according to the sense of the place, after one of the best usual significations, we are not bound to give over the most common and usual signification, when the sense of the place requireth it. Thirdly, when a verb is derived of a noun that hath diverse significations, it signifieth most commonly after the most usual signification, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometime signifieth cheap, we must not thereof conclude, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to make cheap. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth sometime great, or much, you may as well say, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth to magnify, to make great, or to multiply: which none but a mad man would say: and yet you think you have made a great argument, when you say, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be worthy, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make worthy. It remaineth therefore, that seeing the most usual signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is apt or meet, the true and best signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is to make apt or meet, which we have followed in our translation. But if you will still contend that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than you must tell us, as you require us often, whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be as good Greek, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if you would say, worthy of death. Beza therefore followeth not his pleasure, where he chooseth to say, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Idoneum, but the nature of the word, and the usual signification thereof▪ compared with the sense of the place. And if we should follow your vulgar Latin translation, and say, that God hath made us worthy to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, you are never the narre for your merits. For God maketh us worthy by his grace, and by the righteousness and holiness of Christ, which is imputed to us being incorporated to him, and made lively members of his mystical body. How vainly you charge the translators, with bragging, unskilfulness, and malice, they that are learned can judge, and God will one day revenge it.    

MART. 18. The Greek fathers (I say) interpret the 
Oecum. in Caten.  Apostles word here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that is, hath made us worthy, and given us the grace to be worthy. And S. Basil in orat. Liturg. making both Greek words all one, saith, thou HAST MADE US 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  WORTHY to be ministers of thy holy altar. And anon after, MAKE US WORTHY for this ministery. And Saint Chrysostom upon the Apostles place. God doth not only give us society with the Saints, but maketh us also worthy to receive so great dignity. And here is a goodly consideration of the goodness of God toward us, that doth in deed by his grace make● us worthy of so great things, who otherwise are most unworthy, vile, and abject. Which making of us worthy, is expressed by the said Greek words, more than by the Latin, mereri, because it declareth whence our merit and worthiness proceedeth▪ to wi●, of God. Both which S. Chrysostom expresseth excellently, thus: 
Ho. de Cruse & latrone.  When he brought in Publicans to the kingdom of heaven, he defamed not the kingdom of heaven, but magnified it also with great honours, showing that there is such a Lord of the kingdom of heaven, which hath made 
Vt etiam illius d●gnitatis gloriam merer●ntur.  even unworthy persons to be so much better, that they should deserve even the glory of that dignity. And Oecumenius saith, that it is God's glory, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  TO MAKE HIS SERVANTS WORTHY of such good things: and that it is their glory, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  TO HAVE BEEN MADE WORTHY of such things, in 2. Thess. 1.  

FULK. 18. If the Greek fathers did so interpret the Apostles words, yet your merit is to seek, as I have said. For I will not contend, whether God make us worthy, but whether he make us worthy by desert of our good works, or by his mercy, & grace, in the redemption of his son. But let us see what the fathers say to the matter. First Oecumenius words are flat against you, if they be truly translated, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he hath counted us worthy, and hath freely granted unto us to be meet. See you not, that all our worthiness and meetness dependeth of his grace, and free acceptation? The Liturgy entitled of basil, although it have a much younger author, maketh never a whit more for you. The minister prayeth that God would account him worthy, or make him meet for the ministery. And if you should in both places translate, that God maketh worthy, you can not prove merit thereby: but contrariwise it soundeth against merit, for God maketh us not worthy by our deserts, but by the worthiness of Christ. Chrysostom also, as I have showed before upon this place, doth utterly condemn your opinion of merits, for he saith, Such are the things that are given, that he hath not only given them, but also made us able to receive them. Again, he hath not only given us the honour, but also strength to embrace it. What is our strength? what is our ability, to receive the gifts of God, but faith in the merits of Christ? The place of Chrysostom, Hom. de cruse & latrone, is not be be understood of deserving by works, but by the grace of God, and remission of their sins, which maketh men meet and worthy of his glory: as the example of the Publican, justified only by remission 
Luc. 18. Luc. 7.  of his sins, and of the harlot saved by faith, which he useth, doth plainly declare. And yet sanctification, and the fruits of good life, are not excluded from the persons justified, and saved, but only merit or desert of works, according to which, as the same Chrysostom saith, in ep. Col. 1. we must say, we are unprofitable servants, when we have done all that is commanded us. But this is no place, to handle controversies of religion, but translations of the Scripture. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, except you bring us better evidence, than yet we see any, in all places where we read it, we may translate it dignari, which is to vouchsafe, or account worthy.    

MART. 19 Thus we see how the holy Scripture useth equivalent words to signify, merit, which you suppress as much as you can. So likewise we might tell you of other words and phrases that do plainly import and signify merit. As when it is said Ecclesiastici 16. Every man shall find according to his works. Budee both your Master 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and ours in the Greek tongue, telleth us that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (to find) is properly to receive for that which a man hath given or laboured. And to require you with some profane authority, (because you delight much in that kind,) the whole oration of Demosthenes' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will tell you the same. Now, to receive for that which a man hath laboured or wrought, what doth it else presuppose, but merit and desert? 
Eccles. 16. Psal. 61. Apoc. 22.  It is a common phrase of the Scripture, that God will judge and reward or repay according to every man's works. Doth not this include merit and demerit of works? but I wot not how, nor wherefore, in this case you translate sometime, deeds, for works, saying▪ Who will reward every man according 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to his deeds. And again, You see then how that of deeds a man is justified, and not of faith only.  

FULK. 19 We do not yet see, that the holy Scriptures used any word aequivalent to merit, whereby it might be gathered, that we are justified or saved by merit of good works. But you have other words and phrases, that do plainly import and signify merit, as in Ecclesiasticus 16. every man shall find according to his works. Where you put us in mind, what our Master Budee writeth of the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, to deserve, bringing example therefore, out of Demosthenes' oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But I pray you, doth our said Master affirm this to be the only signification of that verb? Where he bringeth you the example out of Gregory, of Saul, which seeking his father's Asses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 found a kingdom, doth he mean that by seeking his father's Asses, he deserved a kingdom? Again, the example he bringeth out of Saint Luke, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou hast found favour or grace with God: doth he understand, that the virgin Marie deserved the grace of God? But you object, that it is a common phrase of the Scripture, that God will judge or reward, or repay to every man according to his works. It is true, but not to every one according to his merits, for then all should be damned, for all have deserved death: and no man should be saved, for no man meriteth salvation. But God rendereth to the faithful according to their works, when he freely giveth for Christ's sake eternal life to them, that by perseverance of good works (as the Apostle sayeth) seek glory, honour, and incorruption. Their works therefore, are the fruits of his grace. not the merits or deserts of his grace by which we are saved: Eph. 2. But here again you quarrel, that for works, we say sometimes deeds, as though they were not all one. Or if they be not, why do you, 1. Cor. 5. translate Qui hoc opus fecit, that hath done this deed.    

MART. 20. I know you will tell us that you use to say deeds or works indifferently, as also you may say, that you put no difference between just and righteous, meet and worthy, but use both indifferently. To the ignorant this is a fair answer, and shall soon persuade them: but they that see further, must needs suspect you, till you give a good reason of your doing. For, the controversy being of faith and works, of justice and justification by works, of the worthiness or valour of works: why do you not precisely keep these terms pertaining to the controversy, the Greek words being always pregnant in that signification? Why should you once translate the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deeds, rather than, works. You know it is properly, works, as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deeds. It were very good in matters of controversy to be precise. Beza maketh it a great fault 
Prefat. in no. Test. 1556.  in the old vulgar Latin translator, that he expresseth one Greek word in Latin divers ways. You chop & change significations here and there as you list, and you think you satisfy the reader marvelous well, if sometime you say idol, & not always, images: sometime just, and not always righteous: and if in other places you say works, or if one Bible hath works, where an other hath deeds, you think this is very well, and will answer all the matter sufficiently. God and your conscience be judge herein, and let the wise reader consider it deeply. The least thing that we demand the reason of, rather than charge you with all, is, why your Church Bible saith in the places before alleged. The righteous judgement of God, which 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  will reward every man according to his deeds. and, man is justified by deeds, and not by faith only. Whereas you know the Greek is more pregnant for us than so, & the matter of controversy would better appear on our side, if you said thus: The JUST judgement of God▪ which will reward every man according to his WORKS, and, Man is justified by works, and not by faith only.  

FULK. 20. If you could tell us what advantage our doctrine might have, by translating deeds rather than works, it might be suspected why some translations use the one, rather than the other: but seeing you can not imagine, nor any man else, what it should a●●ile us, to use the one rather than the other, it may be reasonably thought, that the translators meant no subtlety, especially when in places of like appearance for our assertion, they use the word deeds also. As Gal. 2. v. 16. A man is not justified by the deeds of the law, but by faith of jesus Christ, where the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as in S. James. But where you say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proper for deeds▪ you were best call the second book of S. Luke, The deeds of the Apostles. The fault that Beza findeth with the vulgar Latin translation is, that in diverse places, he translateth one word diverse ways, and them differing. For otherwise to translate for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes Gladius, & sometimes En●i●, it were no fault, no more than it is in us to use the words justice and righteousness▪ works and deeds, faith and belief, trust and confidence, etc. And you yourselves in such words do often use the same liberty.    

MART. 21. But will you not yet see merit and meritorious works in the Scripture? I marvel your skill in the Greek teacheth you nothing in this point. S. john saith: Look 
2. Epist. v. 8.  to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Me thinketh, in these words the equivalent of merit is easily seen of any man that is not wilfully blind. But you should see 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  further than the common sort. For you know that the Greek here signifieth▪ not only that which we work, but that which we work for. At in the Greek phrase of working for a man's living, and as you translats Io. 6. v. 27. LABOUR NOT FOR THE MEAT that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto life everlasting. Such 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  labourer's God hired to 
Mat. 20.  work in his vineyard, & 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the workman is worthy of his hire. So that the Apostle in the former words exhorteth to perseverance, 
Luc. 10.  that we lose not the reward or pay, for which we work and which by working we merit and deserve.  

FULK. 21. You far with us, as a merry fellow did with his friends, of whom Erasmus telleth, who affirming that he saw in the sky a fiery dragon, with often ask them if they did not see it, he induced them at length, every one to confess they saw it, lest they should have been thought to be purblind. But in good earnest, & in my conscience, I see no more merit in the Scriptures, than I did before. Yea I have this argument more, to persuade me that it is not found in the Scriptures, because the chiefest patrons thereof, having taken such pains to find it, are now as far from it, as ever they were. But to the matter, I say there is no merit included in the saying of S. john, although you rehearse it in the second person, after the vulgar Latin translation, and not after the Greek, which is in the first person, and may be referred to the reward of the Apostles, which shall be full, if they whom they have converted to the faith, do persevere unto the end. But make it as strong for your part as you can, the full reward is given according to the most bountiful promise of God, to our good works, of his mere mercy and grace, and not by desert of our works. And the parable of the labourers, whom God hired into his 
Math. 20.  vinyeard, declareth most evidently, that the reward is of grace, not of merit. For if it were of merit, they that came first early in the morning, should have received more, as their labour was greater, than they which came at the last hour. Where our Saviour Christ sayeth▪ the workman is worthy of his hire, he 
Luc. 10.  teacheth his Disciples, that they may lawfully take meat and drink of them to whom they preach, according to that common saying, or Proverb. But thereof it followeth not, that every one which worketh in God's vinyeard, is worthy for his works sake, and by desert of his labour, of eternal glory, for he promiseth greater reward to his workmen, a thousand fold and more, than their labour doth deserve▪ So that yet we see not, that we merit and deserve by working, although we receive reward for our work▪ or according to our works. unde mihi tantum meriti 
Ambros. ad virg. in exhor.  (saith a godly father) cui indulgentia est pro coron●? whence should I have so great merit when pardon or mercy is my crown.    

MART. 22. Again Beza telleth us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth 
Annot. in Ro. c. ●. v. 27.  mercedem quae meritis respondet, that is, a reward 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  answerable to the merits. And we find many words in the Scripture like unto this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
* Hebr. 10. & 11.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Which are on God's part, who is the rewarder▪ and recompenser. And on our part we have (as the Apostle 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Phor. apud Oecum. in Hebr. 10. Ps. 18. & 118. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saith, Hebr. 10. and 4.) great confidence, confidence (saith Photius a notable Greek father) of our works, confidence of our faith, of our temptations, of our patience, etc. Yea we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scripture, which must needs signify as much as beza's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the one, is said, In keeping thy commandments is great reward. Again▪ You shall receive THE RETRIBUTION of inherimunce. Col. 3. v. 24. And 2. Thessal. 1. v. 6. God's repaying just and reiribution of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Hell or Heaven for good and evil deser●es▪ is expressed by the same word. And by the other, is said, I have inclined my heart to keep thy justifications (or commandments) always FOR REWARD. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

FULK. 22. If you can find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scripture, you convince us of merit by beza's judgement. Therefore, tell us I pray you, in what book and chapter we shall find it. First you tell us, that you find many words like unto it. Yea, but neither the same, nor any that is aequivalent. For rendering of reward▪ which all your words do signify, may be according to promise by grace: and not by desert. The confidence of our works, that Photius speaketh of, must be understood as they are testimonies of God's sanctifying spirit, or else it is contrary to the Scripture. The parable told 
Luc. 18. & 17.  against them that trusted in themselves, that they are righteous, whereas we must confess, that we are unprofitable servants in all our obedience, and best works that we do. Yea but you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scripture, which must needs signify as much as beza's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Who will yield to this necessity? If a man promise a labourer 20. shillings for every days work, the rendering of this wages may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet no man will say, that a days labour deserveth twenty shillings. That there is great reward promised for them that keep Gods commandments, we confess: but this reward is either of merit, if they perfectly keep all God's commandments, which no man doth: or of mercy, if being justified by faith through remission of their sins, they endeavour according to the measure of God's grace, given unto them, to keep God's commandments in some part, as God giveth strength. In the testimony of S. Paul, the word of inheritance following immediately 
Coll. 3.  after the word of reward, or retribution, excludeth merits: for the inheritance dependeth of God's free adoption, by which he maketh us his sons, that he may give us that inheritance, which we can never deserve. In the other place the Apostle promiseth reward of glory, to them that suffer for Christ's name: which God having promised of his mere mercy to give us, and the same being purchased for us by the merits of our Saviour Christ: it is as just before God to render unto us, as to repay the wicked with eternal condemnation, according to their merits. So that the merits of Christ, and his satisfaction, plead for us in all rewards, and not the merits of our good works, which yet are not ours, but God's gifts in us. That you allege out of the Psalm, followeth afterward to be considered.    

MART. 23. But all this will not suffice you. For wheresoever you can possibly, you will have an evasion. And therefore in this later place you run to the ambiguity of the Hebrew word, and translate thus: I have applied my heart to fulfil 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  thy statutes always, EVEN UNTO THE END. Alas my masters, are not the seventy Greek Interpreters sufficient to determine the ambiguity of this word? is not S. Hierom, in his translation according to the Hebrew? are not all the ancient fathers both Greek and Latin? It is ambiguous (say you) and therefore you take your liberty. You do so in deed, & that like Princes. For in an other place, where the Greek hath determined, you follow it with all your heart, saying, fall down before his footstool, because he is holy: whereas the ambiguity 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  of the Hebrew, would have borne you to say, as in the vulgar Latin, because it is holy, and so it maketh for holiness of places, which you can not abide.  

FULK. 23. You need not be half so earnest, for the word of reward, in that verse of the Psalm, which we translate unto the end: for if it were granted unto you, that for which you make so much of it, the merit of good works will never be established by it. For reward, as I have often said, and plainly proved, doth not of necessity import the merit or desert of him that is rewarded: but often times the liberality & bountifulness of the rewarder, which for small labour giveth wonderful great reward. Now concerning the translation of this word yekebh, the seventy Interpreters, nor 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  yet S. Hierom, are sufficient to determine the ambiguity in this place, more than in an hundred other places, where our translations depart from their judgement. But it is still free for men of every age, to use the gift of knowledge, and interpretation of tongues, unto the exact finding out of the true meaning of the holy Ghost in the Scriptures. Neither do we join with them, only for advantage, as you fond charge us, but as I have showed you reason in the example you bring, so is there reason also to be showed, wheresoever we either join with them, or departed from them. Where you say, we can not abide holiness of places, it is false, for we do acknowledge the holiness of all places, which you can prove, that God hath sanctified, as he did the Ark, the temple, the tabernacle, etc.    

MART. 24. But you use (you say) the ambiguity of the Hebrew. Take heed that your liberty in taking all advantages, against the common and approved interpretation of the whole Church, be not very suspicious. For if it do signify also reward, as (you know) it doth very commonly, and yourself so translate it, (Psal. 18. v. 11.) when you can not choose: and if the Septuaginta do here so translate it in Greek, and 
* Propter aeternam retributionem sez. vitae aeternae, ut eam merear percipere. in comment.  S. Jerome in his Latin translation, according to the Hebrew, & the ancient fathers in their commentaries: what upstart new masters are you that set all these to school again, and teach the world a new translation? If you will say, you follow our own great Hebrician, saints 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 do not follow them in the self same case, a little before translating that very Hebrew word, which is in this place, propter retributionem, 
Psalm. 118. v. 112.  for reward? So that you follow nothing, neither 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  judgement, nor learning, in Hebrew or Greek, but only your own error and heresy, which is, that we may not do well in respect of reward, or, for reward, and therefore because the holy Prophet David said of himself the contrary, that he did bend his whole heart to keep God's commandments for reward, you make him say an other thing.  

FULK. 24. If saints Pagninus, Benedictus Arias, and Isidorus Clarius, be upstart new Masters in your judgement, because they depart here from the Septuaginta, and Saint Jerome, we poor men must look for small favour at your hands. But because you say we follow nothing, neither judgement nor learning, in Hebrew or Greek, but only our own error and heresy: I will set down the judgement of Isidorus Clarius, upon this place, who translateth it, as all the Hebritians of this age do, and yieldeth his reasons in these words. Inclinavi cor meum. \] Accommodavi animum meum, ut opere praestem praecepta tua, etc. I have inclined my heart. \] I have applied my mind, that in work or deed, I might perform thy commandments, even unto the end of my life. For that word, propter retributionem, for reward, the Hebrew words have not: and truly it is to be taken away, for it is too servile a thing, and not worthy of so great a Prophet, to give diligence to God's commandments for reward, and hope of retribution. For that is the part of an hireling, and of him which is unworthy the name of a son: neither can he be worthily called a Christian man, that serveth Christ with this mind. For what? if God should say so, that he would not reward us with any other retribution, seeing for this one thing, that we are created by him, we can never satisfy this debt, shall we refuse to serve him. Therefore we are bound to serve him with our whole mind, although he had decreed to thrust us into hell fire, both for that which we own him, and for that we live only that time which we bestow in well doing, for they which give over themselves to all wicked works, by no means can be said to live. Yet there may be an interpretation of the Hebrew words, without such offence, so that it may be said, for ever is the reward, as else where we read, in keeping of them is great reward. For by this means it is signified, that the fruit in deed of keeping God's law is very great, but yet that retribution is not the end and scope, but the love of God. Let all indifferent Readers judge by this, what just cause you have thus to rail, not only upon our translators, but also upon all learned Papists, that have translated even so. And let the ignorant judge, what knowledge you have in the Hebrew tongue, which urge the false translation of the seventy, against the opinion and translation of all the learned Hebritians of this age, both Papists and Protestants: although it were no hard thing to prove, that the Greek text of the Psalms, which now we have, is none of the Seventies' translation, as even 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 guess) that you make such a marvelous transposition of words in your translation, (Mat. 19) saying thus: When the son of man shall sit in the throne of his majesty, ye that have followed me in the regeneration, shall sit also upon twelve scates. Whereas the order of these words both in Greek and Latin, is this: You that have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in his majesty, you also shall sit upon twelve seats. To follow Christ in the regeneration, is not easily understood what it should mean: but to sit with Christ in the regeneration, that is, in the resurrection, upon twelve seats, that is familiar and every man's interpretation, and concerneth she great reward that they shall then have, which here follow Christ, as the Apostles did.  

FULK. 25. You look for faults very narrowly, that can espy but a comma wanting, although it be no impious sense to follow Christ in the regeneration; for the world by Christ was after a sort renewed, when the cause of the restoration thereof was performed, as for the reward, of which you have such a servile care, is expressed in sitting upon twelve seats, to judge the tribes of Israel. Wherefore there was no need, that you should fear the loss of your reward, by this transposition.    

MART. 26. The like transposition of words is in some 
No. Test. 1580.  of your Bibles (Heb. 2. v. 9) thus. We see JESUS crowned with glory and honour, which was a little inferior to the Angels, through the suffering of death. Whereas both in Greek and Latin, the order of the words is thus: Him that was made a little inferior to Angels, we see JESUS. through the passion of death, crowned with honour and glory. In this later, the Apostle saith, that Christ was crowned for his suffering death, and so by his death merited his glory. But by your translation, he saith that Christ was made inferior to Angels by his suffering death, that is (saith Beza) For to 
Vt mori posset.  suffer death: and taking it so, that he was made inferior to Angels, that he might die, than the other sense is clean excluded, that for suffering death he was crowned with glory: and this is one place among other, whereby it may very well be gathered that some of you think that Christ himself did not 
* See Caluine in epist. ad Philip.  merit his own glory and exaltation. So obstinately are you set against merits and meritorious works. To the which purpose also you take away man's free will, as having no ability to work toward his own salvation.  

FULK. 26. Whether we say, Christ was crowned for his suffering, or Christ was made inferior to the Angels through his suffering, the sense of either of both is good and godly, and may stand 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 us think, that Christ merited not his own glory, it is not worth a straw. We hold that Christ for himself needed not to merit, because he was the Lord of glory, but that he merited for us, to be exalted in our nature, for our salvation, it is so far off that we deny, that our whole comfort resteth in his merits, and in his glory, which he hath deserved for us, we hope to be glorified for ever. When you make your transition to the next chapter, you say, we take away man's free will, as having none ability to work, by which it seemeth, that you do not only allow to man the freedom of his will, but also power to work whatsoever he will: so that he shall not only have a free will, but also a strength by the same to work towards his own salvation.     

CHAP. X.  
Heretical translation against FREE WILL.  

Martin.  
AGAINST free will your corruptions be 
1.  these joh. 1. 12. where it is said, As many as 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God: some of 
No. Test. 1580.  your translations say, he gave them prerogative to be the sons of God. Beza, dignity. Who protesteth that whereas in other places often he translated this Greek word, power and authority, here he refused both, in deed against free will, which he sayeth the sophists would prove out of this place, reprehending 
Vt liceret filios Dei fieri.  Erasmus for following them in his translation. But whereas the Greek word is indifferent to signify dignity, or liberty, he that will translate either of these, restraineth the sense of the holy Ghost and determineth it it to his own fancy. If you may translate, dignity: may not we as well translate it, liberty? Yes surely. For you know it signifieth the one as well as the other both in profane and Divine writers. And you can well call to mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence they are derived, and that the Apostle calleth a man's liberty of his own will, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now than if potestas in Latin, 
●. Cor. 7. 17.  and power in English, be words also indifferent to signify both dignity and liberty, translate so in the name of God, and leave the text of the Scripture indifferent as we do: and for the sense whether of the two it doth here rather signify, or whether it doth not signify both (as no doubt it doth, & the fathers so expound 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 understanding, & to defeat the exposition of so many fathers, that expound it in another sense and signification. As is plain in this example also following.  

Fulke.  
SEeing you confess that the Greek 
1.  word signifieth not only power, but also dignity, and that in this place it signifieth both, it can be no corruption, but the best and truest interpretation, to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dignity, for that includeth power, whereas power may be severed from dignity. Where you would have us use a word, that is ambiguous, when the sense is clear by your own confession, you bewray your own corrupt affection, which desire to have the Scriptures so ambiguously or doubtfully translated, that the ignorant might receive no benefit of certain understanding by them. When a word hath diverse significations, a wise translator must weigh, which of them agreeth with the text in hand, & that to use: but not to seek ambiguous words, that may bring the matter in doubt, when the meaning to him is certain. As here you say, there is no doubt but it signifieth both, and yet you quarrel at our translation, which comprehendeth both, and urge the word of power, from which dignity may be severed, whereas from dignity, power or ability or licence can not be divided.    

MART. 2. The Apostle (1. Cor. 15. 10.) saith thus: I laboured 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of god with me. Which may have this sense, not I, but the grace of God which is with me, as S. Jerome sometime expoundeth it: or this, not I, but the grace of God which laboured with me. And by this later is most evidently signified, that the grace of God & the Apostle, both laboured together, & not only grace, as though the Apostle had done nothing, like unto a block, forced only: but that the grace of God did so concur as the principal agent with all his labours, that his free will wrought withal. Against which truth and most approved interpretation of this place, you translate according to the former sense only, making it the very text, and so excluding all other senses and commentaries, as your masters Caluine and Beza taught you, who should not have taught you if you were wise, to do that which neither they nor you can justify. They reprehend first the vulgar Latin interpreter for neglecting the Greek article, and secondly them that by occasion thereof, would by this place prove free will. By which their commentary they do plainly declare their intent and purpose in their translation, to be directly against free will.  

FULK. 2. S. Jerome favouring this translation of ours, as he doth in diverse places, lib. 2. advers. iovi. Gratia dei quae in me est, & lib. 2. advers. Pelag. & ad Principen. Gratia dei quae mecum est. The grace of god which is in me, or which is with me. I marvel why you count it among heretical corruptions, except you take S. Jerome for an heretic. By the later, you say it is signified, that the grace of God, & the Apostle both laboured together, although it be no proper speech to say, the grace of God laboureth, yet that you would have, is expressed before, where S. Paul saith, I have laboured more than they all, which none but a block would understand, that he was forced like a block. The grace of God useth no violence, but frameth the will of man to obedience and service of God. But that S. Paul had of himself no free will to perform this labour, but that it was altogether of the grace of God, which gave him this will, he confesseth more plainly, than that it can be denied, where he saith, Not I Whereby he meaneth, not that he was only helped by the grace of God, and did it not alone: but that he did nothing by his own strength, but altogether by the grace of God, which made him willing, which of nature was unwilling to set forth the Gospel, yea by froward zeal became a blasphemer and a persecuter thereof. Which grace gave him not only a will to promote the Gospel, but inspired him also with divine knowledge, by revelation, without study or hearing of other men: which gave him also strength to overcome so many difficulties, that no labour, nor travail, nor persecution, nor continuance of time, did make him weary, or faint in his labour. All this (I say) he doth ascribe wholly unto the grace of God. And this sense doth not make Paul a block, nor enforced by violence, but a willing, prompt, & painful labourer. But if you mean, that S. Paul had a free will, and strength of himself, which only was helped by the grace of God, then is your sense abominable Pelagianisme, heresy, worthy to be trodden under feet, by all Christians, and of Calvin, and Beza most justly reprehended, who are utter enemies to free will, that derogateth any thing from the grace of Christ, without whom we can do nothing: which text always 
john. 15. v. 5.  choked the Pelagians, and so doth it their half faced brethren, the Papists.    

MART. 3. But concerning the Greek article omitted in 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  translation, if they were but Grammarians in both tongues, they might know that the Greek article many times can not be expressed in Latin, and that this is one felicity and prerogative of the Greek phrase, above the Latin, to speak more briefly, commodiously, and significantly, by the article. What need we go to Terence, and Homer, as they are w●nt? Is not the Scripture full of such speeches? jacobus Zebedaei, jacobus Alphaei, judas jacobi, Maria Cleophae, and the like. Are not all these sincerely translated into Latin, though the Greek article be not expressed? Can you express the article, but you must add more than the article, and so add to the text, as you do very boldly in such speeches through out the new Testament, yea you do it when there is no article in the Greek: as Io. 5. 36. 
(witness) (sins.)  and 1. ep. Io. 2, 2. Yea sometime of an heretical purpose: as Eph. 3. By whom we have boldness and entrance with 
Bib. 1562.  the confidence which is by the faith of him, or, in him, as it is in other your Bibles. You say, confidence which is 
No. Test. 1580.  by faith, as though there were no confidence by works: you know the Greek beareth not that translation, unless there 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  were an article after, confidence, which is not, but you add it to the text heretically. as also Beza doth the like (Rom. 8. 2.) and your Geneva English Testaments after him, for the here sit of imputative justice: as in his annotations he plainly deduceth, saying confidently, I doubt not but a Greek article 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.)  must be understood, and therefore (for sooth) put into the text also. He doth the same in S. james, 2. v. 20. still debating the case in his annotations why he doth so, and when he hath concluded in his fancy, that this or that is the sense, he putteth it so in the text, and translateth accordingly. No marvel now, if they reprehend the vulgar Latin Interpreter, for not translating the Greek article in the place which we began to treat of, when they find articles lacking in the Greek text itself, and boldly add them for their purpose in their translation. Whereas the vulgar Latin interpretation is in all these places so sincere, that it neither addeth nor diminisheth, nor goeth one io●e from the Greek.  

FULK. 3. Concerning the omission of the Greek article, which Caluine and Beza reprove in the old translator, you make many words to no purpose: for they reprove him not for omitting it, where either it can not, or it need not be expressed, but in this place, where both it may, and meet it is, that it should be expressed. But we (you say) to express the article, do add more than is in the text: yet in truth we add nothing, but that which is necessarily to be understood, as when we say james the son of Zebedee, where you had rather say james of Zebedee, as though you were so precise, that for necessary understanding, you would not add a word to the text, & yet you do very often, yea sometimes where no need is. As Act. 8. where the Latin is Curaverunt Stephanum, you translate it, they took order for stephan's funeral. Doth Curare signify to take order for a funeral? So likewise Luc. 10. Paeniterent, they had done penance. But to answer for our own doings. Io 5. v. 36. where Christ saith, I have a greater witness, than john's witness, why may not the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be referred rather to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is of necessity to be understood, than to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the other place 1. john. 2. v. 2. the word sins, must needs be understood in the pronoun adjective ours. In the third text, where you accuse the translators of heretical purpose, the sense is all one, whether you add the article or no. For when the Apostle sayeth, by Christ we have boldness and entrance with confidence, by faith, how can you understand confidence by works, and whether there be confidence by works or no, there can none be proved by this place. Where Beza understandeth an article, Rom. 8. whom our English translation doth follow, it is only to make that plain, which otherwise is necessarily to be understood. For there is no difference between these sayings. The law of the spirit of life in Christ jesus, & this, The law of the spirit of life which is in Christ jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and death. The article or relative therefore declareth no more, but that the law of the spirit of life, is in Christ jesus, which delivereth us. For both the text saith, in Christ jesus, and it can not be in any other to deliver us. For he sayeth not, The law of the spirit of life in us, but in Christ jesus, and the next verse following doth manifestly confirm the same, as every man may see that will consider it. Likewise james the second, wilt thou know O thou vain man, that faith without works is dead? If you say, the faith which is without good works is dead, is not that the meaning of the Apostle? Where he addeth immediately, that Abraham was justified by such a faith, as was fruitful of good works. And when he bringeth example of devils faith, is it not manifest he speaketh of such a faith, as is utterly void of all good works? Where you say that Beza putteth the article into the text, and translateth it accordingly, you do most shamefully belie him. For to the original text, he addeth none of his own collection, but in his translation only, where he judgeth that according to the sense of the place, it must of necessity be understood: which if it be a fault in articles, it must be so in other words also, for like cause added. Then answer to your own translations, where beside those that I have noted before, which seem to proceed of some Popish purpose, you have added to your Latin authentical text. As in these examples, Mat. 8. Quid nobi● & tibi? what is between us? Cap. 9 Confided, have a good heart. Cap. 22. Mal● p●rdet. he will bring to nought. Marc. 2. Post dios, after some days. Accumberet, he sat at meat. Luc. 17. Ab illo, more than he. Io. 12. Discumbentibus, them that sat at the table. Non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum, not because he cared for the poor. Act. 9 Ecce ego Domine. Lo here I am Lord. cap. 10. gustare, to take somewhat, cap. 17. colentibus, that served God. Nobiliores eorum qui sunt Thessalonicae, more noble than they, that are at Thessalonica, Rom. 1. Vocatis sanctis, called to be Saints, etc.    

MART. 4. But you will say in the place to the Corinthians, 
Non ego, sed gratia Dei mecum.  there is a Greek article, & therefore there you do well to express it. I answer first, the article may then be expressed in translation, when there can be but one sense of the same: secondly, that not only it may, but it must be expressed, when we can not otherwise give the sense of the place. as Mat. 1, 6. Ex ea 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  quae fuit Vriae. Where you see the vulgar interpreter omitteth it not, but knoweth the force and signification thereof very well. Marry in the place of S. Paul which we now speak of, where the sense is doubtful, and the Latin expresseth the Greek sufficiently otherwise, he leaveth it also doubtful and indifferent, not abridging it as you do, saying, the grace of God which is 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  with me: nor as Calvin, gratia quae mihi aderat: nor as Illyricus, gratia quae mihi adest. Which two later are more absurd than yours, because they omit & neglect altogether the force of the preposition, cum, which you express saying, with me But 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  because you say, which is with me: you mean heretically as they do, to take away the Apostles cooperation and labouring together with the grace of God, by his free will: which is by the article and the preposition most evidently signified.  

FULK. 4. You take upon you to prescribe rules of translation, as though you were Prince of the Critici or Aerop●gitae. But all reasonable men will confess that the article is so often to be expressed, as it may, & maketh any thing to the sense, and understanding of the place. But as for your rule, that it is not to be expressed in translation, when there may be more senses than one of the same, is so good a rule, that by the same reason, and by equity thereof, when so ever any word cometh in the text, that may have more senses than one, we must skip it over, and not translate it at all, and so we shall leave out five hundred words in the new Testament. A better rule I take it to be, in all such cases, to examine what is most agreeable to the common phrase of the tongue, and the scope of the text in hand: according to which I say, the verb substantive is both more usual, and also more probable to be understood in this text 1. Cor. 15. than the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.    

MART. 5. And here I appeal to all that have skill in Greek speeches and Phrases, whether the Apostles words in Greek sound not thus: I laboured more abundantly 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God (that laboured) with me. Understanding not the participle of Sum, but of the verb going before, as in the like case when our Saviour saith, It is not you that speak, but the holy Ghost that speaketh in you. If he had spoken short thus, but the holy Ghost in you, you perhaps would translate as you do here, the holy Ghost WHICH IS IN YOU. But you see the verb going before is rather repeated, Not you speak, but the holy Ghost THAT SPEAKETH IN YOU. Even so, Not I laboured, but the grace of God labouring with me, or, WHICH LABOURED WITH ME. So prayeth the wise man Sap. 9, 10. Send wisdom out of thy holy heavens, that she may be with me, and labour with 
Et mecum laboret.  me as yourselves translate. Bib. 1577.  

FULK. 5. And I likewise appeal not only to all that have skill in Greek speeches and phrases: but to all them whose ears are accustomed to reasonable speaches, whether it be like that the Apostle would understand that participle, whereof (perhaps) there is no verb, for where shall we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Secondly whether he would understand the participle of an other verb adjective, than went before, for before he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thirdly, whether he were so desirous to set forth his own cooperation with the grace of God, that he would express it with two prepositions, one in apposition, the other in composition. Fourthly, whether he meant to attribute any thing to himself, when, as it were correcting that which he said of labouring, he saith, yet not I, but the grace of God. Fifthly, whether he purposed to challenge any merit of the labour to himself, or make his labour any thing separate or separable from the grace of God, when he said before, by the grace of God I am that I am. last of all whether his words being resolved, if this participle be added, they contain not a ridiculous tautology, or vain repetition. I have laboured more than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which laboured together with me hath laboured. To conclude in your example which you feign. Because you can find none to answer your fancy: if the words were as you suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we would and must if we did well, translate it thus. It is not you that speak but the holy Ghost. which is in you, and so understand, speaketh. The saying of Philo, or what so ever eloquent jew that was, which gathered that book of wisdom, is not of such importance, that we need to seek any interpretation thereof, although it is certain, that by wisdom, he meaneth not the Son of God, the wisdom of the Father, but divine knowledge and understanding, which is a gift of his spirit, whereof he speaketh by a rhetorical Prosopopoea, or fiction of person.    

MART. 6. And so the Apostle calleth himself and his fellow preachers, Gods coadjutors, collabourers, or such as 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, S. Augustine, Cooperarij. & 2. Cor. 6. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  labour and work with God, which also you falsely translate, God's labourers, to take away all cooperation, and in some of your Bible's most foolishly and peevishly, as though you had sworn not to translate the Greek, We together are Gods labourers. as well might you translate (Ro. 8, 17.) that we together 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  be Christ's heirs: for that, which the Apostle saith coheirs, or joint heirs with him: the phrase and speech (as you know) in Greeke being all one. So doth Beza most falsely 
Eph. 2. v. 5.  translate, una vivificavit nos per Christum, for that which is plain in the Greek, He hath quickened us together with Christ, Where the English Bezites leave also the Greek, and 
The English translators are ashamed of their Master.  follow our vulgar Latin translation rather than Beza, who goeth so wide from the Greek, that for shame they dare not follow him. Fie upon such hypocrisy and pretenced honour of God, that you will not speak in the same terms that the holy Scripture speaketh, but rather will teach the holy Ghost how to speak, in not translating as he speaketh. As though these phrases of scripture, men are Gods coadjutors, coworkers with his grace, raised with Christ, coheirs with him, compartakers of glory with him, were all spoken to the dishonour of God and Christ, and as though these being the speeches of the holy Ghost himself, needed your reformation in your English translations. Otherwise if you mean well, and would say as we say, that what so ever good we do, we do it by God's grace, and yet work the same by our free will together with God's grace as the mover and helper and director of our will: why do you not translate in the foresaid place of S. Paul accordingly?  

FULK. 6. S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 3, 9 that he and Apollo are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, joined together in the work and business of God, he saith not that they are helpers of God, for God needeth no help. A helper is of him that lacketh strength, which is blasphemous to say of God. Therefore even Faber Stapulensis (as Beza telleth you) reproveth that term adiutores, which your vulgar translator useth, and you yourself in favour of your heresy of free-will, do not translate, but fly to the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and say Coadjutors, which if you would express in English, signifieth fellow helpers of God. The word Cooperarij, which S. Augustine useth (as Beza also telleth you) may be referred to the joint labour of the ministers, in several offices of planting and watering. And although it be referred to God, that he as the Lord and Master, and they as the servants, altogether by his grace and strength, do work together, the sense is not evil, yet not proper for this place. Because the Apostle doth not here set out the dignity of the ministers, but abaseth their labour and submitteth all to God. For he had to do with them, that did attribute too much unto the ministers work, with whom it was unseasonable, to extol their labours, and make them coadjutors or fellow helpers of God. But contrariwise he ascribeth the fruit of all their labours to God, and to take away the Schisms that were among them, by depending of one minister more than an other, declareth that they altogether are Gods labourers, Gods husbandmen, etc. In the other place 2. Cor. 6. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is more proper to say; that the Apostles joined their labours unto Christ offering his grace, that it should not be received in vain. Where nevertheless the strength of man's free will, is not avouched, but the grace of God, who worketh by his ministers, giving them strength to labour, and fruit to their labours. next followeth an open outcry against Beza, for false translation, & our translators, for being ashamed to follow him. If we mislike beza's translation, are we by and by ashamed to follow him? And if his translation be false, as you affirm, and we ashamed to follow him in falsehood: do we deserve to be defied as hypocrites, because we prefer the truth before the credit of our master, as you call him. O how glad you are, when you have never so small an occasion to set abroad the sails of your railing, & reviling oration. But let us see, whether Beza deserve so much blame, as you charge him withal. Beza having translated (as he thought) most near to the Apostles meaning, Eph. 2. v. 5. in his annotation upon the place, thus writeth: Conuivificavit, etc. The vulgar, and Erasmus translate, he hath quickened us together with Christ, which sense I do in no wise reprehend. But yet nothing shall be detracted from the self same matter, and perhaps it may be said more aptly, that the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this place, is used rather to declare the uniting together of the Gentiles and jews in one Christ: after which manner, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to be builded together, is afterward used, verse 22. This is beza's judgement, not contrary to the common translation, and ours, but agreeing in the sense thereof, and comprehending a further matter, whereof the Apostle in that chapter speaketh. But our translators thought best to follow the plain and common understanding, not for shame of Beza, or his translation, but for desire of sincerity and plainness. Contrariwise, where your vulgar translator is sometimes so barbarous, that his phrase hath no sense according to the text, it may well be thought you were ashamed to follow him, lest you should have been ridiculous to all men. As you translate Timoratus, religious oftentimes. Non quia de 
joh. 12.  egenis pertinebat ad eum, which in English is, not because of the poor it pertained to him, but you have, translated, not because he cared for the poor. una sabbathi, the first 
Ioh 21. Act. 1. Act. 14.  of the Sabbath. Sabbati habens iter, having the journey of a Sabbath, you translate, distant a Sabbats journey. Yea you are bold to correct your text, and for Italia, to 
Act. 25. Ibid.  say Attalia. Ad abluenda crimina, which is, to wash away the crimes you say, to clear himself of the crime. Cum multa ambitione, which is, with much ambition, you say, with great pomp. Exhortentur, which is a deponent, you 
1. Cor 14. 1. Cor. 15.  translate, may be exhorted: ad reverentiam vobis, which is, for reverence to you, you say, to your shame: and such like. I do not blame you that you are ashamed to follow your vulgar Latin text in these phrases, but that you are not ashamed to allow that translation, as the only authentical text, which no man for shame will follow in many places. To conclude, our meaning for free will, is, that we confess it at all times, to be free from constraint, but never free to embrace that which is good in deed, but only when it is reform by the grace of God: who also in all good things that we take in hand, doth not only make us willing, but also giveth all the strength we have to perform them. If this be your meaning (as I am afraid it is not) by your terms of working and helping, and directing, (as though it could go alone with a little help and direction) we join with you: but if you think you can do any thing that good is, without the grace of God, like to Pelagius Celestius, and other like Heretics of the devils black guard, we leave you.    

MART. 7. You say moreover in some of your Bibles, 
Eib. 1561. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  thus: So lieth it not then in a man's will or running, but in the mercy of God. Whatsoever you mean, you know this translation is very dissolute, and wide from the Apostles words, and not true in sense. for salvation is in willing and running: according to that famous saying of Saint Augustine, 
Aug. Serm. 15. de verb. Apostoli.  He that made thee without thee, will not justify thee without thee: that is, against thy will, or, unless thou be willing. and the Apostle saith, No man is crowned, unless 
2. Timoth. 2. 1. Cor. 9  he fight lawfully. and again, So run THAT YOU MAY obtain. and again. The doers of the Law shall 
Rom. 2. Mat. 19  be justified. And our Saviour, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. We see then, that it is in willing, and running, and doing: but to will, or run, or do, are not of man, but of God's mercy. and so the Apostle speaketh, It is not of the willer, nor runner, but of God that hath mercy. And it is much to be marveled, why you said not, It lieth not in the willer, nor in the runner: which is near to the Apostles words, but so far of, in a man's will and running.  

FULK. 7. The translation you reprehend, I grant is not proper for the words, and therefore is reform in the later translations, yet in sense it is all one: for salvation lieth not in the will, or running of man, but in the mercy of God: even as S. john 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 against it. We are not saved, except we will, and run, ergo, salvation lieth in willing and running. I deny your argument, which is as good as this; we are not saved from sin, except we have committed sin, ergo, salvation from sin, lieth in committing sin. The famous place of Augustine, is a famous corruption of Papists, to establish the strength of free will, clean contrary to S. Augustine's mind, where a point interrogative is changed into a period: for in ancient written copies, it is red with interrogation. Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustifica● sine te? He therefore that made thee without thee, doth he not justify thee without thee? And the whole discourse of that father, both before and after, requireth that reading. For thus he writeth. Si hominem te fecit Deus, & justum tu te facis, melius aliquid facis, quam fecit Deus, sed sine te fecit Deus. Non enim adhibuisti aliquem consensum, ut te faceret Deus. Quo modo consentiebas qui non eras. Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te justificat sine te? Ergo fecit nescientem, justificat volentem. tamen ipse justificat, ne su justitia tua. If God have made thee a man, and thou makest thyself a just man, thou makest some better thing than God hath made: but God made thee without thee. for thou gavest no consent, that God should make thee? how didst thou consent which wast not. He therefore that made thee without thee, doth he not justify thee without thee? Therefore he hath made thee not knowing, but he justifieth thee being willing, yet it is he, that doth justify thee, that it should not be thy justice.  
The meaning of Saint Augustine is, that we have no more free will to be justified, before we be prevented by the grace of God, than we had will to be created. For it is God's grace, that maketh us willing to be justified, and saved, not the strength of man's free will, as he proveth at large throughout the whole Homily. Now to the texts of Scripture, which you cite, I answer, there is not one, that proveth any strength or sway of man's free will, toward the true goodness, before, of an ungodly man, and enemy of God, he be reconciled by the grace and mercy of God, and made an obedient child in some part, willing to do the will of his father. First, those texts of fight, and running, prove, that fight and running is necessary for them, that are exhorted thereto, but not that fight or running are in the free will of man, or that salvation lieth in them. Eating and drinking are necessary for the life of man, yet the life of man lieth not in eating and drinking. Where the Apostle saith, the doers of the law shall be justified, he meaneth them that fulfil the law, and doth our Saviour Christ, answering to the question of him that asked, what she should do to obtain life, declare, that there is no way to enter into life by doing, but only by doing of God's commandments. For the man that doth them shall live by them. But if he were asked which is the way to eternal life, as he was by Thomas, he will answer, I 
joh. 14.  am the way, the truth, and the life. Those texts therefore declare not, how a man, that is a transgressor of the law, may be saved, but that to obtain salvation by works, it is necessary for a man to keep the whole law and commandments of God, or else he is accursed.    

MART. 8. Again, touching continency and the chaste single life you translate thus: All men can not receive this 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. marvelous strange translation. De gra●. & li●. arb. c. 4.  saying. Mat. 19 v. 11. Now you wots well, that our Saviour saith not, All men can not, but, all men do not receive it: and that therefore, (as S. Augustine saith) because all will not. But when our Saviour afterward sayeth, He that CAN receive 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  it, let him receive it: he addeth an other Greek word to express that sense. Whereas by your fond translation he might have said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And again by your translation, you should translate these his later words thus: He that can or is able to receive it, let him be able to receive it. For so you translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before, as though it were all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Do you not see your folly, and fashoode, and boldness, to make the reader believe that our Saviour should say, Every man can not live chaste, it is impossible for them, and therefore no man should vow chastity, because he knoweth not whether he can live so or no?  

FULK. 8. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify to be able to hold, or contain, and so it is used Mar. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which you translate, so that there was no place, no not at the door. Do you not mean, that the place about the door, was not able to hold that multitude? Your vulgar Latin is. Ita ut non caperet neque ad ianuam, in barbarous words, but in sense as I have said before. So john. 2. the six pots, when they were empty are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, able to receive every one of them two or three measures. Likewise, john. 22. where the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you yourselves translate not able to contain. Seeing the word therefore signifieth not only to receive, but also to be able to receive, it is rightly translated, Matth. 19 and according to the meaning of our Saviour Christ, all men can not receive this saying, but they to whom it is given, which he doth after evidently confirm, when he addeth the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Which were vainly said, if all men were able that would, and if it were given to all that would: for than he should say, all men do not receive this saying, but they that will, let them receive it. Where you call Augustine to witness of your foolish gloze, you do him shameful injury, for he sayeth not all men do not, because all will not: but these are his words in the place by you quoted: Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed quibus datum est: quibus enim non est datum, aut nolunt, aut non implent quod volunt, quibus autem datum est, sic volunt ut impleant quod volunt. All men receive not this word, but they to whom it is given, for they to whom it is not given, either they will not, or else they fulfil not that which they will: but they to whom it is given, do so will, that they fulfil that which they will. Augustine is plain to the contrary, that it is not in every man that will, to be continent, but it is the special gift of God that any both will, and be able to perform it, for which he citeth also the saying of the wise man Sap. 8. which with you is Canonical Scripture. When I knew that otherwise I could not be continent, except God should give it, and this same was wisdom to know whose gift it is, I went unto the Lord and prayed to him. These things considered, our translation is justified, both according to the word, which signifieth sometime to be able to receive: and according to the sense, which here must needs require, that it should be so translated. Wherefore it is unpossible for any man to live chaste▪ except he have the gift of God, whereof unless a man be certain, he doth foolishly, and presumptuously to vow that, which he knoweth not, whether he shall be able to perform.    

MART. 9 Again in some of your Bibles (Gen. 4. 
●i●. 1●79.  v. 7.) where God saith plainly, that Cain should receive according as he did well or evil, because sin was subject unto him, and he had the rule and dominion thereof, evidently declaring his free will: you translate it thus, If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou dost not well, sin lieth at the door: and also unto thee HIS desire shall be subject, and thou shalt rule over HIM. By which relatives falsely put in the masculine gender, you exclude the true antecedent sin, and refer them to Abel Cain's brother. as though God had said, not that sin should be in his dominion or subject unto him, but his brother Abel. But that this is most false and absurd, we prove many ways. first S. Augustine saith directly the contrary: Tu dominaberis illius: nunquid 
Li. 15. c. 7. de civit. Dei.  Fratris? absit. cuius igitur nisi peccati? Thou shalt rule (saith he) over what? over thy brother? Not so. over what 
Quest. Heb. in Genes.  then but sin? S. Jerome also explicateth this place thus: Because thou haste free will, I warn thee that sin have not dominion over thee, but thou over sin. Moreover, the text itself, if nothing else, is sufficient to convince this absurdity. For where this word, sin, goeth immediately before in the same sentence, and not one word of Abel his brother in that speech of God to Cain, how is it possible, or what coherence can there be in saying as you translate, Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt have dominion over him, that is, thy brother? But if we say thus, Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt have dominion thereof: it hath this direct and plain sense, If thou dost ill, sin lieth at the door ready to condemn thee, because it is in thee to over rule it.  

FULK. 9 The relatives be the masculine gender in the Hebrew tongue, and therefore referred to Abel, and not to sin, which is of the feminine gender. Again, sin hath no appetite to Cain, but rather Cain to it, therefore even as it was said to Eve, thy appetite shall be to thy husband, so it is said of Abel, his appetite shall be to thee. Saint Augustine followeth the corrupt translation of the Septuaginta, which for appetite read conversion, and therefore there is the less account to be made of his authority, being also ignorant in the Hebrew tongue, and not regarding the Greek relative to be also of the masculine gender. Jerome also in that place, interpreteth not appetite, but society, and fantasy, ththat chataoth is the masculine gender, and not 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the feminine. Whereas it is never read but in the feminine gender, out of this place of controversy. But the text itself (you say) is sufficient▪ to convince this absurdity, because in this speech of God to Cain, there is no word of Abel. It is somewhat that you say, if this that Moses reporteth were all that God said to Cain, but seeing it is certain, that God at large discoursed with him, of the cause of his envy against his brother, we may easily understand in this speech, two arguments to reprove Cain's envy, the one of the person of God, the other of the person of Abel. For God doth reprove his envy by his own justice, and by Abel's innocency. Which latter argument your false translation doth utterly suppress. But that a Relative is referred to an Antecedent, which in the same verse is not expressed, it is no strange thing, to them that read the scripture. Examples I will give you, job 26. v. 6. 11. & 12. and cap. 27. v. 9 & 10. yea it is very usual, when the antecedent may be easily understood, as here, both by the gender, and also by manner of speech, which being the same that was spoken of eves infirmity & subjection to her husband, must needs here have the same sense of Abel toward Cain his elder brother.    

MART. 10. Now if against the coherence of the text, and exposition of the holy Doctors, and of the whole Church of God▪ you pretend the Hebrew grammar forsooth, as not bearing such construction: not to trouble the common reader that cannot judge of these things, and yet fully to satisfy every man even of common understanding, we request here the Adversaries themselves to tell us▪ truly according to their knowledge & skill, whether the Hebrew construction or point of grammar be 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  not all one in these words, Sin LIETH at the door? and in these, the desire THEREOF shall be subject to thee, and thou shalt rule over IT. If they say (as they must needs) that the Hebrew construction or Syntaxis is all one, then will it follow that the Hebrew beareth the one as well as the other: and therefore when the self same translation of theirs maketh no scruple of Grammar in the former, but translate as we do, Sin lieth at the door: a blind man may see that in the latter words also, the Hebrew is but a foolish pretence, and that the true cause of translating them otherwise, proceedeth of an heretical humour, to obscure and deface this so plain and evident Scripture for man's free wil  

FULK. 10. I have showed before, the cause of the 
Cap. 1. sect. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  change of the gender in the word robets to be, for that by sin is meant here the punishment of sin. saints Pagninus taketh the word sin, for an oblation for sin. And for the punishment of sin, it is taken, Zach. 14, 19 The Septuaginta also do plainly refer these relatives unto Abel, and therefore they are in the masculine gender, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the conversion of him pertaineth to thee, and thou shalt rule over him.    

MART. 11. And as for the Hebrew grammar in this point, were it not for troubling the Reader, we could tell them that the word, sin, in Hebrew is not here of the feminine gender, (as they suppose) but of the masculine. so saith S. Hieror. expressly 
q. Hebr. in Genes.  upon this place, who had as much knowledge in the Hebrew tongue, as all these new Doctors. Aben Ezra also the great rabbin, in his Hebrew commentaries upon this text, saith, it is a mere forgery and fiction, to refer the masculine relative otherwise than to the word, sin: which, though elsewhere it be the feminine gender, yet here it is a masculine, according to that 
Quinquarboreu●.  rule of the Grammarians, that the doubtful gender must be discerned by the verb, adjective, pronoun, or participle, joined with the same: as the said Hebrew Doctor doth in the word, paradise, Gen. 2. which there by the pronouns he pronounceth to be a feminine, though elsewhere a masculine. Lastly, if the word sin, were here, and always only a feminine, and never a masculine: yet they have little skill in the Hebrew tongue, that think it strange to match masculines and feminines together in very good and grammatical construction. Whereof they may see a whole chapter in Sanctes Pagninus with this title, Foeminea masculeis juncta. that is, Feminines joined with masculines.  

FULK. 11. Not only the Hebrew Grammar, but the same phrase used before, maketh plainly for our translation. That S. Jerome saith, the Hebrew is of the masculine gender, as great an Hebritian as he was, he may not carry the matter away with his authority, except he bring an instance, where it is of the masculine gender. The jewish Rabbins, patrons of free will, as ignorant of the grace of God, err in this place, as they do in a thousand more, and are forced to invent strange applications of the word, appetite, to make their sense probable. How the gender of Hebrew words may be found out, we are not now to learn, which because you have but lately learned, you think all men ignorant thereof, but yourself. By the chapter of Pagninus, where he showeth that feminines are joined to masculines, you might learn that chataoth is the feminine gender, although it be joined with a participle of the masculine gender. Who 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  also might have taught you, the difference of nouns ending in he, praecedente camets, to be this, that feminines have the accent in the last syllable, masculines in the last 
gilry & milel. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  save one, and therefore chataoth in this place, having the accent in the last syllable, notwithstanding the participle, which is masculine, must needs be of the feminine 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 would have it: we tell them, they must justify and make good all their translations, because the people readeth all, and is abused by all, and all come forth with privilege, printed by the Queen's Printer, etc. If they will not, let them confess the faults, and call them in, and tell us which translation or translations they will stand unto. In the mean time they must be content to hear of all indifferently, as there shall be cause and occasion to touch them.  

FULK. 12. We tell you that we may not justify any fault committed in our translations, but we have reform them (if any were espied) in the later. Nevertheless those faults are not so great, that we need call in all the Bibles in which is any fault, it is sufficient that we admonish the reader in our later editions of such faults as are escaped in the former: especially when the faults, are such about which men are not agreed, as in this place you should rather commend our equity, that suffer such translations to be in the people's hands, in which is some colour of maintaining your errors against us. But if you be so rigorous, that a book 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 shameful faults, and such as you can not defend or excuse, except it be by the fault of the Printer, whereof yet you have not admonished the reader. I will give you a taste of some, and let all men judge whether they be not intolerable faults. For they are no less than detracting and taking away from the word of God. As 1. Cor. 14. v. 38. where both the Greek and the Latin is, If they will learn. Your translation is: If they learn any thing. Likewise Acts 5. v. 4. where both the Greek and Latin is: Festus answered that Paul is kept at Caesarea: you translate. Festus answered that Paul is in Caesarea: leaving out the word (kept) as before you left out the word (will) or (desire) which altereth the sense very much. But in a place of greater moment, and in a matter of some controversy, of God's particular pre-ordination, and fore appointment, you leave out a whole clause Act. 10. v. 41. For where it is both in the Greek and in the Latin, that God made the resurrection of his son manifest: not to all the people, but to the witnesses chosen before of God, to us which did eat and drink with him, etc. Your English translation hath no more but thus: Not to all the people, but to us, who did eat and drink with him, etc. Leaving clean out that which is in your Latin text, Testibus praeordinatis à Deo. Also in the Epistle to the hebrews cap. 7. v. 28. where both the Greek and your vulgar Latin hath. The law appointeth Priests, men that have infirmity, your translation is, the law appointeth Priests them that have infirmity, leaving out Homines, a word very material in this place▪ to observe the opposition between the Priesthood of men & the Priesthood of the son of God. These faults in the new Testament being some of them which I by no diligent reading have observed, now you be admonished of them, we shall see whether you will call in your translation, or command your disciples to burn their books: If you will not, I pray you be good master to us, and let our Bible's go abroad still, for any faults we have ourselves amended, and admonished all diligent Readers thereof by our later translations. And because you crack so much of the exposition of the Doctors and of the whole Church of God against us: I must let the Reader understand that the whole Greek Church which for the most part knew none other text but the Septuaginta, must needs expound the place of Abel as we do, because the Greek text is manifestly in the Masculine gender. And so doth Chrysostom in Gen. Hom. 18. expound the place in these words.  
Ne putes inquit licet tuum aversatus sim sacrificium ob pravam mentem, fratrisque oblationem acceptam habuerim ob sanam intentionem, quod ideo primatu te destituam, & primogeniturae dignitatem à te auferam. Nam licet honore ego illum prosecutus fuerim, acceptaque fuerint illius dona, etc. Think not (sayeth he) that although I have refused thy sacrifice, for thy naughty mind, and have received thy brother's oblation, for his good and sound meaning, that therefore I will deprive thee of the primacy, and take away from thee, the dignity of the birthright. For although I have vouchsafed him of honour, & that his gifts have been received, yet unto thee belongeth his conversion, and thou shalt rule over him. And this I permit after thy sin, that thou mayest enjoy the privileges of thy birthright, and I command him to be under thy power and dominion. You were best now to rail upon Chrysostom and charge him with heresy, and schismatical exposition, contrary to the holy Doctors, and the whole Church of God, against free-will of man. Which because it is your quarrel, you have S. Ambrose also your enemy, De Cain & Abel, lib. 2. cap. 7. Who although as he red it in Latin, did think it must be referred to him, and not to his brother, yet he expoundeth it not of the strength of free will, but chargeth Came to be author of his own error, Culpae ipsius ad ●e conversio est. The conversion of the fault itself is unto thee. For his brother is not added to him, but error is ascribed, whereof he himself is author to himself. The crime (saith he) will return upon thee, which began of thee. Thou hast not whereby to accuse necessity more than thine own mind. The wickedness is retorted back upon thee, thou art Prince of it. He saith well, thou art Prince of it, for impiety is the mother of sins, etc. You see therefore, that if you could obtain that these relatives were referred to him, yet your free will were not by and by to be builded upon the place, and that all be not heretics, which draw that text to an other exposition, than standeth with your good liking.    

MART. 13. Again they translate in some of their Bibles 
No. Test 1580.  against free will, thus, Christ, when we were yet OF NO STRENGTH, died for the ungodly, Rom. 5. v. 6. The 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Apostles word doth not signify that we had nostrength, but that we were weak, seeble, infirm. Man was wounded in free will, by the sin of Adam (as he that in the Gospel went down from 
Luc. 10.  Jerusalem to jericho, which is a parable of this thing) he was not slain altogether. But I stand not here, or in any place to dispute the controuèrsie, that is done else where. This only I say, because* they falsely hold, that free will was altogether lost 
whitaker's, pag. 18.  by Adam's sin, therefore they translate accordingly, When we had no strength. But the Greek word is well known, both in profane authors, and Ecclesiastical, and specially in the new Testament itself, throughout, to signify nothing else, but, weak, feeble, sick, infirm. Look me through the new Testament, 
Multi inter vos infirmi sunt, etc. 1. Cor. 11 v. 30. Cum infirmor, tum petens sum. 2. Cor 12. v. 10. & alibi.  wheresoever infirmity, feebleness, languishing, and the like are spoken of, there is found this Greek word to express it. What Grecian knoweth not (be he but simply acquainted with phrases, and nature of words.) what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do signify. When the Apostle saith, Quis infirmatur, & ego non uror? Who is weak and infirm, 
2. Cor. 11. 29.  and I am not much grieved? shall we translate, who is of no strength, etc. or let them give us an instance, where it is certain that this word must needs signify, of no strength. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and à privatiwm. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ●exicon magnum Basileae. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Will they pretend the etymology of the word? a ridiculous and absurd evasion. we ask them of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a word of the very same signification, which being compounded in like manner as the other, what doth it signify? any thing else but infirmity and feebleness? Yea it is so far from signifying, no strength, that the greatest Grecians say, it is not spoken properly of him that for weakness keepeth his bed, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but of him that is il disposed, and distempered in body. Yet the etymology is all one with that word which these men will have to signify him that hath no strength. And if they will needs urge the etymology, we tell them, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify, robur, that is, great strength, such as is in the strongest and stoutest champions. and so the etymology may take place, to signify a man of no great strength, not, of no strength. But M. Whitaker putteth us in good 
Pag. 209.  hope, they will not stand upon etymologies.  

FULK. 13. This cavil is fully answered, cap. 1. sect. 26. therefore I wili not spend many words here about it. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we know signifieth weak, that is of small strength, and sometimes so weak, that there is no strength. As Gal. 4. where Saint Paul, calleth the ceremonies of Moses law, now expired, the weak and beggarly elements, that is void of all strength and riches. Likewise the Apostle to the Hebrews, cap. 7. saith, the commundement of the aaronical priesthood is abolished, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it was weak and unprofitable without Christ, as unprofitable is void of profit, so is weak void of strength. S. Paul, 1. Cor. 15. saith, our dead body is sowed in weakness: Is there any strength of a dead body? Moreover Rom. 8. that which was unpossible by the law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by means it was weak, is not that void of strength to save us, which hath no possibility to do any thing? These instances may serve to prove, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify that which is so weak, that it hath no strength. Upon the etymology alone we stand not, But where you say, that man was wounded in free will, by the sin of Adam, not slain altogether, (grounding your assertion upon a fond & false allegory of him that fell among thieves, which is no parable of a man in this case, but of man in necessity to be helped by right of neighbourhood) I pray you, how came man to be dead altogether in sins? Eph. 2. Col. 2. & in many other places of the Scripture. Beside, is there any freedom of will to godliness, remaining in them that are altogether dead in sin? But we are not now to handle controversies, but translations, as you do well admonish us.    

MART. 14. When they have bereaved and spoiled a man of his free will, and left him without all strength, they go so 
Beza in annot: Rom. 2. 27.  far in this point, that* they say, the regenerate themselves have not free will and ability, no not by and with the grace of God, to keep the commandments. To this purpose they translate, (1. Io. 5. 3.) thus: His commandments are not grievous, 
Mandata eius gravia non sunt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  rather than thus, His commandments are not heavy, for in saying, they are not heavy, it would follow, they might be kept and observed: but in saying, they are not grievous, that may be true, were they never so heavy or impossible, through patience. As when a man can not do as he would, yet it grieveth him not, being patient & wise, because he is content to do as he can, & is able. Therefore do they choose to translate, that the commandments are not grievous, where the Apostle saith rather, they are not heavy. much more agreeably to our 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saviours words, My burden is light! & to the words of God by Moses, Deut. 30. This commandment which I command thee this day, is not above thee (that is, beyond thy reach) but the word is very near thee, in thy mouth, & in thy heart, that thou mayst do it: and to the common signification of the Greekeword, which is, heavy. Beza would say somewhat in his commentary, how the commandments are heavy or light, but his conclusion is against free will, and that there can be no perfection in this life, in●cying against them that would prove it out of this place: which is as much to say (but he is ashamed to speak plainly) that we can not keep the commandments: which the holy Doctors have long since condemned and abhorred, as most absurd, that God should command that, under pain of damnation, which is impossible to be done.  

FULK. 14. Seeing our English word grievous, cometh of the Latin word grave, which is not only weighty, but also troublesome, It better answereth both the Greek and the Latin, than heavy, which is properly that which is of great weight, and the same word being both in Greek and Latin, 2. Cor. 10. you yourselves 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  translate sore: his epistles are sore and vehement: but in effect there is no great difference. We acknowledge that his commandments are not heavy to him that is borne of God, which overcometh the world by faith, otherwise the yoke of the law, as the Apostle confesseth, is such a burden, as neither we, nor our fathers were able to bear, but believe to be saved by the grace of our Lord jesus Christ, who having taken away the curse of the law, and satisfied for our transgressions of the law, hath also given us grace to love the law, and commandments of God, and in some weak measure to observe them. So that the curse being taken away, our transgressions answered in Christ, and our hearts framed by his grace, to love his commandments, and some strength given us to keep them, they are not heavy, they are not burdenous, or grievous. That which God speaketh, Deut. 30. is of the knowledge of the law, which was plainly revealed, and not of the strength that men have to keep it, and therefore is by the Apostle referred unto faith, for the observation thereof, Rom. 10. for by faith in Christ, which hath fulfilled the law for us, we are accounted to have fulfilled it in him. Beza speaketh plainly enough, if you had grace to understand him, and therefore is nothing ashamed to say, that we can not keep the commandments of God, not only without the grace of God, but neither having the grace of God in such measure, as God giveth it to no man but that he sinneth. Otherwise, what grace God is able to give, we doubt not, but what he doth, and will give to any man in this life we speak. That God should command under pain of damnation, that which is impossible to be done, is no absurdity: seeing for them whom God will have to be saved, he provided an other way of their salvation, than by keeping the law, namely the redemption of Christ. As for the reprobate void of God's grace, say you (if you dare) that they are able to keep the law without grace, or without grace have so much as any will to desire to have grace.    

MART. 15. Thus having taken away free will to do good, and possibility to keep the commandments, and all merit or valour and efficacy of good works, their next conclusion is, that we have no true justice or righteousness in us, but an imputative justice, that is, Christ's justice imputed to us, be we never so foul and filthy in our souls, so that we believe only, and by faith apprehend Christ's justice. For this purpose they corrupt the Scriptures in their English Bibles, thus.  

FULK. 15. The justice whereby we are accounted just in the sight of God, is not inherent in us, but in Christ, which is the Lord our righteousness. jerem. 23. Not withstanding it is the only true justice, and we are truly just by it. And yet we are not void of the spirit of sanctification, which is a fruit, and consequent of justification, by which we have grace to withstand sin, and to work righteousness, not whereby we should be made righteous before God, but whereby we are declared to be righteous in part, until the body of sin being abolished, we shall be wholly renewed according to the image of God.     

CHAP. XI.  
Heretical translation for IMPUTATIVE JUSTICE, against true inherent justice.  

Martin.  
ONE place might suffice, in steed of many, 
1  where Beza doth protest, that his adding or alteration of the text, is, specially against the execrable error of inherent 
Annot, in Rom. 5. 18.  justice, which (he saith) is to be avoided as nothing more. His false translation, thu● our English Bezites and Caluinists follow in their Bibles. Likewise then as by the offence of one▪ 
Rom. 5.  the fault came on all men to condemnation: so by the justifying of one, the benefit abounded, toward all men to the justification of life. Where there are added to the text of the Apostle, six words: and the same so wilfully and voluntarily, that by the three first, they make the Apostle say, sin came on all men by Adam, and they were made sinners in deed: by the three later, they make him say, not that justice or righteousness came likewise on all men by Christ, to make them just in deed, but that the benefit of Christ's justice abounded towards them, as being imputed forsooth unto them. Whereas, if they would needs add to the text (which yet is intolerable, so much, and in so doubtful a case) they should at the least have made the case equal, as the Apostle himself teacheth them to do, in the very next sentence, saying thus, For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many also be made righteous. So they translate, rather than, be made just. For they are the loathest men in the world to say that we are made just, for fear of justice inherent in us, though the Scripture be never so plain. As here we see the Apostle maketh the case like, that we are made just by Christ, as we were made sinners by Adam.  

Fulke.  
THis one place is delivered from your 
1  vain cavillation, Cap. 1. Sect. 23. when the sentence is ecclipticall or defective, they that will translate to have it understood, must needs supply the words that are wanting. And where shall they find what words are lacking, but in the same place, and in the treaty of the same matter? It appeareth you had rather the text had no sense, than that it might seem to make against your blasphemy of justice inherent. As for that fond quarrel of yours, that they be not just in deed, to whom the justice of Christ (which you like an hellhound do scorn at) is imputed, deserveth no answer. For who is such a block, to say or think, that those whom God doth justify, are not made just in deed? Was not Abraham just in deed, when God imputed his faith unto justice? Is not he made rich in deed, which is made rich by an other man's gift? Christ is given unto us of God to be justice, wisdom, sanctification, & in him we are just, wise, and holy, not in our own righteousness, wisdom, or holiness. As for adding to the text, God knoweth how we abhor it, but adding of words which do explicate the sense of the holy ghost, is no addition forbidden, for then all preaching were accursed, which is, or aught to be nothing else, but an explaining & setting forth of the word of God, in more words, the matter whereof (though in fewerwords) is contained in the scripture. And if we speak of adding of words in translation, have I not showed before, that you have added many? some in deed upon necessary cause, & some without necessity. What needed you to say for Poeniterent, they had done penance, Luc. 10. for In omnibus bonis, in all his goods, Gen. 6. for separamini, separate yourselves, 2 Cor. 6. etc. To say we are justified, and to say we are made just, is all one: and therefore I marvel why you think us loath to say the one, rather than the other. Is any man so senseless to think we can say, a man is made righteous, and dare not say he is made just. I tell you plainly, we defy the heresy of righteousness inherent, as much as of justice inherent. We are just, we are righteous in the sight of God, not by the justice or righteousness of our works: but by the justice or righteousness of Christ imputed to us through faith. And we are made just by Christ, as we were made sinners by Adam▪ in some respect, but not in every respect, for the Apostle maketh a broad difference between the transgression and the benefit Rom. 5. v. 15. and other differences there be, which none, but a Pelagian, will deny. Nay Pelagius will not say, that we are just by Christ according to propagation: but according to faith.    

MART. 2. And it is a world to see, how Beza shifteth from one signification of the word justified, or, made just, to an other. Sometime to be justified, is to be pronounced qui●●e from 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. absolui. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. absoluitur.  all sin, or declared just before God's judgement seat: and so ●e translateth it in the text Act. 13. v. 39 and as though his guilty conscience were afraid of a blow, he saith he fleeth not the term of justifying or justification, because he useth it in other places. He doth so in deed, but then his commentary supplieth the turn: as Ro. 2. v 13. Not that hearers of the law are RIGHTEOUS before God (so they delight to translate, rather than, JUST before God) but the doers of the Law shall be 
Ius●i pronuntiabu●●●●.  JUSTIFIED, that is (saith Beza) shall be pronounced just. The Apostle must needs say by the coherence and consequence of his words, no● the hearers are just, but the do●rs shall be just or justified. Beza will in no case have it so, but either in text or commentary make the Apostle say as himself imagineth. Yet in an 
Annot. Ro. 3. v 20.  other place he protesteth very solemnly, that to be justified, is not to be pronounced or accounted just, but rather to be just in deed: and that, he proveth out of S. Paul. Ro. 5. v. 19 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  who maketh it all one, to be justified, and, to be made just. And again by this reason, that it should be manifestly repugnant to God's justice, to account him for just, that is not just, and therefore that man in deed is made just. Thus Beza. Would you not think, he were come to be of our opinion? but he revolteth again, and interpreateth all these goodly words in his old sense, saying, Not that any quality is inwardly 
Non quasi nobis indatur qualitas.  given unto us, of which we are named just: but because the justice of Christ is imputed to us by faith freely. By faith then at the least we are truly justified. Not so neither, but faith (saith he) is an instrument wherewith 
Annot. in Ro. 4. v. 2.  we apprehend Christ our justice. So that we have no more justice in us, than we have glory: for glory also we apprehend by faith.  

FULK. 2. All learned men I hope do see, that you have no regard, how vainly you cavil, so you may seem to the ignorant to say something against them that be godly and learned. Act. 13. v. 39 Beza translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, absolui, that is (saith he) to be declared just, or absolved. and giveth this reason, why he useth not the word iustifica●i in that place which he useth elsewhere. Ne quis illud ab omnibus, perinde acciperet ac si casus esset modi, aut instrumenti, per quod iusti●icemur, id est, iustifiamus, ac pronunciemur, aut pro justis habeamur, hoc quidem loco malui absoluendi verbum usurpare. ut magis perspicua esset oratio: Lest any man should take this word of the text ab omnibus, as though it were the case of the mean, or instrument, by which we are justified, that is, made and pronounced just, or accounted for just. In this place I chose rather to use the word of absolving, that the sentence might be more clear. The Latin ab omnibus, may signify by all things▪ or from all things. Therefore, least any man should mistake the Apostle, as though he said we are justified by all those things, where he meaneth we are justified from all things, Beza in this place useth the word of absolving or acquitting, in the same sense that he doth justifying in other places, where he speaketh of the same matter: and sayeth as plainly as a man can speak, that to be justified, and to be made just, or pronounced, or accounted just before God is all one. Yet our Momus findeth fault with him, for expounding, to be justified, Rom. 2. v. 13. to be pronounced just, as though God will pronounce any man just, which is not just indeed. But Beza (he saith) elsewhere, protesteth that to be justified, is not to be pronounced or accounted just, but rather to be just indeed. If Martin had not beelyed Beza, we should have had beza's words set down, both in Latin and English. But in truth Beza hath no such words: yet in sense he hath thus much, that to be justified before God, is to be just indeed, and not to be only pronounced or accounted just, when he is not so in deed. But that we are made truly just indeed, by the justice of Christ, which is imputed unto us freely by faith. And as for that new life or justice which is called inherent in us, it is not the cause but the witness of that justice, by imputation of which, we are saved, following him that is justified, and not going before justification: and faith indeed, is the instrument by which we apprehend Christ our justice. Neither doth Beza say, that we are not truly justified by faith: but that faith is not the principal efficient cause, which is the mercy of God, but the instrumental cause, by which we take hold of the mercy of God in Christ. In all this, Beza hath said nothing contrary to himself, nor to the truth. And it is no absurdity to say, that the justice of Christ, by which we are justified is no more inherent in us, than his glory. And yet both assured unto us by faith. As for that justice, which is an effect of God's sanctifying spirit, and a fruit of our justification before God, by which also we are justified, or declared just before men, as S. james teacheth, is inherent in us: as also the first fruits of glorification, by that peace of conscience, & joy that we have in God, being reconciled to us by Christ.    

MART. 3. For this purpose both he and the English 
Pro justitia. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Bibles translate thus: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him FOR JUSTICE, Rom. 4. v. 3. & 9 Where he interpreateth, for justice, to be nothing else but. in 
Vice & loco.  the steed & place of justice: so also taking away true inherent justice even from Abraham himself. But to admit their translation (which notwithstanding in their sense is most false) must it needs signify, not true inherent justice, because the Scripture saith, it was reputed for justice? Do such speeches import, that it is not so in deed, but is only reputed so? Then if we say, This shall be reputed to thee for sin: for a great benefit, and so forth: it should signify, it is no sin indeed, nor great benefit. But let them call to mind, 
Reputabitur tibi in peccatum.  that the Scripture useth to speak of sin and of justice alike. It shall be sin in thee, or, unto thee, as they translate Bibl. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  1577: or as S. Jerome translateth, It shall be reputed to thee for sin, Deut. c. 23. & 24. & (as themselves translate) it shall be righteousness unto thee, before the Lord thy God. And again, Deut. c. 6. This shall be our righteousness before the Lord our God, if we keep all the commandments, as he hath commanded us. If then justice only be reputed▪ sin also is only reputed: if sin be in v● indeed, justice is in us indeed.  

FULK. 3. Our translation taketh not from Abraham true justice, nor yet justice inherent, but declareth that he was not justified before God by works, that is by justice inherent, but by faith which apprehendeth the justice of Christ, which is altogether without us. And therefore you cavil in your old rotten quarrel, when you go about to make reputed to be contrary to truth, or indeed. Faith was reputed by God to Abraham for justice indeed, but not as justice inherent. And Abraham was truly justified by faith as by an instrumental cause, not that faith was the justice by which he was just in the sight of God, excluding all other causes: but there was nothing in Abraham but faith which God accounted for justice. But Abraham's faith embraced the mercy of God in the promised seed, in which as well he, as all the tribes of the earth should be blessed. The places of scripture that you cite speaking of sin & justice alike, be not contrary to the imputation of justice unto them in which it is not inherent. For in neither of both places the holy ghost useth the word of imputation, howsoever S. Jerome translateth it, but the verb substantive. And the meaning is plain. It shall be sin in thee: for sin is indeed inherent, as perfect justice also should be if we could observe all the commandments of God as Moses sayeth. Deut. 6. and we should be justified thereby. But by one just act whereof Moses speaketh, Deut. 24. though it proceed of justice that is in us, the scripture never saith that we shall be justified. To conclude, we confess, that both sin and justice are in the children of God, but not that justice, whereby they are reputed just or justified, or made just before God, but an effect or fruit thereof.    

MART. 4. Again the Greek fathers make it plain, 
Oecum in caten. Phot●ni▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that to be reputed unto justice, is to be true justice in deed, interpreating S. Paul's word in Greek, thus: Abraham obtained justice, Abraham was justified. For that is, say they: It was reputed him to justice. Doth not S. james say the like (cap. 2. verse. 23.) testifying, that in that Abraham was justified by faith and works, the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, it was reputed him to justice? Gen. Cap. 15. verse. 6. In which words of Genesis, where these words were first written by Moses, in the Hebrew, there is not, for justice, or in steed of justice, (which Beza pleadeth upon, by the Hebrew phrase) but thus, He (God) reputed it unto 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  him, justice, though here also the English Bibles add, for. Which precisely translating the Hebrew they should not do, specially when they mean it was so counted or reputed for justice, that it was not justice indeed.  

FULK. 4. I know not against whom you fight, but against your own shadow. For we say, that to be justified, and be reputed just, and to obtain justice, is all one in this case. But where S. james saith, that Abraham was justified by works, he meaneth, that he was declared just before men, even as he saith, show me thy faith by thy works, for Abraham was not justified by a dead faith, but by a working faith: and yet he was not justified before God by works, but the Scripture was fulfilled which said, Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him for justice, which is as S. Paul expoundeth it, Abraham was justified before God, by faith, and not by works, But in Gen. 15. v. 6. there is not the preposition (for) or (in steed) but simply justice; therefore it should be translated he reputed it to him justice. And will you then control both the Apostles, Paul, and james, for adding the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which signifieth unto, or for? Or will not common sense enforce the same understanding that both the Apostles do give it? He reputed it to him as justice, or for justice. Must not such particles in translation be always expressed, to make the sense plain, which in English without the particle, hath no sense or understanding? To translate precisely out of the Hebrew, is not to observe the number of words, but the perfect sense and meaning of them, in fewer or more words, as the phrase of our tongue will serve to be understood: or else 2. Cor. 8. qui multum, why do you translate, he that had much? and, qui modicum non minoravit, he that had little wanted not? you should have said which much, & which little not lessed, if you would have given word for word, and not added any word for explication. Again, 2. Cor. 1. Supra virtutem, above our power, why add you (our) which is not in the text? and in deed not necessary to be added in the translation? Again, 1. Cor. 13. Euacuavi quae erant paruuli, I did away the things that belonged to a little one. Here for four Latin words you have given ten or eleven English words, which no reasonable man can greatly mislike, if you were not such a quarreler at other men's doing, without all cause, or wise colour, but only to blear the eyes of the ignorant.    

MART. 5. But as for either the Hebrew or Greek word, that is here used, to repute or account, they are then used, when it must needs signify, that the thing is so in deed, and not only so reputed. as Psal. 118. octonario SAMEC. I have reputed or accounted all the sinners of the earth, prevaricators or transgressors. praevaricantes reputavi. So did the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. Cor. 4.  Septuaginta take the Hebrew word, and read it. And S. Paul, So let a man repute or account us as the Ministers of Christ. Let them go now and say, that neither they, were sinners in deed, nor these, Christ's ministers in deed, because they were reputed for such. let them say the children of the promise were not the seed of Abraham, because the Apostle saith, Rom. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  9 v. 8. they are reputed for the seed. But howsoever it be, the Protestants will have it so to be taken, at the least in the matter of justification.  

FULK. 5. Silence were the best answer to these tedious repetitions. It were sufficient once to say among reasonable men. When faith is reputed by God, or accounted for justice, faith is truly and in deed the instrumental cause of justification, or apprehending the justice of Christ, by which we are accounted and made just in the sight of God. It is therefore a most ridiculous cavil of the difference between reputing just, and being just in deed. For God when he justifieth the ungodly, doth both repute him, and make him just in deed, by the justice of Christ, of his own mere mercy, and not of the man's merits, or by justice inherent. For what justice can be in an ungodly man? and such is every one of us, whom God doth justify, and then give us his holy spirit, to sanctify us in newness of life, to set forth his glory in our holy and blameless conversation.    

MART. 6. Again, where Saint Paul saith, 2. Cor. 5. That we might be made the justice of God in him: they in their first translations, intolerably corrupt i● thus: That we by his means should be that righteousness, 
Bib. 1562. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which BEFORE GOD IS ALLOWED. Who ●aught them to translate so dissolutely, justitia Dei, the righteousness which before God is allowed? did not their error and heresy, which is, that God reputeth and accounteth us for just, though we be in deed most foul sinners, and that our justice being none at all in us, yet is allowed and accepted before him for justice and righteousness?  

FULK. 6. There is no text in all the Bible more clear against justification by justice inhae●ent. than this 2. Corinth. 5. wherein not altogether causeless you reprove our first interpreters to translate dissolutely. There it is certain they had no such purpose as you ascribe unto them. For their translation doth rather obscure than set out our justification by the justice which is not in us, but in Christ. The text is therefore plain: him that knew no sin, he made sin for us, that we might become the justice of God in him, that is in Christ, and not in our sel●es. For though we be in deed most foul sinners, and all our justice be (as the Prophet saith) as a menstruous cloth: yet in Christ he washeth and cleanseth us from our sins, and reputing his justice as ours, he maketh us truly just before him, not having our own justice which is of the law, but the justice which is by faith of jesus Christ, the justice 
Philip. 3.  which is of God through faith. Where you charge us to affirm, that our justice being none at all in us, yet is allowed and accepted before him for justice and righteousness, it is no assertion of ours, but a dogged slander of your own.    

MART. 7. Again to this purpose: they make S. Paul 
1. Eph. v. 6.  say that God hath made us accepted, or freely accepted in his beloved son as they make the Angel in S. Luke say to our Lady, Hail freely beloved: to take away all grace inherent 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and resident in the B. Virgin, or in us: whereas the Apostles word signifieth, that we are truly made gracious or grateful and acceptable, that is to say, that our soul is inwardly endued and beautified with grace and the virtues proceeding thereof, and consequently is holy in deed before the sight of God, and not only so accepted or reputed, as they imagine. If they know not the true signification of the Greek word, and if their heresy will suffer them to learn it, let them hear S. Chrysostom not only a famous Greek Doctor, but an excellent interpreter of all S. Paul's epistles: who in this place putteth such force and significancy in the Greek word, that he saith thus by an allusion and distinction of words: He said not, WHICH 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  HE FREELY GAVE US, but, WHEREIN HE MADE US GRATEFUL, that is, not only delivered us from sin, but also made us beloved and amiable, made our soul beautiful, grateful, such as the Angels and Archangels are desirous to see, and such as himself is in love withal, according to that in the Psalm, THE KING SHALL DESIRE, or BE IN LOVE WITH THY BEAUTY. So S. Chrysostom, and after him Theophylacte, who with many more words and similitudes explicate this Greek word, and this making of the soul gracious and beautiful inwardly, truly, and inherently.  

FULK. 7. We make S. Paul say no otherwise, than he saith in deed: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he hath made us accepted, or he hath freely accepted us in his beloved son. And so we truly say, the blessed Virgin Mary was freely accepted, or freely beloved. But this taketh not away the gracious gifts of God, which the blessed Virgin in most plentiful manner was, and we in some measure are endued by his grace and favour, which also God loveth in us, because they be his gifts, and because he loveth us freely in his beloved son, whom always you forget, when you speak of justice, or acceptation before God. For that being sanctified by his spirit, we are holy indeed, though not perfectly, as sanctification is begun, and not consummate in this life: for if it were, we should be void of sin, & death, we do thankfully acknowledge, yet those virtues wherewith our soul is inwardly endued and beautified, are not the cause that justifieth us, or maketh us acceptable in God's sight: but only his mercy in jesus Christ, for whose sake also, he accepteth this unperfect holiness and righteousness, which is in us by his grace and gift, rewarding the same for his sake also with everlasting glory. And nothing else doth Chrysostom say, or mean in the place by you cited, about whom you make so many words, that you might be thought, by giving him his due praise, to have him as it were bound to you, to maintain your unrighteous cause. But Chrysostom careth not for your commendation, and that which he saith, maketh nothing for justice inherent, by which we should be justified: for he saith not so much, as that our soul is made amiable and beautiful by virtues and good qualities infused by his grace, much less that for such qualities inherent in us, GOD should justify us, but he haeth made us acceptable in Christ, amiable, and beautiful, and lovely to the Angels: some effect of which grace, also appeareth in our life and conversation, to the praise of God, and good example of men.    

MART. 8. And I would gladly know of the adversaries, if the like Greek words be not of that form and nature, to signify so much as to make worthy, to make meet: & whether 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he whom God maketh worthy, or meet, or grateful, just, and holy, be not so in very deed, but by acceptation only▪ if not in deed, than God maketh him no better than he was before, but only accepteth him for better: if he be so in deed, than the Apostles word signifieth not, to make accepted, but to make such an one as being by God's grace sanctified and justified, is worthy to be accepied, for such purity, virtue, and justice, as is in him.  

FULK. 8. I have told you before, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth not to make worthy, but to account worthy, for many a man may desire (using this verb) to be accounted worthy of him, which can not make him worthy, but in his own judgement and account. But where you demand further, whether he whom God maketh meet, worthy, grateful, just, holy, be not so in deed, but by acceptation only: I answer, those whom he accepteth for worthy, meet, just, holy, grateful, are so in deed: but than it is further to be known, whether they be such in themselves, or in Christ. We say they are not such in themselves, but in Christ. Then are they made nothing better (say you) in themselves. Yes verily, as soon as they are accepted to be God's children, and the justice of Christ is imputed to them through faith, they receive the spirit of adoption, which reneweth them in the inward man, and beginneth in them holiness, and justice, purity, virtue: but because all these qualities are unperfect, they are not worthy in God's justice to be accepted for them, but the cause of their acceptation, is still the mercy of God in Christ, in whom both they, and their unperfect good qualities are accepted to reward.    

MART. 9 Again, for this purpose (Dan. 6. 22.) they 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  will not translate according to Chaldee, Greek, and Latin, justice was found in me. but they altar it thus, My justice was found out. and other of them, My unguiltinesse was found out. to draw it from inherent justice, which was in Daniel.  

FULK. 9 I can but wonder at your impudence and malice, which say so confidently, that for this purpose they translated thus: Would any man by the justice, or innocency that was in Daniel, or in any just man, fear lest any thing should be detracted from the justice of Christ, whereby Daniel, and all just men, are justified in God's sight? Well, let that purpose rest in God's judgement, as daniel's justice did, when he was shamefully slandered. But what is the fault of the translation? According to the Chaldee, Greek, and Latin, it should be, justice is found in me. For Greek and Latin, we will not contend, because we translate not Daniel out of Greek, and Latin, but out of the Chaldee. But in good sadness, are you so deeply seen in Chaldee, that you will avouch the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be in me. A hundredth boys in Cambridge know, that it signifieth as well in Chaldee, as in Hebrew, to me, rather than in me. But most properly have our translators expressed the phrase in English, saying, my justice, or unguiltiness was found out: for of a virtue inherent, Daniel speaketh otherwise, Dan. 2. v. 30. to the king 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  not by wisdom, which is in me. So that here your quarrel bewrayeth more spite than wit, more malice than learning.    

MART. 10. Again, it must needs be a spot of the same infection, that they translate thus, As David DESCRIBETH 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness. Rom. 4. 6. as though imputed righteousness were the description of blessedness. They know▪ the Greeke doth not signify, to describe. I would once see them precise in following the Greek, and the Hebrew▪ if not, we must look to their fingers.  

FULK. 10. It must needs come of an high wit, to have such deep insight into other men's intents, & purposes. But why I pray you, is not righteousness imputed by God, etc. and so forth, as Paul saith, a description of man's blessedness. If they had said, defineth, where they say, describeth, you would have made much a do. But can you not allow this, that the Prophet saith, to be a description of man's blessedness? howsoever it is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not to describe, but to speak, to say, to pronounce, and in effect, there is nothing else meant by the word▪ describeth, here used, but that David pronounceth or setteth forth the blessedness of man in such words. You in your translation say, termeth, as David termeth, which if you mean it not scornfully, cometh as near a definition, as, describeth, the word which we use, and our, describeth, is as near the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as your, termeth, is to the Latin dicit. But look to our fingers, and spare not to tell us where you see us go wide from the Greek or Hebrew, but if you do nothing but trifle and quarrel, as you have done hitherto, be sure we will be bold to beshrew your fingers▪ and hit you on the thumbs now and then also to your discredit.     

CHAP. XII.  
Heretical translation for SPECIAL FAITH, vain security, and ONLY FAITH.  

MARTIN.  
ALL other means of salvation being thus taken away, their 
1.  only and extreme refuge is, Only faith, & the same not the Christian faith of the articles of the creed, & such like, but a special faith & confidence, whereby every man must assuredly believe, that himself is the Son of God, and one of the elect, and praedestinate to salvation. If he be not by faith as sure of this as of Christ's incarnation, he shall never be saved.  

FULK.  
ALL other means of salvation being taken away, 
1.  and only faith apprehending the mercy of God in the redemption of jesus Christ, being left, we have great & sufficient cause, to account ourselves happy, and assured of eternal life, because he that hath promised, is faithful also to perform. But where you say that our only faith, is not the Christian faith of the articles of the creed, you lie without measure impudently: for that faith, and none other do we believe, teach, and profess. And that faith is a special faith and confidence in the mercy of God, whereof every man that believeth, doth make a singular confession for himself, saying, I believe in God, etc. And of all things contained in that profession of faith (that is, of forgiveness of sins, resurrection of our bodies, and life everlasting, by belief and trust in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, conceived, borne, suffered, crucified, dead, buried, descended into hell; risen again, and ascended into heaven, and in God the holy Ghost, by whose gracious and mighty working we are incorporate into the body of Christ, and made members of his holy Catholic Church, which is the communion of Saints) every Christian man ought to be as certainly persuaded, as the things are most true, being inwardly taught by the spirit of truth, that he is the child of God, and consequently elect, & predestinate unto eternal salvation. But that a man s●●●l never be saved, except he have such certainty of this faith, as the truth of God's promises doth deserve, none of us doth teach, none of us doth think. For we know our own infirmity, we know the temptation of Satan, nevertheless we acknowledge in ourselves, and so seek to persuade all men, that these things standing upon the immovable pillars of God's promises, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, aught to be most certain unto us, and for daily confirmation and increase of this faith all those means are of us diligently to be used, that God for this purpose in his holy Scripture hath appointed.    

MART. 2. For this heresy, they force the Greek to express the very word of assurance and certainty, thus: Let us 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  draw nigh with a true heart, IN ASSURANCE OF FAITH. Heb. 10. v. 22. and Beza, Certa persuasione fidei, 
Annot. in 1. Luc. v. 1.  that is, with a certain & assured persuasion of faith: interpreting himself more at large in another place, that he meaneth thereby such a persuasion and so effectual, as by which we know assuredly without all doubt, that nothing can separate us from God. Which their heretical meaning maketh their translation the less tolerable, because they neither express the Greek precisely, nor intent the true sense of the Apostle, they express 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not the Greek, which signifieth properly the fullness and compliment of any thing, and therefore the Apostle joineth it sometime with faith, else where (Hebr. 6. v. 11.) with hope, with knowledge, or (
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Col. 2. v. 2.) understanding, to signify the fullness of all three, as the vulgar Latin interpreter most sincerely (
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Plenissime sciens.  Ro. 4. v. 21.) always translateth it: & to Timothee, (
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  2. Tim. 4.) he useth it to signify the full accomplishment & execution of his ministery in every point. Where a man may wonder that Beza to maintain his conceived signification of this word, translateth here also 
Ministerium tu●m imple. An. 1577. An. 1562. Ignat. Ep. Smyrn. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  accordingly, thus: Ministerij tui plenam fidem facito: but their more current Church English Bibles are content to say with the vulgar Latin interpreter, fulfil thy ministery: or, fulfil thine office to the utmost. And the Greek fathers do find no other interpretation. Thus, when the Greek signifieth fullness of faith, rather than assurance or certain persuasion, they translate not the Greek precisely. Again in the sense they err much more, applying the foresaid words to the certain & assured faith that every man ought to have (as they say) of his 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  own salvation. Whereas the Greek fathers expound it of the full and assured faith that every faithful man must have of all such things in heaven as he seethe not, namely that Christ is ascended thither, etc. adding further and proving out of the Apostles 
Chrys. Theodor. Theophyl. upon Ro. 10.  words next following, that the Protestants* only faith is not sufficient, be it never so special or assured.  

FULK. 2. Having nothing to impugn this clear interpretation of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the unperfect translation of your vulgar Latin interpreter, who was both an unperfect Graecian, & a very barbarous Latinist, you are not ashamed to say, we force the Greek, to make it signify assurance: which all men that are but meanly learned in the Greek tongue, may know, that it signifieth assurance, or full & certain persuasion. Although for the question in controversy, the fullness of faith will prove the certainty, as much in a manner, as the assurance. But that the Greek signifieth a full and certain persuasion, I report me not only to the best Greek Dictionaries of this time, but also to Budeus, who citeth Isocrates out of Trapezuntius for proof, that it is so used, & also interpreteth that of S. Paul Rom. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let every man be certain of his own mind. But you have a doughty argument, that it is not only joined with faith, but also with hope, knowledge, and understanding, as though there could not be a certain persuasion and assurance of hope, knowledge, and understanding: yea the assurance of hope dependeth upon the assurance of faith, and the assurance of faith upon the certain persuasion of knowledge and understanding. Yea your vulgar interpreter translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 4. v. 21. Plenissimè sciens, knowing most fully, may teach you, that it signifieth more than fullness, for else he should have said being fulfilled. And better doth Beza express the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2. Tim. 4. than some of our English interpreters, which say, fulfil thy ministry: whereas the Apostles meaning is, that he should approve the credit and dignity of his ministery, unto other men. But the Greek fathers (you say) find none other interpretation of it, and for proof you cite Ignatius ep. ad Smyr. which although it be not authentical, yet I see no cause why we may not interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being certainly persuaded in faith & love, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the assurance of faith. And so is it translated in Bibliotheca sacra Margarini de la Bigne, Plenè instructae in fide & charitate, & cognovi vos absolutè perfectos in fool stabili, fully instructed in faith and charity, and I have known you absolutely perfect in a steadfast faith. Chrysostom and Theodoret, because you vouch at large, I know not what you would show out of them. In Theophylact I find, that he speaketh against all hesitation & doubtfulness of faith, but against the certain persuasion thereof never a word. Ne aliquam inducas in animum tuum haesitationem, neque pendeas animi, dubij quiddam cogitans. Bring not into thy mind any staggering, neither be incertain of thy mind, thinking any doubtful thing. But for the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, S. Basil may be a sufficient witness, who commonly useth it for assured and certain persuasion. ●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 26. Every word and deed must be proved by●●● testimony of the holy Scripture, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the full and certain persuasion of the go●●●▪ & to the shame of the wicked. Again desin. 80. what is the property of a faithful man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. By such assured persuasion to be disposed, etc. Even so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the certain persuasion of godliness etc. and so in other places. And you yourself confess as much, where you say, the Greek fathers expound it of the full assured faith etc. which is enough to justify our translation. Now if the fathers understood this full assured faith only of an historical faith (as you say) & not of trust and confidence in God, it is an other controversy. Our translation is not false, although we had a false meaning, if it be answerable to the words. Neither doth Chrysostom speak of an historical faith only, by certainty whereof we have access unto God: but also of confidence, which remission of our sins doth cause, and that we are made coheirs with Christ, & that we enjoy so great love, neither doth he prove that the protestāns only faith is not sufficient to justify. But the Apostle showeth (saith he) that not faith alone, but also a virtuous life is required, & that a man be not guilty to himself of maliciousness. For these holy places do not receive those men, with certain assurance, which are not made such. This judgement of Chrysostom the Protestants do allow of better than the Papists: for we know, that a godly life is necessary in them that believe to justification, without which they can have no assurance of faith, no nor faith in deed, but that which is by equivocation called faith, such saith as the Devil and the reprobate may have.    

MART. 3. Yet do these terms please them exceedingly, in so much that for the chosen gift of faith, Sap. 3. 14. they 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●id● donum electum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●●b. 1577. ●●● 20. 6. ●● 1● 14. Hebr. 6. 9  translate, THE SPECIAL gift of faith: and Rom. 8. 38. ●●ni sure, that nothing can separate us from the love of God. 〈◊〉 though the Apostle were certain and assured not only of h〈…〉 wne salvation, but of other men's. For to this sense they do 〈◊〉 translate here, whereas in other places out of controversy they translate the same word as they should do, I am persuaded, they are persuaded, etc. For who knoweth not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth only a probable persuasion? They will say that I am sure, and I am persuaded, is all one. Being well meant, they may indeed signify alike, as the vulgar Latin interpreter doth commonly translate it, but in this place of controversy, whether the Apostle were sure of his salvation or no, which you say he was, yea without revelation, we say he was not: here why would you translate, I am sure, and not as in other places, I am persuaded, but in favour of your error, by insinuating the terms of sure, and assurance, and such like: as elsewhere you neglect the terms of just and justification. 
2. Cor. 4.  In which your secret things of dishonesties & craftiness (as the Apostle calleth it) we cannot always use demonstrations to convince you: but yet even in these things we talk with your conscience, and leave the consideration thereof to the wise reader.  

FULK. 3. Seeing they account the book of Wisdom to be of no authority to establish the certainty of doctrine, it is not like they could have any such respect, as you maliciously surmise. And yet the translation good and true. For what is the choice gift of faith, but a special gift? Or dare you say, that faith is not a special gift of God? They say not a special faith, but a special gift of faith. The other quarrel of the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I am sure, is so brutish, that when you confess the vulgar Latin interpreater commonly to translate it, Certus sum, and that in the end, you can use no demonstration to convince us, yet still nevertheless you charge our conscience with the secret things of dishonesty. That the Apostle was sure of his own salvation, by the testimony of God's spirit which is given to all his children, we doubt not, and that he was sure of the salvation of all Gods elect, of which it is unpossible, that any should perish. And seeing the same spirit of adoption is given to all the children of God, which is the earnest of the heavenvly inheritance, we can not affirm without blasphemy against God's truth, that any man ought to discredit the promises of God, or the testimony of his spirit.    

MART. 4. You hold also in this kind of contronersie, that a man must assure himself that his sins be forgiven. but in the book of Eccle. c. 5. v. 5. We read thus, Of thy sin forgiven, be not without fear. or (as it is in the Greek) Of forgiveness 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  & propitiation be not without fear, to heap sin upon sins. Which you translate falsely, thus: Because thy sin is forgiven thee, be not therefore without fear. Is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because thy sin is forgiven thee? You know it is not: but that we should be afraid of the very forgiveness thereof, whether our sin be forgiven or no, or rather, whether our sin shall be forgiven, or no, if we heap one sin upon an other. Which seemeth to be the truest sense of the place, by the words following▪ as though he should say, Be not bold upon forgiveness to heap sin upon sin, as though God will easily forgive, etc.  

FULK. 4. We hold, that a man, when he is truly penitent, aught to assure himself, that his sins be forgiven him, because God hath so promised, in an hundred places, without injury of whose credit, we cannot doubt of the performance of his promise. But that which the son of sirach speaketh of propitiation, is meant of the shadowy propitiation by the sacrifices of the law, which can not assure any man of the forgiveness of his sins by themselves, much less them that heap sin upon sin, which are never truly repentant. For unto true repentance is required an hatred of sin, & a desire, & purpose of amendment. Our translation is (as your vulgar Latin) not precise to the words of the Greek, but just unto the meaning, for the words are, concerning propitiation, be not without fear: and your Latin is, De propitiato peccato, of sin forgiven. And if you will reprove your Latin, aswell as our English, and say, we must be afraid of the very forgiveness, I have told you, that the forgiveness of God testified by the sacrifices, pertained unto them that be truly penitent, and not to hypocrites. And where you make it a doubt, whether sin shall be forgiven, or no, in them that heap one sin upon an other: we are out of doubt, that sin shall never be forgiven to such, as so continue without true conversion unto God.    

MART. 5. I touched before upon another occasion, how 
Bib. 1562.  you add to the text, making the Apostle say thus, Ephes. 3. By whom we have boldness and entrance with THE CONFIDEHCE WHICH Is by the faith of him, or 
Bib. 1577. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (as in an other Bible, which is all one) in the confidence by faith of him. The learned and skilful among you in the Greek tongue, know that this translation is false for two causes, the one is, because the Greek in that case should be thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. an other cause is, the point after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. so that the very simple & sincere translation is this, we have affiance and access with confidence, by the faith of him. even as elsewhere it is said, we have confidence, 
1. Io. 3.  if our heart reprehend us not: we have confidence by keeping the commandments, by tribulations and afflictions, and all good 
Hebr. 10. 2. Cor. 3.  works. hope also giveth us great confidence. Against all which, your translation is prejudicial, limiting and defining our confidence toward God, to be faith, as though we had no confidence by works, or otherwise.  

FULK. 5. For understanding of the article, I have answered already, & mean not here to repeat it. The point you miss, in the Bible 1577. is observed in that book which I have of Richard lugs printing. By whom we have boldness and entrance in the confidence, by faith of him. But it cannot be, the confidence (you think) but, confidence: because the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not put before the word, that signifieth confidence. But all englishmen know that our English (the) may be put, and sometime must be put before nouns, without any article either in Greek or Latin. And in this place, I would not give a rush to choose, whether it be in or out, for any sense that it changeth. What confidence we have by a good conscience, by suffering tribulation, and by all good works, it skilleth not for this question, so it be determined, that we have no confidence in the merits of a good conscience, of suffering, of all good works that we can do▪ to have boldness and entrance unto God. But of merits we have spoken before in their proper place.    

MART. 6. For this confidence by faith only, Beza translateth so wilfully & perversely, that either you were ashamed to follow him, or you lacked a commodious English word correspondent to his Latin. If I have all faith (saith the Apostle) and have not charity, I am nothing▪ totam fidem (saith Beza) I had 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ●. Cor. 13. Annot. in No. Test. 1556.  rather translate, than, omnem fidem, because the Apostle meaneth not all kind of faith. to wit the faith that justifieth: but he meaneth, that if a man have the faith of Christ's omnipotency, or of any other article of the Creed, or of all wholly & entirely & perfectly, that is nothing without charity. This is beza's tota fides, whole faith, thinking by this translation to exempt from the Apostles words, their special justifying faith, and wrestling to that purpose in his annotations against Pighius and other Catholic Doctors. Whereas every man of small skill may see, that the Apostle nameth all faith, as he doth all knowledge and all mysteries: comprehending all sorts of the one and of the other: all kind of knowledge, all kind of mysteries, all faith whatsoever, Christian, Catholic, historical, or special, which two later, are Heretical terms newly devised.  

FULK. 6. When your spiteful and dogged malice cannot reprove our English translation, than we must answer for beza's Latin, who hath sufficiently answered for himself, to them that understand, and list to read him. In the place mentioned by you, he chooseth to say totam fidem, rather than omnem, because it appeareth by the effects, that he speaketh of faith, as it was a special gift of working of miracles, of which effects he nameth one, removing of mountains. And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken, namely for the perfection of one kind, not the universal comprehension of all kinds, he bringeth you example, Ro. 7. v. 8. and elsewhere oftentimes. But if it should be taken (as you say) all knowledge, & all mysteries is generally to be taken, yet he telleth you, this separation is but upon an impossible supposition, for justifying faith can never be separated from charity, but if it might be separated, it should not profit to justify. The Angels of heaven can not preach an other gospel: but if they did preach an other gospel, they should be accursed. A great argument I promise you against justification by faith only, that a solitary, dead, or barren faith doth not justify.    

MART. 7. And I would have any of the Bezites give me a sufficient reason, why he translated, totam fidem, and not also, totam scientiam: undoubtedly there is no cause, but the heresy of special and only faith. And again, why he translateth jaco. 2. 22. Thou seest, that faith was (administra) a helper of his works: and expoundeth it thus, Faith was an efficient cause and fruitful of good works. Whereas the Apostles words be plain, that faith wrought 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  together with his works, yea and that his faith was by works made perfect. This is impudent handling of Scripture, to make works the fruit only and effect of faith, which is your heresy.  

FULK. 7. If you dare draw forth your pen against Beza, and demand an answer of himself, although he hath already given you a sufficient reason to induce, that the Apostle speaketh not of faith, as generally as of knowledge, because by an example of removing mountains, he restraineth it to one kind of faith. As for the other question, why he translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, jam. 2. v. 22. was an helper; me think you should make best answer yourself, who not long since, by force of that word, would needs prove, that men were helpers of God, chap. 10. sect. 6. Have you so soon forgotten your own voice? and is this impudent handling of the scripture, to translate, as you yourself in an other case though impertinently did contend the word to signify? But works you will not have to be the fruit only and effect of faith: because the Apostle saith that faith wrought together with his works, and by works his faith was made perfit, as though apples are not the fruit of the tree, because the tree doth bear them, and by them, if they be good, the tree is made a good tree.    

MART. 8. Which heresy also must needs be the cause, that, to suppress the excellency of charity (which the Apostle giveth it above faith, or any other gift whatsoever, in these words, And yet I show you a more excellent way, 1. Cor. 12. v. 31.) he in one edition of the new Testament (in the year 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  1556.) translateth thus, Behold moreover also I show you a way most diligently. What cold stuff is this, & how impertinent? In an other edition (an. 1565.) he mended it thus: And besides I show you a way to excellency. In neither of both expressing the comparison of pre-eminence & excellency, that charity hath in the Apostles words, and in all the chapter following. Wherein you did well (for your credit) not to follow him (no not your Bezites themselves) but to translate after our vulgar Latin interpreter, as it hath always been read & understood in the Church.  

FULK. 8. The rareness of the phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. as all indifferent men will judge, rather than any mind to suppress the excellency of charity, caused Beza to give diverse interpretations of that place, of which yet the latter more commendeth the excellency of charity, than the vulgar Latin, or our Eaglishe translation, which expoundeth it as the Latin doth: for if charity be the way to excellency, it is a greater commendation thereof, than to say, it is a more excellent way than other gifts, whereof he spoke last, as of healing, of tongues, of interpretations, etc. 
* Luther. to. 2. fol. 405. edi. Wittenb. 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.     

MART. 9 Luther was so impudent in this case, that, because the Apostle spoke not plàinely enough for only faith, he thrust (only) into the text of his translation, as himself witnesseth, you durst not hitherto presume so far in this question of only faith, though in other controversies you have done the like, as is showed in their places. But I will ask you a smaller matter, which in words & show you may perhaps easily answer, but in your conscience there will remain a gnawing worm. In so many places of the Gospel, where our Saviour requireth the people's faith, when he healed them of corporal diseases only, why 
Mart. 10. 52. Luc. 18. 42. etc. 8. v. 48.  do you so gladly translate thus, Thy faith hath saved thee, rather than thus, thy faith hath healed thee, or made thee whole? is it not, by joining these words together, to make it sound in English ears, that faith saveth or justifieth a man? in so much that Beza noteth in the margin thus, fides saluat: that is, faith saveth. & your Geneva Bibles, in that place where it can not be taken for faith that justifieth, because it is not the party's faith, but her fathers that Christ required, there also translate thus, Believe only, & she shall be saved. Which translation, 
Luc. 8. 50.  though very false and impertinent for justifying faith, as you seem to acknowledge by translating it otherwise in your other Bible's: yet in deed you must needs maintain and hold 
See Gough● sermon and Tomsons answer to the L● Abbot of westmest.  it for good, whiles you allege this place for only faith, as is evident in your writings.  

FULK. 9 That which Luther might well do as an interpreter, or expounder, it was much boldness for him to do, as a translator: but seeing he himself hath redressed his own offence, we have less to say for him, and you against him. For our additions, except such as the necessity of our English phrase doth require for understanding, you slander us to say, that we have in any controversies done the like. The question you ask, is not worthy any answer, why we translate, thy faith hath saved thee, etc. seeing we use all these words indifferently, healing, making safe, and making whole, as in S. james we say, Can faith save him? And it is all one, to say, thy faith hath saved thee, and thy faith hath made thee whole. But you say, we allege this place for only faith justifying, citing the answers of Master Gough, & M. Tomson, against Feckenham. I think you lie, as in other places very commonly. And yet an argument, though not a plain testimony, may be taken out of these places for only faith justifying. Seing Christ was not a physician for the body, but to teach men that he was a Physician for the soul, and as he healed the diseased in body only by faith, so he cureth the sickuesse of the soul by the same instrument of faith only, which by other places may be more directly proved, and here also in some sort is insinuated.    

MAR. 10. This than you see is a fallacy, when faith only is required to the health of the body, as in many such places (though not in all) there by translation to make it sound a justifying faith, as though faith only were required to the health of the soul. Whereas that faith was of Christ's omnipotency only and power, which Beza confesseth may be in the devils themselves, and 
An. in. 1. Co. 13. 2  is far from the faith that justifieth. If you say, the Greek signifieth as you translate: it doth so in deed, but it signifieth also very commonly to be healed corporally, as (by your own translation) in these places, Marc. 5. v. 28. Marc. 6. v. 36. Luc. 
Bib. 1577.  8. v. 36. & v. 51. Where you translate, I shall be whole. They were healed. He was healed. She shall be made whole. And why do you here translate so? because you know, to be saved, importeth rather an other thing, to wit, salvation of the soul: and therefore when faith is joined withal, you translate rather saved, than, healed, (though the place be meant of bodily health only) to insinuate by all means your justification by only faith.  

FULK. 10. It is no fallacy: from the health of the body, to ascend higher to the health of the soul, but that direct and plain way, by which Christ himself would be known to be saviour of the world, not of the body only, but of the body and soul together. And commonly his bodily cures were joined with forgiveness of sins, which are causes of all maladies, and with health of their souls, whose bodies were made safe. As for justification by faith only, we mean none otherwise to insinuate it in this place, than Christ himself doth, by doing miracles, in giving health of the body, to testify that he is the only author of the salvation of men's souls.     

CHAP. XIII.  
Heretical translation against PENANCE and SATISFACTION.  

Martin.  
Upon the heresy of only faith justifying, 
1.  and saving a man, followeth the denial of all penance and satisfaction for sins. Which Beza so abhorreth, (Annot. in Mat. 3. v. 2) that he maketh protestation, that he avoideth these terms, Poenitentia, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and, Poenitentiam agere, of purpose: and that he will always use for them in translating the Greek words, resipiscentia, and, resipiscere. Which he doth observe perhaps, but that sometimes he is worse than his promise, translating most falsely and heretically, for resipiscentia, 
Act. 26. 20. in No. Test. an. 1556. and in his later translation, 1565 Mat. 3. v. 8. Luc. 3. v. 8.  resipiscentes: so that your English Bezites themselves are ashamed to translate after him. Who otherwise follow his rule for the most part, translating resipiscentia, amendment of life: and, resipiscite, amend your lives. and the other English Bibles when they translate best, say, repentance, and, repent: but none of them all once have the words, penance, and, do penance. Which in most places is the very true translation, according to the very circumstance of the text, and use of the Greek word, in the Greek Church, and 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Agere poenitentiam.  the ancient Latin translation thereof, and all the father's reading thereof, and their expositions of the same. Which four points I think not amiss, briefly to prove, that the Reader may see the use and signification of these words, which they of purpose will not express, to avoid the terms of penance, and, doing penance.  

Fulke.  
IF by penance you mean satisfaction 
1.  for sins, by any suffering of ours, we abhor your penance, as an horrible blasphemy against the blood of Christ. And for that cause, Beza, as hath been showed before, useth the word resipiscentia, rather than poenitentia: because the Greek word signifieth, not only a sorrow for sin, but also a purpose of amendment of life. We in English use the word repentance, or amendment of life, which word of repentance, you use also sometimes, when it pleaseth you, or when you can not for shame use your popish term of doing penance,  
The cause why we never use that word penance, is, for that you mean not thereby that which the Scripture calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but a certain punishment taken upon men, for satisfaction of their sins unto God, which is abominable for all Christian ears to hear, which acknowledge that the blood of Christ only purgeth us from all sin. But in four points you will prove, (if you can) that we should translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to do penance.    

MART. 2. First, that the circumstance of the text doth 
That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. is to do penance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, poenitentiam egissent.  give it so to signify, we read in S. Matthew, cap. 11. v. 21. If in tire and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had done penance in haircloth, or sackcloth and ashes long ago. And in S. Luke, cap. 10. v. 13. they had done penance, fitting in sackcloth and ashes. I beseech you, these circumstances of sackcloth and ashes adjoined, do they signify penance and affliction of the body, or only amendment of life, as you would have the word to signify? S. Basil saith, in Psal. 29. Sackcloth maketh 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for penance. For the fathers in old time sitting in sackcloth and ashes, did penance. Unless you will translate S. Basil also after your fashion, whom you can not any way translate, but the sense must needs be, penance, and, doing 
2. Cor. 7. 9  penance. Again S. Paul saith, You were made sorry to penance, or, to repentance, say which you will: and, The sorrow which is according to God, worketh penance, or, repentance unto salvation. Is not sorrow, and bitter mourning, and affliction, parts of penance? Did the incestuous man 
1. Cor. 5.  whom Saint Paul excommunicated, and afterward absolved him▪ because of his exceeding sorrow and tears, for fear lest he 
2. Cor. 2.  might be overwhelmed with sorrow, did he, I say, change his mind only, or amend his life, as you translate the Greek word, and interpret repentance? did he not penance also for his fault, enjoined of the Apostle? when Saint john the Baptist saith, and 
Mat. 3. Luc. 3. Act. 26.  Saint Paul exhorteth the like, Do fruits worthy of penance, or as you translate, meet for repentance: Do they not plainly signify penitential works, or the works of penance? which is the very cause why Beza rather translated in those 
Fructus dignos iis qui resipuerint. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  places, Do the fruits meet for them that amend their lives. or, give us some other good cause Oye Bezites, why your master doth so fo●ly falsify his translation.  

FULK. 2. Such is your malicious frowardness, that you will not understand resipiscentia, repentance, or amendment of life, a sorrow or grief of mind for the life past: which is testified sometimes by outward signs of sackcloth and ashes, fasting and humbling of men's bodies, as in the texts of Math. 11. and Luc. 10. and diverse other, is expressed. But show us that the wearing of sackcloth and ashes, is a satisfaction for the life past, or any part of amends to God's justice, or else you do but trifle, and waste the time. But S. Basil saith, that sackcloth maketh for penance, etc. I marvel whether you red that saying in Basil, and durst for sin & shame allege it for your popist● penance: where he plainly showeth the use & end of sack cloth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sackcloth is an helper unto repentance, being a sign of humiliation, for of old time, the Fathers repented sitting in sackcloth & ashes. This sign of humbling, or of submission, you have clean omitted. Thus you use to geld the Doctors sayings, when you rehearse them. Sackcloth therefore serveth to repentance, as a testimony of sorrow, and humbling of ourselves before God, not as any satisfaction or amends for our sins. The rest of the places that you cite, to prove, that sorrow is a part of repentance, are altogether needless, for we also do acknowledge the same. Our question is not of sorrow, but of satisfaction, to be a part of repentance. Likewise the works worthy, or meet for repentance, do argue the repentance to be unfeigned, and undissembled, but they prove not that by them a satisfaction is made for the sins committed before repentance. For a new life, new manners, new fruits, must follow a mind, that is truly turned unto God; and changed from delight in sin, to hate and abhor sin, and to study unto amendment of life.    

MART. 3. Secondly, for the signification of this Greek word, in all the Greek Church, and Greek fathers, even from S. Denys the Areopagite S. Paul's scholar, who must needs deduce it from the Scriptures, and learn it of the Apostles: it is most evident, that they use this word for that penance which was done in the Primitive Church, according to the penitential Canons, whereof all antiquity of Counsels and Fathers, is 
Ec Hier. c. 3. in principio. Poenitentes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  full: in so much that S. Denys reckoning up the three sorts of persons that were excluded from seeing and participating of the divine mysteries of Christ's body and blood, to wit, Catechumens, penitents, and the possessed of ill spirits: for, penitents, he saith in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that is, such as were in their course of penance, or had not yet done their full penance. Which penance S. Augustine declareth thus: (Ho. 27. inter. 50. ho. and ep. 108.) Est poenitentia gravior, etc. There is a more grievous & more mournful penance, whereby properly they are called in the Church, that are Poenitentes: removed also from partaking the sacrament of the altar. And the Greek Ecclesiastical history thus: In the Church of Rome there is a manifest & known place for 
Sozom. lib. 7. c. 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. See S. Jerome in epitap. Fabiola.  the penitents, & in it they stand sorrowful, & as it were mourning, & when the sacrifice is ended, being not made partakers thereof, with weeping and lamentation they cast themselves flat on the ground: then the Bishop weeping also with compassion lifteth them up, and after a certain time enjoined, absolveth them from their penance. This, the Priests, or Bishops of Rome keep from the very beginning even until our time.  

FULK. 3. Although Denis, whose books are now extant, were no more S. Paul's disciple, than he was S. Paul himself: yet I will grant, that the public testification of repentance, in such as had openly fallen, was in the primitive church, not only called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by a metonymy, but also, that the word of satisfaction was used, not that they had any meaning to satisfy the justice of God by such external works, but that by those outward trials of their repentance, the Church was satisfied, which by their fall was offended, and the governors of the Church by such signs of true sorrow, and amendment, were persuaded to receive them again into the congregation, from whence, until sufficient trial had of their repentance, they were separated and excluded. But this proveth not, that the inward repentance which God giveth, when he turneth us unto him, hath in it any satisfaction for our sins, which no sacrifice was able to make, but only the lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world. The places you cite, as well out of Denis, as of S. Augustine, and Sozomene, do prove this that I say, to be understood of public signs of repentance, without that any satisfaction unto God's justice, in those times by such penance, was intended.    

MART. 4. In these words and other in the same 
Li. 5. c. 10.  Chapter, and in Socrates Greek history likewise when they speak of penitents, that confessed and lamented their sins, that were enjoined penance for the same, and did it: I would demand of our English Grecians, in what Greek words they express all this. Do they it not in the words which we now speak of, and which therefore are proved most evidently to signify penance, and doing penance? Again, when the most ancient Council of Laodicea. can. 2. saith, That the time of penance should 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  be given to offenders according to the proportion of the fault: And again, can. 9 That such shall not communicate till a certain time, but after they have done penance, and confessed their fault, then to be received: And again, can. 19 After the Catechumens are gone out, that prayer be made of the Poenitentes, or them that are in doing penance. And when the first Council of Nice saith, can. 12. about shortening or prolonging the days of penance, that they must well examine their purpose and manner of doing penance. that is, with what alacrity of mind, tears, patience, humility, good works, they accomplished the same, and accordingly to deal more mercifully with them, as is there expressed in the Council: when Saint Basil, Can. 1. ad Amphiloch. speaketh after the same sort: when Saint Chrysostom calleth the sackcloth, and fasting of the Ninivites for certain days, tot dierum poenitentiam, so many days penance: in all these places, I would gladly know of our English Grecians, whether these speeches of penance, and doing penaun●ce, are not expressed by the said greek words, which they will in no case so to signify.  

FULK. 4. A matter of great weight I promise you, to inquire of our English Grecians, in what Greek words they express all this. Verily, in the same Greek words which signify repentance, or repenting, and so may be expressed in English: neither is there any thing in any of the Counsels or Doctors, by you cited or quoted, that hath any other intention, than I have before expressed. The words of penance, and doing penance, if you meant the same by them, that we and you do by repenting and repentance, we would not strive with you for terms: but that you have an other meaning in them appeareth by this that you translate the same word poenitentia, commonly penance, as when it is agere poenitentiam, but when it is said that God doth, dare poenitentiam, than you translate it repentance. Whereby it appeareth, you mean the penance which you would have men to do, is not that repentance which is the gift of God. Else why say you not, Acts. 5. that God hath exalted Christ to be Prince and Saviour, to give penance to Israel, and remission of sins, if penance and repentance were all one? But you say repentance. Also, Act. 11. God then to the Gentiles hath given repentance to life, where the word is poenitentia in both places. As also, 2. Tim. 2. where you say: lest sometime God give them repentance to know the truth. Of this repentance which God giveth unto life, and remission of sins withal, satisfaction is no part: of public repentance so called, when indeed it was a public testification, that God had given inward repentance, we acknowledge satisfaction to the Church, and to the judgement of the governors thereof to be a part.    

MART. 5. Or, I would also ask them, whether in these places they will translate, repentance, and amendment of life, where there is mentioned a prescript time of satisfaction for their fault by such and such penal means: whether there be any prescript times of repentance or amendment of life, to continue so long, and no longer: if not, then must it needs be translated, penance, and doing penance, which is longer or shorter according to the fault, and the manner of doing the same▪ I may repent in a moment, and amend my life at one instant, and this repentance and amendment ought to continue for ever. but the holy Counsels and Fathers speak of a thing to be done for certain years or days, and to be released at the bishops discretion: this therefore is penance, and not repentance only or amendment of life, and is expressed by the foresaid Greek words, as also by * an other equivalent there unto. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   

FULK. 5. I have answered before, we may in all these places use the word of repentance, as well as this word repent, the noun as well as the verb. And if we would use the same figure, which they do, that call such external testimonies of repentance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we might use the word of amendment of life also. The prescript time of satisfaction, I have said was to the church, which was offended and slandered by their open offences, and to the judgement of the bishop and Elders which had the appointing or releasing of such time of repentance. The other Greek word which you say is aequivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, namely, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth to fall down under, or kneel before one, as Tertullian expresseth the phrase, praesbyteris advolui, aris dei adgeniculari, 
De poenitentia.  for one to be cast down in humble manner before the 
Concil. Ancyr. can. s. etc.  Elders, to kneel before the altars of God. Hereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, for that submission which public penitents did show to testify their inward humility, and by a metonymy of the sign, is taken for that which it doth signify, namely, humble and hearty repentance, which is approved before men, by such outward gestures, and tokens of inward grief and humility of mind. So is public fasting in token of repentance, by Tertullian called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it is a sign & token of humiliation 
De jeiunio.  and submission of mind, which must of necessity accompany true repentance. Wherefore it is untruly said, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is equivalent with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to change the mind frrm evil to good, whereas the other expresseth but an outward gesture, to signify inward repentance, and that in open repentance only.    

MART. 6. I omit that this very phrase, to do penance, is word for word expressed thus in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And 
●itur. Chry. in rubricis, pa. 69. 104 Metanoea. Annot. in 3. Mat. v. 2.  Ausonius the christian Poet (whom I may as well allege once, & use it not, as they do Virgil, Terence, & the like very often) useth this Greek word so evidently in this sense, that Beza saith, he did it for his verse sake, because another word would not stand so well in the verse. But the reader (I trust) seethe the use and signification of these Greek words, by the testimony of the Greek fathers themselves, most ancient and approved.  

FULK. 6. You may well omit that which beareth no credit of antiquity. The Liturgy is not so ancient, as he whose name it beareth, the rubric much less. That Beza saith of Ausonius, using 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sense you mean, it seemeth you do not understand him. For he saith, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used but in good part. So that in my judgement, Ausonius would have said rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that his known Epigram, if the measure of his Pentametre verse would have borne it.    

MART. 7. Thirdly, that the ancient Latin Interpreter doth commonly so translate these words through out the new Testament, that needeth no proof, neither will I stand 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Poenitentiam agere.  upon it (though it be greater authority than they have any to the contrary) because the Adversaries know it and mislike it, and for that and other like points it is belike, that one of them saith it is the worst translation of all, whereas Beza his Master 
Discou. of Sand. Rock. pag. 147. Praefat. in No. Test. an. 1557.  saith it is the best of all. So well they agree in judgement, the Master and the man.  

FULK. 7. The Latin interpreter as it appeareth in many places, had no perfect understanding of the Greek tongue: but in the Latin it is manifest, that he was very rude, in so much that Lindanus thinketh, he was a Grecian, rather than a Latinist. Yea he hath a whole chapter thus entitled: That the authors of the 
De opt. Gen. in scr. lib. 3. cap. 6.  vulgar translation of the Psalter, and the new Testament, were Grecians, Nec latine satis eruditos, and not sufficiently learned in the Latin tongue. By which testimony it may be gathered, what credit is to be given to the Latin terms that he useth, differing from the Latin phrase, used by them that are learned in that tongue. I could bring example of many terms and phrases, that you yourself are ashamed to follow, which pretend so precise a translation out of the vulgar Latin. What my mislike is of that translation, and how contrary to that which Beza saith thereof, I have opened else where to your shame. Only here I must tell you, that albeit in respect of learning, I disdain not to acknowledge myself beza's scholar (of whom nevertheless I have learned very little) yet I would you should know, I am no strangers man, though you, and such traitors as you are, had rather be the Pope's men, than true servants to the Queen of England.    

MART. 8. I come to the fourth proof, which is, that all the Latin Church and the glorious Doctors thereof have always read as the vulgar Latin interpreter translateth these words, and expound the same of penance, and doing penance. To name one or two for an example, S. Augustine's place is very 
Ep. 108.  notable, which therefore I set down, and may be translated thus: Men do penance before Baptism, of their former 
Agunt homi●es poenitentiam. Act. 2.  sins, yet so that they be also baptised, Peter saying thus, DO YE PENANCE, AND LET EVERY ONE BE baptized. Men also do penance, if after Baptism they do so sin, that they deserve to be excommunicated and reconciled again, as in all Churches they do which be called, POENITENTES. For of 
Sicut agunt qui Poenitentes appellantur.  such penance spoke S Paul. 2. Cor. 12. 21. saying, THAT I LAMENT NOT MANY OF THEM WHICH BEFORE HAVE SINNED, AND HAVE NOT DONE PENANCE FOR THEIR UNCLEANNESS. We have also in the Acts, that Simon Magus 
Act. 8. 18.  being baptised, was admonished by Peter TO DO PENANCE 
Vt ageret poenitentiam.  for his grievous sin. There is also in manner a daily Penance of the good and humble believers, in which we knock our breasts, saying, FORGIVE US OUR debts. For these (venial and daily offences) fasts and alms and prayers are watchfully used, and humbling our souls we cease not after a sort to do 
Quotidianam agere poenitentiam.  daily penance.  

FULK. 8. That all the Latin Church and the glorious doctors thereof have always red as the vulgar Latin interpreter translateth: you prove by an example of S. Augustine. In which also it is manifest, that S. Augustine understandeth the phrase, not only for the exercise of public poenitentes, but also for the inward repentance of the heart. But because you challenge all the doctors of the Latin Church, for the use of this word poenitentia, I pray you consider what Tertullian writeth against Martion, who cavilled about the repenting ascribed in Scripture to God. In Graeco sono, etc. In the Greek sound the name of repentance, is made not of confession of an offence, but of changing of the mind. And in his book De Poenitentia, where he treateth even of public repentance, citing the testimony of john baptist, he saith, Non tacet johannes, poenitentiam initote 
In Ps. 118. pbe.  dicens. john holdeth not his peace, saying begin repentance. Hilarius also showeth what Poenitentiae doth signify, when he saith, Peccati poenitentia est ab eo quod poenitendum intellexeris destitisse. Repentance of sin is to have ceased from that, which you have understood that it must be repent of. Likewise against the novatians that deny repentance, 
In Psal. 137.  Cum ad Poenitentiam per quam à peccatis desistitur, when unto repentance by which men cease from sins, the doctrine of the Law, Prophets, Gospels, Apostles, exhorteth them that have sinned. And even your vulgar interpreter in Saint Mark saith Poenitemini, for that he saith in Matthew, Agite poenitentiam, by which it is certain, that he meaneth one thing in both, namely repentance of heart, and no satisfaction of work.    

MART. 9 In these words of S. Augustine it is plain that he speaketh of painful or penitential works for satisfaction of sins, that is, penance: again, that there are three kinds of the same, one before Baptism, an other after Baptism for great offences, greater and longer: the other daily for common and little venial saultes which the best men also commit in this frail nature. Again that the two former are signified and spoken of in the three places of Scripture by him alleged. Where we see, that he readeth altogether as the vulgar interpreter translateth, and expoundeth all three places of penance for sin, and so approveth that signification of the Greek word. Yea in saying that for venial sins we knock our breast, fast, give alms, and pray, and so cease not Quotidianam agere poenitentiam: what doth he mean but daily penance and satisfaction? Read also S. Cyprian (beside other places) epist. 52. num. 6. Where his citations of Scripture are according to the old Latin interpreter, and his exposition according, of doing penance, and making satisfaction for sins committed. But I need not proceed further in alleging either S. Cyprian or other ancient fathers for this purpose, because the Adversaries grant it. Howbeit in what terms they grant it, and how malapertly they accuse all the ancient fathers at once for the same, it shall not be amiss here to put down their words.  

FULK. 9 S. Augustine speaketh nothing of satisfaction for sins, but as I have said, of such exercises as were appointed by the Church, to testify their repentance. The occasion of all these words, was of one that was a Novatian, who said that Peter was not baptised, when he was received into repentance after his denial. And where he used this word Egisse poenitentiam, S. Augustine denieth, that he did open penance, as they that we properly called poenitentes: Quod autem dicitur Petrum egisse poenitentiam. But where it is said that Peter did penance, we must beware that he be not thought so to have done it, as they do it in the Church, which are properly called Poenitentes. And who can abide this, that we should think, that the chief of the Apostles is to be numbered among such penitents? For it repented him that he denied Christ, which thing his tears do show. These words declare, that Agere poenitentiam with Augustine, signifieth to be inwardly repentant, as well as to do those external works, which are tokens of repentance. Also that tears, fastings, and such like, are arguments, and signs of repentance before God, and not any part of that repentance in deed and much less any satisfaction for sins. Of this penance or repentance of S. Peter, S. Ambrose saith, Lachrymas eius lego, satisfactionem non lego, I read of his tears, I read not of 
In Luc. lib. 10. cap. 22.  his satisfaction. In that Augustine useth the words of the old interpreter, it is no matter, for he useth also his meaning. But this usage of his, proveth not the antiquity of the vulgar Latin translation, but contrari wise, it is certain that S. Augustine followed an other translation, for in the text, 2. Cor. 12. where your vulgar Latin hath, Super immunditia & fornication & impudicitia quam gesserunt. S. Augustine readeth, Super immunditia & luxuria & fornication quam egerunt. That S. Cyprian useth the term Agere poenitentiam, and satisfaction also, speaking of public repentance, it shall be easily granted, but in none other sense, than I have often declared. But where you say, that his citations are according to the Latin interpreter, it is false. For Apoc. 2. your vulgar text is, Memor esto itaque unde excideris, & age poenitentiam & prima opera fac. But Cyprians citation is, Memento unde cecideris, & age poenitentiam, & fac priora opera. Likewise Psalm. 88 you read in your vulgar Latin, 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 satisfaction, than of satisfaction to the Church, your adversaries will not grant you, although they may grant you, that he ascribed too much unto such external tokens of repentance.    

MART. 10. Whereas the reverend, godly, and learned Father, Edmund Campion, had objected in his book, the Protestants accusation of S. Cyprian, for the matter of penance: the good man that answereth for both Universities, saith thus 
Whitak. pag. 97. cont. ration. Ed●●. Camp.  to that point: But whereas Magdeburgenses (Lutheran writers of that city) complain that he depraved the doctrine of repentance, they do not feign or forge this 
Doctrinam poenitentiae.  crime against him, but utter or disclose it. For all men understand that it was too true. Neither was this Cyprians fault alone, that he wrote of repentance many things 
De poenitenti●. Imprudenter.  incommodiously, and unwisely, but all the most holy fathers almost at that time, were in the same error. For whiles they desired to restrain men's manners by severe laws, they made the greatest part of repentance to consist 
Poenitentiae.  in certain external discipline of life, which themselves prescribed. In that they punished vice severely, they were to be borne withal: but that by this means they thought to pay the pains due for sins, and to satisfy God's justice, and to procure to themselves assured impunity, remission, and justice, therein they derogated not a little from Christ's death, attributed too much to their own inventions and finally depraved repentance. Thus far the Answerer.  

FULK. 10. If Campion was such a reverend, godly, and learned father among you, whose levity, treason, and ignorance in divinity, hath been so lately tried among us, we know how to esteem of the whole pack of you. Whose learning if it had been never so great, as by the time of his study in divinity, & the trade of his travailing life, since he gave himself thereto, no wise man can esteem that it was great: yet being so lately attainted of high treason against the Prince, and the state, none that is honest, and dutiful, would have bestowed upon him the commendation of godliness. As for that which M. Whitaker hath answered against him although not in the name of both the Universities, by whom he was never authorized to be their advocate, yet so, as neither of both the Universities need be ashamed of his doing: for as much as I know he hath confuted your quarrels already, I will leave you in this matter, wholly to contend against him. Assuring you of my credit, (which I know is but small with you) that he shall be found sufficient to match with as strong and adversary as the Seminary of Rheims can make out against him.    

MART. 11. Mark how he accuseth the fathers in general of no less crime, than taking away from Christ the merits of his Passion, attributing it to their own penance and discipline. Which if they did, I marvel he should call them in this very place where he beginneth to charge them with such a crime, sanctissimos patres, most holy fathers. The truth is, he might as well charge S. Paul with the same, when he saith, we shall 
Rom. 1.  Be the heirs of God, and coheirs with Christ, yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him. S. Paul saith, our suffering also with Christ, is necessary to salvation: Master whitaker's saith, it is a derogation to Christ's suffering. Christ fasted for us, therefore our fasting maketh nothing to salvation. He prayed for us, was scourged, and died for us: therefore our prayer, scourging, and imprisonment, yea and death itself for his sake, make nothing to life everlasting, and if we should think it doth, we derogate from Christ's passion. Alas, is this the divinity of England now a days? to make the simple believe that the ancient fathers and holy men of the primitive Church by their severe life and voluntary penance for their sins, and for the love of Christ, diddy therein derogate from Christ's merits and passions?  

FULK. 11. If the fathers at some time, by attributing too much to external discipline, were carried somewhat too far, whereby not a little was derogated from the merits of Christ's death▪ yet they are not charged directly to have impugned the dignity thereof, which, when their eyes were attentively bend upon it, they did worthily magnify and extol. That we must be conformable to the suffering of Christ, if we will be made partakers of his glory, it is the divinity that is now taught in England: but that any sufferings, or any good works of ours whatsoever, do merit any part of eternal glory, the divinity preached in England doth most justly abhor. But that the holy men of the Primitive Church, by their severe life, and hearty repentance for their sins, testified by tears, fasting, and other chastising of their flesh, for the love of Christ, did derogate from Christ's merits and passion, it is a lewd slander out of France, from the traitorous seminary at Rheims, but no part of the divinity of England, allowed by the Universities of Cambridge, and Oxford, as you would make simple men believe that it is.    

MART. 12. I may not stand upon this point; neither need I. the principal matter is proved by the adversaries confession, that the holy Doctors spoke, wrote, and thought of penance, and doing penance as we do, in the same terms both Greek, and Latin: and with Catholics it is always a good argument, and we desire no better proof, than this. The Protestants grant, all the ancient fathers were of our opinion, and they say it was their error. For, the first part being true, it is madness to dispute, whether all the ancient fathers erred, or rather the new Protestants, as it is more than madness to think that Luther alone might see the truth more than a thousand Augustine's, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Churches. Which, notwithstanding the palpable absurdity thereof, yet M. whitaker's 
Pag. 101.  avoucheth it very solemnly.  

FULK. 12. The confession you charge the adversaries to make, is of your own forgery, not of their concession. But for want of other proof, it was the best you could do, to feign our grant, but you are not able to show our deeds thereof in writing. As neither of the rest that the ancient fathers were all of our opinion, by the Protestants grant, that Luther might see more of himself alone, than, etc. but whatsoever M. Whitaker hath advouched, I leave to himself to answer.    

MART. 13. And yet again (that the reader may see how they play fast and lose at their pleasure) this is the man, that when he hath given us all the fathers on our side, not only in the matter of penance, but also in invocation of Saints, 
* Pag. 109. Pag. 101.  and in divers other errors, as he calleth them: the very same man (I say) in the very next leaves almost, reneweth Master 
Pag. 114. 117.  jewels old brag, that we have not one clear sentence for us of any one father within six hundred years after Christ, and again, that the same faith reigneth now in England, which these fathers professed. What faith, M. whitaker's? not their faith concerning penance, or invocation of Saints (as yourself confess) or other such like errors of theirs, as you term them. Why are you so forgetful, or rather so impudent, to speak contraries in so little a room? Such simple answering will not serve your adversaries learned book, which you in vain go about by foolish Rhetoric to disgrace, when the world seethe you are driven to the wall, and either can say nothing, or do say that, which confuteth is self with the evident absurdity thereof.  

FULK. 13. Master Whitaker is not so inconsiderate, to play fast and lose, as you are intemperate and untrue, in accusing him. Howbeit, there is no doubt, but he will meet you, and handle you, according to your virtues. But seeing you give such high commendation to Campions' pamphlet, as that you call it a learned book, (wherein beside a little rank Rhetoric, more meet for a boy, that learneth to practise his figures, than for a grave Divine, to use in so serious a cause, there is nothing that any learned man may think worthy of any answer). we may well perceive what you count learning, & what be the pillars of your popish religion. The books are both in print, let the world judge of both indifferently.    

MART. 14 But to leave M. whitaker's (who is a simple companion, to sit in judgement upon all the ancient Doctors, and to condemn them of heinous error in the matter of penance). I trust the Reader seethe by the former discourse, the usual Ecclesiastical signification, and consequently both the true and false translation of the foresaid Greek words. Not that 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  they must or may always be translated, penance, or doing penance. For in the scriptures God is said Poenitentiam agere, who can not be said to do 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 prejudice 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 do penance properly, so much less amend 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sap. 5. Poenitentiam a● gentes.  their lives.  

FULK. 14. Master Whitaker taketh not upon him to sit in judgement of all the Doctors, although he may note some error or other, in every one of them, whose writings of any substance, do remain with us. But after all this brabbling about poenitentiam agere, you come home, and confess, that it must not always be translated, doing of penance: because God himself after your vulgar translation, is said, agere poenitentiam, which with the Septuaginta, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. No man could better have confuted your vain quarrelling▪ than you have done yourself: for by this it is manifest, that the vulgar Interpreter, did not mean by agere poenitentiam, any more, than we do by repentance. And therefore the best, and the most simple translation is, to use the words repent, and repentance. And the Greek word, as Tertullian telleth you, signifieth changing of mind, which may be without acknowledging of error. Although it can not yet be properly said of God, that he changeth his mind, when he is said to repent. As likewise it is not necessary, that they which be in hell, should amend their lives, when it is said they repent. Neither do we translate the word simply, amendment of life, but show that amendment of life must necessarily follow in them that truly repent, as the Scripture teacheth us.    

MART. 15. Moreover, it is purposely against penance, that they translate amiss, both in Daniel, and Esdras, whose voluntary 
●●●. e●p. 59 Dan. 10.  mourning, fasting, afflicting of themselves for their own sins, and the peoples, is notoriously set forth in their books. There they make the Angel say thus to Daniel. From 
v. 12. Bib. 1579.  the first day that thou didst set thine heart TO HUMBLE thyself. What is this humbling himself? can we gather any penance thereby? none at all. but if they had said according to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, from the first day that thou 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  didst set thine heart TO AFFLICT thyself, we should 
ut te affligeres. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  easily conceive works of penance, and it would include daniel's mourning, fasting from flesh, wine, and other meats, abstaining from ointments, the space of the days, mentioned in the beginning of the same chapter.  

FULK. 15. The word humbling, doth as well comprehend all those exercises of fasting, and mourning, which the holy men did use, to testify their repentance, & to provoke themselves to hearty repentance for their sins, & the sins of the people, as the word afflicting. Another translation calleth it chastening, the Hebrew word signifieth to bring low, or cast down, therefore it is spoken of women, that are carnally known, which is without affliction. But when it is used of such godly exercises, it declareth for what end they serve, namely to humble and bring low our proud rebellious nature, and to be signs of humiliation, as S. Basil saith of sackcloth and ashes, not to be by punishment, satisfaction for our sins. Your own vulgar Latin interpreter translateth the same word, Gen. 16 v. 19 humiliare▪ humble thyself, or submit thyself under thy mistress hand, and often times in that sense. And even in this sense of humbling▪ by signs of repentance, he useth the word humilia●us, speaking of Achab, 2. Reg. 21. v. 29. where the Hebrew word is otherwise. And Psalm 35. v. 13. the same word ●innethi he translateth, humiliaham, And in their 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  sickness. I put on sackcloth▪ and humbled my soul with fasting So doth he often times, when such bodily chastisement is signified thereby. Wherefore this, as all the rest is a false and unreasonable quarrel▪ against our translation, as though by it we meant to deny the use of afflicting, or chastening the body, with fasting, mourning, and other like exercises of repentance.    

MART. 16. Again, in all their Bibles of the years 1562. 1577. 1579. they make Esdras, c. 9 5. after his exceeding 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  great penance, say only this, About the evening sacrifice I arose up from my HEAVINESS. neither translating the Hebrew, which is the same word that in Daniel, nor the Greek, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  which signifieth affliction, and humiliation.  

FULK. 16. First your Greek text of Esdras, confirmeth our translation of Daniel. Secondly, I say, that by this heaviness, they mean, all that humiliation and affliction, whereof he spoke before, which is easy for every man to understand, that is not blinded with malice, and what other thing is affliction, but heaviness, grief, and sorrow, whereof the holy man spoke twice before, I think no wise man can tell.    

MART. 17. Again, in the Prophet Malachi, (c. 3. 14.) they translate thus: Ye have said, It is but vain to serve God, and what profit is it that we have kept his commandments, and walked HUMBLY before his face? What is this same, humbly? when we say in English, he goeth humbly: we imagine or conceive no more but this, that he is an humble man, and behaveth himself humbly▪ but they know very well, the Prophet speaketh of an other thing: and if 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  it had pleased them to have translated the Hebrew word fully, and significantly, in the sense of the holy Ghost, they might have learned by conference of other places, where the same Hebrew word is used, that it signifieth such heaviness, sadness, sorowfulness, and affliction, as men express by black mourning garments, the nature of the word importing blackness, darkness, lowering, and the like. Which is far more than walking humbly, and which is wholly suppressed by so translating. See the Psalm 34. v. 14. Ps. 37. v. 7. Ps. 41. v. 10. Where the Prophet 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  useth many words and speeches, to express sorrowful penance: and for that which in Latin is always, contristatus, in Greek a word more significant, in Hebrew it is the same kind of word that they translate, humbly. Whereas in deed this word hath no signification of humility properly, no not of that humility I mean, which is rather to be called humiliation, or affliction, as the Greek words imply. But it signifieth properly the very 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  manner, countenance, gesture, habit of a pensive 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 word, they will notwithstanding suppress the force and signification thereof in any one place, and so translate it, that the reader must needs take it in an other sense, and can not possibly conceive that which the word importeth. for, to walk humbly, soundeth in all English ears, the virtue of humility, which this word doth never signify, and not humility or humiliation by affliction, which it may signify, though secondarily, and by deduction only.  

FULK. 17. What a many of vain words are here spent, to make a vain cavil seem to be of some value? what the etymology of the Hebrew word is, the translators knew before you were borne. But what the word signifieth here, Pagnine is sufficient to teach both you, and them, who thus interpreateth it in obscuro, id est, obscurè, id est, humiliter. In the dark, that is darkly, that is humbly. Your vulgar Latin translator calleth it, tristes, which is as far from your pretended penance, as humility. The Septuaginta translate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth servile or servants. Benedict Arias expoundeth it, supplices, humble. And to put all out of quarreling, the Antithesis or opposition of the proud and arrogant, in the next verse following, proveth, that in this verse, they speak of humility, which is contrary to pride, and not of the tokens of repentance, which are mourning apparel, and such like.    

MART. 18. Again, what is it else but against penance and satisfaction, that they deface these usual and known words 
Dan. 4. 24.  of Daniel to the king, Redime eleemosynis peccata tua, Redeem thy sins with alms: altering and translating 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  it thus, Break off thy sins by righteousness. first, the Greek is against them, which is word for word according to the vulgar and common reading: Secondly, the Chaldee word which they translate, Break off, by Munster's own judgement 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  in lexico Chald. signifieth rather, and more principally, to redeem. thirdly, the other word which they translate, righteousness, in the Scriptures signifieth also, eleemosynam, as the Greek interpreaters, translate it, Dent. 6. & 24 & it is most plain in S. Matthew, where our Saviour saith (Mat. 6. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Ps. 49. v. 5.  v. 1.) Beware you do not your justice before men▪ Which is in other Greek copies, your alms. And S. Augustine proveth it by the very text. For (saith he) as though a man might ask, what justice? he addeth. WHEN THOUDOST AN ALMS DEEDS. He signified therefore, that alms are the works of justice. And in the Psalm they are made one, 
Psalm 111.  He distributed he gave to the poor, his justice remaineth for ever and ever▪ Which Beza translateth, his beneficence or liberality remaineth, etc. Again, S. Jerome, a sufficient Doctor to tell the signification of the Hebrew or Chaldee words, both translateth i●so, and expoundeth it so in his commentary. Moreover, the words that immediately follow in Daniel, interpret it so unto us, And thy iniquities with mercies 
Annot. in Mat. 6. v. 1.  to the poor. Lastly, Beza himself saith, that by the name of justice with the hebrews, is also signified beneficence or beneficialnes to the poor yea, and that in this place of 
2. Cor. 9  Daniel it is specially taken for alms. So that we see there is no impediment, neither in the Chaldee, nor Greek, why they might not have said, as the Church of God always hath said, Redeem thy sins with alms, and thy iniquities with mercies to the poor▪ but their heresy will not suffer them to speak after the Catholic manner, that alms & merciful deeds are a redemption, ransom, and satisfaction for sins.  

FULK. 18. Against popish penance and satisfaction, there is no doubt, but the translators were vehemently affected, yet in this translation they have used no prejudice against repentance, and the true fruits thereof, but rather more straightly have urged the same. For first, whereas in the vulgar Latin text there is no word of repenting from sins, or forsaking of sins, our translator using the term of breaking off his sins, signifieth that all alms, and other apparent good deeds without repentance and breaking off the cause of the former sinful life, are in vain and unprofitable. Secondly, where the vulgar translator useth the word of redeeming, or buying out, which might bring the King into vain security, to think he might satisfy for his sins, without repentance, by giving of alms, which is a small penance for a King: our translators tell him, that, he must break off his sins, before any thing that he doth be acceptable to God. Thirdly, whereas the vulgar interpreter requireth of him nothing but alms, and mercy to the poor, which was a very easy thing for him to perform: our translators enjoin him righteousness, which comprehendeth all virtues, and is a thousand fold harder penance for such a mighty monarch, than giving of alms, and that to poor folks which he should never feel. Fourthly, the words are plain for our translation: for pherak the Chaldee 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  verb signifieth as properly and as principally to dissolve or break off, as, to deliver or redeem. Neither is Munster's judgement otherwise, although he give the other signification first, which is a miserable argument, to prove, that it signifieth rather, and more principally to redeem. But if any signification were more principal than other, it were more reason to say, that pherak signifieth 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  rather & more principally to break or dissolve, because the word signifieth so in the Hebrew tongue, from whence the Chaldee is derived. And indeed delivering, is a kind of dissolving or breaking from him, to whom he was before addict or bound. So that the verb helpeth you nothing, but rather maketh more against you. The other word, although very seldom by synecdoche, it be taken for alms, yet every boy almost in Cambridge knoweth, that it signifieth properly and principally, universal justice, or all righteousness: therefore the Chaldee text is plain for our translation, and enforced for yours of alms. Being against all reason, that the Prophet should exhort the King to giving alms, before he had exhorted him to repentance, and forsaking of his sins. Beside that, it is contrary to the whole scope of the scriptures, to teach any other satisfaction or redemption from sin, than the death and passion of Christ. But where you tell us of S. Hieromes translation, it were somewhat worth, if you could show it. The vulgar Latin text we may not grant you to be S. Hieromes, as for his commentary, teacheth not the word of redeeming, which is the principal word in controversy. And indeed it is a very absurd kind of speech, to say, redeem thy sins, or deliver thy sins, for pherak signifieth none otherwise to redeem, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  than to deliver, whereas, if he had meant, as you think, he should have said rather, redeem thy soul from sins. Christ himself the author of our redemption, is not said to have redeemed our sins with his blood, but to have redeemed us from our sins by his blood.    

MART. 19 And what a miserable humour is it in these cases, to sly as far as they can from the ancient received speech of holy Scripture, that hath so many years sounded in all faithful ears, and to invent new terms and phrases, when the original text both Greek and Hebrew favoureth the one as much or more, than the other▪ as, that they choose to say in the Epistle to Titus (where the Apostle exceedingly exhorteth to good works) maintain good works, and show forth good works, rather than according to the ancient Latin translation, bonis 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  operibus praeesse, to be chief and principal in doing good works, which is the very true and usual signification of the greek word, and implieth a virtuous emulation among good men, who shall do most good works, or excel in that kind. But they that look to be saved by faith only, no marvel if neither their doings, nor translations tend to any such excellency.  

FULK. 19 What a miserable humour is it, when the truth is plainly revealed, by knowledge of the tongues, which was hidden from many of the ancient fathers, to delight rather in error which is old, than in truth which is newly discovered? The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the epistle to Titus we translate also to excel, and it may signify, either to show forth, to maintain, or to excel. And therefore your wrangling is vain and without reason. For that Christian men ought with all diligent labour to excel in good works, it is always acknowledged of us, although they must not look to be saved by their works no nor by their faith only, if their faith be not fruitful of good works. Such collections as these, and much better, it were no hard matter to make a great number against you, to prove that you are enemies to faith, to repentance, to good works, & to God himself.     

CHAP. XIIII.  
Heretical translation against the holy SACRAMENTS, namely BAPTISM and CONFESSION.  

Martin.  
AN other sequel of their only faith is, that 
1  the Sacraments also help nothing toward our salvation, and therefore they partly take them clean away, partly deprive them of all grace, virtue, and efficacy, making them poor and beggarly elements, either worse, or no better than those of the old law.  

Fulke.  
THat the Sacraments help nothing toward 
1  our salvation, is an other of Martin's slanders, no assertion of ours. For seeing we hold that the Sacraments are seals of God's promises, to confirm our faith, by which we are justified before him, how can we affirm, that they help nothing to salvation? But this is the property of hers and slanderers, when they have nothing of truth to charge their adversaries, than they either invent that which was never said or done by them, or else they violently draw out of their sayings or doings by depraving them some colour of matter to serve for a show of their slanders. So doth our wrangler in this place after a flat lie solemnly advouched, against us, of that we say, the Sacraments give no grace, Ex opere operato, of the work wrought, he frameth his spider's web, first that we deprive them, of all grace, virtue, and efficacy. Because we do not include grace, virtue, and efficacy, within the external Elements, or the ministery of man about them, but ascribe the same to the mighty working of God's spirit in his chosen children, which worketh all his gifts in all men according to the good pleasure of his own will. Secondly that we make the Sacraments poor and beggarly Elements. And thirdly either worse or no better than those of the old law. The spiritual matter in deed of the Sacraments of both the Testaments we confess to be jesus Christ of equal power unto salvation of his people living under both the states: but the more abundant grace, and truth, according to the revelation of Christ in the flesh, we acknowledge to be testified, and exhibited in our Sacraments than was in theirs that lived under the law.    

MART. 2. For this purpose Beza is not content to speak as the Apostle doth, (Ro. 4. v. 11.) that circumcision 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  was a seal of the justice of faith, but because he thinketh that, to small a term for the dignity of circumcision, as himself confesseth, he gladly avoideth it (I use his own words) and for the 
Libens refugi. Quod obsignaret, for, sigillum.  Noun putteth the Verb, so dissolutely & presumptuously, that the English Bezites themselves here also dare not follow him in translation, though in opinion they agree. The cause of his wilful translation he declareth in his Annotations upon the same place, to wit, the dignity of circumcision, equal with any Sacrament of the new Testament. His words be these. What (saith he) could be spoken more magnifical of any Sacrament? therefore they that put a real difference between the Sacraments of the old Testament and ours, never seem to have known how far Christ's office extendeth. Which he saith, not to magnify the old, but to disgrace the new.  

FULK. 2. There was never man that had such an artificial conjecture of men's purposes as you pretend yourself to have, which not only where there is likelihood to fasten a conjecture upon, but also when all likelihoods are against you, yet can so confidently pronounce of every man's purpose. Well let the purpose go, which is known best to God, and next to them that will judge of the man according to charity and good reason. You say Beza is not content to speak as the Apostle doth, that circumcision was a seal of the justice of faith. Yes verily, his desire is to express that which the Apostle saith to the full. The name of seal therefore he avoideth not, as you falsely slander him, but for want of a convenient Latin word to express the Apostles Greek word, he is content to use circumlocution by the verb, and saith, Abraham received the sign of circumcision, which should seal up, or by seal confirm the justice of faith, etc. yet are not you ashamed most impudently to say he refused the term of Seal sigillum, and for sigillum hath used quod obsignaret. Whereas the word that he saith he refused, is Signaculum. Signaculi nomen quod vetus interpres & Erasmus usurpavit libens refugi, partim quod non sit admodum usitatum, partim quod non satis videatur illam vim obsignationis declarare. The term signaculum which the old interpreter and Erasmus hath used, I have willingly refused: partly because it is no very usual word, partly because it seemeth not sufficiently to declare that virtue or efficacy of sealing. You see therefore what word he avoideth, & for what cause, & that your eyes were not matches, or else they were dazzled with a mist of malice, when you red that he avoided Sigillum, and placed quod obsignaret for sigillum. The word sigillum as he useth not, so doth he make no mention of it, I think because it being a diminutive of signum, and taken sometimes for a little image, unde sigillares, etc. it is not proper nor full to express the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That he maketh circumcision equal unto the Sacraments of the new Testament, I have showed before, that it is in matter, substance, and end, which he that confesseth not (as Beza saith) seemeth never to have known how far the office of Christ extendeth: but that he hath any purpose to disgrace the Sacraments of the new Testament instituted by Christ himself, in a more clear dispensation of grace and truth, you affirm with the same credit by which you said he put quod obsignaret for sigillum.    

MART. 3. Which is also the cause why not only he, but the English Bibles (for commonly they join hands and agree together) to make no difference between john's Baptism and Christ's, translate thus concerning certain that had not yet received the holy Ghost: Unto what then were ye baptised? 
Act. 19 3.  And they said, unto john's Baptism. Which Beza in a long discourse proveth to be spoken of john's doctrine, and not of his baptism in water. As though it were said, what doctrine then do ye profess? and they said, john's. Whereas in deed the question is this, and aught thus to be translated, In what then or wherein were you baptized? And they said, in john's Baptism. As who should say, we have received john's Baptism, but not the holy Ghost as yet. And therefore it followeth immediately, than they were baptised in the name of jesus, and after imposition of hands the Holy Ghost came upon them. Whereby is plainly gathered, that being baptised with john's baptism before, & yet of necessity baptised afterward with Christ's baptism also, there must needs be a great difference between the one baptism & the other, john's being insufficient. And that this is the deduction which troubleth these Bezites, and maketh them translate accordingly, Beza (as commonly▪ still he uttereth his grief) telleth us in 
Anno. in Act. ●9.  plain words thus. It is not necessary, that wheresoever there is mention of john's Baptism, we should think it to be the very ceremony of Baptism. Therefore they that gather john's Baptism to have been divers from Christ's, because these a little after are said to be baptised in the name of jesus Christ, have no sure foundation. Lo▪ how of purpose he translateth & expoundeth it john's doctrine, not john's Baptism, to take away the foundation of this Catholic conclusion, that his Baptism differeth and is far inferior to Christ's.  

FULK. 3. And is john's Baptism now made a Sacrament of the old law? was john the Baptist a minister of the law, or of the Gospel? Our Saviour Christ, is sufficient to teach us that the law and the Prophets prophesied until john: but from the days of john the kingdom 
Matth. 10.  of heaven suffereth violence. But if you will make john's Baptism a Sacrament of the new Testament, and yet differing from the Baptism of Christ, than you make two Baptisms of the new Testament, contrary to the Nicene Creed, and Christ himself, who was baptized for us, baptized with the worse. But concerning that place Acts the 19 which hath troubled so many interpreters with the obscurity thereof, or rather with a prejudicate opinion of a difference in the Baptism of john and of Christ, I am neither of beza's opinion, nor yet of our translators, for the understanding and translation of that place. Neither do I think that mention is made of any second baptism, the avoiding whereof, hath bred diverse forced interpretations: but that S. Paul instructeth those Disciples that knew not the grace of the holy Ghost, that they which heard john's preaching to the people, that they should believe in Christ jesus, which was coming after him, were also baptized in the name of jesus, Christ, who had granted those visible graces of his holy spirit, to be bestowed upon them that believed, by imposition of the Apostles hands. Thus therefore I am persuaded those verses are to be translated. But Paul said, john truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people, that they should believe in him, that cometh after him, that is in jesus: & they which heard him, were baptized into the name of our Lord jesus. And after Paul had laid his hands upon, etc. The argument of difference thereof grounded upon this place, is nothing worth▪ where the baptism of john is confirmed by imposition of hands, rather than disgraced by reiteration, which giveth strength to the error of the Donatists, and anabaptists, for rebaptisation. Whereas it can not be proved, that any, which were once baptized by john, were ever baptized again. But the contrary may easily be gathered: for seeing our Saviour Christ baptized none himself, it shall follow that the Apostles were either not baptized at all, or else baptized only with john's baptism. And where there is express mention of john's Disciples, that came unto Christ, to become his Disciples▪ there is no mention of any other baptism than they had already received.    

MART. 4. But doth the Greek lead him, or force him to this translation, In quid? unto what? First himself 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  confesseth in the very same place, the contrary, that the Greek phrase is often used in the other sense, wherein▪ or, wherewith, as it is in the vulgar Latin, and Erasmus: but that in his judgement it doth not so signify here, and therefore he refuseth it. Yet in the very next verse almost, where it is said by the same Greek phrase, that they were baptised in the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  name of jesus Christ, there both he and his, so translate is as we do, and not, unto the name of Christ. Is it not plain, that all is voluntary, and at their pleasure? For (I beseech them) if it be a right translation, baptised in the name of jesus: why is it not right, baptised in the baptism of john? Is there any difference in the Greek? none. Where then? in their commentaries and imaginations only, against which we oppose and set both the text and the commentaries of all the fathers.  

FULK. 4. The Greek doth allow him so to translate, and to be baptized in the name of jesus, and into the name of jesus is all one: as in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, or into the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, is all one. But if Beza that hath discovered the truth in so many places, did not see it in this one text, as neither you nor any of the fathers which have written upon it, who are not many: he is rather to be pardoned of all reasonable men, than to be railed upon by such one who in learning is no more like him, than a Goose to a Swan in singing.    

MART. 5. But no marvel if they disgrace the baptism of Christ, when they are bold also to take it away altogether: 
joh. 3. v. 5.  interpreating this Scripture, Unless a man be borne again of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God, which a man would think were plain enough to prove, that water in baptism is necessary: interpreating (I 
Beza in 4. Io. v. 10. & in Tit. 3. v. 5.  say) this Scripture, Of water, and the spirit, thus: of water, that is, the Spirit: making water to be nothing else in this place but the Spirit allegorically, and not material water. As though our saviour had said to Nicodemus, Unless a man be borne of water, I mean, of the spirit, he can not enter, etc. According to this most impudent exposition of plain Scriptures, Calvin translateth also as impudently for the same purpose in the epistle to Titus, making the Apostle to say, that 
c. 3. v. 5. Per lavacrum regenerationis Spsancti QVOD effudit in nos abunde.  God powered the water of regeneration upon us abundantly, that is, the holy Ghost. And least we should not understand his meaning herein, he telleth ut in his commentary upon this place, that when the apostle saith, water poured out abundantly, he speaketh not of material water, but of the holy ghost. Now indeed the apostle saith not, that water was poured upon us, but the holy ghost. neither doth the Apostle make water and the holy ghost all one, but most plainly distinguisheth them, saying that God of his mercy hath saved us by the laver of regeneration 
Quem effudit, as Beza himself translateth.  and renovation of the holy Ghost, whom he hath powered upon us abundantly. See how plainly the Apostle speaketh both of the material water, or washing of Baptism, & of the effect thereof, which is the holy Ghost powered upon us. Calvin taketh away water clean, and will have him speak only 
Comment. in hunc locum.  of the holy Ghost, which Flaccus Illyricus the Lutheran himself wondereth at, that any man should be so bold, and calleth it plain sacrilege against the efficacy of the Sacraments.  

FULK. 5. The Sacrament of Baptism, how far we are from disgracing, or taking it away altogether, when we affirm that the grace of God's spirit, is not so tied unto it, but he may work regeneration without it, in them that by necessity are deprived of it, let all men of reason and indifferency, judge. Our translation of john. 3. v. 5. being such, as he can find nothing to quarrel against it, he beginneth a new controversy of our interpretation, by which he might bring in five hundred places of scripture, in which we differ from them in exposition. And a great absurdity he thinketh he hath found out, in that we expound the water and spirit to signify one thing: as though in Math. 3. v. 11. the holy ghost, and fire, are not put both for one thing: and he may as well in the one place, urge the element of fire in the baptism of Christ, as by this place prove the necessity of baptism in water. And yet we take not away the sacrament of baptism, or the water, the external matter thereof, which in other places is expressly commanded, when we say it is not spoken of in this text, which is of the thing signified in baptism, rather than of baptism, as in john. 6. our saviour Christ speaketh in like terms of the thing represented in the sacrament of his supper, not of the sacrament itself. The error of calvin's translation and exposition of Titus 3 v. 5. we have before confessed, neither doth any of our translations follow him, and yet his error is no heresy, while he ascribeth wholly to the holy ghost, that which properly is his, but yet of the apostle is figuratively ascribed unto the outward element, by which he worketh.    

MART. 6. And if we should here accuse the English translators also, that translate it thus, by the fountain of the regeneration of the holy Ghost, WHICH he shed on us, etc. making it indifferent, either which fountain, or, which holy Ghost he shed, etc. they would answer by and by that the Greek also is indifferent: but if a man should ask the further, whether the holy Ghost may be said to be shed, or rather a fountain of water, they must needs confess, not the holy Ghost, but water: and consequently that they translating, which he shed, would have it meant of the fountain of water, and so they agree just with Caluins' translation, and leave Beza, who in his translation referreth it only to the holy Ghost, 
Sp. sancti, quem effudit.  as we do: but in his commentary playeth the Heretic as Calvin doth.  

FULK. 6. When Aristides could be accused of no crime, he was by his envious enemies accused of justice. Even so this man, who is wont to prescribe us a rule, to leave that in ambiguity, which in the Greek is ambiguous, now blameth us for translating so, as either calvin's, or beza's sense may stand with it. And all be it in all other places he is content to make us beza's scholars: yet here because Caluine hath the worse part, he will enforce us to leave Beza, and stick to Caluine. Such a force hath malice when it is settled in man's heart, that it carrieth him oftentimes headlong against himself. But seeing the holy Ghost, as the nearest antecedent is placed next before the relative, why must we needs confess, not the holy Ghost, but water to be shed upon us? Is any man so brutish, to believe the bold surmises, what said I, surmises? nay impudent, and contentious affirmations of this blind Bayard.    

MART. 7. Of the Sacrament of penance I have spoken before, concerning that part specially which is satisfaction: here I will only add of Confession, that to avoid this term (namely in such a place where the reader might easily gather Sacramental confession) they translate thus, Acknowledge 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whereof Confession is called in S. Cyprian & other fathers, Exomologesis.  your faults one to an other. jac. 5. It is said a little before, if any be diseased, let him bring in Priests, etc. And then it followeth, Confess your faults, etc. But they to make all sure, for, Confess, say, Acknowledge: and for Priests, Elders. What mean they by this? If this acknowledging of faults one to another before death be indifferently to be made to all men, why do they appoint in their Communion-booke (as it seemeth out 
In the order of visitation of the sick.  of this place) that the sick person shall make a special confession to the Minister, and he shall absolve him in the very same form of absolution that Catholic Priests use in the Sacrament of Confession. Again, if this acknowledging of faults be specially to be made to the Minister or Priest, why translate they it not by the word Confessing and confession, as well as by, Acknowledging? and why is not this confession a Sacrament, where themselves acknowledge forgiveness of sins by the Minister? These contradictions and repugnance of their practice and translation, if they can wittily and wisely reconcile, they may perhaps in this point satisfy the reader. But whether the Apostle speak here of Sacramental confession or no, sincere translators should not have fled from the proper and most usual word of confession or confessing, consonant both to the Greek and Latin, and indifferent to what soever the holy Ghost might mean, as this word, acknowledge, is not.  

FULK. 7. Of the word of penance, and thereupon to wring in satisfaction, we have heard more than enough: but that penance is a Sacrament, we have heard never a word to prove it. But what say we against confession? Forsooth james 5. we translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acknowledge yourselves. Why sir? doth acknowledging signify any other thing than confessing? you want than nothing else, but the sound of confession, which among the ignorant would help you little, which term your Popish acknowledging rather shrift than confession. It is marvel then that you blame us not, because we say not, shrive yourselves one to an other. A miserable▪ Sacrament, that hath need of the sound of a word to help it, to be gathered. But how I pray you, should the reader gather your auricular shrift, or Popish confession if the word confess yourselves were used by us? I ween because the Priests are called in a little before. It is more than mough, if you might gain your Sacrament of anealing by their coming in. But shrift cometh to late after extreme unction. Well admit, the Apostle forgot the order, and placed it after, which should come before, must we needs have Priestly confession proved out of that place? doth not S james say, confess yourselves one to an other, as he saith, pray one for an other? Then it followeth, that the Lay man must shrive the Priest, as well as the Priest must shrive the Say man. And the Priest must confess himself to the people, as well as the people must pray for the Priest. But you have an objection out of the Communion book, to prove confession to be a Sacrament, which appointeth, that the sick person shall make a special confession to the minister, and he to absolve him, etc. Will you never leave this shameless cogging, and forging of matters against us? The Communion book appointeth a special confession only for them that feel their conscience troubled with any weighty matter, that they may receive counsel, and comfort by the minister, who hath authority in the name of God, to remit sins, not only to them that be sick, but also to them that be whole: and daily doth pronounce the absolution, to them that acknowledge & confess their sins humbly before God. But hereof it followeth not, that this confession is a Sacrament, for by preaching, the people that believe, are absolved from their sins, by the ministery of the Preacher: yet is not preaching a Sacrament. A Sacrament must have an outward element, or bodily creature, to represent the grace of remission of sins, as in Baptism, and in the lords supper. But where you conclude, that sincere translators should not have fled the proper and most usual word of confession, you speak your pleasure, for the word of acknowledging, is more proper and usual in the English tongue, than is the word of confessing. And if you can prove any Sacrament out of that text, behold, you have the Greek and Latin untouched and the English answerable to both: make your Syllogism out of that place to prove Popish shrift when you dare.     

CHAP. XV.  
Heretical translation against the Sacrament of HOLY ORDERS, and for the MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS and VOTARIES.  

Martin.  
AGAINST the Sacrament of Orders 
1.  what can they do more in translation, than in all their Bibles to take away the name of Priest and Priesthood of the new Testament altogether, and for it to say, Elder and Eldership? Whereof I treated more at large 
* Chap. 6.  in an other place of this book. Here I add these few observations, that both for Priests and Deacons, which are two holy orders in the Catholic Church, they translate, Ministers, to commend that new degree devised by themselves. As when they say in all their Bibles, Fear the 
Eccles. c. 7. v. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Lord with all thy soul, and honour his ministers. In the Greek it is plain thus, and honour his Priests, as the word always signifieth, and in the very next sentence themselves so translate, Fear the Lord and honour the Priests. But 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  they would needs borrow one of these places for the honour of Ministers. As also in the Epistle to Timothee, where S. Paul 
1. Tim. 3.  talketh of Deacons, and nameth them twice: they in the first place translate thus, Likewise must the Ministers be honest, 
Bib. 1562. & 1577.  etc. And a little after Let the Deacons be the husbands of one wife, Lo, the Greek word being one, and the Apostle 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  speaking of one Ecclesiastical order of Deacons, and Beza so interpreating it in both places, yet our English translators have allowed the first place to their Ministers, and the second to Deacons. and so (because Bishops also went before) they have found us out their three orders, Bishops, Ministers, and Deacons. Alas poor souls, that can have no place in Scripture for their Ministers, but by making the Apostle speak three things for two.  

Fulke.  
FOR the names of Priest, and Elder, we 
1.  have spoken heretofore sufficiently, as also for the name of Minister, which is used for the same that Elder and Priest, although the word signify more generally. That the word Ministers is put for Priests, I take it rather to be an oversight of the first translator, whom the rest followed, because that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cometh immediately after, than any purpose against the order of Priest, or to dignify the name of Ministers. For, seeing Syraches son speaketh of the Priests and Ministers of the ●awe, his saying can make nothing to or fro, for the names of the Ministers, Priests or Elders of the new Testament. That some translations in 1. Tim. 3. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tender Ministers, it is because they supposed the Greek word to be taken there, in the general sense, as it is in many other places, not to make three degrees of two, as you do fond cavil. For the orders of Bishops, Elders, or as you call them Priests, and as they be commonly called Priests and Ministers is all one in authority of ministering the word & the Sacraments. The degree of Bishops, as they are taken, to be a superior order unto Elders or Priests, is for government and discipline, specially committed unto them, not in authority of handling the word and the sacraments.    

MART. 2. There are in the Scripture that are called Ministers in infinite places, and that by three Greek words, commonly: but that is a large signification of minister, attributed to all that minister, wait, serve, or attend to do any service ecclesiastical or temporal, sacred or profane. If the world be restrained to any one peculiar service or function, as one of the Greek words is, then doth it signify Deacons only. Which if they know not, or will not believe me, let them see Beza himself in his Annotations upon Saint Matthew, who protesteth, that in 
Annot. c. 5. v 25.  his translation, he useth always the word, Minister, in the general signification: and Diaconus, in the special and peculiar Ecclesiastical function of Deacons. So that yet we can not understand, neither can they tell us, whence their peculiar calling and function of Minister cometh, which is their second degree under a Bishop, and is placed in steed of Priests.  

FULK. 2. What the general word of Minister signifieth, how it is taken, both generally and specally, we are not so ignorant, that we need be taught of you: And yet all learned men are not agreed, when the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is restrained to the Minister of the poor, and when it signifieth generally, all the officers in the Church. As for the name of Minister, by which, Elders or Priests are commonly called among us, I have even now, and divers times before showed, upon what occasion it was taken up, so to be applied, which yet generally signifieth all that serve in the Church, and common wealth also.    

MART. 3. Again, what can be more against the dignity of sacred orders and Ecclesiastical degrees, than to make them profane and secular by their terms and translations? For this purpose, as they translate, Elders and Eldership, for Priests, and priesthood, so do they most impudently term S. Peter and S. john, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 4. Bib. 1562. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For messenger and legate the Scripture useth these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  lay men: they say for Apostle, Ambassador and Messenger: Ioh 13. v. 16. and for Apostles of the Churches, Messengers of the same: 2. Cor. 8. for Bishops, overseers, Act. 20. Why my masters, doth idiota signify, 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 unlearned & ignorant as any shepherd, is he not idiota? so than idiota is neither Clerk nor lay man, but every simple and ignorant man. They that spoke with miraculous tongues in the primitive church, were they not lay men many of them? yet the Apostle plainly 
1. Cor. 14. 23. 24.  distinguisheth them from idiota. So that this is more ignorantly 
1. Tim. 3.  or wilfully translated, than Neophytus, a young scholar in all your bibles.  

FULK. 3. There can be no greater wrangling, nor more unprofitable, than about words and terms. But why, I pray you, should the terms of Elder and Eldership be more profane and secular in English, than they be in Greek, yea, than the names of ancients and seniors, which you yourselves in your translation use for the same office? will you never be ashamed of these vanities, which turn always to your own reproach? yet do they (say you) most impudently term S. Peter and john lay men. And do not you dishonour them as much, to say in your translation, they were of the vulgar sort? what signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a lay man, but one of the vulgar sort, or common people? Again, were they of that Clergy, whereof Annas and Caiphas were high Priests, or were they not as perfectly distinct, from that sacrificing priesthood, as any lay man at this day is from the christian clergy? yet you go on whether the fury of your malice doth carry you, and say that Idiota, is neither Clerk, nor lay man, but every simple and ignorant man. If it be so, then reform your translation, as well in this place of the Act. 4. as in 1. Cor. 14. where you call idiota of the vulgar sort, or the vulgar, and pluck yourself first by the nose, for false translating, before you find fault with us. Again, if the high Priests did take the Apostles for unlearned and lay men, what impudency is it, to say, that we term them so? And touching your signification of idiota, although the Priests knew, that they had not been brought up in study of learning, as they themselves were: yet, hearing their bold & wise answer, they could not take them for simple and ignorant men, therefore it followeth, that they meant they were none of their clergy, rather than that they were ignorant, and foolish, for simple in the good part, they would not acknowledge them to be. As for the term, Ambassador, and Messenger, for the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Io 13 v. 16. may well be used in that place, seeing it is like he speaketh, as generally of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he doth of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a servant. The servant is not greater than his Lord, nor the ambassador than he that sent him. And for the messengers of the Churches, when those are understood by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are sent on message from the Churches, and not those that are sent by Christ, to preach unto the Churches, no wise man can blame the translation, Acts. 20. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are of us translated, overseers, of you Bishops, yet in your note, you say, or Priests, as though the word may signify, Priests, which all men of skill do know to signify overseers, although the term be given to them, which before are called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders or Priests. But it proceedeth of great ignorance, that Neophytus is translated in all our Bibles, a young Scholar. O what knowledge have we learned of you, to translate Neophytus, a Neophyte. For before, we did take Neophytus, to signify one that is newly planted, or lately engrafted, and by a Metaphor, one that is a young and new scholar in the mysteries of Christian religion, But because your Pope useth to make boys and unlearned young men Bishops, and great Prelates in your Church, you can not abide, that a young scholar should by Saint Paul's rule be excluded from a Bishopric, and therefore you mock the reader with a Neophyte. We know, that in the ancient Church they were called Neophyti, which were lately baptized: but yet in the same sense, because they were young scholars, and therefore look in the Homilies that are entitled, ad Neophytos, and you shall see, they are directed and spent almost or altogether in teaching the principles of Christian religion plainly, wherein they were but young scholars, not yet perfectly instructed.    

MART. 4. Now for changing the name Apostle into Messenger, though Beza do so also in the foresaid places, yet in deed he controlleth both himself, and you, in other places, saying 
Annot. in c. 10. Mat. v. 2.  of the same word, Apostles: A man may say in Latin, Legates, but we have gladly kept the Greek word (Apostle) as many other words familiar to the Church of Christ. And not only of the principal Apostles, but also of the 
Annot. in Rom. 16. v. 7 & in 2. Cor. 8. v. 23.  other Disciples, he both translateth, and interpreteth, in his commentary, that they are notable Apostles. and he proveth that all Ministers of the word (as he termeth them) are and may be so called. And for your Overseers, he saith, Episcopos, and not, Superintendentes. Which he might as well have said, as you, Overseers. But to say the truth, though he be too too profane, yet he doth much more keep and use the Ecclesiastical received terms, than you do, often protesting it, and as it were glorying therein, against Castaleon 
In tit. evang. Math. & in c. 3. v 11. etc. 10. v. 2. etc. 5. v. 25.  especially. As, when he saith, Presbyterum, where you say Elder: Diaconum, where you say, Minister, and so forth. Where if you tell me that howsoever he translate, he meaneth as profanely as you, I believe you, and therefore you shall go together, like Master, like Scholars, all false and profane translators. for, this Beza (who sometime so gladly keepeth the name of Apostle) yet calleth Epaphroditus legatum Philippensium, Philip. 2. verse 15. Whereupon the English Bezites translate, your Messenger, for, your Apostle. As if S. Augustine who was our Apostle, should be called, our Messenger.  

FULK. 4. You can not leave your old bias, in wresting men's sayings far beyond their meaning. Therefore you allege against us, the saying of Beza, for the term of Apostles, to be retained, where mention is made of the Apostles of Christ, not only those that are specially so called, but also all the ministers of the word. But what is this, to term them by the honourable name of Apostles, which are not sent by God, but by men, about some civil or Ecclesiastical business. For both he & we call Epaphroditus, the Messenger, and not the Apostle of the Philippians, because he was sent by the Philippians unto Paul, and not by Christ unto them. As for that Augustine which was sent by Gregory, might better be called Gregory's Apostle, than our Apostle, for he was not sent by us, but to us, not immediately from God, as an Apostle should, but from Gregory, and by Gregory. Touching the terms of Bishops, Elders, Ministers, Priests, etc. enough hath been said already. Our translators have done that, which they thought best to be done in our language, as Beza did in the Latin tongue.    

MART. 5. As also, when you translate of S. Mathias the Apostle, that he was by a common consent counted 
No. Test. 1580.  with the eleven Apostles: Act. 1. v. 26. what is it else, but to make only a popular election of Ecclesiastical degrees, as Beza 
Annot. ibid. & Act. 14. v. 23.  in his annotations, would have us to understand, saying, that nothing was done here peculiarly by Peter, as one of more excellent dignity than the rest, but in common by the voices of the whole Church. though in an other place upon this election, he noteth Peter to be the chief or Corypheus'. And as for the Greek word in this place, if partiality 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of the cause would suffer him to consider of it, he should find, that the proper signification thereof in this phrase of speech, is, as the vulgar Latin Interpreter, Erasmus, and Valla, (all which he rejecteth) translate it, to wit, He was numbered, 
Annumeratus est. cooptatus est.  or, counted with the eleven Apostles, without all respect of common consent, or not consent, as you also in your other Bible's do translate.  

FULK. 5. The election of Mathias to be an Apostle, was extraordinarily, and therefore permitted to the lot: the manner whereof, as it is not to be drawn into example, so the proper election can not be proved thereby: yet hath both Beza, and the English translator, faithfully expressed the Greek word, which S. Luke there useth: although, neither Erasmus, nor Valla, beside your vulgar Interpreter, did consider it. Neither doth that common consent, in accepting Mathias for an Apostle, whom the lot had designed, more prove a popular election, or derogate from the singularity of Peter, than that by common consent of the whole brotherhood, two were chosen and set up, that the Apostleship should be laid upon one of them.    

MART. 6. Which diversity may proceed of the diversity of opinions among you. For we understand by Master 
His defence, or 2. book. pag. 157.  Whitegifts' books against the Puritans, that he and his fellows deny this popular election, and give pre-eminence, superiority, and difference in this case to Peter, and to Ecclesiastical Prelates▪ and therefore he proveth at large the use and Ecclesiastical signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to be the giving of voices in popular elections, but to be the Ecclesiastical imposing of hands upon persons taken to the Church's ministery. Which he saith very truly, and needeth the less here to be spoken of, specially being touched 
* chap. 6. nu. 7.  elsewhere in this book.  

FULK. 6. The diversity of the translation, proceedeth of this, that the former translators did not observe the nature of the Greek word, which Beza hath considered more absolutely, than any interpreters before him Although it is not unlike, that Chrysostom did well acknowledge it, when speaking of this election, he useth 
In act. hom. 3.  these words. I am & illud considera, quam & Petrus agit omnia ex communi discipu●orum sententia, nihil authoritate sua, nihil cum imperio. Now also consider this thing, how Peter doth all things by common consent of the Disciples, nothing of his own authority, nothing with rule or commandment. And as for the popular election, if you had red those books, you make mention of, you might perceive, that neither of both parts, allow a mere popular election. And that Master Whitgift, doth not so much contend, what form of election was used in the time of the Apostles, and of the Primitive Church, as whether it be necessary that such form of election as then was practised, should in all ages of the Church, and in all places, be of necessity continued, and observed.    

MART. 7. One thing only we would know, why they that plead so earnestly against their brethren the Puritans, about the signification of this word, pretending herein only the primitive custom of imposition of hands, in making their Ministers, why (I say) themselves translate not this word 
Bib. 1577.  accordingly, but altogether as the Puritans, thus: When they had ordained them Elders by election in every 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Church. Act. 14. verse 23. For if the Greek word signify 
Beza ibid.  here the people's giving of voices (as Beza forceth it only that way, out of Tully, and the popular custom of old Athens) than the other signification of imposing hands is gone, which Master Whitgift defendeth, and the popular election is brought in, which he refelleth: and so by their translation they have in my opinion overshot themselves, and given advantage to their brotherly Adversaries. Unless in deed they translate as they think, because in deed they think as heretically as the other, but yet because their state of Eccles●asticall regiment is otherwise, they must maintain that also in their writings, howsoever they translate. For an example, They all agree to translate Elder for Priest: and Master whitaker's 
Pag. 200. ad rat. Camp.  telleth us a fresh in the name of them all, that there are no Priests now in the Church of Christ, that is, (as he interpreteth himself) This name Priest is never in the New 
Pag. 210.  Testament peculiarly applied to the Ministers of the Gospel, this is their doctrine. But what is their practice in the regiment of their Church? clean contrary. For in the order of the communion book, where it is appointed what the Minister shall do, it is indifferently said, Then shall the Priest do or say this and that: and, Then shall the Minister, etc. Whereby it is evident that they make Priest a proper and peculiar calling applied to their Ministers, and so their practice is contrary to their teaching and doctrine.  

FULK. 7. I have satisfied your desire before, if you list to know, our translation must be, as near as it can, to express the true signification of the original words, & so it is, in that place of the Acts. 14. v. 23. which being granted by them, that deny the necessity of ●at form of election to continue always, giveth no more advantage to the adversaries, than they would take out of the signification of the Greek word, how soever it were translated. Your example of Master whitaker's denying the name of Priest to be applied to the ministers of the Gospel, to prove that we must maintain our Ecclesiastical state, how soever we translate, is very fond and ridiculous: as also the contradiction that you would make between him and the service book, touching the name of Priest there used and allowed. Master whitaker's writing in Latin, speaketh of the Latin term, Sacerdos, the Communion book of the English word Priest, is not this a goodly net for a fool to dance naked in, and think that no body can see him.    

MART. 8. Now concerning imposition, or laying on of hands, in making their Ministers, (which the Puritans also 
Beza Annot. Act. 6. v. 6.  are forced to allow by other words of Scripture, howsoever they dispute and jangle against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) none of them all make more of it, than of the like judaical ceremony in the old Law, not acknowledging that there is any grace given withal, though the Apostle say there is, in express terms, but they will answer this text (as they are wont) with a favourable translation, turning grace, into gift. As, when the Apostle saith thus, Neglect 
1. Tim. 4. v. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not THE GRACE that is in thee, which is given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of Priesthood, they translate, Neglect not the GIFT. and Beza most impudently, for, by prophecy, translateth, to prophecy: making that only to be this gift and withal adding this goodly exposition, that he had the gift of prophecy, or preaching before, and now by imposition of hands was chosen only to execute that function. But because it might be objected that the Apostle saith, Which was given thee with the imposition of hands, or, (as he speaketh in an other place) by imposition 
2. Tim. 1.  of hands, making this imposition of hands, an instrumental cause of giving this grace, he saith that it did only confirm the grace or gift before given.  

FULK. 8. Though we find that by, or with imposition of hands, many rare and extraordinary gifts of prophecy of tongues, and such like, were given in the Apostles time, yet we find no where, that grace is ordinarily given by that ceremony, used always in the Church, for ordination of the ministers thereof. But whether there be, or not, our translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into gift, is true and proper to the word. For albeit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be taken, not only for the favour of God, but also for his gracious gifts: yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never taken in the Scripture, but for a free gift, or a gift of his grace. That Beza referreth the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the end of the gift, he hath the nature of the word to bear him out, which may well abide that sense: and yet he doth not reject the other common interpretation by prophecy, that by appointment of the holy Ghost, uttered by some of the Prophets. But where you wrangle about the gift of prophecy, as though he were utterly void thereof, before he received imposition of hands: I know not what you mean. Would you have us think, that he was ordained Priest, or Elder, or to any office of the Church, without competent gifts, meet to discharge his office? That the gift of prophecy as well as of speaking with tongues, might be given by and with imposition of hands, Beza doubteth not. But it is out of doubt, that to an office, none was chosen or admitted by the Apostle and the rest of the Presbytery of Ephesus, but such as had sufficient gifts to answer that office.    

MART. 9 Thus it is evident that, though the Apostle speak never so plain for the dignity of holy Orders, that it giveth grace, and consequently is a Sacrament, they pervert all to the contrary, making it a bare ceremony, suppressing the word grace, which is much more significant to express the Greek word, than gift is, because it is not every 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  gift, but a gracious gift, or a gift proceeding of marvelous and mere grace. At when it is said, To you it is given 
Phil. cap. 1. v. 29.  not only to believe, but also to suffer for him. The Greek word signifieth this much, To you this grace is given, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act 27.  etc. So when God gave unto S. Paul all that sailed with him, this Greek word is used, because it was a great grace or gracious gift given unto him. When S. Paul pardoned 
* 2. Cor. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the incestuous person before due time, it is expressed by this word, because it was a grace (as Theodorete calleth it) given unto him. And therefore also the alms of the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 16. v. 3. are called, their grace, which the Protestants 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  translate, liberality, neglecting altogether the true force and signification of the Greek words.  

FULK. 9 Here is no evidence at all, that the order of Priesthood is a Sacrament, or giveth grace, but that God, by the ceremony of laying on of hands, did give wonderful and extraordinary gifts, of tongues, and prophesying, in the beginning and first planting of the Church. But, that grace should always follow that ceremony, there is no proof to be made out of the holy Scriptures. And experience showeth, that he which was void of gifts▪ before he was ordered Priest, is as very an ass and Dogbolte, as he was before, for any increase of grace or gracious gifts: although he have authority committed unto him, if he be ordained in the Church, though unworthily, & with great sin both of him that ordaineth, and of him that is ordained. But we suppress the word grace (you say) because charisma signifieth, at least, a gracious gift. See how the bare sound of terms delighteth you, that you might therein seek a shadow for your singlesolde sacrament of popish orders. The word signifieth, a free or gracious gift, and so will every man understand it, which knoweth, that it is given by God. As also in all places, where mention is made of God's gifts, we must understand, that it proceedeth freely from him, as a token of his favour and grace. But that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do the always import the grace or favour of God, none either wise or learned will affirm, neither doth your vulgar interpreter express the word of grace in those places that you bring for example, Phi. 1. v. 29. he saith plainly, donatum est, it is given, and so yourselves translate it. Why, I pray you do you suppress the word grace, or why do you thus trifle against us? When Saint Paul appealed to Caesar, Acts. 25. affirming, that no man could give him into the hands of his adversaries, he useth the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So, when Festus telleth Agrippa, that he answered the jews, that it was not the custom of the Romans, to give any man to destruction, etc.▪ Saint Luke useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were not he a mad translator▪ or interpreter either, that would expound this word of the grace of God, which is spoken of the favour of men? So, when the Apostle, 1. Cor. 16. calleth the alms of the Corinthians, their grace, is it not better english to say, their liberality? for although their liberality proceeded of God's gift, yet the Apostle adding the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, meaneth the free gift of the Corinthians, not the grace of God.    

MART. 10. But concerning the sacrament of orders, as in the first to Timothee, so in the second also, they suppress the word Grace, and call it barely and coldly, Gift, saying: I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the 
●▪ Tim. 1. v. 6.  gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands. Where if they had said, the grace of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands: then were it plain, that S. Paul by the ceremony of imposing hands upon Timothee, in making him Priest, or Bishop, gave him grace: and so it should be a very Sacrament of holy Orders▪ for avoiding whereof, they translate otherwise, or else let them give us an other reason thereof, specially the Greek word much more signifying grace, than a bare gift, as is declared.  

FULK. 10. These colewoorts were sodden enough once before that they need not be set on again. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if you find it an hundredth times, signifieth no more▪ but a free gift, or a gift that is freely given, even as the English word gift doth: whereof the Proverb is, what is so free as gift? Wherefore if we had said the grace of God we had translated amiss, & otherwise than the Greek word doth signify. But where you trifle in your terms of a bare gift, and we call it barely and coldly a gift, you do nothing but bewray your own shame. Can the gift of God be called a bare gift? or doth he speak barely and coldly, that saith the gift of God? Doth the Apostle Ephes. 2. speaking of our salvation, and your vulgar interpreter, and you yourselves speak of a bare gift, and call it barely and coldly, the gift of God? When you say, you are saved▪ through faith (and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God) not of works etc. See you not that while you seek to raze our skin, you strike yourself to the heart? Be wiser therefore, and spare your own credit: find no fault with that which you cannot amend▪ & which if it were a fault, you yourselves commit as much as we.    

MART. 11. The more to prosane this sacred order, whereunto continency & single life hath been always annexed in the new Testament for the honour and reverence of the functions thereunto belonging, to profane the same (I say) and to make it mere laical and popular, they will have all to be married men, yea those that have vowed the contrary: and it is a great credit among them, for our Priests Apostates to take wives. This they would deduce from the Apostles custom, but by most false and impudent translation: making S. Paul say thus as of his own wife and the other Apostles wives, Have not 
1. Cor. ● v ●. No. Test. 1580.  we power to lead about a wife being a sister, as well as the rest of the Apostles? Whereas the Apostle saith nothing 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mat. 27.  else but, a woman a sister, that is, a Christian woman, meaning such holy women as followed Christ, and the Apostles▪ to find and 
●i. 1. advers. joum. De op. mon. ca 4.  maintain them of their substance. So doth S. Hierom interpret it, & S. Augustine, both directly proving that it cannot be translated, wife, but, woman: and the Greek fathers most expressly. And as for the Greek word, if they say it is ambiguous▪ S. Augustine telleth them that as the Apostle hath put it down 
In Collectan. Decu. super hun● docum.  with all the circumstances, there is no ambiguity at all that might deceive any man. Yea let us set a part the circumstances, and consider the Greek word alone in itself, and Beza will tell us 
Annot. Mat. 5. v. 28. & 1. Cor. 7. v. 1.  in other places, that it signifieth a woman rather than a wife: reprehending Erasmus for translating it, wife, because there is no 
* Quia non additur. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  circumstance annexed why it should so signify: thereby declaring that of itself it signifieth, woman, and therefore much more when the circumstance also (as S. Augustine saith) maketh it certain, that so it doth signify.  

FULK. 11. If matrimony be a holy Sacrament, as you say, & an holy ordinance of God as we both confess, how should the sacred order of Priesthood be profaned thereby. That continence and single life hath always been annexed to the Ecclesiastical functions in the new Testament, it is so manifest an untruth, that I will not stand to confute it. As where you say, that we make the order mere laycal & popular, that we will have all men to be married▪ yea those that have vowed the contrary, these be most impudent assertions. Though it be free for all men to marry, yet no man is willed, otherwise than he shall find cause in himself. And for Priests that come from you, it is more credit to marry, than out of marriage to live incontinently: otherwise they are of as great credit that be unmarried, as they that be married. What the custom 
1. Tim 3. T●t. 1. 1. Cor. 9 etc.  of the Apostles was for having wives & keeping company with them, not only the Scripture of the Apostles, but also Clemens Alexandrinus a most ancient writer is witness for us, & against your impudent assertion, alleging even this text of 1. Cor. 9 To prove that they did lead their wives about with them. P●r quas etiam in Gynecaum, etc. By means of whom the doctrine of our Lord might enter into the closet of women, without any reprehension, or evil suspicion. By which our translation is proved to be good & true, as I have more at large declared before. Cap. 1. Sect. 18. Nether is there here any new 
And Pr●fat. Sect. 36.  matter, which is not there sufficiently answered.    

MART. 12. Wherefore great must the impudency of Beza be (and of the English B●zites) that knowing this and protesting it else where in his Annotations, yet here translateth, soro●em uxorem, a sister a wife, and saying after his lordly manner, I doubted not so to translate it, disputing and reasoning against all other interpreters both ancient & later, for the contrary, yea and aff●ming that S. Paul himself, did foolishly, if 
inept facer●●.  he spoke there, of other rich women. Such a fancy he hath to make the Apostles not only married man, but that they carried about their wives with them, & that they were the Apostles wives, (for so he translateth it Act. 1. v. 14) that returned with them after 
Cum uxoribus.  our lords ascension to Jerusalem, and continued together in prayer till the holy Ghost came upon them. Whereas S. Luke there speaketh so evidently of the other holy and faithful women which are famous in the Gospel (as the Maries and other) that the English Bezites themselves dare not here follow his translation. For I beseech you M. Beza (to turn my talk unto you a little) is there any circumstance or particle here added why i● 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vxorem non tangere. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  should be translated wives? none. then by your own reason before alleged it should rather be trslated, women▪ Again, 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 marriage. If not, show your commission why you may translate in the foresaid places, wife, & wives, at your pleasure: the Greek being all one, both where you will not in any wise have it translated, wife, and also where you will have it so translated in any wise.  

FULK. 12. Nay great must be the impudency of the Papists, that imagine the Apostles, which had wives of their own, did leave them behind them, and lead strange women about with them into all parts of the world. The first that invented that gloze of continent women, such as followed Christ, was Tertullian, the Montanist in his book of Monogamy, which he wrote against the Church, condemning second marriage, & reproving the Latin translation of his time as it seemeth, which in this text. 1. Cor. 9 used the term of uxor, by the ambiguity of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saying that if the Apostle had spoken of matrimony, he would have understood this of wives, but seeing he speaketh De victuaria exhibitione, of the exhibition toward his living, he understandeth it of such women as followed Christ. Than the which distinction nothing can be more absurd: for speaking of exhibition toward his living, the Apostle showeth, that he might have lawfully charged the Church with finding, not only of himself, but also of his wife, as the other Apostles did. Again if rich women did follow the Apostles, ministering to them of their substance, as they followed our Saviour, this was no burden, but an easement unto the Church, which the Apostle would not have abstained from as a thing burdenous to the Church of Corinth. Concerning the other place Act. 1. v. 14. although perhaps it be not necessary, to translate wives, yet it is necessary to understand wives. For to answer you in M. beza's name, who telleth you, that it was meet, as also Erasmus thinketh that their wives should be confirmed, who partly were to be companions of their travail and peregrination, partly to tarry patiently at home, while their husbands were about the Lord's business, and therefore their wives also were present. Again, what a shameful absurdity were it, to think that the Apostles would tarry in a close house, so long together with other women than their wives, and shut out their own wives, which must needs have been subject to great offence and obloquy. And what devilish malice have you against the Apostles wives, that you cannot abide, that they should join with their husbands in prayer and supplication, and be made partakers of the holy Ghost with them, as well as other women, which were also married women, Marry the wife of Cleophas, joanna the wife of Chuza, and other holy women, the mothers or wives of holy men? Will you say the Apostles had no wives? Peter's wives mother will testify against you. Will you say she was forsaken 
Clemen. Reco. lib. 7. Cronica cronic. Fascicul. Temp.  by Peter? the story of his martyrdom, if it be true, affirmeth, that she continued with him to his dying day: will you say, he had no matrimonial company with her? his daughter Petronilla will bear witness against you, so young, that she was desired in marriage by Flaccus the Comes. Touching the place, 1. Corin. 7. where Erasmus translateth, uxorem, I have answered already, 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 novice in the greek tongue, that he knoweth not, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth, a wife or woman, as the circumstance of the place requireth, where it is used?    

MART. 13. Again, to this purpose they make Saint 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Paul say, as to his wife, I beseech thee also faithful yokfellow, Phil. 4. v. 3. for in English what doth it else sound, but man and wife? but that S. Paul should h●ere mean his wife, most of the greek fathers count it ridiculous and foolish, S. 
Socie german. Theophilacte saith, if he spoke to a woman, it should be● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek. Li. 2. c. ●4.  Chrisostome, Theodorete, Oecumenius, Theophilactus. Beza and Calvin both mislike it, translating also in the masculine gender, S. Paul himself saith the contrary, that he had no wife, 1. Cor. 7. And as for Clemens Alexandrinus, who allegeth it for Paul's wife, Eusebius plainly insinua●eth, and Nicephorus expressly saith, that he did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the way of contention and disputation, whiles he earnestly wrote against them that oppugned matrimony.  

FULK. 13. The Greek word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth a fellow or companion in yoke, they have not therefore translated amiss, when they say yoke fellow▪ which signifieth, fellow in any yoke whatsoever. If it sound, man and wife in English, what matter is that? for so it soundeth in Greek. Men must not follow the sound of words only, but examine the matter. And great probability there is, that he speaketh there of his wife, as Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh, neither doth S. Paul himself say precisely, he had no wife, 1. Cor. 7. but that he lived without the use of a wife, which might be, his wife consenting to remain at philippis. That the later writers mislike the judgement of Clemens, and specially that fabulous historiam Nicephorus, it derogateth nothing to his credit▪ nor to the likelihood of the matter. That Theophylact saith, the adjective should be of the feminine gender, he is not to be credited above Clemens Alexandrinus, who knew the purity of the Greek tongue, as well as he. But whether it be to be understood of his wife or no, we leave it indifferent, and translate according to the Greek word, without prejudice of either opinion, which kind of translation, at other times you do highly commend.    

MART. 14. Again, for the marriage of Priests, and of all sorts of men indifferently, they translate the Apostle thus: wedlock 
Hebr. 13.  is honourable among all men. Where one falsification is, that they say, among all men, and Beza, inter quosuis, & in 
* No. Test. a●. 1565.  the margin, in omni hominum ordine, in every order or condition of men, & in his Annotation he raileth, to make this translation good whereas the greek is as indifferent to signify, that 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  marriage is honourable, by all means, in all respects, wholly, thoroughly, altogether. So doth, not only Erasmus, but also the greek fathers 
See, Oecum. in ca●en●.  expound it, namely Theophilact, whose words in the greek be very significant▪ but too long here to trouble the reader with them. Not in part saith he, honourable, and in part not: but wholly, throughout, by all means honourable and undefiled, in all ages, in all times. Therefore, to restrain it in translation to persons only (though it may also very well be understood of all people that have no impediment to the contrary) that is to translate falsely.  

FULK. 14. I have answered already, that seeing the apostle threateneth the judgement of God against fornicators and adulterers, the most apt signification of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is among all men. Although that which you would have, comprehendeth all persons, as well as all other things, means, respects, etc. If any persons have an impediment to the contrary, such as God's word doth allow, their marriage by this text, is not authorized. But Priests have no impediment, when they are, by the word of God to be chosen, as well of married men, as of any other, 1. Tim. 5. Tit. 1. neither can it be any falsification, to translate so, as both the words in the Greek tongue do signify, and the reason of the place doth require. Theophilacts words, you say, be long, and so it seemeth, they be for your purpose, therefore you take but a piece in the mids, cutting off, both the beginning, and the end that make against you. In all (saith he) not in men of riper age, and not in young men also, but in all men, or by all means, and in all times, not in affliction truly, & in quietness not also. not in this part precious, and honourable, and in that part, otherwise, but the whole, and through all parts, let it be precious. Here heretics are made to blush, that slander marriage. For behold, he calleth marriage precious, matrimony honourable, which keepeth a man in the virtue of temperance. And afterward. If matrimony be permitted, the fornicators & adulterers are justly punished. Who is so blind, that he will not see Theophilact refer it to the persons, as well as to all parts of it? At least wise, you should have remembered, that Theophilact, being a Bishop of the Greek church, where their Priests have been, and yet are suffered to be married men, would not write any thing here, against the marriage of Priests. Neither doth Oecumenius exclude the persons, when he extolleth the perfection of marriage, but rather doth comprehend them. Chrysostom doth plainly refer it to the persons, insomuch, that he joineth it in exposition with that text, H●ue peace with all men.    

MART. 15. An other, and the like falsification in this same short sentence, is, that they make it an affirmative speech, by adding, is: whereas the apostles words be these, Marriage honourable 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in all, & the bed undefiled. Which is rather an exhortation, as if he should say, Let marriage be honourable, and the bed undefiled. How honourable? that (as S. Peter speaketh, 1. Pet. c. 3.) none converse with their wives according to knowledge, imparting honour to them, as to the weaker vessels: that is, as S. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  P. also explica●eth it▪ 1. Th. c. 4. possessing every man his vessel in sanctification and honour, not in the passion or lust of concupiscence, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  as the Gentiles, etc. Lo what honourable marriage is, to wit, when the husband useth the wife honourably and honestly in all respects, not beastly and filihily according to all kind of lust and concupiscence. And that the Apostle here exhorteth to this honourable usage of wedlock, rather than affirmeth any thing▪ it is most probable, both by that which goeth before, and that which immediately followeth, all which are exhortations. and les the Protestants give us a reason out of the Greek text, if they can, why they translate the words following by way of exhortation, Let your conversation be without covetousness: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and not these words also in like manner, Let marriage be honourable in all. Certain it is, that the Greek in both is all one phrase and speech, and Beza is much troubled to find a good reason against Erasmus, who thinketh it is an exhortation. The sentence then being ambiguous and doubtful at the least, what jolly fellows are these that will so restrain it in translation, that it cannot be taken in the other sense, & not rather leave it indifferently, as in the Greek and vulgar latin it is, lest the sense of the holy ghost be not that, or not only that, which they translate.  

FULK. 15. I have already showed, that the Verb of the indicative mood, is here to be understood, because the verb which followeth in the same verse, is of the indicative mood. Again, the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ as Beza telleth you, declareth the first words to be uttered affirmatively: Marriage is honourable among all men, and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Moreover, Chrysostom, Theodorete, Theophilact, Oecumeneus, do all prove out of this place, the permission and lawfulness of marriage to all men, which could not be except they understood the Apostles words affirmatively. That married men must live temperately with their wives, it is also true, but not the principal purpose of the Apostle here, to exhort thereunto, but rather to dissuade men from fornication and adultery, because marriage is honourable and undefiled in all sorts of men. The reason you require, Beza hath given you, and I have reported it. Neither is the sentence ambiguous, neither hath it been so taken, but of late days, in despite of holi● matrimony, which though you can not deny in all men, yet you deface the honour thereof, as the Manichees, and other Heretics did, when you affirm that the sacred order of priesthood is profaned thereby. They be your own words before, sect. 11. convincing you to be a maintainer of the doctrine of devils. 1. Tim 4.    

MART. 16. Moreover it is against the profession of continency in Priests, and others, that they translate our saviours words of single life, and the unmarried state, thus: All men 
Mat. 19 v. 11.  can not receive this saying: as though it were impossible to live continent. Where Christ said not so, that all men can not, but, All men do not receive this saying. But of this I have spoken more in the chapter of free will. Here I add only concerning the words following, that they translate them not exactly, nor perhaps with a sincere meaning▪ for if there be chastity in marriage, as well as in the single life, as Paphnutius the confessor most truly said, and they are wont much to allege it, than their translation doth nothing express our saviours meaning, when they say, There are some chaste, which have made them 
Bib. 1561. 1577.  selves chaste, for the kingdom of heavens sake▪ for a man might say, all do so that live chastened in matrimony. but our Saviour speaketh of them that are impotent and unable to generation, called* eunuchs, or gelded men, and that in three 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  divers kinds: some that have that infirmity or maim from their birth, othersome that are gelded afterward by men, and other that geld themselves for the kingdom of heaven, not by cutting of those parts, which were an horrible mortal sin, but having those parts, as other men have▪ yet geld themselves (for 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  so is the Greek) and make themselves unable to generation. Which how it can be but by voluntary profession, promise, and vow of perpetual continency, which they may never break, let the Protestants tell us. Christ then as it is most evident, speaketh of gelded men, either corporally, or spiritually, (which are all such as profess perpetual continency:) and they tell us of some that were borne chaste, and some that were made chaste by men, and some that make themselves chaste: ● most foolish and false translation of the Greek words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  

FULK. 16. Concerning the former part of this matter, Math. 19 v. 11. we have answered sufficiently, in the chapter of free will, but here is a new cavil. Because chastity is also in marriage, as in single life, our translators do not well to express the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by, chaste, and have made chaste. I confess they should more properly have said, gelded men, or gelded themselves, or else continent, and made continent. Although they mean none other by the word chaste, which they use. And touching your question, how men may lawfully geld themselves, but by voluntary purpose of continency, which they may not break: I answer, that we deny not, but that such as be assured they have the gift of continency, may profess to keep it, and after such profession or promise, made to God, they sin if they break it. But if any have rashly vowed that which they are not able to keep, they have sinned in vowing, and can not keep their vow by abstinence from marriage, except they abstain also from all filthiness out of marriage: for such, we hold with Epiphanius, and Saint 
T●i●●. count Apost. 61. Hierom. ep. ad Demetriadem.  Jerome, that immoderate advancer of virginity, that it is better to mary, than out of marriage to live incontinently.    

MART. 17. The Bezites here, are blameless, who translate it word for word. eunuchs: but they are more to blame in an other place, where in derogation of the privilege and dignity 
●●●. 2. v. ●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of Priests, they translate thus: The priests lips should preserve knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth. where in the Hebrew and Greek, it is as 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  plain as possibly can be spoken, The priests lips shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the Law at his mouth. Which is a marvelous privilege given to the Priests 
The infallible judgement of ●he Priests, in questions of religion.  of the old Law, for true determination of matters in controversy, & right expounding of the Law, as we read more fully, Deutero. 17. Where they are commanded under pain of death, to stand to the priests judgement, which in this place God by the Prophet Malachi, calleth his covenant with Levi, and that he 
v. 4.  will have it to stand, to wit, in the new Testament, where Peter hath such privilege for him, and his successors, that his faith shall not fail, where the holy Ghost is Precedent in the Church of Bishops and Priests. All which these Heretics would deface and defeat, by translating the words otherwise, than the holy Ghost hath spoken them.  

FULK. 17. The verb in deed, which the Prophet Malachi useth, is of the future temps. But who knoweth not, that the Hebrews lack the potential mode? and therefore they do very often express it, by the future temps of the indicative mode. Which if you should always translate by the future indicative, you should make many fair promises to them that are sharply rebuked. But the circumstance of the place, doth plainly declare, that the Priests of that time, had broken the covenant made with Levi, concerning keeping of the law. Yea the very words following express the same. But you have departed out of the way, and have caused many to fall against the law. You have made void the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of Hostes. By which words, it is manifest, that the Prophet before, spoke of that knowledge of the law, which the Priest ought to have, & not which the Priests always had: for certain it is, that many of them were ignorant, yea sometimes all: the high Priest was often an Idolater. And who condemned Christ, & his Gospel, but the high Priests? The authority that was given to the Priests, in case of controversy, was limited within the bounds of God's law, from which if they declined▪ no man was bound to obey them. For who was bound to obey Urias the high Priest, preferring the idolatrous altar of Damascus, before the true altar of the Lord? or those devilish tyrants, Menclaus, Alcimus, and such other, as occupied the Priest's rooms in the time of the Maccabees, or Annas and Caiphas, in the ●yme of Christ. Peter then having none other privilege for him and his successors, than Aaron had, he and his successors might fall and be deceived: although Christ prayed that his faith should not fail, as he prayed for all the Apostles, and for all their successors, yea, for all believers, that they might be sanctified in the truth: yet it were madness, to say, that none of them could err. But whensoever you will go about to prove this privilege, out of those words of our Saviour Christ, make your Syllogism, and let us have no more brabbling. Our translation in that place of Malachi, is more true, than you are able to impugn, for those words are rather a commandment, what the priests lips should do, not a promise or assurance, that they always did so.    

MART. 18. And when the Prophet addeth immediately the cause of this singular prerogative of the Priest, quia angelus Domini exercituum est, because he is the Angel of the Lord of hosts, which is also a wonderful dignity, so to be called: they after their cold manner of profane translation, say, because he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. So do they in the next chapter, call S. john the Baptist, messenger: 
Malach. 3. v. 1.  where the Scripture no doubt speaketh more honourably of him, as being Christ's precursor, than of a messenger, which is a term for posts also and lackeys. The Scripture I say, speaketh thus of S. john, Behold I send mine Angel before thee: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Angelnm meum.  and our Saviour in the Gospel, Mat. 11. Luc. 7. telling the people the wonderful dignisies of S. john, & that he was more than a Prophet, citeth this place, & giveth this reason, For this is he of whom it is written, Behold I send mine Angel before thee. Which Saint Hierom calleth meritorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Comment. in hunc locum.  the increase and augmenting of john's merits or privileges, that in Malachi he is called an Angel: and Saint Gregori● saith, he which came to bring tidings of Christ 
Hom. 6. in evang.  himself, was worthily called an Angel, that in his very name there might be a dignity, and all the fathers, and all wit and reason conceive a great excellency in this name: only our profane Protestants that think of all divine things, and persons, most basely, translate accordingly, even in the foresaid Gospel also, making our Saviour to say, that john was more than a Prophet, because he was a Messenger. Yea, where our Saviour himself is called, Angelus Testamenti, the Angel of the Testament, there they translate, the messenger 
Malach. 3. v. 1.  of the covenant.  

FULK. 18. It is not safe, to translate always the messenger of God, by the name of an Angel, which is commonly taken to signify a spirit, not a bodily creature: therefore our translators thought good to express the signification of the Hebrew, and Greek word in English, and to use the term of Messenger, as the word doth signify: nothing derogating from the dignity of the persons, or office of them, of whom it is uttered, which consisteth in the addition following of God, of the Lord, of the Church. For the name of Angel, of itself, is no name of dignity, seeing there be Angels of the devil, and of darkness, as well as of God, & of light. And Isidorus Clarius interpreteth the word in this place of Malachi, Legatus, the Ambassador, or Messenger. It is not therefore of any profane mind, that for Angel, we say Messenger. Your own vulgar Interpreter, Agg. 1. v. 13. translateth Maleach jehovah, nuncius domini, the Lords Messenger, and so diverse times where mention is made 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  of God's Messengers. This is therefore a vain contention about terms, when the matter is not in question. That the name of Angels soundeth more honourably as Hierom and other think, it is no rule to bind translators, but expounders may as occasion is offered observe it.    

MART. 19 If S. Jerome in all these places had translated, nuntium, than the English were messenger: but translating it, angelum, and the Church & all antiquity so reading and expounding it as a term of more dignity and excellency, 
* See Apoc. c. 2. and 3. in the English Bibl. 1562. To the messenger of the congregation, etc. Angelo Ecclesia.  what mean these base companions to disgrace the very eloquence of the Scripture, which by such terms of amplification would speak more significantly and emphatically? what mean they I say) that so inveigh against Castaleo for his profaneness, themselves to say, for Angel, Messenger, for Apostle, Legate, or Ambassador, and the like? Are they afraid, lest by calling men Angels, it would be mistaken, as though they were Angels in deed by nature? then S. Paul spoke dangerously, when he said to the Galathians, As God's Angel you received me, 
●●l. 4. v. 14.  as Christ jesus. But to proceed.  

FULK. 19 The very eloquence of the Scripture, is best expressed, when the words are translated as they signify in the original tongue. And although some words, be appropried to certain callings, which it is not convenient to turn into the general signification: yet is neither the Hebrew, nor the Greek word, that signifieth Messengers in the Scripture, so restrained, but that it is used, for all Messengers indifferently, of God and men yea of God, and the devil. Wherefore there is no cause why we should use the Greek word Angel, rather than the English word Messenger. And where you ask, whether we be afraid, lest by calling men Angels, it would be mistaken, as though they were Angels in nature: we may well fear, lest the ignorant & unlearned, might so be deceived, when Bristol, so great a Doctor▪ & writer among you, is so fond disguised, that he mistaketh the Angel of the Church of Philadelphia, 
Apo●. 3. ●●●st. repl. c. 6.  for an Angel by nature, and allegeth, that which God promiseth, that his enemies the jews shall worship before his feet, to prove the invocation and worship of heavenly Angels. Neither spoke Paul dangerously, when he said the Galathians received him as an Angel of God as Christ jesus. For the word Angel in the Greek tongue signifieth a messenger: it was easy to understand, that the messenger or ambassador of a Prince is received as the Prince himself, without confounding the persons, of the Prince and his messenger.    

MART. 20. It is much for the authority and dignity of God's Priests, that they do bind and loose, and execute all Ecclesiastical functional in the person and power of Christ, whose ministers they are. So Saint Paul saith, 2. Cor. 2. v. 10. that when he pardoned or released the penance of the incestuous Corinthian, he did it in the person of Christ. That is (as 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Saint Ambrose expoundeth it) in the name of Christ, in his steed, as his Vicar and deputy. But they translate it, In the sight of Christ. Where it is evident they can not pretend the Greek, and if there be ambiguity in the Greek, the Apostle himself taketh it away interpreting himself in the very same case, when he excommunicateth the said incestuous person, saying, 
1. Cor. 5. v. ●.  that he doth it, in the name and with the virtue of our Lord jesus Christ: so expounding what he meaneth also in this place.  

FUL. 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 us: But when we translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the sight of Christ, we respect, what the Greek phrase doth more properly require, yea, what the Hebrew phrase mipenei, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  doth signify, whereunto it is like, that the Apostle doth allude. Otherwise, Beza in his annotations upon the place, doth not mislike the sense, and interpretation of Ambrose, 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 Greek and Hebrew phrase.    

MART. 21. And it may be, that for some such purpose, they change the ancient and accustomed reading in these words of S. Matthew, Ex te enim exiet dux qui regat populum meum 
Mat. 21  Israel: translating thus, Out of thee shall come the govemour that shall feed my people Israel. for, that shall 
No. Test. 1580.  rule my people Israel. This is certain that it is a false translation, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  because the Prophet's words. Mich. 5. (cited by Saint Matthew) both in Hebrew and Greek▪ signify only, a ruler or Governor, and not a Pastor or feeder. Therefore it is either 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  a great over sight, which i● a small matter in comparison of the least corruption: or rather, because they do the like Act. 20. v. 28. it is done, to suppress the signification of ecclesiastical power & government, that concurreth with feeding, first in Christ, and from him in his Apostles and Pastor's of the Church, both which are here signified in this one Greek word, to wit, that Christ our 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Saviour shall rule and feed, (Ps. 2. Apoc. 2. v. 27.) yea he shall rule in a rod of iron, and from him, Peter and the rest, by his commission 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  given in the same word feed & rule my sheep. Io. 21. yea and that in a rod of iron, as when he struck Ananias and 
Act. 5. ●. Cor. 4. v. 21. etc. 5. v 5. & 2. Cor. ●0. v. 4. & 8.  Sapphîra to corporal death, as his successors do the like offenders to spiritual destruction (unless they repent) by the terrible rod of excommunication. This is imported in the double signification of the Greek word, which they to diminish Ecclesiastical authority, they translate, feed, rather than, rule, or govern.  

FULK. 21. That we should not mean any thing against the government of Christ, whom we wish & desire from our hearts, that he alone might reign, and his servants under him, he himself is judge, to whom in this case we do boldly appeal. But let us see, how we may be charged with false translation. The Hebrew and greek (say you) do signify only a ruler or governor, Mich. 5. And do not we translate a governor or captain, which may answer there the Hebrew of the Prophet, or the Greek of the Septuaginta, or of the Evangelist. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we translate, sometime to govern, sometime to feed, is not in the Prophet, but in the Evangelist, and signifieth properly to feed as a shepherd, and metaphorically to govern. What cause have you here to cry out, false translation, and to oppose the Hebrew word of the Prophet, which is fully satisfied in the word governor? And the Greek word, which the Evangelist useth, hath his proper signification in some translations, in other, that which is figurative, neither doth the one exclude the other. But feeding doth import governing. But it seemeth you would have rule, without feeding, that you are so zealous for government. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 20. in some translations, is rendered. to rule, in other, to feed. The more proper is, to feed, yet the greek word will bear the other also. But feeding as a shepherd doth his sheep, comprehendeth both. The same word joan. 21. our Saviour Christ limiteth rather to feeding as the Evangelist reporteth his words using 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once. For by lording & ruling Peter should not so well testify his love towards Christ, as by painful feeding. And there your own vulgar interpreter translateth Pasce, and yourselves feed, though in the margin you would feign pray aid of the Greek to establish your pope's tyrannical rule. Yea you will give him a rod of iron which is the sceptre of Christ, yea an army of soldiers to subdue Ireland, and to wrest it out of the Queen of England's dominion that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feed and rule my sheep in your secret meaning, and for that purpose you bring in the miraculous striking of Ananias and Sapheira for their hypocrisy, pretending that you mean but spiritual destruction by the rod of excommunication, which how terrible it is, when it is duly exercised by them that have authority, we need not learn of you. The other text Psalm the 2. Apoc. 2. v. 27. we translate always rule. And your vulgar interpreter. Pet. 5. translateth the same word pascite feed you the church of God, etc. and else where diverse times. Doth he so diminish ecclesiastical authority? etc.    

MART. 22. To the diminishing of this Ecclesiastical authority, in the later end of the reign of king Henry the ●ight, and during the reign of king Edward the sixth, the only translation of their English Bibles, was, submit yourselves unto all manner ordinance of man whether it be UNTO THE KING, AS TO THE CHIEF HEAD. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  1. Pet. 2. Where in this Queen's time, the later translators can not find those words now in the Greek, but do translate thus, To the king as having pre-eminence: or to the king as the Superior. Why so? because then the King had 
Bibl. 1577. 1579.  first taken upon him this name of Supreme head of the Church, and therefore they flattered both him and his son, till their heresy was planted, making the holy Scripture to say that the king was, the chief head, which is all one with, supreme head: but now being better advised in that point (by Caluine I suppose and the Lutherans of Magdeburge, who do● jointly inveigh against such title, and Caluine against that by 
Calu. in c. 7. Amos. Magdeb. in praef. Cent. 7. fo. 9 10. 11.  name, which was first given to king Henry the eight) & because they may be bolder with a Queen than with a king, and because now they think their kingdom is well established, therefore they suppress this title in their later translations, & would take it from her altogether if they could, to advance their own Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, without any dependence of the Queen's supreme government of their church, which in their conscience (if they be true calvinists, or Lutherans, or mixed of both) they do and must mislike.  

FULK. 22. Touching this text 1. Pet. 2. I have answered before that the word signifieth him that excelleth, and therefore it is no corruption to translate it the chief. For the name of supreme head in the sense which Caluine & other abroad did mislike it, it was never allowed, nor by authority granted to the kings Henry and Edward but in the same sense it is now granted to Queen Elizabeth whom we acknowledge to have the same authority in causes ecclesiastical which her father and brother kings before her had & exercised to God's glory. But as Ste●en Gardiner understood the title in conference with Bucer at Ratisbone we do utterly abhor it and so did all godly men always, that a king should have absolute power to do in religion what he will. In what sense the popish clergy of England, being cast in the praemunire did first of all ascribe it to the king in their submission, look you unto it: we think it was rather of flattery, than of duty, wisdom, or religion. As for the ecclesiastical government which the scripture prescribeth may well stand, which craveth the aid of a christian Prince, which is the Queen's authority in causes ecclesiastical.    

MART. 23. But howsoever that he, let them justify their translation, or confess their fault. And as for the kings supremacy 
Epist. 7. ad Smyrnenses.  over the Church, if they make any doubt, let them read S. Ignatius words, who was in the Apostles time, ●uen when S. Peter gave the foresaid admonition of subjection to the king, and knew very well how far his pre-eminence extended, and therefore saith plainly in notorious words, that, we must first honour God, than the Bishop, and then the king. Because in all things nothing is comparable to God, & in the Church, nothing greater than the Bishop, who is consecrated to God for the salvation of the whole world, and 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  among magistrates & temp●rall rulers, none is like the king. See his 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  other words immediately following, where he preferreth the Bishop's office before the kings & all other things of price among men.  

FULK. 23. Howsoever those Epistles be truly or untruly ascribed to Ignatius which here I will not dispute there is nothing said in this that you cite of the Bishop's pre-eminence above the king, but we acknowledge it to be true of the meanest priest of God's Church in matters properly belonging to his office which yet doth not exempt him from subjection to his prince, but that in causes ecclsiasticall also he is to be commanded by his prince to do his duty, and to be punished by him, if he do otherwise.    

MART. 24. But in the former sentence of S. Peter, though they have altered their translation about the king's headshippe, yet there is one corruption remaining still in these words, Submit yourselves UNTO ALL MANNER ORDINANCE OF MAN. Whereas in the Greek it is word for word as in the old vulgar Latin translation, omni humanae creaturae, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Pet. 2. v. 13 14.  and as we have translated, to every human creature: meaning temporal Princes & Magistrates, as is plain by the exemplification immediately following, of king, and dukes, and other sent or appointed by him. But they in favour of their temporal statutes, acts of Parliament, Proclamations and Injunctions made against the Catholic religion, do translate all with one consent, Submit your selves to all manner ordinance of man. Doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify ordinance? or is it all one to be obedient to every one of our Princes, and to all manner ordinance of the said Princes?  

FULK. 24. The word ordinance you do violently draw to every statute, proclamation or injunction, which is understood of the ordinance or appointment of magistrates in what form soever they be created: or at the worst cannot be referred but only to such decrees as are not contrary to the word of God. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we know signifieth a creature or creation, which speeches being not usual in our English tongue to signify magistrates: our interpreters have expressed the same by the word ordinance. You yourselves translate that which is in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin Creaturae mark 16. of the creation and in the same sense do our translators use the word of ordinance.    

MART. 25. A strange case and much to be considered, how they wring and wrest the holy scriptures this way and that way and every way to serve their heretical proceedings. For when the question is of due obedience to Ecclesiastical canons, and decrees of the Church and general Counsels, where the holy Ghost by Christ's promise is assistant, and whereof it is said, if he hear not the Church, let him be unto thee as an 
Mat. 18. Luc. 10.  heathen and Publican: and, He that heareth you, heareth me: he that despiseth you despiseth me: there they cry out aloud & odiously term all such ordinances▪ men's traditions, and, commandments of men, and most despitefully contemn and condemn them. But here, for obedience unto temporal edicts and Parliament statutes daily enacted in favour of their schism and heresies▪ they once maliciously forged, and still wickedly retain without alteration, a text of their own, making the Apostle to command submission unto all manner ordinance of man, whereof hath ensued the false crime of treason and cruel death for the same, upon those innocent men and glorious martyrs, that chose to obey God and his Churches holy ordinances, rather than man's statutes and laws directly against the same.  

FULK. 25. It is no strange case for an heretic and a raytor that hath sold his tongue to utter slanders against the Church of God and the christian magistrate protector of the same, to devise and surmise that which never was intended, never was practised. As that against the godly and lawful decrees of the Church we should translate men's traditions commandments of men, and to the maintenance of all temporal laws be they never so wicked we should translate ordinance in steed of creature. As for the crime of treason and just execution of them that have suffered of your viperous brood, I refer to the try all of the laws and judgements that have passed upon them, as no matter meet for me to dispute of: only this all good subjects know, yea all the world may know that they which take part with the pope, our princes open and professed enemy, not in matters of religion only, but in cases concerning her crown and dignity, her Realms and Dominions can not bear dutiful & obedient hearts to her majesty. Whose clemency hitherto hath spared them that acknowledge her princely authority although in all other points of popery they continue as obstinate as ever they were.     

CHAP. XVI.  
Heretical translation against the Sacrament of Matrimony.  

BUT as they are injurious translators to the sacred order of Priesthood, so a man would think they should be very friendly to the sacrament of Matrimony. For they would seem to make more of Matrimony than we do, making it equal at the least with virginity. Yet the truth is, we make it, or rather the Church of God esteemeth it as a holy sacrament, they do not: as giving grace to the married persons to live together in love, concord, and fidelity: they acknowledge no such thing. So that Matrimony with them is highly esteemed in respect of the flesh, or (to say the best) only for a civil contract, as it is among jews and Pagans: but as it is peculiar to Christians, and (as S. Augustin● saith) in the sanctification also and holiness of a Sacrament, they make no account of it, but flatly deny it.  

FULK. 1.  
WE make no more of matrimony than the holy scripture doth teach us neither do we in all respects make it equal with virginity, how so ever you do slander us. But you so make it an holy sacrament that you think the holy order of priesthood is profaned by it. We acknowledge that God giveth grace to them that be faithful, to live in love, concord and fidelity, even as he did to the fathers of the old testament living in the same honourable estate, which proveth that matrimony is no sacrament of the new testament, although it be an holy ordinance for God's children to live in, and in it is contained, a holy secret or mystery of the spiritual conjunction of Christ and his church. It is therefore nothing else but a devilish slander to say that we esteem it but in respect of the flesh or for a civil contract.    

MART. 2. And to this purpose they translate in the epistle to the Ephesians, 5. Where the Apostle speaketh of matrimony, 
Sacramentum hoc magnum est.  This is a great secret. Whereas the Latin Church and all the Doctors thereof have ever read, This is a great Sacrament: the Greek Church and all the fathers thereof, This is a great mystery▪ because that which is in Greek, mystery: is in Latin, Sacrament: and contrariwise, the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  words in both tongue● being equivalent. so that if one be taken in the large signification, the other also: as, Apoc. 17. I will show thee the sacrament of the woman. And I 
Sacramentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  will show thee the mystery of the woman. And so in sundry places, again if one be restrained from the larger signification, & peculiarly applied, signify the Sacraments of the Church, the other also. As, the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: or, the Mystery of the body and blood of 
Duo Sacramenta. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Christ: and the Caluinists in their Latin and Greek Catechism say, two Sacraments. or, two Mysteries.  

FULK. 2. The English word secret signifieth fully as much as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in which we must seek no holiness as papists do in vain sound of words: but in the matter annexed, which plainly expresseth that it is a great secret of great holiness whereof the Apostle speaketh. And it is very false that you say that the Latin word sacramentum is equivalent to the Greek: for both it signifieth an oath which the Greek word doth not, and also it includeth holiness which the Greek word doth not. Or else why saith not your vulgar translator and you the sacrament of iniquity. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore signifieth every secret, sacramentum only an holy sacrament, as when you say, Apoc. 17. the sacrament of the woman, the meaning is the secret to be revealed concerning her is an holy thing: else in the same chapter you have not a sacrament written in her forehead but a mystery or secret Babylon the mother of abominations. That the sacraments are called mysteries we confess, but that whatsoever is called a mystery may also be called a sacrament, that do we utterly deny.    

MART. 3. This being so, what is the fault of their translation in the place aforesaid? this, that they translate neither Sacrament, nor, Mystery. As for the word Sacrament, they are excused, because they translate not the Latin: but translating the Greek, why said they not, Mystery, which is the Greek word here in the Apostle? I mean, why said they not of matrimony, This is a great Mystery? No doubt there can be no other cause, but to avoid both those words, which are used in the Latin and Greek Church, to signify the Sacraments. For in the Greek Church the Sacrament of th● body & blood itself is called but a mystery or mysteries, which 
Were it honest or lawful to translate▪ Baptiso, I wash: or Baptismus, Washing: o● evangelium. good news? yet the words profanely taken, signify no more.  yet the protestāns themselves call a true Sacrament. Therefore if they should have called Matrimony also by that name, it might easily have 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.  

FULK. 3. Seeing the word secret that we use, signifieth wholly as much as mystery, we hope all reasonable men will allow the same also. Sacrament without prejudice to the truth we could not translate, and mystery for the better understanding of the people we have expressed in the English word, secret. Out of which if it have any force of argument in it you may prove matrimony to be a sacrament as well as out of the Greek word mystery. But it is the sound of an unknown word that you had rather play upon in the ears of the ignorants then by any sound argument out of the scripture to bring them to the knowledge of the truth.    

MART. 4. They will say unto me, Is not every sacrament & mystery in english a secret? Yes, as Angel, is a messenger: & Apostle, one that is sent. But when the holy Scripture useth these words to signify more excellent & divine things then those of the common sort, doth it become translators to use base terms in steed thereof, & so to disgrace the writing & meaning of the holy Ghost? I appeal to themselves, when they translate this word in other places, whether they say not thus, And without doubt, great was that MYSTERY of godliness: God 
1. Tim. 3. Col. 1. v. 26. Eph. 3. v. 9 1. Cor. 15. V 51.  was showed manifestly in the flesh, etc. again, The MYSTERY which have been hid since the world began, but now is opened to his saints. again▪ I show you a MYSTERY, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. And the like. Where if they should translate, secret, in steed of, mystery, as the Bezites do in one of these places, saying, I will show 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 matrimony, which the Apostle maketh such a mystery▪ that it representeth no less matter than Christ & his Church & whatsoever is most excellent in that conjunction? Northern, if in all other places of high mystery they translate it also, mystery, as it is in the Greek, & only in Matrimony do not so, but say rather, This is a great secret, using so base a term in so high & excellent a mystery, must we not needs think (at no doubt it is) that they do it because of their heretical opinion against the Sacrament of Matrimony, & for their base estimation therof●  

FULK. 4. Now you fly to your old shift of the ecclesiastial use of terms which you cannot prove to be like of this English word mystery, which is commonly as profanely & secularly used as any other word. For what is more common among artificers, than their science or mystery of weaving, of dying, & such like? And yet the word may be used of the highest secrets of Christian Religion, as it is of our translators. And wheresoever they have said a mystery they might as truly have said a secret, & where they say a secret they might have said a mystery. But where you say that in all other places of high mystery they translate the word mystery it is false. For Mat. 13. Mark. the 4. Luk. the 8. where all the mysteries of the kingdom of God are spoken of, they translate mysteria, the secrets of the kingdom of heaven. & 1. cor. 4. where the sacraments & all other secrets of Christian Religion are spoken of they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stewards of the mysteries of God. Wherefore it is a shameful and senseless slander that here only we use this word secret to show our base estimation of matrimony.    

MART. 5. But they will yet reply again, & ask us, what we gain by translating it either Sacrament, or mystery? Doth that make it one of the Sacraments properly so called, to wit, such a Sacrament as Baptism is? no surely, but howsoever we gain otherwise, at least we gain the commendation of true translators, whether it make with us or against us. For otherwise it is not the name that maketh it such a peculiar Sacrament. For (as is said before) Sacrament is a general name in Scripture to other things. Neither do we therefore so translate it, as though it were forthwith one of the seven Sacraments, because of the name: but as in other places wheresoever we find this word in the Latin, we translate it, Sacrament (as in the Apocalypse, the 
Apoc. 17.  sacrament of the woman) so finding it here, we do here also so translate it and as for the diverse taking of it here, and else where, that we examine otherwise, by circumstance of the text, and by the Churches and Doctor's interpretation: and we find that here it is taken for a Sacrament in that sense as we say, seven Sacraments: not so in the other places.  

FULK. 5. No reasonable man can charge us to be false translators when we turn the Greek word into that which it doth generally, properly, and always signify. And for all your bragging of sincere translating, if you should translate Tob. 12. I am persuaded you would not say: it is a good thing to hide the kings sacrament. Yet is the Latin word in that place Sacramentum: and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But it is sufficient for you to have a shadow of something to find yourself occupied rather than you would be saying of nothing.    

MART. 6. As when we read this name jesus in Scripture common to our Saviour and to other men, we translate it always alike, jesus, but when it is 
b Ind. v. 5.  JESUS Christ, & when some other jesus, 
c Act. 7. v. 45. Colos. 4. v. 11.  we know by other circumstances. Likewise presuppose Baptism in the Scripture were called a sacrament: yet the Protestants themselves would not, nor could thereby conclude, that it were one of their two Sacraments. Yet I trow they would not avoid to translate it by the word sacrament, if they found it so called: even so we finding Matrimony so called, do so translate it, neither concluding thereby that it is one of the Seven, nor yet suppressing the name, which no doubt gave some occasion to the Church and the holy doctors to esteem it as one of the Seven. They contrariwise, as though it were never so called, suppress the name altogether, calling it a secret, to put it out of all question, that it is no Sacrament: which they would not have done, if the Scripture had said of Baptism or the Eucharist, This is a great Sacrament. So partial they are to their own opinions.  

FULK. 6. Except you thought you had to do with very ignorant persons, or else esteemed too much of your lately professed divinity, you would never cumber the reader with such childish trifles of the name of jesus, of the bare name of sacrament which could not prove baptism or the Lord's supper to be sacraments etc. and what we would do if we found them so called, etc. I have already told you what we have done, where not only the sacraments, but all other precious jewels of Christ's church committed to the dispensation of his ministers are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and translated secrets without any abasement of the dignity of them, or with out any intent to suppress any of the honour and reverence which is due unto them. Wherefore using the word secret in this text, we had no purpose to derogate any thing from the worthiness of matrimony, much less from the spiritual mystery which the Apostle offereth to be considered by it in Christ & his Church.     

CHAP. 17.  
Heretical translations against the blessed Sacrament, and Sacrifice, and Altar.  

NOW let us see concerning the Eucharist, which they allow for a Sacrament, how they handle the matter to the disgracing and defacing of the same also. They take away the operation and efficacy of Christ's blessing 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bib. 1562. 1577.  pronounced upon the bread and wine, making it only a thanksgiving to God: and to this purpose they translate more gladly, thanksgiving then, blessing▪ as Mat. 26. the Greek words being two, the one signifying properly, to bless: the other, to give thanks: they translate both thus, 
Great difference in the scriptures between blessing, and giving of thanks.  when he had given thanks. Likewise Marc. 14. in the Bible printed 1562. And when they translate it, blessing, they mean nothing else but giving thanks, as Beza telleth us in his Annotations Mat. 26. ver. 26. We reply and by most manifest Scripture prove unto them, that the former Greek word doth not signify thanks giving properly, but blessing, and a blessing of creatures to the operation of some great effect in them: as when Christ took the five loaves and two fishes, to multiply them, he blessed them Luc. 9 What say they to this 
Benedixit eyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Annot. in 9 Luc. v. 16.  think you? Doth not the Greek word here plainly signify, blessing of creatures? No, (saith Beza) no doubt but here also it signifieth giving thanks. How Beza? he addeth, Not as though Christ had given thanks to the bread, for that were too absurd: but we must mollify this interpretation thus, that he gave thanks to God the father for the loaves and the fishes. Is not this a notable exposition of these words, benedixit eyes?  

FULK. 1  
THE Sacrament of the body & blood of Christ being a matter of some great weight & controversy between us, you might not omit but note our false translations against it. But because we have dealt so sincerely as malice hath nothing to blame therein, you must fayne a quarrel and forge a controversy where none is between us, namely, that we take away Christ's blessing pronounced upon the bread and wine making it only a thanksgiving unto God: which is a false and impudent slander, as in that which followeth concerning this matter most plainly shall appear even by testimony of him whom you do most slander in this case. But let us see what fault is in our translation. Math. 26. and Ma●. 14. two of our translations for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say, when he had given thanks. To this I answer, that Beza telleth you that in seven Greek copies the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth giving of thanks, without controversy, as also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth, but not only so expressing rather the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth both to bless, and to give thanks. But seeing Saint Luke and S. Paul reporting the institution of the supper do use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth giving of thanks: we count them the best interpreters of the other two Evangelists which plainly teach us that by blessing they mean giving of thanks, or that the Greek word doth here signify giving of thanks as in many other places. The place Luke. 9 where Christ blessed the loaves is also interpreted by S. john who reporting the same miracle (as Beza showeth) useth the word which signifieth only thanks giving, but because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in Luke used as a verb transitive, which cannot signify thanks giving or prayer made to the creatures, we must understand, that he blessed the loaves, that is he gave thanks to God for them, and with all prayed, that so small a quantity of bread and fish might feed so great a multitude, and that this whole feast might be referred to the glory of God. This is beza's interpretation, which because it was too long for your quarrel you cut off the better part of it, and like a grinning hypocrite scoff at a piece as though it were the whole exposition of these words henedixit eyes he blessed them.    

MART. 2. We ask him in the like cases, when God blessed Adam and Eve, Gen. 1. & 9 Noah and his children, saying, Increase and multiply: when he blessed the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Psal. 106. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  children of Israel, and they multiplied exceedingly, when he blessed the latter things of job more than the first, job. 42. Was this also a giving of thanks, and not an effectual blessing upon these creatures? What will they say, or what difference will they make? As God blessed here, so he was God and man that blessed the loaves and fishes there. If they will say he did it as man, and therefore it was a giving of thanks to God his father: to omit that he blessed them as he multiplied them, that is, rather according to his divine nature than human: we ask them, when he blessed as man, was it always giving of thanks? he blessed the little children, he blessed his disciples, when he ascended: 
* Luc. 24.  was this giving thanks for them, as Beza expoundeth his blessing of the loaves and fishes? When 
* Beza, loco citato. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which word can never signify, giving thanks  we bless the table or the meat upon the table, When S. Paul saith, 1. Timoth. 4. all meat is lawful that is sanctified by the word and by prayer: is all this nothing but giving thanks? So sayeth Beza in express words.  

FULK. 2. When I see those often most impudent invectives against Beza and other, I muse with myself whether you have read Beza, and the other yourself, or whether you give credit to some malicious caviller who is set on work to pick quarrels out of other men's writings to serve your turn. But when I consider all circumstances of every place, and namely how you object against Beza, that which he saith of the blessing or consecrating of our ordinary meats and drinks, I think it is not like but that you have read the places yourself. And then of all that ever I knew, I must esteem you the furthest from sincerity & honest dealing, that so often, so openly, so confidently, so purposedly commit so vile and shameful forgery. Beza saith that our meat is sanctified by the word of God and prayer and thanksgiving. For the 1. Tim. 4. the Apostle joineth both as here Luke 9 we must join both together. For partly for the meat given to us thanks is given to God: partly petition is made that we may use it purely and soberly, that we may spend the rest of our life in the worship of God. Hereof it cometh that Christians are said to bless the table, and to consecrate the table, whereas yet this blessing pertaineth not to the meats themselves, but to God rather, and them that shallbe partakers of them. But in the cup of blessing which we bless (as it is written. 1. cor. 10. v. 16.) although the word of blessing may be expounded after the same manner, yet the end of the blessing is altogether diverse, as in due place we shall expound. These are the words of Beza. Is all this nothing but giving of thanks?    

MART. 3 We go forward, and prove the contrary yet more manifestly, in the very matter of the blessed Sacrament, for the which they multiply all the foresaid absurdities. We tell them that Saint Paul sayeth thus, The chalice of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  blessing, which we bless, is it not, etc. how could he speak more plainly, that the chalice or cup (meaning that in the cup) is blessed? Which S. Cyprian de Coen. Dom. explicateth thus, Calix solenni benedictione sacratus, The 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Chalice consecrated by solemn blessing. Oecumenius thus▪ The Chalice which blessing we prepare. that is, which we bless and so prepare, for so it must signify, and not as Beza would have it, which with thanks giving we prepare. and that I prove by his own words immediately 
Annot. in 1. Cor. 10. v. 16.  before, where he sayeth that the Greek word being used of the Apostle transitively, that is, with a case following, cannot signify giving thanks. How then can it so signify in Oecumenius words, who doth interpret the Apostles meaning by the Apostles own words and phrase? yea (that you may note a notorious contradiction) how doth Beza then in the place of Luke before alleged (where the same Greek word is a plain transitive as in this place) expound is of giving thanks 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for the bread and fishes? A liar (they say) must be mindful, to make his tale agree in every point. He that before forced the word in every sentence to be nothing else but thanks giving▪ even when it was a plain transitive, now confesseth that he never read it in that signification, when it is a transitive. and so we have that the blessing of the cup or of the bread, is not giving thanks as they either translate, or interpret it.  

FULK. 3. I must continue my admiration of your impudence, for Beza saith expressly in this place 1. cor. 10. that to bless here is to sanctify or consecrate, because that the ordinance of God being rehearsed and set forth the bread and wine are appointed to this holy use, that they should be the sacraments of the true and natural body and blood of Christ, that is the signs & pledges thereof, & that in such sort, that the same thing which is signified, is offered to us to be received spiritually. And because this whole action is joined with the praise of God, & solemn thanksgiving, therefore I esteem that S. Paul signified this whole matter in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that in my judgement Oecumenius hath plainly & briefly expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is which with praise & thanksgiving we prepare. Which I admonish, (lest any man should think that by the term of consecration, we mean any magical incantation.) That you would prove by beza's words, that he hath not justly explicated the meaning of Oecumenius, it is too too beyond all measure of impudence. For Beza not contrarying that which he said before, showeth how the cup is blessed, sanctified, consecrated, namely by prayer, praise of God, & thanksgiving. For which he citeth Chrysostom who expoundeth these words of S. Paul (which we bless) to mean which we receive with thanksgiving. As for the place of S. Luke 9 Beza himself citeth it, & many other like, to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an accusative case signifieth to bless, to sanctify, to consecrate, as also in that place Luke. 9 he expoundeth it. And yet you will make him a liar, forgetting what tale he told before. In deed that rule you give, is meet for a crafty liar, that hath some care to maintain his credit. But such an impudent liar & shameless forger as you are, hath no regard of any thing, but to deceive them whose ignorance and simplicity is such as they neither can, nor care to examine your slanders.    

MART. 4 And surely in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is most evident, that it signifieth in this case the blessing & consecration of the creature or element: in so much that S. Basil & S. Chrysostom in their Liturgies or Masses say thus by the same Greek 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  word: Bless o Lord the sacred bread. & Bless o Lord the sacred cup. & why or to what effect? It followeth, changing it by the holy spirit. Where is signified the transmutation and consecration thereof into the body and blood. But in the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there may be some question, because it signifieth properly to give thanks, & therefore may seem to be referred to God only, and not to the element, and, creature. But this also we find contrary in the Greek fathers, who use this word also transitively, saying, panem & 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  calicem eucharistisatos, or, panem in quo gratiae actae sunt. that is the bread and the cup made the Eucharist: the bread over which thanks are given: that is, which by the word of prayer, and thanksgiving is made a consecrated meat, the flesh and blood of Christ, as S. justine in fine 2. Apologo, and Saint Irenaeus, lib. 4. 34 in the same places, expound it. Whereas it may also signify that, for which thanks are given in that most solemn sacrifice of the Eucharist, as S. Deny● in one place seemeth to take it. Eccl. Hier. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  c. 3. in fine. Who in the self same chapter, speaketh of the consecration thereof, most evidently.  

FULK. 4. That the creatures, or elements, are blessed, and consecrated, that by the working of God's spirit, they should be changed into the body and blood of Christ, after a divine and spiritual manner, unto the worthy receivers, Beza, and we agree with the Greek Liturgies. But that this blessing is performed by the word of God, prayer, and thanksgiving, both justinus, and Irenaeus, do most plainly testify with Beza, and us. When the mixed cup, and bread, saith Irenaeus, receiveth the word of God, it is made the Eucharist, etc. The bread on which, or for 
Lib. 5. cap. 4. Lib. 4. cap. 34. Apolog. 2.  which, thanks is given. The bread which is of the earth, receiving the vocation, or invocation of God. So saith justinus, the meat for which thanks are given▪ by the word of prayer, which is received from him, and speaking of the very manner of the consecration, used in his tyme. When the bread, and wine, with water, is offered: the chief Minister sendeth forth prayers, and thanksgiving, with all his might, and the people consenteth, saying, Amen. Then followeth the distribution, and participation of those things, for which thanks was given to every one, etc. As for the Magical mysteries of Dionyse, although in this behalf, they make nothing against us, we make not so great account of, that we will stand to his judgement any more, than you to his practice.    

MART. 5. Whereby we have to note, that the Heretics in urging the word, Eucharist, as mere thanksgiving, thereby to take away blessing, and consecration, of the elements of bread and wine, do unlearnedly, and deceitfully. because all the fathers make mention of both: Saint Paul also calleth it, blessing of the chalice, which the Evangelists call, giving of thanks. Whose words Theophylacte explicateth thus. THE CHALICE OF BLESSING, that is, of the Eucharist. For holding it in our hands, we bless it, and give thanks to him that shed his blood for us. See here both blessing, and Eucharist, blessing the chalice, and thanksgiving to Christ. Saint james, and the Greek fathers 
Liturg. S. ●at. Basil. Chrys.  in their Liturgies, put both words in the consecration of each element, saying thus, give thanks, sanctifying, breaking: and, giving thanks, blessing, sanctifying: and, taking 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. 2. in Tim. 2. Hom. 83. in Mat. Hom. de juda proditore.  the cup, giving thanks, sanctifying, blessing, filling it with the holy Ghost, he gave it to us his Disciples. Saint Chrysostom, who in many places of his works speaketh much of thanksgiving in these holy mysteries, doth he not as often speak of the blessing, consecration, yea, and the transmutation thereof, and that with what words, and by what power it is done? Doth not Saint Augustine say of the same, 
Aug. ep. 59  benedicitur, & sanctificatur, it is blessed, and sanctified, 
De bono viduit. c. 16.  who often speaketh of the solemn giving of thanks in the sacrifice of the Church? Doth not the Church at this day, use the very same terms, as in Saint Augustine's time, Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro, Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. and, Verè dignum & justum est, semper & ubique tibi gratias agere, etc. It is very meet and right, always, and in all places, to give thee thanks: Which the Greek Church also in their Liturgies express most abundantly? yet doth there follow blessing, and consecration, and whatsoever Saint Ambrose describeth to be done in this holy sacrifice, touching this point, writing thereof most excellently in his book, de ijs qui initiantur mysterijs, c 9  

FULK. 5. If it were to prove any thing that we deny, you would be as bare and hungry, as now you are frank and plentiful of your testimonies. Theophylact saith the same that Beza said out of Chrysostom, and Oecumenius. The Greek Liturgies, falsely entitled to Saint james, Basil, and Chrysostom, have no other thing: nor any other author whom you name. But your popish Church, doth not, either as the Greek Liturgies, or as the Churches in Ambrose and Augustine's time. For they hold, that the elements are consecrared by prayer, and thanksgiving, whereof, although you use some terms in your mass, yet you hold, that the consecration consisteth only in a Magical murmuration of the words, Hoc est corpus meum, over the bread by a Priest, with intent of consecration, wherefore you are far from the judgement that the ancient fathers had, and we have, of the consecration of the bread and wine, to be the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ.    

MART. 6. Of all which, this is the conclusion, that the Eucharist is a solemn name, taken of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so called, because this sacrament and sacrifice, is blessed, and consecrated with prayer, & thanksgiving, as S. justine speaketh, and because in this sacrifice, so blessed and consecrated into the body and blood of Christ, him we offer up a most acceptable oblation of thanksgiving, and a memory of all Gods marvelous benefits toward us. In this sense, the fathers, and the holy Church, speak 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 giving of thanks, as S. Irenaeus doth plainly signify, when he declareth, 
Lib. 4. cap. 3●.  that being before bread, & receiving the invocation of God over it, now is no more common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, the earthly, & the heavenly. So that it is made the Eucharist by circumstance of solemn words, and ceremonies, and therefore is not a mere giving of thanks: and further we learn, that S. justines', and S. Irenaus 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  words before alleged, Panis & calix Eucaristisatus, signify, the bread and chalice made the Eucharist: and consequently we learn, that the a 〈…〉 e thereof, is, by thanksgiving to make the Eucharist. a 〈…〉 because the other word of blessing, and this of thanksgiving, are used indifferently, one for an other, in Christ's action, about this Sacrament, we learn undoubtedly, that when it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the meaning is, blessing, and giving thanks, he made the Eucharist of his body and blood, that is the Sacrament and Sacrifice of a singular thanksgiving, which (as S. Augustine often is wont to say) the faithful only do know and understand in the sacrifice of the Church: and because the faithful only understand, therefore the Protestants and calvinists are so ignorant in this mystery, that to take away all the dignity thereof, they bend both their expositions and translations.  

FULK. 6. That the elements are blessed, and consecrated by prayer, and thanksgiving, as justine, Irenaeus, and other ancient fathers write, it is the thing that we contend for. But you (except you be a Schismatic from all other Papists) do teach, that they are consecrated by these words, pronounced by a Priest, this is my body: which are words neither of prayer, nor of thanks giving. Nevertheless, to prick us with a pin, you have wounded yourself with a sword, and say the sacrament is blessed, and consecrated with prayer, and thanks▪ giving. Except you have some Sophistical meaning, that it is consecrated with them, but not by them. The signification of the active, which you gather out of the passive, used by justinus, showeth what a learned Clerk you are, justinus writeth to the Gentiles, or Heathen men, of whom he could not have been understood, if he had not used the passive, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in that signification, that all other men did use it in, in that tyme. What we understand of the mystery of the lords supper, and the sacrifice of prayer and thanks giving, which is the only sacrifice of Christians, as justinus writeth, the Church of God doth acknowledge, though the synagogue of Antichristian heretics will not confess it.    

MART. 7. After they have turned blessing or consecration into bare thanks giving, which is one step toward the denying of the real presence, they come nearer, and so include Christ in heaven, that he cannot be withal upon the altar, translating thus, Whom heaven must contain, until the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ad rat. Cam. pag. 43.  times that all things be restored, Acts. 3. v. 21. and yet Beza worse, and he that allegeth him, M. whitaker's: who must be contained in heaven. Which is so far from the Greek, that, not only Illyricus the Lutheran, but Calvin himself doth not like it. Beza protesteth, that he so translateth of purpose, to keep Christ's presence from the altar: and we marvel the less, because we are well acquainted with many the like his impudent Protestations. M. Whitak. only we do marvel at, that he should be either so deceived by an other man's translation, or himself be so overseen in the Greek word, that he knoweth not a mere 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  deponent, and only deponent, from a passive.  

FULK. 7. The answer to this cavil is at large contained, Cap. 1. sect. 36. your own translation is▪ whom heaven must receive. If there be now such difference between, receiving, and containing▪ capere and recipere it is very strange to learned ears, howsoever sottish Papists will accept whatsoever proceedeth from you. But forasmuch, as this section, with two other following, are directed principally against Master whitaker's, I shall need to say little, seeing he hath fully answered for himself. This one thing I may say, concerning his knowledge in the Greek tongue, which you make to be so small, that he knoweth not a deponent from a passive, he is well known to be so well learned therein, that many of your Seminary may marvel at him as you say, but neither you, nor any of you all is able to match him therein.    

MART. 8. This doth not become him that objecteth 
* Ibid. pag. 84.  ignorance of the Greek to an other man, and that after he had well tried by public conference, that 
If he had not yet tried him, he presumed to bely him, before he knew him.  he was not ignorant: and so objecteth it, as thought he knew not three words in that tongue, whereas he had heard him read and interpret Saint Basil, not the easiest of the Greek Doctors. This is palpable impudency, and a face that can not blush, and full of malice against the saints of God, who, if they knew not a word in the Greek tongue, were never the worse, nor the less learned, but among fools and children, that esteem learning by such trifles, which Grammarians know far better than great Divines. For, were not he awise man that would prefer one Maiser Humphrey, Master Fulke▪ Master whitaker's, or some of us poor men, because we have a little smack in the three tongues, before Saint Chrysostom, Saint Basil, Saint Augustine, saint Gregory, or saint Thomas, that understood well, none but one? howbeit, if they esteem learning by knowledge of the tongues, they will not (I trow) compare with Catholics, either of former time, or of these latter age, specially since their new Gospel began: and if they will compare with us herein for their simple credit, we may perhaps give them occasion ere it be long, to muster their men all at once, if they dare show their face before our camp of excellent Hebricians, Grecians, Latinistes, of absolute linguistes in the Chaldee, Syriake, Arabike, etc. whom they must needs confess to have been, and to be, even at this day, their Masters and teachers.  

FULK. 8. It becometh you that have cast off all fear of God, and duty to your Prince, to cast off all civil honesty; and humane modesty also. If you speak of such matters▪ as you might not be controlled in them▪ yet, if you forbear the truth, it were somewhat tolerable. But when you speak of Campions learning in the Greek tongue, wherein you may be so manifestly convicted by hundreds of witnesses, you stop the way from any credit to be given you in other matters. All Oxford knew, that Campion was no Grecian, when he departed from that University. His time spent in Ireland, and other places, where he travailed, would not yield him great knowledge since his departure, except he had wholly applied it, which he could not do, nor any other serious study in such sort as he travailed in diverse places. But admit he might have knowledge by extraordinary means or miracle if you will, how shall he be tried, but by reading and understanding that which greatly concerneth his cause, in disputation and conference. You said he did read and interpret Saint Basil, not the easiest of the Greek Doctors. I was not present at that conference, and therefore have the less to say: But I myself making trial of his skill. by a place of Epiphanius, both read it to him, and offering him the book, he understood no more the matter thereof, than if I had cited it in the Arabic, or Persian language. And therefore, upon the acknowledging of his dissembled ignorance, with great laughter of the hearers, I was content to expound it to him in English, before I could receive any answer to the argument taken from that authority. Wherefore, I verily think, and am certainly persuaded, that if he pretended to interpret any thing out of Saint Basil, it was altogether by artificial conjecture, either of the place which he knew, and had read in Latin, or else by surmising of some one common word▪ he gathered what the sense of the whole should be. Indeed▪ if he had never known a word of Greek▪ although he had been no meet man to challenge a whole realm to disputation: yet he might have been an honest man, and otherwise meanly learned, so he had not pretended knowledge. when he was in a manner altogether ignorant. For mine own part, though it please you to name me with Master Humphrey, Master whitaker's, and others, I never took upon me but a mean knowledge in the tongues, neither desire I in comparison to be preferred before any learned man, whose travails have been profitable to the Church, although he were ignorant in the tongues. Yet, this I must freely say, that he which shall profess to be an absolute learned divine, without the knowledge of three tongues, at the least, may think well of himself, but hardly he shall get and retain the credit he seeketh amoung learned men in this learned age. And therefore Campion, if disputation had been meant rather than sedition, for all his arrogance and impudence, was an unmeet Apostle to be sent from Gregory of Rome, to challenge all the wise and learned in England. Neither do I say this, as though I measured all learning by knowledge of the tongues, but wherein soever any Papist in the world, shall be bold to challenge the name of learning, in any knowledge, that ever was, or is accounted good learning, God be praised, there are many of God's true Catholic Church, whereof we are members, able to match them therein. That I say not to excel them. And whereas you would make us beholding to Papists for such knowledge, as any of us hath in the Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee▪ Arabic tongues, etc. It is well known, the Papists are more beholding to us. And although I confess, that some Papists of late days, have bestowed fruitful pains, in setting forth some of the oriental tongues: yet are they not the first, nor all that have travailed profitably that wai●. But many have attained to competent skill in those languages many years before any Papists had written any thing that might further them therein. You were wont to bear ignorant men in hand, that we were a sight of English Doctors, understanding no languages but our mother tongue, which hath enforced diverse men to show their skill in the tongues, which otherwise they would never have openly professed. But now that the world seethe, to your shame, how richly God hath blessed us, with the knowledge, and interpretation of diverse tongues, you exprobrate to us our knowledge in the tongues, and traduce us among the ignorant, as though we esteemed all learning by knowledge of tongues, and that we were but mere Grammarians, & often tell us of that stolen jest, that the kingdom of Grammarians is paste, as though it were but a little Grammar, whereof we make a show. But for that general muster which you threaten to drive us unto, ere it be long, if you come as learned men should do, armed with books, pen, ink, and paper, I doubt not by the grace of God, but you shall find them that dare confront you, and chase you out of the field also. But if you come under the Pope's banner with such blessing, as he sent lately into Ireland, I hope you shall be met with all, as those his champions were, and find that promotion for your good service, which you have long ago deserved by your travails for upholding of his kingdom.    

MART. 9 But to return to you M. whitaker's, greater is your fault in divinity, than in the tongues, when you make your argument against the real presence out of this place, as out of the Scripture and S. Peter, whereas they are beza's words, and not S. Peter's. Again, whether you take beza's words, or S. Peter's, your argument faileth very much, when you conclude that Christ's natural body is not in the Sacrament, because it is placed and contained in heaven. For S. Chrysostom telleth you, that Christ ascending into heaven, both left us his 
Ho. 2 ad po. Antioch.  flesh, and yet ascending hath the same. And again, O miracle, saith he? He that sitteth above with the Father, in 
Li. 3. de Sacerdotio.  the same moment of time is handled with the hands of al. This is the faith of the ancient fathers, M. whitaker's, and this is the Catholic faith, and this is (I trow) an other manner of faith and far greater, thus to believe the presence of Christ in both places at once, because he is omnipotent and hath said● the word: than your faith (whereof you boast so much) which believeth no further than that he is ascended, and that therefore he cannot be present upon the altar, nor dispose of his body as he list.  

FULK. 9 Master Whitaker is not so young a divine, but he knoweth that Chrysostom speaketh of the ineffable manner of Christ's presence spiritually▪ though he be absent corporally. As in the place by you cited, Desacerdo●io, it is most manifest, where he saith that we may see the people died and made red with the precious blood of Christ, which as it is not with the eye of the body, but with the eye of faith, so is Christ that is corporally present in heaven, spiritually present unto the faith of the worthy receiver.    

MART. 10. Again it is a very famous place for the real presence of the blood (which we have handled at large 
* Chap. 1. num. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  else where, but here also must be briefly touched) when our Saviour saith, Luc. 22. This is the Chalice the new Testament in my blood, which (Chalice) is shed for you. For so (which) must needs be referred according to the Greek. In which speech, Chalice must needs be taken for that in the chalice, and that in the chalice must needs be the blood of Christ, and not wine, because his blood only was shed for v●. And so ●e do plain●ly prove the real presence, according a● S. Chrysostom 
In 1. Cor. ca 10. ●om. 24.  also said, Hoc quod est in chalice, illud est quod ●●●xit delatere. That which is in the Chalice, is the same that gushed out of his side. All which most necessary deduction Beza would defeat, by saying the Greek is corrupted in all the copies that are extant in the world, and by translating thus clean otherwise than the Greek will bear, This ●●ppe is the new Testament in my blood, which (blood) is 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  shed for you.  

FULK. 10. It is a famous place in deed that never a one of the ancient writers, could con●●der for any real presence to be drawn out of it. How Beza hath translated it I have at large declared before, Cap. 1. Sect. 37. 38. 39 That which Chrysostom saith we confess to be most true, after a spiritual & heavenly manner, and so he doth expound himself, in the same place, where he saith that Christ suffereth himself to be broken for us, in the oblation, which he suffered, not on the cross, where no bone of his was broken. Which none but a mad man would take otherwise than spiritually to be done, as he is present after a spiritual manner.    

MART. 11. But what pertaineth this to the English heretics, who translate, which is shed, so indifferently that it may signify, which cup, or, which blood is shed? Thus far it 
Ad rat. Camp. pag. 34.  pertaineth, because they do not only defend this translation by all means, but they tell us plainly namely Fulke, that they refer 
Against D. Sand. Rock pag. 309.  (which) to the word blood, and not to the word cup, ●uē as Beza doth, ask us what Grammarian would refer it otherwise. In which question he showeth himself a very simple Grammarian in the Greek, or a mad Heretic, that either knoweth not, or will not know, that in the Greek it can not be so referred, and consequently neither in Latin nor English, which in true translation must follow the Greek. But of these and other their 
* Chap. 1. num. 37. 38. etc.  foul and manifold shifts to avoid this place, I have spoken in an other place of this book.  

FULK. 11. As you have placed your crimination in the first chapter to be sure that it should be red of every man that taketh your book in hand: So have I. observing your order, answered you in the same place, and in such sort I hope discharged myself, that you shall have little lust hereafter to insult against mine ignorance, before you be able to weigh the matter yourself with sounder knowledge.    

MART. 12. Only M. whitaker's (to say truly) hath 
Pag. 35.  brought somewhat to the purpose, to wit, that S. Basil readeth the Greek as they translate. But he doth well to make light of it, because it is evident that S. Basil cited not the text of the Evangelist, 
Praef. in No. Test. an. 1556.  but the sense, which Beza noteth to be the custom of the ancient fathers, telling us withal that therefore the reading of the fathers, is no certain rule to reform or alter the words of Scripture according to the same: and it is very like that if Beza or Fulke his advocate had thought S. Basils' reading of any importance, they would have used it long since, rather than so many other shifts and so absurd, as they do: unless we may think they knew it not, and therefore could not use it. But for S. basil, according to the sense he citeth it very truly: for, whether we say, the Cup that is shed, or, the blood that is shed, both signifieth the blood of Christ shed for us, as S. Basil citeth it. The difference is, that referring it to the cup, as S. Luke hath it, it signifieth the blood both present in the cup, and also then shed in a Sacrament at the last supper: but referring it to the word blood, as S. Basil doth, and as they translate, it may signify the blood shed on the cross also, yea (as these translators mean and would have it) only that on the Cross, not considering that the Greek word is the present tense, and therefore rather signifieth the present shedding of his blood then in mystical sacrifice, than the other visible shedding thereof, which was to come in the future tense. Lastly, they translate S. Luke's Gospel, and not S. Basil: and therefore not following S. Luke, they are false translators, how soever S. Basil readeth.  

FULK. 12. The reading of S. Basil, whereof Beza maketh mention, in his Annotation upon this text of S. Luke, is also handled before. As the reading of the Doctors, is no perpetual rule to reform the text of the Scripture by, so is it not to be neglected, but that sometimes also the present reading may be corrected thereafter. True it is, that Beza supposeth, it rather to have been added out of the margin, and I, as I have before declared, do think that either it is to be read as Basil did read it, or else that the verb substantive is to be understood, and the article taken for the relative, as it is often both in profane writings, and in the new Testament itself, as by sundry examples I have made it manifest.    

MART. 13. As this falsehood is both against Sacrament and Sacrifice, so against the Sacrifice also of the altar it is, that they control S. hierom's translation, in the old Testament, concerning the sacrifice of Melchisedec, Who brought forth 
The sacrifice of Melchisedec.  bread and wine: Gen. 14. v. 18. that is, offered, or sacrificed bread and wine: which we prove to be the true sense and interpretation (and that this bringing forth of bread and wine, was sacrificing thereof) not only by all the father's expositions, that writ of Melchisedeks' priesthood, (Cypr. epist. 63. Epiph. haer. 55. & 79. Hiero. in Mat. 26. & in epist. ad Euagrium.) 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and by the Hebrew word, which is a word of sacrifice, jud. 6. v. 18. and by the greatest Rabbins, and Hebricians, that a ri●● 
* See Pet. Galat▪ lib. 10. c 4. & 5. & Chro. Gene● brardi, pag. 13.  thereof, but we prove it also by these words of the very text itself, He brought forth bread, and wine, for he was the Priest of God most high. Which reason immediately following, Because he was God's Priest, proveth evidently, that he brought it not forth in common manner, as any other man might have done, but as God's Priest, whose office is to offer sacrifice. This consequence is so plain, that for avoiding thereof▪ the adversaries will not have it translated in any wise. For he was 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Priest, as though the Scripture gave a reason, why he brought forth bread, and wine: but, and he was a Priest, etc. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Wrangling about the signification of the Hebrew conjunction.  

FULK. 13. That S. Hieronyme was author of the vulgar Latin interpretation, of the old Testament, it is more boldly affirmed, than ever it can be sufficiently proved by you. But what do we control, your vulgar interpreter saith, that Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, and so say we. Which how sent Hierom & other understandeth I have before declared Cap. 1. Sect. 42.  
Against all the Fathers that expound, that bringing forth of bread and wine, to pertain to his Priesthood▪ I oppose the Apostle to the hebrews, who could not have omitted it, if it had been so. That the Hebrew word is a word of sacrifice▪ it is most impudently affirmed of you. For jud. 6. it signifieth no more to offer than hear, although there Gedeon desire the Angel to stay, until he return and bring from his house with him a gift or oblation. But if you will contend that what so ever is brought forth, where soever this Hebrew word is used, is a sacrifice, you shall make an hundredth sacrifices, more than ever God ordained. Neither will Galatinus or Gerebrardus for their credit, once affirm that it signifieth to offer sacrifice. Though it may be used in bringing forth of Sacrifices as well as of all other things, that are brought forth. But the conjunction causal maketh it clear, that this bringing forth was in respect of his Priesthood. In deed if the Hebrew conjunction were causal and not copulative, we were driven to the wall: But seeing the Hebrew conjunction copulative must be expounded according to the sense, you do very unskilfully, to conclude the sense, which is in controversy, upon the conjunction which is indefinite: and we without partiality have translated the conjunction copulative, as it doth most commonly and ordinarily signify.    

MART. 14. Wherein the reader may see their exceeding partiality and wilfulness. For, besides infinite like places of Scripture, whereby we do easily show that this Hebrew particle is used to give a reason or cause of a thing, themselves also in an other place prove it for us, and that by the authority of 
●●●●●nnot. in ●. Luc. v. 42.  Theophylact, and allegation of examples out of the Scripture, and translate accordingly thus: Blessed art thou among women▪ 
No. Test. an. 1580▪ Benedicta tu etc. & benedictus, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  because the fruit of thy womb is blessed. Let them give us a reason, why the said conjunction is here by their translation, quia, or, enim, where it was never so translated before, and it must not be in any case in the other place of Genesis, where it hath been so translated, and generally received, even in the Primitive Church. In other places of Scripture also, which Theophylact allegeth, and many more may be alleged, they confess, and like very well it should so signify: only in the place of Genesis, they can not abide any such sense, or translation thereof: 
Gen. 14. v. 18.  but▪ He brought forth bread, and wine, and he was the Priest, etc. not, because he was the Priest: What is the cause of this their dealing? None other undoubtedly (and in all these cases, I knock at their consciences) but that here they would avoid the necessary sequel of Melchisedecks' sacrifice, upon such translation, which typical sacrifice of bread & wine if it should be granted, then would follow also a sacrifice of the new Testament, made of bread and wine, answering to the same, and so we should have the sacrifice of the altar, and their bare communion should be excluded.  

FULK. 14. Because we will not falsely translate, to maintain a colour of your popish sacrifice, we show great partiality. Wherein I pray you? The conjunction copulative, we know may often be resolved, into the causal, where the sense so requireth: But it never hath any force in itself, to breed such a sense, or to conclude such a sense by it. It is against all reason therefore, that you would urge us to translate contrary to that which in our consciences before GOD we take to be the sense. Where you say, that the sacrifice of Melchisedech, if it were granted, would bring in your Mass, and exclude our communion, it is altogether untrue. For none of the ancient fathers, (who were deceived, to imagine a sacrifice, where the Apostle seeking all things, pertaining to Melchisedechs' priesthood, could find none) doth allow your propitiatory sacrifice, but contrariwise, by those only speeches, that they use about Melchisedechs' oblation of bread and wine, we are able to prove, that they did speak of a sacrifice of thanksgiving only. And your sacrifice, in which, you say, is neither bread nor wine, should hardly resemble Melchisedechs' oblation made of bread and wine.    

MART. 15. For which purpose also their partial translation about altar and table, is notorious. For, the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  name of altar (as they know very well) both in the Hebrew and Greek, and by the custom of all peoples▪ both Jews and Pagans, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  implying and importing sacrifice, therefore we, in respect of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, say. altar, rather than, table, as all the ancient fathers (Chrys. ho. 53. ad po. Antioch. and ho. 20. in 2. Cor. and in Demonst. qd Christus sit Deus, to. 5. Nazianz. de Gorgonia sorore. Basil. in Liturg. 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 saepe) are wont to speak and write, (namely when S. Hierom calleth the bodies or bones of S. Peter and Paul the altars of Christ, because of this sacrifice offercd over and upon the same) though in respect of eating and drinking the body and blood, it is also called a table: so that with us it is both an altar and a table, whether it be of wood or of stone. But the Protestants, because they make it only a communion of bread and wine, or a supper, and no sacrifice, therefore they call it table only, and abhor from the word, altar, as Papistical. For the which purpose, in their first translation (Bible an. 1562.) when altars were then in digging down throughout England, they translated with no less malice, than they threw them down, putting the word, temple, in steed of altar: which is so gross a corruption, that a man would have thought it had been done by oversight, and not of purpose, if they had not done it thrice immediately within two chapters, 1. Cor. 9 and 10. saying: Know you not, that they which wait of the TEMPLE, are partakers of the TEMPLE? and, Are not they which eat of the sacrifice, partakers of the TEMPLE? in all which places the Apostles word in Greek, is, altar, and not, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. c. 9 v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  temple. and see here their notorious peevishness, where the Apostle saith, temple, there the same translation saith, sacrifice: where the Apostle saith, altar, there it saith, temple.  

FULK. 15. That the ancient fathers used the name of altar, as they did of sacrifice, sacrificer, levite, and such like improperly, yet in respect of the spiritual oblation of praise and thanks giving, which was offered in the celebration of the lords supper, we do easily grant: as also, that they do as commonly use the name of table, and that it was a table indeed, so standing as men might stand round about it, and not against a wall, as your popish altars stand, it is easy to prove, and it hath oftentimes been proved: and it seemeth you confess as much, but that it is with you, both an altar, and a table, with us indeed 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. Cor. 10. 11.  blasphemous slander, when we believe as the Apostle taught us, that it is the communion of the body and blood of Christ, and the lords supper, as for the corruption 
Chap. 1 sect. 11.  you pretend, I cannot think (as I have answered before) it was any thing else but the first Printers oversight. For, why should the name of altar mislike us in that place, more than in an hundredth other places, when it is certain, wheresoever it is used in the scriptures, in the proper sense, it signifieth, the altars of the jews, or of the Gentiles, and never, the communion table, or that, at which the lords supper is prepared and received.    

MART. 16. Thus we see how they suppress the name of altar, where it should be: now let us see how they put in their translation, where it should not be▪ this also they do thrice in one chapter, and that for to save the honour of their 
Dan● 4. v. 12. 17. 20.  communion table, namely, in the story of Bel, where we have it thrice called the table of that idol, under which Bells Priests had made a privy entrance, and, that the king looked 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  upon the table, and, that they did eat up such things as were upon the table: these wicked translators fearing, lest the name of Bells table might redound to the dishonour of their 
See the Bib. 1562. and 1577.  communion table, translate it, altar, in all these places. Wherein I cannot but pity their folly, and wonder exceedingly how they could imagine it any disgrace, either for table or altar, if the idols also had their tables and altars, whereas S. Paul so plainly nameth both together, The table of our Lord, and 
1. Cor. 10. v. 2.  the table of Devils. If the table of Devils, why not the table of Bel? if that be no disgrace to the table of our Lord, why are you afraid of Bells table, least it should disgrace yours? Or if you had no such fear, than you must tell us some other good reason of your unreasonable translation in this place, why you translate, altar, for table, that is, chalk for cheese.  

FULK. 16. That the authors of the first translation in the fabulous story of Bel, for table, translated altar, as I cannot excuse them of error, so I dare discharge them of any partiality, or favour of the communion table. For, in King Henry the eights time, when that translation was first printed, there was never a communion table in any Church of England. It is like therefore, they respected similitude of the placing thereof, so as a privy door might be under it, which could not be conveyed in tables of such forms as now adays are in use. The Bible 1577. in the margin placeth the word, table, which is in the Greek, signifying, that there is no great matter whether word you use. And that story being of no credit, the translatoures could have no purpose, either to prove, or improve, by authority thereof.    

MART. 17. And here, by the way, the Reader may note an other exceeding folly in them, that think the name of table, maketh against altar and sacrifice, their own translation here condemning them, where they call Bells table, an altar. and Saint Paul, having said to the Corinthians, the table of our Lord, saith to the Hebrews. 
* Haimoi Oecumen.  of the self same, we have an altar. and again, he saith, the table of Devils, which, I am sure, they will not deny to have been a true altar of Idololatrical sacrifice▪ and Malach. 1. v. 7. in one sentence it is called both altar & table, whereupon the jews offered their external and true sacrifices▪ and all the fathers, both Greek and Latin, speaking of the sacrifice of the new Testament, call that whereupon it is offered, both altar and table: but the greeks more often, table, the Latin fathers more often, altar: and why, or in what respects, it is called both this and that, we have before declared, and here might add the very same out of S. Germanus Arch. B. of Constantinople, in his greek commentaries (called mystica theoria) on the Liturgies or masses of the Greek father's▪ but to proceed.  

FULK. 17. It were an infinite matter to note, not only all the follies, that you commit, but also the impudent assertions that you make, upon your own surmise▪ without all proof. Who made you so privy of our thought, that you affirm us to think the name of table, maketh against altar, and sacrifice? We know the name of table, proveth no sacrifice, but that the fathers call the same, both a table and an altar, we do never deny unto you. Yet, that the Apostle to the hebrews, 12. calleth that same an altar, which Saint Paul to the Corinthians nameth a table, you shall never be able to prove: Howsoever Oecumenius and Haimo, two late writers, dote upon that place which is evident, even by the text, to be understood of the only sacrifice of Christ's death upon the Crosse. That the people whom the Prophet Malachi reproveth, called the lords altar, his table, is no sufficient proof, that it might be called by the one name as well as the other. And although, in respect of the meat offerings and drink offerings, it was also a table, at which God vouchsafed to be entertained by the people, as their familiar friend. But, what is this to the purpose of any controversy between us. The altar was called a table, in the old Testament, but the table is never called an altar, in the new Testament, although by the ancient fathers, oftentimes.    

MART. 18. There are also some places less evident, yet such as s●ach of the like heretical humour against the B. Sacrament. In the prophet I●re. c. 11. v. 17. we read thus, according to the Latin and the Greek, Let us cast 
* Lignum in panem eius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  wood upon his bread, that is, saith S. Jerome, in comment. huius loci, the cross upon the body of our Saviour. For it is he that said, I am the bread that descended from heaven. Where the Prophet so long before saying, bread, and meaning his body, alludeth prophetically to his body in the B. Sacrament made of bread, and under the form of bread, and therefore also called bread of the Apostle. So that both in the Prophet and Apostle, his bread and his body is alone, 
●. Cor. 10.  and least we should think, that the bread only signifieth his body, he saith, Let us put the Cross upon his bread, that is, upon his very natural body, which hung on the Crosse. Now for these words of the Prophet, so usual and well known in the Church and all antiquity, how think you do these new Masters translate? in one Bible thus, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof. Another, we will destroy his meat with wood. or as they should have said rather, the wood with his meat. Do you see how properly they agree, whiles they seek novelties, and forsake the ancient usual translation?  

FULK. 18. The phrase or manner of speech which the Prophet jeremy useth, being somewhat obscure, and unusual, hath bred diverse translations. The most simple meaning, and agreeable unto the Hebrew, is this: Let us destroy him with wood in steed of bread, that is, let us famish him in a close prison, or in the stocks, etc. and so may the Greek and vulgar Latin be expounded, let us give him wood for bread, rather than that violent exposition of Saint Jerome, is to be admitted, which referreth it to his crucifying, where beside, it were an intolerable figure in that place to understand his body by bread, it is clean contrary to that you said. For, the Cross was not put upon Christ, but Christ upon the Crosse. Such wresting of the Scripture, where no need is, maketh the Christians ridiculous to the jews. And yet it is more far fetched, to draw it to the sacrament, which is called bread, & is not bread: Neither doth Saint Jerome extend his interpretation so far.    

MART. 19 They will say, the first Hebrew word can not be as Saint Jerome translateth, and as it is in the Greek, and 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as all antiquity readeth: but it must signify, Let us destroy. They say truly, according to the Hebrew word which now is. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  But is it not evident thereby, that the Hebrew word now is not the same which the Septuaginta translated into Greeks' 
* Psal. 21.  and S. Hierom into Latin? and consequently the Hebrew is altered and corrupted from the original copy which they had: perhaps by the jews (as some other places) to obscure this prophecy also of Christ's Passion, and their crucifying of him upon the Crosse. Such jewish Rabbins and new Hebrew words do our new masters gladly follow in the translation of the old Testament, whereas they might easily conceive the old Hebrew word in this place, if they would employ their skill that way, and not only to novelties. For who seethe not that the Greek Interpreters in number 70. and all hebrews of best skill in their 
Destruamus. Ponamus. Mittamus.  own tongue, S. Hierom also a great Hebrician did not read as now we have in the Hebrew, Nashchîta, but, Nashitha, or, Nashlîcha? Again the Hebrew word that now is, doth so little agree with the words following, that they cannot tell how to translate it, as appeareth by the diversity and difference of their translations thereof before mentioned, and transposing the words in English otherwise than in the Hebrew, neither of both their translations having any commodious sense or understanding.  

FULK. 19 If we should acknowledge the Hebrew word to be altered in so many places, as the 70. depart from it, we should not only condemn the Hebrew text, that now is, in many places, but your vulgar Latin text also, the translator whereof differing oftentimes from the Greek, followeth the truth of the Hebrew, or at least cometh nearer unto it. Your argument of the number of the 70. interpreters all Hebrews, is very ridiculous & childish. Hierom himself will laugh you to scorn in it, who acknowledged for certainty, no more than the books of the law translated by them. And Lindanus proveth manifestly unto you, that some parts of the old Testament in Greek, which we now have, are not the same that were counted the 70. translation in the ancient father's time. Whether Hierom in this place did consider the Hebrew text, we know not, for he doth not, as his manner is, show the diversity of the Hebrew and the Septuaginta in this chapter, beside he professeth great brevity, entreating upon so long a Prophet. But whether a letter in this word have been altered or no, or 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  whether it were corrupt in the copy, which the Greek translator and Hierom did read, for the true or simple sense thereof, there is no great difference. No nor for that sense which Hierom brings, which although it seemeth to be far from the Prophet's meaning, yet it may have as good ground upon the word Naschita, as upon the word Nashlicha.    

MART. 20. But yet they will pretend that for the first word at the least, they are not to be blamed, because they follow the Hebrew that now is. Not considering that if this were a good excuse, than might they as well follow the Hebrew that now is Psal. 21. v. 18: and so utterly suppress and take out of the Scripture this notable prophecy, They pierced my hands and my feet: Which yet they do not, neither can they do it for shame, if they will be counted Christians. So that in deed, to follow the Hebrew sometime where it is corrupt, is no sufficient excuse for them, though it may have a pretence of true translation, and we promised in the preface, in such cases not to call it heretical translation.  

FULK. 20. To this cavil against the certain truth of the Hebrew text, I have sufficiently answered in my confutation of your preface Sect. 44. showing that the true reading of this word, as Felix Pratensis, joannes Isaak, Tremelius, and other do acknowledge, is still remaining and testified by the Mazzorites.    

MART. 21. But concerning the B. Sacrament, let us see 
That water & wine ought to be mingled in the chalice. Pro. 9  once more how truly they follow the Hebrew. The holy Ghost (saith S. Cyprian ep. 63. nu. 2.) by Solomon foreshoweth a type of our lords sacrifice, of the immolated host of bread & wine, saying, Wisdom hath killed her hosts, SHE HATH MINGLED HER WINE INTO the cup. Come ye, eat of my bread, and drink the wine that I HAVE MINGLED for you. Speaking of WINE MINGLED (saith this holy doctor) he foreshoweth prophetically the cup of our Lord, MINGLED WITH WATER AND WINE. So doth S. Hierom interpret this mixture or mingling of the wine in the chalice, so doth the author of the commentaries upon this place among S. hierom's 
See S. Augustine De Civit. Dei lib. 17. c. 20.  works, so do the other fathers. So that there is great importance in these prophetical words of Solomon. She hath mingled her wine into the cup, and, the wine which I have mingled, as being a manifest prophecy of Christ's mingling water and wine in the Chalice at his last supper, which the Catholic Church observeth at this day, and whereof S. Cyprian writeth the foresaid long epistle.  

FUL. 21. It had been to be wished that S. Cyprian when he goeth about to prove the necessity of wine, in the celebration of the lords supper, against the Heretics, called Aquarij, that contended for only water, had retained the precise institution of Christ in wine only, which the Scripture mentioneth, and not allowed them a mixture of water, and for that purpose driven himself to such watery expositions, as this of proverbs 9 which without good warrant, he draweth to represent the lords supper. Where if he had been urged by the adversaries, whereto the beasts slain were referred in this Sacrament, he must have been driven to some violent comment. But whereto tendeth this preparation?    

MART. 22. But the Protestants counting it an idle superstitious ceremony, here also frame their translation accordingly, suppressing altogether this mixture or mingling, and in steed thereof saying, She hath drawn her wine, and, 
Bibl. 1579.  drink the wine that I have drawn: or (as in other of their Bibles) She hath powered out her wine, and, the wine 
An. 1577.  which I have powered out: neither translation agreeing either with Greek or Hebrew. Not with the Greek, which doth 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Miscuit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Miscut.  evidently signify, mingling and mixture, as it is in the Latin, and as all the Greek Church from the Apostles time hath used this word in this very case whereof we now speak, of mingling water and wine in the chalice. S. james, and S. Basil in their Liturgies expressly testifying that Christ did so, as also S. Cyprian 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in the place alleged. S. justine in the end of his second Apology, calling it of the same Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is (according to plutarch) wine mingled with water: likewise S. Ir●neus 
Mixtus calix. Conc. Constantinop. 6. can. 32.  in his fifth book near the beginning. See the sixth general Council most fully treating hereof and deducing it from the Apostles and ancient fathers, and interpreting this Greek word by any other equivalent, and more plain to signify this 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  mixture.  

FULK. 22. The authority of the holy Scriptures with us is more worth than the opinion of all the men in the world. In the Scripture we find the fruit of the vine, water we find not, therefore we account not water to be of any necessity in the celebration of the lords supper. In the primitive Church, we know water was used first of sobriety, then of ceremony, and at length it grew to be counted of necessity. The Armenians therefore are commendable in this point, that they would never depart from the authority of the Scriptures, to yield to the custom, practice, or judgement of any men. But against this mixture, as you surmise, we have translated powered out or drawn. I confess our translators, should more simply according to the word have said, mingled her wine, and the wine that I have mingled, but because that speech is not usual in the English tongue, it seemeth they regarded not so much the property of the word, as the phrase of our tongue. But that they had no purpose against the mixture of the wine with water in the Sacrament, it is manifest by this reason, that none of them did ever think, that this place was to be interpreted of the lords supper, but generally, of such spiritual food as wisdom giveth to men's souls. Therefore it is certain they had no meaning to avoid the word of mixing for any such intent as you surmise.    

MART. 23. Thus than the Greek is neither drawing of wine, nor pouring 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 pour out. Gentle Reader, if thou have skill, look the Hebrew Lexicon of Pagnine, esteemed the best: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  if thou have not skill, ask, and thou shalt understand, that there is no such signification of this word, in all the Bible, but that it signifieth only mixture and mingling. A strange case, that to avoid this mingling of the cup, being a most certain tradition of the Apostles, they have invented two other significations of this Hebrew word, which it never had before.  

FULK. 23. The Dictionaries are more sure to teach what a word doth signify, than what it doth not signify. I confess, Pagnine giveth none other signification of that root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but miscuit. But even the word miscuit, may signify, a pouring out, when there is no respect of joining divers things together, but of serving one with the cup, as Tully useth the word. Qui alteri misceat mulsum, ipse non sitiens. He that serveth an other with sweet wine, when he is not a thirst himself. So is the Hebrew word used, isaiah. 19 where the Prophet saith. The Lord hath powered forth among them, the spirit of error. Where the word of mixture, is not so proper. Again, your own vulgar Latin Interpreter, Proverb. 23. translateth mimsach, a word derived from the same root, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  not for any mixture, but for drinking up, or making clean the cups, & student calicibus epotandis, which study how to empty or drink up all that is in the cups. In Hebrew it is, which go to seek strong wine, or mingled wine. And if a mixture be granted in the place you require, how prove you a mixture, with water rather than with any thing else. Verily, the circumstance of the place, if there must needs be a mixture, requireth a mixture of spices, honey, or some such thing, to make the wine delectable, unto which, Wisdom doth invite, and allure all men to drink it, rather than of water only, to abate the strength of it. As also in the text, proverbs 23. the drunkards that continued at the wine, and went to seek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mingled wine, went not to seek wine mingled with water, but some other delicate mixture. And Esay. 5. where woe is pronounced to drunkards, the same word is used: woe be to them, that are strong to drink wine, and men of might, limsoch, to mingle strong drink, not 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  to mingle it with water, for sobriety, but with some other delectible matter, to provoke drunkenness, as your vulgar Interpreter translateth it. So that albeit the word did signify to mingle, never so properly, and certainly, you can make no good argument for mingling with water, in that place. Proverbs 9 where either it signifieth simply to draw, brooch, or power out, or else to prepare with some other more pleasant mixture, than of water only.     

CHAP. XVIII.  
Heretical translation against the honour of SAINTS, namely of our B. LADY.  

Martin.  
LEt us pass from God's holy Sacraments, to 
1.  his honourable Saints in heaven, and we shall find that these translations pluck from them also as much honour as they may. In the Psalm 138. where the Catholic 
Psal. 138.  Church, and all antiquity readeth thus, Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus, etc. Thy friends O God are become exceeding honourable, their princedom is exceedingly strengthened: which verse is sung and said, in the honour of the holy Apostles, agreeably to that in an other Psalm, Constitues eos principes 
Psal. 44.  super omnem terram, Thou shalt appoint them Princes over all the earth: what mean they in all their English Bibles to alter it thus: How dear are thy counsels (or thoughts) to me O God: O how great is the sum of them? Doth not the Hebrew make more for the old received 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Latin translation, than for theirs, because the Hebrew word is used more commonly for to signify friends, than cogitations? doth not S. Hierom so translate in his translation of the Psalms according to the Hebrew? doth not the great rabbin R. Solomon? Doth not the Greek put it out of doubt, which is altogether 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  according to the said ancient Latin translation?  

Fulke.  
THe context of the verse going before, & also 
1.  the verse following, not any envy against the Saints of god, have moved our translators to departed from the vulgar translation, which is neither so proper for the words, & altogether impertinent to the matter of the text. For when the Prophet had in the verse going before, celebrated the wonderful work of God, in the framing of his body in his mother's womb, in this verse, he breaketh out into an exclamation, to behold the marvelous & unsearchable wisdom of gods counsels, whose strength is above man's reach, whose number is as the sand of the sea. To answer R Solomon, we have R. David Kimchi, as great a rabbin as he, and a more sincere Interpreter, that expoundeth the whole verse even as we do.    

MART. 2. And you my Masters, that translate otherwise, I beseech you, is it in Hebrew, How great is the sum 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  of them: & not rather word for word most plainly, how are the heads of them strengthened, or their Princedoms, as in the Greek also it is most manifest? Why do you then hunt after 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  novelties, & forsake the trodden path of the ancient, & pass the bounds which our holy forefathers have set and appointed, preferring your own singularities & new devices., even there where you can not justly pretend either the Hebrew, or Greek? 
Epito. Thesau. Pagn. an. 1570. in radi●●.  When the Hebrew Lexicon hath given the common interpretation of this place, & then saith, Quidam exponunt, Some expound it otherwise: why had you rather be of that lesser, some that expound 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  otherwise, than of the great society of all ancient interpreters.  

FULK. 2. The Hebrew is as we have translated, how great is the sum of them. So doth Kimchi expound it, so doth Pagnin, and to the same effect, justinian. And the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  same word, ●atsemu missapel▪ the sum of them is greater than can be numbered, Psal. 40. Where the Prophet speaketh of the counsels or thoughts of God as in this place. Where you quarrel at us, for following the lesser number when Pagnin saith, Quidam, etc. You may know if you list, that Pagnine himself is one of those quidam, that translateth even as we do, How precious are their thoughts unto me, how are the sums of them multiplied? As for Hierom, whom you would have us to follow, in steed of Princes, hath poor men. And therefore you do injuriously, to require us to follow him, whom you follow not yourselves. You must therefore indite Pagnine of heretical translation, beside all Protestants, or else you are very partial.    

MART. 3. But this new fangled singularity of teaching and translating, otherwise than all antiquity hath done, shall better appear in their dealing, about our B. Lady, whose honour they have sought so many ways to diminish, and deface, that the defence and maintenance thereof against the Heretics of our time, is grown to a great book, learnedly written by the great Clerk, and jesuite, father Canisius, entitled, Mariana.  

FULK. 3. I think Canisius in all his great book called Mariana, meddleth not with our English translations, and therefore very idly was this matter brought in, to tell us of Canisius book, called Mariana. I have seen a blasphemous book against, I may justly say, (though it were pretended in the honour of) the blessed Virgin, called Mariale. I have seen that horrible blasphemous Psalter of Bonaventur, perverting all the Psalms unto the honour of the Virgin Marie, with intolerable blasphemy against God, and the holy mother of Christ, whose greatest honour is in the kingdom of her son, and in his infinite glory.    

MART. 4. Concerning our purpose, what was ever more common, and is now more general, and usual, in all Christian Countries, than in the ave Marie, to say, Gratia plena, full of grace, insomuch, that in the first English Bible, it hath continued so still, and every child in our country, was taught so to say till the ave Marie was banished altogether, and not suffered to be said, neither in Latin, nor English? What ancient father of the Latin Church, hath not always so red, and expounded? What Church in all the West, hath not ever so sung, and said? Only our new Translators have found a new kind of speech, translating thus: Hail thou that art freely beloved▪ 
Bib. 1579. & 1577  and, Hail thou that art in high favour. Why this, and that, or any other thing, rather than, Hail full of grace? S. john Baptist was full of the holy Ghost, even from his birth, S. 
Iuc. 1. v. 15. Act. 7. v. 8.  Steven was full of grace, as the scripture recordeth of them both: why may not then our Lady much more be called full of grace, 
Ambr. lib. 2. in 1. ●uc.  who (as S. Ambrose saith) only obtained the grace, which no other women deserved, to be replenished with the author of grace?  

FULK. 4. The salutation of the Virgin, may be said still, either in Latin, or English, as well as any part of the holy Scripture beside. But not to make a popish Orison, of an Angelic salutation. That we have translated Hail Marie freely beloved, or, that art in high favour, we have followed the truth of the Greek word, not so denying there by, but that the virgin Marie of God's special goodness without her merits, as she confesseth was filled with all gracious gifts of the holy spirit, as much as any mortal creature might be, except our Saviour Christ, whose only privilege it is to be free from sin, and to have received the gifts of the holy Ghost without measure in his manhood.    

MART. 5. They will say, the Greek word doth not so signify. Doth it not? I make themselves witnesses of the contrary, and their own translation in other places shall confute them, where they translate an other word of the self same nature and form and in all respects like to this, full of sores. If 
Luc. 16. v. 20.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be full of sores, why is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full of grace? Let any Grecian of them all, make me a difference in the nature and significancy of these two words. Again, if ulcerosus (as Beza translateth) be full of sores, why is not gratiosa (as Erasmus translateth) full of grace? or why doth Beza marvel, that Erasmus translated, gratiosa, when himself translateth the like word, ulcerosus? All which adjectives in osus (you know) signify fullness, as, periculosus, aerumnosus. Yet what a stir doth Beza keep here in his annotations, to make the Greek word signify, freely beloved?  

FULK. 5. The signification of the Greek word, with your foolish cavillation of Vlcerosus, I have discussed sufficiently. cap. 1. sect. 43.    

MART. 6. But hath it in deed any such signification? tell us you that profess this great skill of the tongues, what syllable 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is there in this word, that soundeth to that signification? S. Chrysostom, & the Greek Doctors, that should best know the 
Comment. in Eph. ●.  nature of this Greek word, say that it signifieth, to make gracious & acceptable, & beloved, & beautiful, & amiable, & so to be desired, as when the Psalm saith, The king shall desire thy 
Psal. 44.  beauty. Beza himself saith, that it is word for word, gratificata, made grateful, & yet he expoundeth it, accepted before God, & translateth it, freely beloved, because he will have no singular grace or goodness, or virtue, resident in our B. Lady, but all by imputation, & acceptation, whereof I have spoken before. S. Athanasius a greek doctor saith, that she had this title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
S. Athan. de S. deip.  because the holy ghost descended into the Virgin, filling her with all graces and virtues, and I beseech the reader, to see his words, which are many more concerning this fullness of 
Ep. 140. in expos. Psalm. 44.  grace and all spiritual gifts. S. Jerome, that knew the Greek word as well as the Protestants, readeth, Gratia plena, and findeth no fault with this interpretation. but saith plainly, she was so saluted, full of grace, because she conceived him, in whom all fullness of the deity dwelled corporally.  

FULK. 6. Look in the best Greek Lexicons, and you shall find it the same signification, that we translate, and none other. Chrisostome is of the same judgement, as I have showed, in the place above mentioned. That the Virgin Marie was justified before God by faith, imputed to her for righteousness without works or justice, as you will have it called, we doubt no more of her, than of Abraham. But, that she was also sanctified with most excellent graces, and endued in her soul, with all christian virtues, Beza, and all that esteem Beza in the word, will confess as much as is convenient for her honour, so nothing be derogated from the honour of God. That which Athanasius saith, we do likewise admit, and that which Jerome writeth also. But this is all the controversy, whether the Virgin Marie were freely accepted and beloved of God, & so by his spirit endued with gracious virtues, or whether, for her virtues which she had of herself, she were worthy to be beloved of God, and deserved that honour, whereof she was vouchsafed to become the mother of God. Athanasius saith expressly, that all those graces and gifts were freely given her by the obumbration or overshadowing of the holy Ghost, which the Angel promised should come upon her.    

MART. 7. Now let the English Bezites come with their 
john Keltridge preacher of the word in London. In his Sermons within the tower, printed, fol. 14. Gross ignorance and singular pride in many of the new Clergy. So he called the Priests of the Seminary, as if one would call a Monk a Monastery, or a Nun a Nonry.  new term, freely beloved, and control these and all other ancient fathers both Greek and Latin, and teach them a new signification of the Greek word, which the● knew not before. Let john Keltridge one of their great Preachers in London, come and tell us, that the Septuaginta and the best translations in Greek have no such words as we use in the ave Marie, but that the word which the Septuaginta use, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Who ever heard such a jest, that the preacher of the word of God in London (so he is called in the title of his book) and preacher before the Jesuits and Seminaries in the tower, which is next degree to the disputers there, whose sermons be solemnly printed, & dedicated to one of the Queen's Council, who seemeth to be such a Grecian that he confuteth the vulgar Latin translation by the signification of the Greek word, and in other places of his book allegeth the Greek text: that this man for all this, referreth us to the Septuaginta either 
Pag. 37. of the ●. part.  as authors of S. Luke's Gospel, which is too ridiculous: or as translators thereof, as though S. Luke had written in Hebrew, yea as though the whole new Testament had been written in Hebrew (for so no doubt he presupposed) and that the Septuaginta had translated it into Greek as they did the old, who were dead three hundred years before S. Luke's Gospel and the new Testament was written.  

FULK. 7. Concerning john Keltridge, against whose ignorance and arrogancy you insult, I can say nothing, because I have not seen his book. But knowing how impudently you slander me, M. Whitaker, Beza, and every man almost, with whom you have any dealing, I may well suspect your fidelity in this case, and think the matter is not so hard against john Keltridge, as you make it seem to be. If he have overshot himself (as you say) he is the more unwise, if you slander him, as you do others, you are most of all too blame.    

MART. 8. All this is such a pitiful jest, as were incredible, if his printed book did not give testimony. Pitiful, I say, because the simple people count such their preachers jolly fellows and great Clerks, because they can talk of the Greek and of the Hebrew text, as this man doth also, concerning the Hebrew letter, Tau, whether it had in old time, the form of a Cross, or 
Fol. 11. part. 2.  no, even as wisely and as skilfully, as he did of the Septuaginta, and the Greek word in S, Luke's Gospel. Whose incredible folly and ignorance in the tongues, perhaps I would never have mentioned (because I think the rest are sorry 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 pattern and example of many other like boasters and bragger's among them, and that when they hear one talk lustily of the Hebrew and Greek, and cite the text in the said tongues, they may always remember john Keltridge their Preacher, and say to themselves, what if this fellow also be like john Keltridge?  

FULK. 8. Reserving john Keltridge to the trial & defence of himself, I say, you have showed yourself as ridiculous in this book diverse times, and so have many that bear a greater countenance among you ten-times, than john Keltridge doth among us, how so ever it pleaseth you to make him the next degree to the disputers: But if john Keltridge have showed himself to be a vain boaster of that knowledge whereof perhaps he is ignorant, what reason is it that other learned men, which know the tongues in deed, should be drawn into suspicion of ignorance for his folly? But that you delight by all means to discredit their learning and good gifts of God in them, to whom if you were comparable yourself, yet it were not tolerable, that you should seek their reproach, before their unskilfulness may plainly be reproved.    

MART. 9 But to proceed: these great Grecians and Hebricians that control all antiquity and the approved ancient Latin translation by scanning the Greek and Hebrew words, that think it a great corruption Gen. 3. to read, Ipsa conteret caput tuum, she shall bruise thy head, because it pertaineth to our Lady's honour, calling it 
* Sand. Rock discou. pag. 145.  a corruption of the Popish Church, whereas S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Gregory, S. Bernard, and the rest read so, as being the common received text in their time (though there hath been also always the other reading even in the vulgar Latin translation, and therefore it is not any late reformation of these new correctors, as though the Hebrew and Greek text before had been unknown) these controllers I say of the Latin text by the Hebrew, against our Lady's honour, are in an other place content to dissemble the Hebrew word, and that also for small devotion to the B. Virgin: namely Hierom 7. and 44. Where the Prophet inveigheth against them that offer sacrifice to the Queen of heaven, this they think is very well, because it may sound in the people's ears against the use of the Catholic Church, which calleth our Lady, Queen of heaven. But they know very well that the Hebrew word doth not signify Queen in any other place of the Scripture, and that the Rabbins and later Hebricians (whom they gladly follow) deduce it otherwise, to signify rather the whole corpse and frame of heaven, consisting of all the beautiful stars and planets, and the Septuaginta call it 
See Pagn. in radice.  not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Queen, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the host of heaven, c. 7. Hierem: and S. Hierom not only, reginam, but rather, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  militiam coeli: and when he nameth it reginam, Queen, he saith we must understand it of the moon, to which and to the other stars they did sacrifice & commit idolatry. But the Protestants (against their custom of scanning the Hebrew and the Greek) translate here, Queen of heaven, for no other cause in the world, but to make it sound against her, whom Catholics truly call and worthily honour as Queen of heaven, because her son is king, and she exalted above Angels and all other creatures. See the New Test Annot. Act. 1. v. 14.  

FULK. 9 We think it in deed a shameful corruption of the Scripture, that your vulgar Latin text, for ipsum, or ipse, as it is in the Greek, readeth ipsa, and blafphemous it is to ascribe that to the mother of Christ, which is proper unto himself. But many of the ancient Fathers did read so, and therefore Fulke did ignorantly be like, in calling it a corruption of the Popish Church. The best property I find in you, (for which I am beholding to you) is that when you have made a lie, and slandered me, you will note the place yourself, where I may be discharged and your own impudency be convinced. My words in the place by you noted be these: 
Disc. Sand. pag. 145.  Finally, how the Romish Church in these last days hath kept the Scripture from corruption, although I could show by an hundredth examples, yet this one shall suffice for all. The very first promise of the Gospel, that is in the Scripture, Gen. 3. That the seed of the woman should break the Serpent's head, the Popish Church hath either wilfully corrupted, or negligently suffered to be depraved thus: Ipsa conteret caput tuum, she shall break thine head, referring that to the woman which God speaketh expressly to the seed of the woman. Whether the mystery of iniquity working in the Latin Church, long before the Apostasy thereof into the kingdom of Antichrist began this corruption, I leave it in doubt, but that the Popish Church hath suffered this depravation to continue, it is out of all question, although you say you have the other reading also, which though some copies have, yet will you not admit it to be authentical. And whereas you brag that this reading hath been always in your vulgar Latin translation: Hentenius confesseth that of 28. ancient copies, by which he revised the vulgar translation, he found it only in two. As for S. Ambrose how he did read, it is not certain: for in his book De fuga saeculi, Cap. 7. where this text is cited, though the printed books have Ipsa, yet there is nothing in his exposition that agreeth therewith, and seeing that he followed the Greek text, which hath the pronoun of the masculine gender, it is like he did read rather Ipse, but because his Greek was very corrupt, so that for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, conteret, he did read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, servabit. 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 Marie, as also for conteret, out of the corrupt Greek he readeth obseruabit. Gregory followeth the same corrupt version, out of the Greek Ipsa obseruabit, but he referreth it to every Christian man, which is the seed of the woman, not to the virgin Marie. Mor. lib. 2. Cap. 38. By which it is evident that your vulgar Latin text, was not received in the Church of Rome for six hundredth years after Christ. For you read conteret, and not obseruabit. Only bernard in deed a late writer hath your reading ipsa conteret, which he expoundeth as prophecy of the virgin Marie. Who withstood the temptations of the Devil, not understanding the promise of the overcoming of the Devil, by Christ, even as the Apostle alludeth to it, the Lord shall tread down Satan under your feet. Rom. 16. The same bernard, Sermon. de villic. Iniquo, readeth the text, Gen. 4. Si rectè offeras, & non recte dividas, after the Greek, by which also it is plain, as by other arguments, that your vulgar Latin translation was not received for 1000 years after Christ. How true therefore it is that you said Ipsa conteret caput tuum, was the common received text in the ancient father's time, the readers may see and judge.  
But the chieefe complaint is behind, that in Hieremie 7. Cap. 44. we translate the Queen of heaven, as the Septuaginta, Hierom, and the vulgar Latin translation doth, and we only do it in despite of the virgin Marie, because the Papists blasphemously call her the Queen of heaven. The Hebrew word in deed may signify Queen, although with those points it be not else where red for a Queen, & it may signify the workmanship, but than you must supply Aleph of the root, that is wanting, and resteth under no long vowel, & so some Protestants do translate it, as Tremelius & junius. But if we be accused of heretical translation, when we join with your vulgar Latin, with Hierom, with the Septuaginta, it is very strange, that they should nor bear the blame with us. Certain it is, no Protestant did ever teach, that the jews did worship the virgin Marie for the Queen of heaven. But the Sun, the Moon, or some great star as Pagnine saith. How truly you call the virgin Marie queen of heaven, and how well you prove it in your notes, upon Acts 1. 14. Some other more convenient time, and place may be granted to consider.    

MART. 10. Agine, why doth the Geneva new Testament 
An. 1580▪ Cap. 1. v. 25. Cap. 1. v. 31.  make S. Matthew to say, that He (to wit, joseph) called his name jesus? Why not she, as well as he? For in S. Luke the Angel saith to our Lady also, Thou shalt call his name jesus. S. Matthew then speaking indifferently, and not limiting it to him or her, why do they give this pre-eminence to joseph rather than to the B. Virgin? did not both Zacharie and 
●uc. 1. v. 60. and 63.  also Elisabeth his wife by revelation give the name of john, to john the Baptist? yea did not Elisabeth the mother first so name him before Zacharie her husband? much more may we think, that the B. Virgin the natural mother of our Saviour, gave him the name of jesus, than joseph his putative father. specially, if we consider, that the angel revealed the name first unto her, saying, that she should so call him: and the Hebrew word, Esay. 7. whereunto the angel alludeth, is the feminine gender, and referred by the great Rabbins, Rabbi Abraham, and Rabbi David, unto her, saying expressly in their commentaries, Et vocabit ipsa puella: and the maid herself shall call. and surely, the usual pointing of the Greek text (for Beza maketh other points of his own) is much more for that purpose. Now, if they will say, that Theophylacte understandeth it of joseph, true it is, and so it may be understood very well: but if it may be understood, of our Lady also, and rather of her, than of him, why doth your translation exclude this other interpretation?  

FULK. 10. The matter is not worth the weight of an hair, whether we read, he called, or, she called, for both called him so. But, because joseph had a commandment, in the same chapter, that he should call his name jesus, it is more probable, that S. matthew, in this place meant of him, rather than her: at the least, it is no heretical translation, to say, that joseph did that, which he was in few verses before, commanded to do: and it was more ordinary and usual, that the man gave the name, rather than the woman, although, in this case, the woman had more right than the man. As for Elizabeth's example, proveth nothing, because she spoke when her husband was dumb.    

MART. 11. Where, by the way I must tell you (and elsewhere perhaps more at large) that it is your common fault, to make some one Doctors interpretation, the text of your translation, and so to exclude all the rest that expound it otherwise, which you know is such a fault in a translator, as can by no means be excused. Secondly, the reader may here observe and learn, that if they shall hereafter defend their translation of any place, by some Doctors exposition, agreeable thereunto, that will not serve nor suffice them, because every Doctor may say his opinion 
* See chap. 1. nu. 3. 43. chap. 10. nu. 1. 2. chap 19 nu. ●.  in his commentaries, but that must not be made the text of Scripture, because other Doctors expound it otherwise: and being in itself, and in the original tongue, ambiguous, and indifferent to divers senses, it may not be restrained or limited by translation, unless there be a mere necessity, when the translation cannot possibly or hardly express the ambiguity and indifferency of the originaltexte.  

FULK. 11. The authority of one Doctor, agreeing with the propriety of the original tongue, is more worth, than an hundredth against it. We never follow one Doctor, as you falsely slander us, to make his interpretation the text, but where that one Doctor did see the truth of the natural sense, according to the ●ong, that perhaps was hid from other Doctors, whose writings we have. As for ambiguities, and indifferences unto diverse senses, are better reserved to commentaries and lectures upon the Scriptures, than that they either can or ought to be retained in the translations.    

MART. 12. As (for example) in this controversy concerning 
2. Pet. 1. v. 15.  Saints, S. Peter speaketh so ambiguously, either, that he will remember them after his death, or they shall remember him, that some of the Greek fathers gathered, and concluded 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  there upon (Oecum. in Caten. Gagneius in hunc locum) that the Saints in heaven remember us on earth, and make intercession for us. Which ambiguity both in the Greek, and the Latin, should be also kept and expressed in the English translation, and we have endeavoured as near as we could possibly so to make it, because of the divers interpretations of the ancient fathers. But it may seem perhaps to the reader, that the said ambiguity cannot be kept in our English tongue, and that our own translation also can have but one sense. If it be so, and if there be a necessity of one sense, than (as I said) the translator in that respect is excused. But let the good reader consider also, that the calvinists in restraining the sense of this place, follow not necessity, but their heresy, that Saints pray not for us. Which is evident by this, that they restrain 
Eeza.  it in their Latin translations also, where there is no necessity at all, but it might be as ambiguous and indifferent, as in greek, 
No. Test. Grae. Henr. Steph. an. 1576.  if it pleased them: yea, when they print the Greek Testament only, without any translation, yet here they put the Latin in the margin, according as they will have it read, and as though it might be read no otherwise, than they prescribe.  

FULK. 12. Oecumenius, who lived in a superstitious time, telleth, that some men understood this saying of Peter, by an hyperbaton, etc. meaning to show, that the saints, even after their death, do remember those things, which they have done here, for them that are alive. But other handling this matter plainly, etc. do give the usual sense. First Oecumenius counteth this an enforced exposition, because it cannot stand, but by an hyperbaton. Secondly, he speaketh never a word of the intercession of Saints for us. Thirdly, he prese●reth the common sense, that all the fathers before him given of this text, as plain and simple, and yet this must be sufficient for us to change our iuterpretation, although we were put in fault immediately before, as though we made one doctors interpretation, a sufficient ground of our translation. Yet is not this an opinion approved, but reported only by Oecumenius▪ and Oecumenius himself, a Doctor of as little authority, as any other, in respect of the late season, in which he lived. As for Gagneius, that came after him, who seethe not how little we are to account of his credit, that would wrest the deciding of an unprofitable question, out of this place, whether Saints make intercession for us, which, if it were granted, it followeth not, that we must make intercession to them.     

CHAP. XIX.  
Heretical translation against the distinction of LATRIA and DULIA.  

Martin.  
IN this restraining of the Scripture to the 
1.  sense of some one Doctor, there is a famous example in the epistle to the Hebrnes, 
Hebr. 11 v. 21.  where the Apostle saith, either jacob adored the top of joseph's sceptre, as many read and expound: or else, that he adored toward the top of his sceptre, as other read and interpret: and beside these, there is no other interpretation of 
Quest. in Gen. Bib. 1579.  this place in all antiquity, but in S. Augustine only, as Beza confesseth: yet are they so bold to make his exposition only, and his commentary peculiar to him alone, the text of the scripture in their translation, saying: jacob leaning on the end of his staff, worshipped God, and so excluding all other senses, and expositions of all the other Fathers, excluding, and condemning their own former translations, adding two 
Bib. 1562. 1577.  words more, than are in the Greek text, leaning, God: forcing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may be, but is as rare, as virgae eius, for virgae suae: turning the other words clean 
Gen 47. v. 31.  out of their order and place, and form of construction, which 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  they must needs have correspondent, and answerable to the Hebrew text, from whence they were translated: which Hebrew words themselves translate in this order, He worshipped toward the bed's head. If he worshipped toward the bed's head, according to the Hebrew: then did he worship toward the top of his sceptre, according to the Greek: the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  difference of both being only in these words, sceptre, and bed, (because the Hebrew is ambiguous to both) and not in the order or construction of the sentence.  

Fulke.  
THe restraining of simple men from 
1.  error, is counted of you the restraining of the Scripture, as though the Scripture were a nose of wax, as some of you have called it, which might be writhed every way, and especially it pleaseth you, when it may be wrested to some colour of your error. So have you not one place of Scripture clear on your side, for any of your heresies, but you are glad to uphold ambiguities, and diversities of senses, whereas, if you had the truth, you might have texts of infallible certainty, whereof there could not be divers interpretations, without manifest violence offered unto the words and true signification of them. But concerning the place now in question, your vulgar text, omitting the preposition, which is both in the Greek, and in the Hebrew, hath committed a manifest error, in saying, that jacob worshipped the top of his rod or staff, where S. Augustine hath rightly observed the true sense of the place, and saith, that jacob (as a weak old man) worshipped upon the top of his staff, that is, leaning on his staff. The Hebrew is, towards the bed's head. Although it is not unlike, that either the Apostle did read the word Mattah, which we read Mittah, or else that Mittah signifieth a staff, as well as Mattah. For it is not like as Beza saith, that jacob kept his bed, when joseph came first to him, for after it was told joseph that his father was sick. That other translators observed not this matter, whereto shall it be imputed, but to human imperfection? That we add to the text, it is false, the words, leaning, and God, are printed in the small letter, to signify that they are not of the original text, but added for plainness. And yet the sense may stand without them: and he worshipped upon the end or top of his staff. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is forced to signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is a forgery of you, and no enforcement by us: for it is in a manner as commonly taken so, as otherwise, except there be an other antecedent, to whom it may be referred, then to avoid ambiguity, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Math. 4. his paths, his meat, his hand, Math. 5. his Disciples, and else where in every place.    

MART. 2. To make it more plain, when the Prophet David saith, Adorabo ad templum sanctum tuum, Psal. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  5. & 137. is not the true translation, and grammatical sequel of the words, thus: I will adore toward thy holy temple? Is it not a common phrase in the Scripture, that the people of God adored toward Jerusalem, toward his holy mount, before 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dan. 6. 3. Reg. 8. Psal. 98. jos. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Psal. 1●1.  the Ark, toward the place where his feet stood? May any man be so bold, by adding and transposing to alter and obscure all such places of holy Scripture, that there may appear no manner of adoration toward or before a creature? and for worshipping or adoring toward the things aforesaid, and the like, may we say, leaning upon those things to worship, or adore God? Were they afraid, lest th●se speeches of holy Scripture might warrant and confirm the Catholic and Christian manner of adoring our Saviour Christ, toward the holy Rood, at, or before his image and the crucifix before the altar, and so forth? For had they not feared this, why should they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, leaning upon, rather than, towards, yea, why in Genesis, towards his bed's head, and here not, towards?  

FULK. 2. You abound in leisure, thus to trifle about nothing, we allow worshipping toward the temple, the holy hill, the footstool, the Ark of God, and such like: yea if you will have it toward the beds head, or the toppp of his staff, what gain you for the worshipping of images, forbidden by the second commandment, or before images? for so you would creep upon poor men's consciences, first, to worship before images, then to worship images, thirdly, to worship, them with Dulia, and not with Latria, at last to worship the image of God, of Christ, of the Trinity, with Latria, even the same worship that is due to God himself.    

MART. 3. And (which is more) when the ancient Greek fathers, Chrys. Oecum. in Collectan. Damase. lib. 1. pro imaginibus, Leont. apud Damasc. put so little force 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  either in this preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (or the other alleged) that they expound all those speeches, as if the prepositions were of phrase only, and not of signification, saying: jacob adored joseph's 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  sceptre, the people of Israel adored the temple, the Ark, the holy mount, the place where his feet stood, and the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  like, whereby S. Damascene proveth the adoration of creatures, named Dulia, namely, of the cross, and of sacred images: if I say they make so little force of the prepositions, that they infer not only adoration towards the thing, but adoration of the thing: how do these goodly translators, of all other words, so strain and rack the little particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to signify, leaning upon, that it shall in no wise signify any thing, tending towards adoration?  

FULK. 3. The worship that Chrysostom, and Oecumenius speak of, is a civil reverence done to joseph, or to his sceptre, in respect of the kingdom of Ephraim, that should be set up in his posterity. What Damascene gathereth hereof, to maintain idolatry, we regard not, certain it is, that jacob worshipped none but God, and bowed himself, either toward the bed's head, or leaning upon his staff, as S. Augustin saith That they which follow constrained expositions, are enforced to neglect the prepositions, it is no warrant for us, when we see how the sense may best stand without making the prepositions, which the holy Ghost useth, idle or unprofitable, both in the Hebrew, and in the Greek. And if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify toward, as it doth not properly, but upon, your counterfeit distinction of Dulia, and Latria, should never the sooner be received.    

MART. 4. And if the Greek Doctors suffice not to satisfy these great Grecians herein, tell me, you that have skill in the Hebrew, whether in the foresaid speeches cited out of the Psalms, there be any force in the Hebrew prepositions? surely 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  no more than if we should say in English, without prepositions, 
Psal. 98. 13●.  Adore ye his holy hill: we will adore the place 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  where his feet stood: Adore ye his footstool: For you know that there is the same preposition also, when it is said, Adore ye our Lord: or, as yourselves translate, worship 
Psal. 95. or 96.  the Lord: where there can be no force nor signification 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  of the preposition. And therefore in these places also, your translation is corrupt, and wilful, when you say thus: We will fall down before his footstool. fall ye down before his footstool, before his holy mount, or worship him upon his holy hill: Where you shun and avoid, first the term of adoration, which the Hebrew and Greek, duly 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  express by terms correspondent in both languages, throughout 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the Bible and are applied for the most part, to signify adoring of creatures. Secondly, you avoid the Greek phrase, which is at the least, to adore towards these holy things, and places: and much more the Hebrew phrase, which is, to adore the very things rehearsed: to adore God's footstool (is the Psalm saith) because it is holy, or, 
Psal. 98.  because he is holy, whose footstool it is, as the Greek readeth.  

FULK. 4. If the Apostle had meant nothing by the preposition, he might, and would, (as it is most like) have left it clean out, yea, if he had meant no more, but the adoration of joseph's sceptre, what needed he to have added the top, or the extremity? or why was the top of his sceptre more to be adored, than all the other length of it? But certain it is, the Apostle would express the Hebrew preposition, which must needs have some signification. And where you ask them that have skill in the Hebrew, whether there be any force in the preposition, in those sayings out of the Psalm, that speak of worshipping, or falling down before his footstool, his holy hill, etc. I answer, yea, there is great force, for the hill was not to be worshipped, but he whose tabernacle or temple was on it. But you object, that we ourselves neglect the preposition, Psal. 96. and say, worship the Lord. The fault is the less, because the worship is referred to none but the Lord: yet the precise translation in that place, should be, bow down, or fall ye down before the Lord, in the glorious sanctuary. And where you say, we shun the word of adoration, which the Hebrew, and Greek, duly do express, by terms applied, for the most part signify adoring of creatures. You have packed up a great number of untruths, together, as it were in a bundle. First, that we shun the term of adoring, for doubt of your Dulia, which is utterly untrue, for it is avoided partly, because it is more Latin, than English, partly because it doth not express either the Greek, or the Latin terms, which the Scripture useth. Secondly, you avouch, that both the Hebrew, lishtachavoth, and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  whereas all that be learned in both the tongues, do know, that the Hebrew word doth signify properly, to bow down, and therefore is used of such bowing down, as is not to the end of adoration, as Psalm 42. v. 5. 6. Why art thou cast down O my soul, and in divers other places. The Greek word also signifieth, to use some gesture of body in worshipping, & sometimes, to fall down as Herodotus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they must worship the King falling down before him. Finally, where you say, they are applied to the adoring of creatures, if you call it adoration which is used in civil manner to Princes, and other persons of authority, I grant it is often so applied, but if you mean of religious adoration, it is expressly forbidden to any creature or Image of creature, by the second commandment in the Hebrew term, and by the words of our Saviour Christ to the Devil, Math. 4. In the Greek word, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Where Satan desired not to be worshipped as God with divine honour, but that our Saviour Christ would fall down before him and worship him, as an excellent minister of God, to whom the disposition of all the kingdoms of the world, as he falsely said, were by God committed, Luk. 4. v. 6. which utterly overthroweth your bold distinction of Dulia and Latria, seeing it was that which you call Dulia, that the Devil required, but our Saviour Christ telleth him, that all religious worship and service pertaineth only to God. Touching the adoration of God's footstool, I have spoken sufficiently before, Cap. 1. Sect. 41.    

MART. 5. This being most manifest to all that have skill in these tongues, it is evident that you regard neither Hebrew nor Greek, but only your heresy: and that in S. Paul's place aforesaid of adoring joseph's sceptre, you altar it by your own fancy, and not by S. Augustine's authority, whom I am sure you will not admit reading in the Psalm, Adore ye his footstool: and so precisely and religiously reading thus, that he examineth the case, and findeth thereby that the B. Sacrament must be adored, and that no good Christian doth take it, before he adore it. Neither will you admit him when he readeth thus of David, He was carried in his own hands, and 
Praef. in Ps. 33.  interpreteth it mystically of Christ, that he was carried in his own hands, when he gave his body and blood to his Disciples. Yet are S. Augustine's interpretations (how so ever you like or mislike them) very good, as also that above named of jacob's leaning upon his staff, & adoring, may be one good sense or commentary of that place, but yet a commentary, & one Doctors opinion, not the sacre text of Scripture, as you would make it by so translating.  

FULK. 5. Let Pagnine for the Hebrew word, the Greek Lexicons for the other, be judge between us. For you are the most impudent advoucher I think, that ever became a writer. That we lean to Augustine's judgement, in this case, it is not because we make him an author of truth, but a witness of the same, against such venomous tongues and pens, as yours is, that call every thing heretical, that savoureth not of your own drowsy dreams, of antichristian heresy. Neither is it reason that by using the testimony of Augustine, where he beareth witness to the truth, we should be bound to every interpretation of his▪ when he declineth therefrom. Where you say, that by adoring the footstool of God, he findeth that the blessed Sacrament must be adored, you say untruly, he gathereth that Christ's humanity or body, must be adored, but not the blessed Sacrament thereof. Likewise when he saith, upon a feeble ground, of a false interpretation, that Christ was carried in his own hands in the Sacrament, he affirmeth it not so absolutely, as you allege it, but quodam modo, after a certain manner, he bore himself in his hands, when he said, this is my body. Yea, in that place Augustine, as in many other, declareth his judgement, that he acknowledged not the corporal manner of presence, and eating of Christ's body, in the sacrament, for which, you Papists so greatly contend, that you ate content to make so many senses of the scripture, it declareth, that you acknowledge none certain, and so derogate all credit and authority from the word of God, which may have so many meanings, as there be divers doctors that have commented upon it. Whereas divers interpretations may have all a true sense, but it is impossible, that they should all be senses of the same Scripture.    

MART. 6. And if S. Jerome like not the Greek doctor's interpretation, in this place of adoring joseph and his sceptre, yet he also saith, that jacob adored toward joseph's rod, or toward the beds head, and not, leaning upon his staff he adored, which you make the text of Scripture. And though he think, that in this place is not meant any adoration of joseph, yet, I am sure, for adoration of holy things, namely, Relics, the holy land, and all the holy places and monuments of Christ's being and doing upon the earth, you will not be tried by S. Jerome. And again, why S. Paul should say, that by faith he adored, & in respect of things to come, it is not otherwise easy to understand, but that he partly for saw the kingdom of Ephraim, the posterity of joseph: partly the kingdom of Christ prefigured in joseph then Prince of Egypt, and so by faith adored his sceptre or toward his scepier (which is all one) as the Greek fathers for the most part expound it. But let us hasten towàrd an end.  

FULK. 6. S. Hierom in deed denieth that jacob did worship his staff or his sceptre, or toward the top of his sons sceptre, but only towards the bed's head as the Hebrew text is. For reverent estimation of relics, the Holy land, and the monuments of Christ's doing and being, as he sometime upon contention perhaps was immoderate, so for adoration of such things, after such Idolatrous manner as is used in the popish Church, he was far off: yea, he saith expressly, that he doth not allow the adoration of any creature, and that, to adore any creatures, is plain idolatry. Has autem non dico martyrum reliquias, etc. But we do worship and adore, I say, not the relics of martyrs, but neither the sun truly, nor the moon, etc. not Angels not archangels, not Cherubin, not Seraphin, or any name that is named in this world, or in the world to come, lest we should serve the creature rather than the creator which is blessed for ever. But we honour the relics of martyrs, that we might adore him, whose martyrs they are.  
Do you not hear how Jerome alloweth the adoring of creatures? I see no cause therefore why we may not be tried by his judgement, for adoration of holy things, and namely, relics, and whatsoever you will name beside, seeing he maketh adoration proper only to God.  
Finally, the Apostle saith, not that jacob adored, in respect of things to come, but, that by faith, he blessed his son, concerning things to come, and worshipped God, whom no man can worship truly, but by faith. And jacob's faith, was the more commendable, that being near his end, and in that infirmity of body, he both believed the promises of God made to him concerning his sons, and also gave thanks unto God, for those benefits which he should never taste of in the flesh, but was assured by them, as tokens of God's favour towards him, to the attainment of the land of eternal life, whereof the land of Canaan was but a holy figure and sacrament.     

CHAP. XX.  
Heretical translation, by ADDING TO THE TEXT.  

Martin.  
BEcause in the last corruption I spoke of adding 
1.  to the text, though i● be their common and universal fault in every controversy, as is to be seen in every chapter of this book: yet here I will add certain places, not yet mentioned. As, The rest of the acts of jehoakim, 
2. Paral. 36. v. 8. in Bib. 1562.  and his abominations which he did, and CARVED IMAGES THAT WERE LAID TO HIS CHARGE, BEHOLD THEY ARE WRITTEN, 
Against Images.  etc., these words, carved images laid to his charge, are more than is either in the Greek, or the Hebrew.  

Fulke.  
YOu forget yourself in the first place, whereof 
1.  made mention, Chap. 3. sect. 9 where I have answered, that our first translators added that which is the common interpretation, and supply of them that writ upon this place, but, because that had been better in the note, than in the text, it is corrected in two later translations    

MART. 2. Again, Saul confounded the jews, proving (by conferring one Scripture with an other) 
Act. 9 v. 22. Bib ●577. For conference of Scriptures, against fathers, Counsels, etc.  that this is very Christ. These words, by conferring one Scripture with another, are added more than is in the greek text: in favour of their presumptuous opinion, that conference of scriptures is enough for any man to understand them, and so to reject both the commentaries of the Doctors, and exposition of holy Counsels, and Catholic Church, it is so much more, I say, than is in the Greek text, and a notorious corruption in their Bible, read daily in their churches, as most authentical. See the rest of their Bibles, and thou shalt find no more, for all those words, but, affirming, or, confirming. and the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. c. 2. v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  self same Bible, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, translateth the same Greek word thus, Who shall instruct? And indeed, that is the true and usual signification of the word, both in the old Testament, and in the new▪ as Deut. 4. Thou shalt 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  teach them thy children. And Esay 40. Who shall instruct our Lord? The Hebrew word 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 useth i● to the Coloss. (c. 2. v. 2. in the same signification, as the Church readeth and expoundeth it, and so consequently, S. Luke in the place whereof we now treat, saith nothing else, but that S. Paul earnestly taught or instructed them, that jesus is Christ. And yet our new translators without respect of Hebrew, or Greek, have coined a new signification, of conferring one scripture with an other. So ignorant they are in the signification of Greek words, or rather, so wilfully malicious.  

FULK. 2. Either you make aloud lie, or else some one print, which you have of the Bishop's Bible, which you call, Bib. 1577. hath put that into the line that should be the note in the margin. For, of four translations that I have, never a one hath that addition. The bishops Bible hath that 22. verse Chap. 9 this. But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the jews, which dwelled at Damascus, affirming, that this was very Christ. The Geneva Bible thus. But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the jews that dwelled at Damascus, confirming, that this was the Christ▪ where the note in the margin upon the word, confirming, is this: proving by the conference of the scriptures. Thomas Mathews Bible translateth that verse thus. But Saul increased in strength, and confounded the jews, which dwelled at Damascus, affirming, that this was very Christ. Master Coverdales' Bible 1562. hatla it thus. But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the jews which dwelt at Damascus, affirming, that this was very Christ. Thus are all our translations without that addition, which, although it is not to be borne in the text, yet is no heretical addition, except you count it heresy, to prove a thing by conference of Scriptures.    

MART. 3. Again, in the first epistle of Saint Peter 
●. Pet. ●. v. 35. Bib. 1562. 1577. Against traditions.  they translate thus: The word of the Lord endureth ever: and this is the word which by the gospel was preached unto you. where these words, by the Gospel, are added deceitfully, and of ill intent, to make the reader think, that there is no other word of God, but the written word, for the common reader hearing this word Gospel, conceiveth nothing else. But indeed all is the gospel, whatsoever 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 alleged, but, This is the word which is preached among 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  you, as the Geneva Bibles translate, or more significantly, which is evangelized among you, as we translate, for, though there be greater significancy in the Greek word, than is expressed by bare preaching or telling a thing, as having a goodly relation, & allusion to the word, evangelium▪ Gospel, yet neither do they 
Euangelizo.  in any other place, neither can they translate it, to preach by the gospel, but simply, to preach, to tell, to show. as, preaching peace by jesus Christ, Act. 10. verse 39 so themselves translate it. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  & Psalm. 95 (or 96. v. 2.) Be telling of his salvation from day to day. Which in other places is spoken by other Greek words, that have no signification at all of Gospel, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as immediately in the said Psalm, 95 (or 96. v. 3) and Psalm 104. (or 105. v. 1.) and Act. 13. v. 5. and c. 17. v. 23. and Io. 1. v. 3.  

FULK. 3. The other before is not a more lewd slander, than this is a foolish cavil. The Greek word signifieth not simply to preach the gospel, or good tidings, which, both may, and aught to be expressed, where the phrase of our tongue will abide it. And therefore the Geneva translation is imperfect in this place, rather than the other. When you say evangelized, you do not translate, but feign a new word, which is not understood of mere English ears, as you do in an hundredth places beside, to make the scripture dark and unprofitable to the ignorant readers. And if the word signifieth no more but, to preach, to tell, to show, as you would seem to prove by a number of quotations, why do you use that new word, evangelize? which, if it were understood and in use, is more, than simply, to preach, to tell, to show. But of all other your mad surmises, this is the most monstrous, that this is added, to make the reader think, that there is no other word of God, but the written word. Doth Gospel, I pray you, signify the written word? The common hearer, you say, hearing this word Gospel, conceiveth nothing else. I am persuaded there is no such reader in England, except it be some of your viperous brood, that thinketh the Gospel, to be nothing but the story written by the four Evangelists: whereas all true Christians know the Gospel to be contained, not only in those stories, but also in other writings of the Apostles, and that the Gospel is preached, whensoever a good sermon teaching the way unto salvation is preached. Howsoever the Septuaginta used the word Euangelizo in the old Testament, we are not to learn the signification thereof, out of their translation, but out of the Scribes of the holy ghost, in the new Testament.    

MART. 4. All which words signify only to tell, to show, to declare, and are used indifferently for and with the other word which they here only translate, to preach by the Gospel. Whereas in all others places when they will translate it 
Luc. 2. v. 10. Act. 13. v. 32. Gal. 3. 8. Dominus dabit verbum evangelizantibus. Qui Euangelizas Jerusalem. Ps. 67. Isa. 40.  most significantly, they express it by bringing glad tidings: and in some places where it should be expressed most significantly in respect of evangelizing or preaching the Gospel, there they translate it barely, preachers, and preaching. Only S. Peter's place aforesaid, must be stretched to signify, The word preached by the Gospel, to insinuate and uphold their heresy of the written Gospel only, or only written word, against Apostolical traditions not written. If this be not their meaning, let them give us a good reason why they translate it so in this one place only.  

FULK. 4. When we vary about the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or in deed when we vary not in substance, though you must brabble about it for a countenance, what mean you to teach us the signification of other words, except you would make folk believe, that we know nothing, but what we learn of you? I say again, if in the new Testament we have not fully expressed the signification of the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either it is because our English phrase could not express it, or else it is a fault of negligence. But in the old Testament, where we have not that word, because we translate out of Hebrew, what reason is there, that you should exact the significancy of that word, when we do not translate it? The insenslesse insinuation that you dream of, I am sure was far from the translators minds, seeing we have manifest and inevitable Scriptures to confound your heretical blasphemy of the imperfection and insufficiency of the word & Gospel of God written unto eternal salvation. And if the word Gospel, when it is added to the text out of the verb of Euangelizing▪ do insinuate the heresy of the written Gospel only, why do you Math. 11. v. 5. translate, Pauperes Euangelizantur, to the poor the Gospel is preached? Would you think it were an honest surmise of me, to say you avoid the name of the Gospel, so often as you express it not in translating that word, for hatred you bear the Gospel? And yet it hath more likelihood, than many that you have invented, and prosecuted against us.    

MART. 5. It is written of Luther that he for the self 
●ind. Dubit. pag. 88  same heresy, in his first translation into the german tongue, left out these words of S. Peter altogether, This is the word which is evangelized 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 presumption against the like heretical meaning of our English Protestants, who (I am sure) in this point of controversy of the word written and unwritten, will not deny that they agree with the Lutherans.  

FULK. 5. That any such sentence was upon any purpose lest out by Luther in his translation, for my part I believe it not, neither upon your report, nor upon your author Lindanus credit. If the Printer did omit a line, yet what reason were it to think that Luther did it, upon such a cause? which were to no purpose for him except he should have left out all those texts of Scripture, where preaching of the Gospel, or word of God is mentioned. What you have left out, I have noted before, and yet I have not pronounced the cause why, so confidently as you do of that omission, which you know not whether it be so or no.    

MART. 6. Again in the epistle of S. james, they add 
ja 4. v. 6.  the word, Scripture, into the text, saying, But the Scripture offereth more grace. Where the Apostle may say as well, and indifferently, The Spirit or holy Ghost giveth 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 abhor their sauciness in the text of holy Scripture.  

FUL. 6. The nominative case in the Greek 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 Greek, as they do in 500 places beside, where a verb or a noun, or a pronoun, or any other word, must of necessity be understood, to fill up the sense: which you in your precise translation observe not, when you add any such thing beside many imperfect sentences that you make, because you will not seem to add, that which in translation is no addition, but a true translation. But here you say, the Apostle may as well understand the holy Ghost, as the Scripture. When there is a nominative case before, that agreeth with the verb, & the sense, it is far fetched to understand a nominative case of him, that is not spoken of. I will set down the whole text, that the reader may judge, what perilous addition is here committed, by our translators. Do you think that the Scripture saith in vain, the spirit that dwelleth in us, lusteth after envy. But (the Scripture) or, it giveth more grace, and therefore saith: God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. In Grammar schools they use to examine it thus, who, or what giveth, who, or what saith? doth not the Scripture mentioned immediately before, answer to these questions most aptly? yet men must abhor our sauciness, or rather your spiteful maliciousness.    

MART. 7. One addition of theirs I would not speak of, but only to know the reason why they do it, because it is very strange, and I know not what they should mean by it. This I am sure, if they do it for no purpose, they do it very foolishly, and forgetfully, & contrary to themselves. In the Gospel of S. Mark, in the reckoning of the Apostles, they add 
Marc. 3. v. 16.  these words, And the first was Simon, more than is in their 
Bibl. 1579.  Greek text. Which addition they learned of Beza, whose contradictions in this point are worthy nothing. In S. Matthew 
Mat. 10. v. 2.  where these words are, he suspecteth that, first, was added by some Papist, for Peter's primacy: here, where the word is not, he avoucheth it to be the true text of the Gospel, and that because Matthew readeth so. There he alleged this reason, why it could not be said, the first, Simon, because there is no consequence nor coherence of second, third, fourth, etc. here he saith, that is no impediment, because there be many examples of such speech, and namely in the said place of S. Matthew. There he saith it is not so, though all Greek copies have it so: here it must needs be so, though it be only found in certain odd Greek copies of Erasmus, which Erasmus himself (as Beza confesseth) allowed not, but thought that these words were added in them out of S. Matthew. What these contradictions mean I know not, and I would learn the reason thereof, of his scholars our English translators, who by their masters authority have made the self same addition in their English translation also.  

FULK. 7. It seemeth you like the addition well enough, because it importeth a shadow of Peter's primacy, but yet your malice is so great against Beza, whose sincerity in this case you should rather commend, if there were any spark of honest equity in you, that you cannot pass it over without quarreling, and cavilling. But your pretence is to know the reason why they do it. I have some marvel, that you should be ignorant of such things, as are counted so material for the maintenance of the Pope's primacy. Especially sith Beza telleth you so plainly the reason of it. True it is, that the common printed books have not that addition. But Beza taketh Erasmus to witness, that in diverse Greek 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 beginning of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall have no word at all, with which it may be knit. But in S. Matthew (you say) he suspecteth that the word (first) was added by some▪ Papist for Peter's primacy. He only objecteth, what if it were so, & answereth the objection himself out of S. Mark: as upon S. Mark, for the coherence with that which followeth: wherefore it is not without great and malicious impudence, that you charge him with contradiction, where there is none, and where he saith more toward your cause, than any of you could say for yourselves.    

MART. 8. There is also an other addition of theirs, either proceeding of ignorance, or of the accustomed humour, when they translate thus: If ye continue established in the faith, 
Col. 1. v. 23.  and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard how it was preached to every creature: or, whereof ye have heard how that it is preached: or, whereof ye have heard, and which hath been preached to every creature, etc. For, all these varieties they have, and none according to the Greek text, which is word for word, as the vulgar Latin Interpreter hath most sincerely translated it, unmovable from the hope of the Gospel, which you 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  have heard, which is, or hath been preached among all creatures, etc. So that the Apostles exhortation is unto the Colossians, that they continue grounded and stable in the faith 
Rom. 16. Gal. c. 1. & 2▪ 2. Thess. 2. Heb. 13. 1. Tim. 6. 2. Tim. 1. & 2.  and Gospel, which they had heard and received of their first Apostles: as in the epistle to the Romans, and to the Galatians, and to the Thessalonians, and to the Hebrews, and to Timothee, and S. john in his first Epistle, c. 2. v. 24. and S. Jude, v. 3. & 20. all use the like exhortations.  

FULK. 8. Here is no addition of any word, that may not be comprehended in the Greek. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the genitive case, signifieth not only, which, but also, whereof, or of which, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that hath been, or which hath been preached. Here is only the poor word (how) which is a superfluous word, even in our English, for the sense is all one, if you leave it out, unmovable from the hope of the Gospel, of which you have heard, that it hath been preached among, or, to all creatures. Here is therefore no addition to the text, but a sense differing from that which pleaseth you best, and yet your vulgar Latin may well bear that sense, which our translators do follow.    

MART. 9 But this doth not so well like the Protestants, which* with Hymenaeus, and Alexander, and other old Heretics, 
1. Tim. 1. & 6.  have fallen from their first faith, and therefore they altar the Apostles plain speech, with certain words of their own, and they will not have him say, Be unmovable in the faith and Gospel which you have heard and received: but, whereof you have heard, how that it is preached: as though he spoke not of the Gospel preached to them, but of a Gospel which they had only heard of, that was preached in the world. Certain it is, these words, whereof you have heard, how it was preached, are not so in the Greek: but, which you have heard, which hath been preached. Which is as much to say, as that they should continue constant in the faith and Gospel, which themselves had received▪ and which was then preached, and received, in the whole word. So say we to our dear countrymen, Stand fast in the faith, and be unmovable from the hope of the Gospel, 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.  

FULK. 9 The Lord is witness, there is nothing liketh the Protestants better, than that all nations should continue grounded, and stable in that faith and Gospel, which they had heard, & received of their first Apostles: but in this place, our translators understand, not only that continuance in the Gospel, but also they comprehend the mystery of the preaching of the Gospel, to the Gentiles, whereof the Apostle in this text, beginneth to speak, that the Collossians might know, that they have been instructed in that Gospel, which at such time as the Apostle did write unto them, had been spread by preaching, according to our Saviour Christ's commandment, over all the world. As for your brutish collection, as though he spoke not of the Gospel preached to them, but of a Gospel, which they had only heard of, that was preached in the world. What ground can it have of our translation, according to the sense I show, that the translators followed? Is it possible they should continue in a Gospel that was not preached unto them, but whereof they had heard only a fame, that it was preached to others? The whole context before, enforceth as much as you say, is the sense of the place. And the vulgar translator seemeth to favour this sense, that our translators follow, rather than that bare translation of yours, because he saith not, à spe evangelii, quod audistis praedicati in universa creatura, etc. but, à spe evangelii quod audistis, quod praedicatum est in universa creatura. The words of the exhortation you make to your countrymen, are well to be liked, if your meaning were as good. But when by the Gospel, you mean popish traditions, by your first Apostles, not the Apostles of Christ, but of the Bishop of Rome, by, which was preached in all the world, the doctrine of Antichristian apostasy, we are so to consider, that under so good and holy words, so devilish and detestable a meaning is craftily covered, and cloaked with hypocrisy.     

CHAP. XXI.  
Certain other heretical TREACHERIES, and CORRUPTIONS, worthy of observation.  

Martin.  
THey hold this position, that the Scriptures 
1.  are not hard to be understood, that so every one of them may presume to interpret, and expound them. And because S. Peter saith plainly, that S. Paul's Epistles are hard, 
2 Pet. 3. Corruption concerning the easiness of the scriptures. Beza in Annos.  and other Scriptures also, which the unlearned (saith he) pervert to their own destruction, therefore they labour tooth and nail, to make this subtle difference, that S. Peter saith not, Paul's Epistles are hard, but some things in S. Paul's epistles are hard, (as though that were not all one) & therefore they translate so, that it must needs be understood of the things, & not of the Epistles, pretending the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Test. Gr. Crisp.  Greek, which yet they know in some copies can not be referred to the things, but must needs be understood of the Epistles. Wherefore, the Greek copies being indifferent to both, & the thing also in very deed being all one, whether the hardness be in the Epistles, or in the matter, (for when we say the Scripture is hard, we mean specially the matter) it is not only an heretical, but a foolish and peevish spirit, that maketh them so curious and precise in their translations, as here to limit and abridge the sense to the things only, Beza translating, inter 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  quae sunt multa difficilia, and not, in quibus, as it is in the old vulgar translation, most sincere, and indifferent both to Epistles, and things.  

Fulke.  
WE hold of the Scriptures, as S. Augustine 
1.  teacheth, de doct. chr. lib. 2. cap. 6. that the holy Ghost, hath so magnifically and wholesomely attempered the holy Scriptures, that with open and clear places he hath provided against famine, and in dark and hard places, he hath wiped away loathsomeness. And that nothing almost is gathered out of those dark places, which is not found else where to be uttered most plainly, specially, if it contain matter necessary unto salvation. But that every one may presume to interpret and expound the Scriptures, it is one lie of an hundred, that Martin hath made in this book, and hath feigned of us, never held or maintained by us. But S. Peter (you say) plainly saith, that Saint Paul's epistles are hard, and other Scriptures also. Howbeit, Saint Peter saith, neither the one, nor the other, especially not the latter. For albeit in the most approved Greek copies, the relative be of the neuter gender, limiting that which S. Peter speaketh, not to any matter at large in S. Paul's Epistles, but to those things which S. Paul hath written, concerning the second coming of Christ, yet of the other Scriptures, he saith not, that they are hard, although he might say, there is hard things in them, but that the unstable & unlearned pervert them to their own destruction, which they do oftentimes, when they be most plain and easy, and not only where they be difficult and hard. That you can understand no difference between the sense, which is made of the neuter gender, and that which the feminine gender doth yield, I know not whether it be to be imputed, to the dullness of your wit, but rather I think it proceedeth of the crafty malice of your mind. As also that you charge us with an heretical, foolish, and peevish spirit, when we translate according to the most usual Greek copies, and according to that which is most agreeable to the place. For to accuse all S. Paul's epistles of difficulty and hardness, had not been agreeable to that excellent commendation, which S. Peter before did give him. For every man, that desireth to teach, as S. Paul did by his Epistles, aught to frame his speech, to be as plain, and easy to be understood, as the matter whereof he speaketh will admit. But that some things about that high mystery of the second coming of Christ, are hard to be understood, dischargeth Paul of affectation of difficulty, or not regard of perspicuity, showing the cause of the hardness, to be in the height of the matter, not in the handling of the writer. And that some did misunderstand the Apostle S. Paul writing of that matter, it is apparent, by the second epistle to the Thessalonians, Chap. 2.    

MART. 2. another fashion they have, which can not 
Corruption to make God the Author of sin.  proceed of good meaning, that is, when the Greek text is indifferent to two senses, and one is received, read, and expounded of the greater part of the ancient fathers, and of all the Latin Church, there to follow the other sense, not so generally received and approved, as in Saint james epistle, where the common reading is, Deus intentator malorum est, God is no tempter to evil, they translate, Gad cannot be tempted with evil, which is so impertinent to the Apostles speech there▪ as nothing more. But, why will they not say, God is no tempter to 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  evil, as well as the other? is it because of the Greek word, which is a passive? Let them see their Lexicon, and it will tell them that it is both an active, and passive. so say other learned Grecians, 
Gagneius.  Interpreters of this place. so saith the very circumstance of the words next going before, Let no man say that he is tempted of God. Why so? Because God is not tempted with evil, say they▪ is this a good reason? nothing less. how then? Because God is no tempter to evil, therefore let no man say, that he is tempted of God.  

FULK. 2. You have a fashion, common to you, with many of your fellows, to snatch all occasions that you can get, to make a show, for your heinous slanders, wherewith you seek to overwhelm the Saints of God, and especially those, whose labours have been most fruitful to his Church. Whereof you give us an evident 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 think you had great and urgent cause so to do. The Greek of S. james, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we translated passively, as the word signifieth, & as words of that form do signify. God is not, or can not be tempted with evil. But against this translation, you oppose the Lexicon, which following the judgement of the vulgar Interpreter, that hath translated it actively, doth in deed make it indifferent, to both significations, but example giveth none thereof, but this now in controversy▪ You allege further learned Grecians interpreters of this place, & namely Gagneius a late writer, to whom I may oppose Hentenius, who translating Oecumenius upon S. james, turneth this place of Scripture thus. Deus enim malis tentari nequit. And Oecumenius in his commentary is plain of the same judgement, for repeating the text as before, he saith: juxta eum qui dixit (quanquam externus sit à nobis & à fide aliemis) divina beataque natura neque molestias sustinet neque alijs praebet. God cannot be tempted with evil, according to him which said (although he be a foreigner from us, & a stranger from the faith) the divine and blessed nature, neither suffereth griefs, nor offereth to other. And this judgement of Oecumenius, is collected out of a great number of Greek doctors. But the very circumstance of the words next before (say you) doth require it should be taken actively. A good interpreter will consider the circumstances of the words following, as well as of the words going before. For the words following declare, that it must be taken passively, or else the Apostle speaketh one thing twice together, without any cause why. Whereas the passive taking of that word, agreeth to the circumstance, as well going before, as following after. The whole context is this: Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God. for God cannot be tempted of evils, neither doth he tempt any man. The meaning is plain, god is so far from tempting unto evil, as his divine nature is uncapable of any temptation of evil. For temptation to evil, could not come from God, except it were first in God, but seeing it cannot be in God, it cannot proceed from him, & so doth Oecum. interpret the place.    

MART. 3. This reason is so coherent and so necessary in this place, that if the greek word were only a passive (as it is not) yet it might beseem Beza to translate it actively, who hath turned the active into a passive without scrupulosity, as himself confesseth, and is before noted, against the real presence. Much more in this place might he be bold to translate that actively, which is both an active and a passive, specially, having such an example, and so great authority as is all the ancient Latin church till this day. But why would he not? surely, because he would favour his and their heresy, which saith clean contrary to these words of the Apostle, to wit, that God is a tempter to evil. Is that 
Annot. No. Test▪ an. 1556. Mat. 6. verse. 1●.  possible to be proved? yea, it is possible and plain. beza's words be these, Inducit Dominus in tentationem eos quos Satanae arbitrio permittit, aut in quos potius Satanam ipsum indueit, ut cor eorum impleat, ut loquitur Petrus, Act. 5. v. 3. that is, The Lord leadeth into tentation those whom he permitteth to Satan's arbitrement, or into whom rather he leadeth or bringeth in Satan himself to fill their heart as Peter speaketh. Mark that he saith God bringeth Satan into a man, to fill his heart, as Peter said to Ananias, Why hath satan filled thy heart, to lie unto the holy Ghost? So then, by this man's opinion, God brought Satan into that man's heart, to make him lie unto the holy Ghost, and so led him into tentation, being author and causer of that heinous sin.  

FULK. 3. How necessary the coherens is, with the former words, that it maketh an absurd repetition in the words following, I have noted before. And therefore, there is no cause, that should drive Beza, to translate a word of passive signification actively, as you slander him to have translated an active passively, against the real presence, for that you mean of Act. 3. he translateth not passively, so as the passive is opposite to the active, but as the one may be resolved into the other, the same sense remaining, which every child in the Grammar school knoweth. Ego amo ●e, ●● amaris à me, I love thee, thou art loved of me: and not as they may disagree, I love thee, but I am not loved of thee.  
But Beza (you say) would not follow the vulgar Interpreter, whose antiquity I have showed for universal receiving, not to have been above five hundredth years: seeing Bernard, which lived a thousand, and one hundred years after Christ, useth it not always. And why did Beza leave the vulgar translation, in this place? surely, in favour of our heresy, that God is a tempter to evil. The Lord himself be judge, whether we abhor not that heresy. Yet you say, it is both possible, and plain to be proved, by beza's own words. In his later edition, an. 1565. his words are these, upon that petition of the lords prayer▪ Lead us not into temptation. I●ducit autem Dominus in tentationem eos quos Satanae arbitrio permistit, ut cor eorum impleat, sicut loquitur Petrus, Act. 5. The Lord leadeth into temptation them, whom he permitteth to the will of Satan, that he may fill their heart as Peter speaketh. These words declare, that God leadeth some men into temptation, and how he leadeth them into temptation, namely, by giving them over to Satan, who filleth their heart with all iniquity. But hereof it can not be proved, that he tempteth unto evil. He sent the lying spirit into the mouth of Achab's Prophets, for a punishment unto Achab, and them: yet he neither tempted Achab to evil, nor his Prophets to lie. But you grate upon these words, in the first edition, God bringeth Satan into a man. Beza meaneth no otherwise, than for a punishment, they are delivered to Satan, as the lying spirit was sent to deceive Achab, not that God filleth their hearts, but that Satan filleth their hearts, to their destruction, as Peter saith: where you do slanderously apply that which Peter saith of Satan, filling the heart of Ananias, to the whole sentence: as though Peter were alleged to say, that God sendeth Satan into a man's heart. That God did lead Ananias into temptation, for his hypocrisy, and gave him over to Satan, who filled his heart, and possessed him, so that he lied unto the holy Ghost, we may safely affirm, and yet it followeth not, that God either tempted Ananias to his sin, or else was author aund causer of that heinous sin, 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 saith,) he is no evil author, he may be, and is a just revenger. Wherefore you can no better gather of this saying, that God is the author of sin, than when we say, that God created the devil, or man to be of free will, for if they had not been of free will to sin, they should not have sinned. Or if God had not suffered, and ordained the devil first to fall, he could not have tempted Eve, and so have brought man to sin. But as God is clear from the sin of the devil, and of Adam, which yet he might have kept from sinning: so is he clear from the sin of them, whom for a just plague, he leadeth into temptation, and giveth into the power of Satan, to work his wicked will in them, to their eternal destruction.    

MART. 4. Is not this to say, God is a tempter to evil: clean contrary to S. james the Apostle? or could he that is of this opinion, translate the contrary, that God is no tempter to evil? Is not this as much to say, as that God also brought Satan into judas to fill his heart, and so was author of judas treason, even as he was of Paul's conversion? Let Beza now, and 
See Beza An. not. in Rom. c. 1. v. 24. Act 2. v. 23. W●●it. ad rat. Camp. pag. 139. 145.  Master whitaker's, or any other Heretic of them all, wrist & wring themselves from the absurdity of this opinion, as they endeavour and labour to do exceedingly, because it is most blasphemous: yet shall they never be able to clear and discharge themselves from it, if they will allow and maintain their foresaid exposition of Gods leading into temptation. Doth not Beza for the same purpose translate, God's providence for, God's 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 2. v. 23.  prescience? Which is so false, that the English Bezites in their translation, are ashamed to follow him.  

FULK. 4. Beza that said the one, desieth the other. For S. james saith, that God tempteth no man to evil▪ as he himself is not tempted of evil. Therefore it is most ridiculous that you imagine, that Beza should not translate the word actively, to avoid that sentence (God is no tempter to evil) which followeth in the very next words, God tempteth no man. That God gave over judas unto Satan, it implieth not, that God was the author of judas treason, no more than when the Apostles say, that Herod and Pontius Pilate came together, with the Gentiles, & people of Israel, against jesus Christ, to do whatsoever the hand and counsel of God had determined, Act. 4. v. 27. 28. Behold all they that murdered Christ, Herod, Pilate, judas, Annas, Caiphas, with all the rest, did whatsoever the hand and counsel of God had before determined to be done. Was God then author of their sin? God forbidden. And yet without horrible sin, those things could not be done, which God had determined to be done, by those wicked instruments, yet necessary by God's appointment, for our redemption. Beza therefore needed not for any such end, as you slander him, to have translated God's providence, for God's prescience, which I have answered before. Neither is there any need for M. Whitaker, or other to wrest and wring themselves from this absurdity, which they never granted, but may easily be avoided by them▪ that hold the doctrine of God's eternal providence, and foreappointment of all things as we do.    

MART. 5. another exceeding treachery to deceive the Reader, is this: that they use Catholic terms & speeches in such 
Corruption in abusing Catholic words. 2. Mach. 6. v. 7.  places where they may make them odious, & where they must needs sound odiously in the people's ears. As for example, this term, procession, they put very maliciously & falsely, thus: When the feast of Bacchus was kept, they were constrained 
Bib. 1570. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Procession. Bib. 1562. 1577.  to go in the procession of Bacchus. Let the good reader see the Greek Lexicon, if there be any thing in this word, like to the Catholic Churches processions: or whether it signify so much as, to go about, as their other Bibles are translated, which meant also heretically, but yet durst not name, procession.  

FULK. 5. Your popish ceremonies are many of them so heathenish, and idolatrous, that they may well be resembled to the customs, and solemnities of the Gentiles, from whom they were taken. And as for the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it signifieth to go in a solemn pomp, such as your processions are, and so doth our Lexicon teach us, in pompa incedere, to go solemnly in a pomp. And if it signifieth not so much, as to go about, as you say: I pray you tell us, why your vulgar Latin Interpreter hath translated it by circuire, or whether circuire doth not signify to go about: or whether the worshippers of Bacchus did not go about, with garlands of ivy on their heads, as your Priests went with garlands of flowers at sometime of the year.    

MART. 6. Again▪ He put down the Priests (of Baal) 
Founded.  whom the kings of juda had founded to burn incense. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  4. Reg. 23. verse 5▪ So they translate (the Hebrew being simply to give, make, appoint) because in the Catholic Church, there are foundations of chaunterie Priests, chapels, diriges, etc. Neither is it sincerely, and without ill meaning, that they say here the Priests of Baal, whom etc. Because the Hebrew word signifieth all those that ministered in the temples of false gods.  

FULK. 6. A childish folly. As though we were enemies to good & godly foundations, because we mislike idolatrous & superstitious foundations. The Hebrew word which signifieth to give, according to the circumstances of this place, may well be translated to found, because the text speaketh of a gift of perpetuity, intended by those wicked kings. That Chemarim were the Priests of Baal, the story doth declare, although they had that name of their black garments, which they did wear superstitiously, as your black monks do: or if you doubt whether Baal had Sacerdotes. sacrificing Priests, you may read, 4. Reg. 11. v. 18. where Mathan, Baal's Priest, was killed before his altar. And if the Hebrew word signify all those that ministered in the temples of false gods, your vulgar Latin translator, by your own judgement, hath erred in translating it Aruspices, which is a kind of Soothsayers.    

MART. 7. Again, Silver shrines for Diana, Act. 19 
Shrines. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  v. 24. Because of the shrines and tabernacles made to the image of our B. Lady: the Greek word signifying▪ temples, & Beza saith, he can not see how it may signify shrines.  

FULK. 7. The word in that place, is taken neither for shrines, nor temples, but for pieces of coin, in which was stricken the similitude of Diana's temple, in deed such a thing, as your shrines, and tabernacles are, or rather such as your brooches, and leaden coins are, which are used at your solemn pilgrimages, and idolatrous festivities, such as I have seen a number at Amiens in France, prepared on S. john Baptistes eve, having the print of S. john's head in a platter, on them, and I know not what beside. But of this place, I have spoken before. cap. 1. sect. 16.    

MART. 8. Again, As I passed by, and beheld your 
Devotions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  devotions, I found an altar, Act. 17. v. 23. So they call the superstition of the Athenians toward their false Gods, because of Catholic people's devotions toward the true God, his Church. Altars, Saints, etc. the Greek word signifying the things that are worshipped (as 2. Thess. 2. v. 4. and Sap. 15. v. 17.) not the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  manner of worshipping.  

FULK. 8. Of this also I have spoken in the place above mentioned, the word may signify the exercise of there religion. And seeing S. Paul accounteth the altar, which he found dedicated to the unknown God, among their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it seemeth he taketh the word more generally, than to signify their Gods. For the altar was not worshipped, as God, but dedicated to the unknown God. Again, what folly is it to think, our translators had respect to your Popish devotions, by the name of devotion so applied to discredit them, when the term of devotion is indifferent, as the term of religion, either to true or to false devotion▪ and religion?    

MART. 9 Again, The jews had agreed, that if any 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  man did confess that he was Christ, he should be excommunicate, joh. 9 v. 22. And jesus heard that they had excommunicated him, v. 35. to make the jews doing against them that confessed Christ, sound like to the Catholic Churches 
Excommunication.  doing against Heretics in excommunicating them, and so to disgrace the Priest's power of excommunication: whereas the jews had no such spiritual excommunication, but (as the Greek must needs only signify) they did, put them out of 
Aposynagogum sacere.  the Synagogue, & so they should have translated, the Greek word including the very name of Synagogue. But they, as though the Church of Christ and the Synagogue of the jews were all one, so translate, excommunicating, and putting out of the Synagogue, as all one.  

FULK. 9 The like discipline to the Church's excommunication, had the jews, in excluding men from their Synagogues, or assemblies, and therefore of the similitude the one hath to the other, in the thing, as well as in the end, our translators have used the word of excommunicating in this place, and yet not excommunicating alone, for they all add out of the Synagogue, to make it more plain, which you do fraudulently suppress. But how vain a thing it is, that we should have any purpose against the discipline of excommunication, all the world may see, when we practise it ourselves, and teach, that it is necessary to be perpetual in the Church, against them that hold it was but temporal. And what we are to esteem of the excommunication of heretics, both out of this place, and diverse other, we may be sufficiently instructed.    

MART. 10. I omit here as spoken before, that they call an Idol, the Queen of heaven, because we call our Lady by that title: so to make both seem like. Also, that they say Bells altar 
Altar's.  thrife, for Bells table, to disgrace altars: & that for idols, they say images, in despite of the Church's images: that they say tradition 
Images. Traditions.  du●ly in the ill part, yea sometime when it is not in the Greek, to make traditions odious, and such like. Thus by similitude and like sound of words they beguile the poor people, not only in their false expositions concerning judaical fasts, mea●s, observation of days (as is else where showed) but also in their translations. So doth Caluins' new Testament in french, for Nolite 
Mat. 23.  vocari Rabbi, translate, Be not called nostre master, or Magister noster: in derision and disgrace of this ●ill● and ●alling, which is peculiar to Doctors of Divinive in the Catholic Universities beyond the seas: even as Witless their grand▪ father did upon the same words condemn such degrees in Universities. But their Rabbins can tell them that Rabbi signifieth▪ Magister, and not, Magister noster. And S. john 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 Christ's own sacred words against Catholic Doctors and schools: not considering that as Christ forbade them to be called Rabbi, so he forbade them the name of father and fathers▪ and yet I ●rowe they will not scoff at this name either in their own fathers, or in themselves so called of their children: though in Religious men, according to their heretical humour, they scoff also at this name, as they do at the other in Doctors.  

FULK. 10. And I omit here, as answered before, the Queen of heaven▪ Altars, Images, and Traditions. But own as though we had any thing to do therewith, we are charged with calvin's new Testament in French, which translateth Math. 23. Nolite vocari Rabbi, be not called Nostre master, or Magister noster. I suppose it is not credible, that any man would translate, Rabbi, nostre master, or Magister noster. Specially seeing it is made a great difference among dunstical Doctors, between Noster magister, and Magister noster, as also it is a like i●ste between Noster magistrande, and Nostrande magister▪ Wherefore, except I see the book of calvin's translation, I must think you feign. For I have two new Testaments printed at Geneva, the one 1555. the other 1559. and in both them, Rabbi is translated consonantly, Maistre, and not, Nostre master, or Magister noster. That the text may be well applied against your pompous titule● Doctors, that desire to be called Nostre mistress, as also that which followeth against your jebusites, that must be called fathers, though they be but young & light persons, I will not deny. And yet I think, the titles of Doctor, & Master, in the universities, and of fathers, ascribed to any ancient and grave parsonage, in respect of civility▪ and not of superstition, may be well used without transgression of our Saviour Christ's commandment▪ Math. 23.    

MART. 11. Contrariwise as they are diligent to put 
A hea●e of corruptions.  some words odiously where they should not, so they are as circumspect not to put other words and terms, where they should. In their first Bible (printed again An. 1562.) not once the name of Church: in the same, for charity, love: for altar, temple: for heretic, an author of sects: & for heresy, sector because in those beginnings, all these words sounded exce●dingly against, them. The Church they had then forsaken, Christian charity they had broken by schisine, altars they digged down, heresy and heretic they knew in their conscience more like in the people's ears to agree unto them, rather than to the old Catholic faith and professors of the same. Again in all their Bible's indifferently, both former and later, they had rather say righteous, than just: righteousness than justice: gift, than, grace, specially in the sacrament of holy orders: secret, rather than mystery, specially in matrimony▪ dissension, than, schism: and these words not at all, Priest, (to wit. of the new Testament) Sacrament, Catholic, hymns, confession, penance justifications, & traditions in the good part: but in steed thereof, Elders, secret, general, praise●, acknowledging amendment of life, ordinances instructions. And which is, somewhat worse, carcase, for soul, and grave for hell. 
Demosth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  We may say unto you as Demosthenes, said to Aeschines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ●hat are these? words or wonders? certainly they are wonders, and very wonderful in Catholic men's ears, and whether it be sincere and not heretical dealing, I appeal to the wise and indifferent reader of any sort.  

FULK. II. For all the terms quarreled at in this Section, we have answered before: except perhaps for the term of love, which is used, in steed of charity, expressing what charity is in deed, and not as it is commonly taken of the common people, for an effect of charity, when they call alms, charity. No man that patiently could abide the people to be instructed would cavil at the explication of the word charity, by love, when in the English tongue, the word charity of the common people is either not understood, or taken for an other thing, than the Latin word Charitas do the signify. As for the wonders of words, that Demosthenes spoke of, I know not where more properly they shall be found, than in your affected novelties of terms, such as neither English, nor Christian ears ever heard in the English tongue. Scandal, prepuce, neophyte, ●●●osium, gratis, , paraclete, exinanite, repropitiate, and a hundred such like inkhorn terms. Yea I would gladly know, why among so many Greckish and Latine-like terms, Gazophylac●●, is not a Gazophilace, but a treasury: en●aenia, the dedication, and not the encaenes; as well as pasce, Pentecost, azymes, , belike the Church must have treasure, and the feast of dedication must not ●e hid in a new found term. Why should Aduentus be sometime the coming, and sometime the advent, except it were for the sound of the time of advent, before the feast of the nativity of Christ? Why should Latin words be translated in Greekish terms? as scissuras 
Rom. 11. Act. 20.  into selismes, aemulatores, zelators, and such like. These, and such other, be wonders of words, that wise men can give no good reason, why they should be used.     

CHAP. XXII. Other faults judaeical, profane, mere vanities, follies, and novelties.  

Martin.  
NOW leaving matters of controversy, let 
1.  us talk a little with you familiarly, and learn of you the reason of other points in your translation, which to us seem faults, and savour not of that spirit which should be in Christian Catholic translators.  

Fulke.  
OUR translations, as near as the translators 
1.  could see the truth, are even, and just with the original text, the sense whereof, if it do not always contain such excellent matter, as the Septuaginta, or vulgar Latin translation have supposed, there is no cause why our translators should be blamed, whose office is to regard what the original truth is, and not to draw it for any respect to an other meaning, than the spirit of god expresseth in those words.    

MART. 2. First, you are so profane, that you say, The ballet of ballets of Solomon, so terming that divine book, Canticum canticorum, containing the high mystery of Christ and his Church, as if it were a ballet of leave between Solomon and his concubine, as Castaleo wanton translateth it. But you say more profanely, thus, we have conceived, we have born in pain, as though we should have brought ●oo●●●● wind. I am ashamed to tell the literal commentary of this your 
Esay. 26. v. 18.  translation▪ why might you not have said, we have conceived and as it were traveled to bring forth, and have brought forth the spirit? is there any thing in the Hebrew, to hinder you thus far? Why would you say, wind, rather than, spirit: knowing, that the Septuagintain Greek, and the ancient fathers, and S. Jerome himself, who translateth according to 
Ambr. li. 2. de interpel. c. 4. Chryso. in Ps. 7. prope finem. See S. Jerome upon this place.  the Hebrew, yet for sense of the place, all expound it both according to Hebrew and Greek, of the spirit of God, which is first conceived in us, & beginneth by fear, which the scripture calleth, the beginning of wisdom▪ in so much, that in the Greek there are these goodly words, famous in all antiquity: Through the fear of thee o lord we conceived, and have travailed with pain, and have brought forth the spirit of thy salvation, which thou hast made upon the earth. Which doth excellently set before our eyes, the degrees of a faithful man's increase, and proceeding in the spirit of God, which beginneth by the fear of his judgements, and is a good fear, though servile, and not sufficient. and it may be, that you condemning with Luther this servile fear, as evil and hurtful, mean also some such thing by your translation. But indeed the place may be under stood of the other fear also, which hath his degrees more or less.  

FULK. 2. I marvel why this word ballet should seem to you to be profane, more than this word song, or canticle: songs and canticles be many as ill as any ballets. But the other matter is of great weight, Esay. 26. where, for the spirit, we translate wind, which is such an absurdity, that you are ashamed to tell the literal commentary of this our translation. Belike you are afraid of such a fault as S. Lambert, in your legend is reported to have committed. But except you had a profane mind, you would never have imagined any such matter thereof, which you are ashamed to utter. The circumstance 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 show, that people were in desperate case, without hope of help, till God did raise them, even as it were from death. The similitude is taken of a travailing woman, whose womb, if it be full of wind, she is in great torments. But you ask us whether there be any thing in the Hebrew, that hindereth us to say, we have conceived, and as it were traveled, and have brought forth the spirit. Yea verily the context of the Hebrew words, will not bear that translation for the word chemo, quasi, as it were, is 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  placed before the word ialadhenu, which signifieth, bringing forth, and not before chalnu, which signifieth travailing in pain. Therefore the text is word for word as we have translated it. And the word following: we could make no help to the land, or there was no help in the earth, declareth a continuance of their misery, and cannot agree with that sense, which you would have, because they which have received the holy Ghost, have found help, and are able to help. Beside that, it is a monstrous phrase, that the godly should say, they have conceived, travailed, and brought forth the holy Ghost, by which they are borne again to be the children of God, rather, than that they have conceived or brought forth God's spirit. And therefore, howsoever Hierom like your interpretation, it agreeth neither with the words of the Hebrew, nor with the circumstance of the place, & it is scarce tolerable, to make such a conception, and generation of God's spirit in men. That servile fear is to be reproved in the children of God, which: should fear him, as sons, and not as slaves, we are content to acknowledge with Luther. But what place is this for us to mean any thing against servile fear, wh● there is no mention of fear in the Hebrew text? and the Greek hath such licentious additions, that Jerome is feign to strike them through with a spit, and note them to be wiped out.    

MART. 3. But to say, we have brought forth wind, can admit no such interpretation▪ but even as if a mere jew should translate or understand it, who hath no sense of God's spirit, so have you excluded the true sense which concerneth the holy Ghost, and not the cold term of wind, and whatsoever naked interpretation thereof. And it is your fashion in all such cases, where the richer sense is of God's holy spirit, there to translate wind, as Psal. 147. v. 1●. as you number the psalms.  

FULK. 3. We must say in english, as the prophet hath said before us in Hebrew, and so truly translate the scripture, that never a jew in the world, may have just cause to accuse our falsehood or partiality. And how cold soever the term of wind seem to your crooked mind, and how naked soever the interpretation be thought of your cloaked hypocrisy, it is the word of the everliving God, and the true sense thereof, as it is expressed by the Prophet. Likewise, Psalm 147. the Prophet showeth who doth execute the commandment of God, in thawing, & dissolving the frost namely, the wind, which being southerly, we see the effect of it, what need we here to cause the holy ghost to be sent to melt the ice.    

MART. 4. And it is not unlike to this, that you will not translate for the Angels honour that carried Abacu●, He set 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  him into Babylon over the lake by the force of his spirit: but thus, through a mighty wind, so attributing it to the wind, not to the Angels power, and omitting clean the Greek pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his, which showeth evidently, that it was the Angel's spirit, force, and power.  

FULK. 4 That we have translated in the story of Abacuks taking up, that it was through a mighty wind, it hath good probability by the circumstance of the place, and the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a force with with a noise, is more apt to the wind, than to the spirit. And in other writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is taken for the vehement noise of winds: but the pronoun, I confess, should not have been omitted, and then it may be referred, either to the wind, or spirit of God, whose Angel this is said to be: rather than to the Angel. For the Angel being nothing but a spirit, it is not so convenient to say, by his spirit, as by his own force: again, the pronoun is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereof you made great difference, as in deed there is difference in another case.    

MART. 5. Again, where the Prophets speak most manifestly of Christ, there you translate clean an other thing: as Esa. 30. v. 20. When S. Hierom translateth thus, & the church 
Bib. 1579.  hath always red accordingly▪ Non faciet avolare à te ultra Doctorem tuum: & erunt oculi tui videntes praeceptorem tuum. that is, And (our Lord) shall not cause thy Doctors to fly from thee any more: and thine eyes shall see 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  thy Master. Which is all one in effect, with that which Christ saith, I will be with you unto the e●de of the word. there you translate thus, Thy rain shall be no more kept back: but thine eyes shall see thy rain. So likewise joel 2. v. 23. where the holy Church readeth, Rejoice you children of Zion in the Lord your God: because he hath given you the Doctor of justice: there you translate, the rain of righteousness. Doth the Hebrew word force you to this? you 
See 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●yrain 30. Esa.  Jews themselves, partly understand it of Esdras, partly of Christ's Divinity. Why are you more profane (I will not say more judaical) than the jews themselves? why might not S. Hierom a Christian Doctor and lacking no skill in the Hebrew (as you well know) satisfy you, who maketh no doubt but the Hebrew in these places is; Doctor, Master, Teacher? Who also (in Psal. 84. 7.) translateth thus, With blessings shall the Doctor be arrayed: meaning Christ. Where you with the later Rabbins, the enemies of Christ, translate, The rain covereth the pools. What cold stuff is this in respect of that other translation, so clearly pointing to Christ out Master & doctor?  

FULK. 5. I have told you in the beginning of this chapter, we must not, neither is it safe for the strengthening of our faith, to draw places of Scripture unto Christ, which by the holy Ghost had an other meaning: so shall the jews laugh us to scorn, and the faith of the ignorant, which is grounded upon such translation, if it shall be opened unto them, that it is untrue, shall be mightily shaken, and brought in doubt of all other places of Scripture, applied to the like end. God be thanked, there be plain and evident testimonies of Christ, in the Scripture, which no malice of jewish or Heathenish enemies, can wrest out of our hands, which are sufficient for instruction, and confirmation of our faith. Now concerning those places, where you would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to signify a Doctor, Teacher, or Master: first, it seemeth you have your Hebrew, but from hand to mouth: for chapter 3. sect. 25. whereas we translate, moreh shaker, a teacher of lies, Abacuc. 2. you say, we 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  translate another thing, without any necessary pretence of Hebrew, or Greek: and here you would have it of the necessity of the Hebrew, that we should translate a teacher: yet Pagnine in the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereunto you refer us, saith, that Esay, the 30. verse 20. this word is taken either for rain, or for a teacher, joel the 2. he maketh no question▪ but it signifieth rain: saving that some think it to be the name of a place. In the third place, Psalm 84. after he hath told you, how Jerome translateth it, he telleth you how R. David, and other do translate it for rain, as we do: and in all these places, the sense is more proper for rain, than for a teacher, saving that in Esay, perhaps, it may signify more aptly a teacher, and so the Geneva translation noteth it. In joel, where the Prophet before had threatened famine through drought, nothing is so convenient to be understood, as seasonable rain. In the Psalm 84. where the Prophet commendeth the courage of the people that travailed to jerusalem, through the dry deserts, and places that wanted water, it is most apt to understand, that God filleth their pits with rain, for their comfort. This, how cold soever it is counted of you that care not whereon faith should be grounded, yet is it an hundred times more comfortable to a godly conscience, that desireth to be established in truth, than any violent wresting of the Scripture, from the true and natural sense, to any other interpretation, how good in show soever it be.    

MART. 6. And again, where S. Hierom translateth, 
Esa. 5●.  and the Church readeth, and all the father's interpret and expound accordingly, There shall be faith in thy times: to express the marvelous faith that shall be then, in the first Christians specially, even unto death, and in all the rest concerning the hidden mysteries of the new Testament: there you translate, There shall be stability of thy times. The Prophet joineth together there, judgement, justice, faith, wisdom, knowledge, the fear of our Lord: you for a little ambiguity of the Hebrew word, turn faith into stability.  

FULK. 6. The word stability isaiah. 33. v. 6. excludeth not faith, but showeth wherein faith is grounded. And therefore, this is as all the rest, a fond quarrel, without any good ground at all. Seeing our translation may stand with the truth of the words, and of the matter, and comprehendeth as much as you would have, and more also. Yea it showeth that faith is settled upon stability, and steadfastness of truth, which shall flourish in the time of Christ.    

MART. 7. If I should burden you with translating 
Esa. 2.  thus also concerning Christ, Cease from the man whose breath in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be esteemed? You would say I did you wrong, because it is so pointed now in the Hebrew. Whereas you know very well by S. hierom's commentary 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  upon that place, that this is the jews pointing or reading of the word, against the honour of Christ: 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 any man thus, Take heed ye offend not him, who is nothing esteemed? yet that is your translation. Neither doth the Greek help you which (if the accent be truly put) i● thus, because he is reputed for some body or some thing▪ 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gal. 2. v. 6.  as S. Paul speaketh of the chief Apostles, and it is our phrase in the commendation of a man.  

FULK. 7. So long as you acknowledge, we have translated truly according to the Hebrew text that we read, there is no reason, that you should burden us with false interpretation. The Septuaginta, as Jerome confesseth, did read as we do, and plain it is, not only by the vowels, but also by the context, that so it must be read. For the Prophet dissuadeth the people from putting affiance in any mortal man, for God will bring down the pride of all such, as they trust most in, as it followeth in the next chapter, whereof this verse should be the beginning. The dismembering whereof, by the ill division of the Chapter, deceived Jerome, to think the Prophet spoke of Christ, when he spoke of a proud man▪ whose breath was in his nostrils, and therefore he was of no strength: even as David useth the same argument, Psalm. 146. for the purpose, The Chaldee Paraphrase also did read, even as the Septuaginta.    

MART. 8. The like excuse you would have by alleging the Hebrew vowels, if you were told, that you much obscure a notable saying of the prophet concerning Christ, or rather the 
Osee. 12. 10.  speech of Christ himself by his prophet, saying: I have spoken by the Prophets, and I have multiplied vision, and in the hand of the Prophets, (that is, by the Prophets) have I been resembled. Which later words do exceedingly express, that all the Prophets spoke of Christ: as o●r Saviour himself declareth, beginning from Moses and all the Prophets to 
●uc. 24. v. 27.  interpret unto the two disciples, the things that concerned 
Acts. 3.  him: & as S. Pet●r saith in these words, All the prophets from Samuel and that spoke after him did tell of these days. This prophecy then being so consonant to these speeches 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of the ●ewe Testament, the Greek also being word for word so, the Hebrew by changing one little prick (which the latter jews have added at their own pleasure) being fully so as we 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  ●eade with the Catholic Church: why pretend you the jews authority to maintain an other less Christian translation, which is thus: I use similitudes by the ministery of the Prophets. as though there were nothing there concerning Christ▪ or the second person peculiarly?  

FULK. 8. Seeing our Saviour Christ hath promised, that never a prick of the law shall perish, we may understand the same also of the Prophets, who have not received the vowels of the latter jews, but even of the Prophets themselves, howsoever that heathenish opinion pleaseth you, and other Papists.    

MART. 9 You will also perhaps allege, not only the 
The Hebrewe text, is no certain rule to interpret by.  later jews, but also some later Catholic men, that so translate the Hebrew. But the difference between them and you, is, that they, with reverence and preferment always of S. Hi●roms, and the Churches aperient translation, tell us how it is now in the Hebrew: you, with derogation and disannulling the same altogether, set down your own, as the only true interpretation according to the Hebrew: avouching the Hebrew that now i●, and as now it is printed, to be the only authenti call truth of the old Testament. Where you can never answer us, how that in the Ps. 22. As a lion my hand and my feet, (as now it is in the Hebrew) can be the true and old authentical Hebrew, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  which none of the fathers knew, the ancient Rabbins condemn as a corruption, yourselves translate it not, but after the old accustomed reading, They have pierced my hands & my feet. Which is a notable prophecy of our saviours kind and manner of Passion, being crucified on the Crosse. Only the later jews, and such Heretics, as think he died upon a gallows or gibbes, and not upon the Cross, they like this Hebrew textwel, and stand upon i●, as you do upon all without exception, and yet, when it cometh to certain particulars, you are compelled to forsake it. as in certain other places▪ for example.  

FULK. 9 Isidorus Clarius, retaining the word, assi●ulatus sum, doth thus expound it, in his note. Hoc est voluntatem meam similitudinibus & varijs l●cutioni● gene●ibu●●locutus sum. That is, I have uttered my will by similitudes and divers kinds of speech: you see therefore, how you are deceived in avouching this matter of your own pseudocatholikes, when this Bishop, not departing from your reading, yet expoundeth this text according to the Hebrew, and was allowed in so doing, by the Deputies of the Council of Trent, whose censure was observed in printing this Bible. Where you repeat yet once again, that we can never answer that of a lion, Psa. 22. you show your skill, and great reading▪ I have answered before in the preface sect. 44. that we forsake the Hebrew in this, or in any other, it is utterly false, for we follow no text, but the Hebrew, so near as we can understand it, & express it.    

MART. 10. Where the Hebrew saith, Achaz king of Israel, 2. Paralip. 28. v. 19 which is not true, you are compelled 
Faults in the Hebrew text.  to translate, Achaz king of juda, as the truth is, and as it is in the Greek and the vulgar Latin. yet some of your Bible's 
* Bib. 1579.  follow the falsehood of the Hebrew.  

FULK. 10. While you take upon you, to discover faults in the Hebrew text, you bring three examples, which if they were all faults, contain no matter of doctrine, whereby we may be deceived 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 juda. But I pray you sir, was not juda part of Israel? why might he not then be called a king, or one of the Kings of Israel? The Queen of England, may well be called Regina Brytanniae, although there be a King in Scotland. Although there may be an other cause why Achaz is called King of Israel, because in his days when Pekah the son of Remaliah was slain, the kingdom of Israel, that had continued from jeroboams time, until then, was now in a manner decayed. For Hosea was of small power, and made tributary to the King of Assyria, and peradventure also in the time of Achaz was kept in prison: as it is certain he was imprisoned, 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 jerusalem, and in the city of David, it is said, that he was not laid in the sepulchres of the Kings of Israel: where your vulgar Latin text hath, Israel, and not juda.    

MART. 11. Likewise, where the Hebrew saith, Zedechias his brother, meaning the brother of joachim, you translate, 
Bib. 1579.  Zedechias his father's brother, as indeed the truth is, according to the Greek, and to the Scripture, 4. Reg. 24. v. 19 and therefore your Bible which followeth the Hebrew hear also, translating, his brother, yet in the margin: putteth down a● more true, uncle.  

FULK. 11. This argueth no fault in the Hebrew text, but gross ignorance of the Hebrew ●ong in you, which knew not, that ache, signifieth, not only a brother, but also, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  any other kinsman, as the uncle, cousins, and such like, as, Gen. 13. Abraham and Lot, are called brethren, yet was Abraham Lot's uncle, Deut. 25. when brethren shall dwell together, the law of marrying the brother's wife, that died without issue, there the word brethren pertaineth to kinsmen far off, as appeareth in the story of Ruth, ca 3. & 4. finally, it is a thing so commonly known to them, which have but a little smack in the Hebrew tongue, that I will spend no time about it. And even your vulgar translation in some ancient 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 Bible's say, he begat Azuba of his wife Azuba. and othersome translate, He begat jerioth of his wife Azuba: the Hebrew being thus: he begat Azu ba his wife and I●rioth, which, neither you, nor any man else can easily tell what to make of. Thus you see how easy it were (if a man would multiply such examples) to show by your own testimonies the corruption of the Hebrew, and that your 
In the preface of the ne●ve Testament.  selves do not, nor dare not exactly follow it, as of the Greek text of the new Testament also is declared else where.  

FULK. 12. The third fault you find, is 1. Chron. 2. v. 18. where the interpreters are deceived, while they take 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  eth, for a sign of the accusative case, which in that place, as in divers other, is taken for a preposition, of, or by, as Gen. 4. Eve saith, I have obtained a son eth jehovah, of the Lord, or by the Lord's gift, etc. Gen. 44. they were gone out eth hayir, of, or from the city. So here the true translation of this verse in question, is this. Caleb the son Chet●ron, begat of Azuba, his wife, and of jerioth: that is, he had children by these two women, Azuba his wife, and jerihoth, which was his concubine, so they called them, that were lawful wives, in respect of matrimony, but yet had not the honour of wives, but being of base condition before they were married, so continued: by this Ier●hoth he had those three sons, that in this verse are named, his children by Azuba are named afterward, verse. 42. Wherefore here is no fault in the Hebrew, but in your vulgar translator, which maketh jerihoth the son of Azuba, and addeth to the text, because he understood it not. It is false therefore that you say, we dare not follow the Hebrew, because some translator, by oversight, hath not attained to the right understanding thereof: as also, that we dare not exactly follow the Greek of the new Testament, which we desire to follow as exactly as we can.    

MART. 13. But it is greater marvel, why you follow not the Hebrew 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 Hebrew verity. Tell me then I beseech you, why do you in all your Bible's translate thus, O Virgin, daughter of Zion, he hath despised thee, and 
Esay. 37. v. 22.  laughed thee to scorn: o daughter of Jerusalem he hath shaken his head at thee. In the Hebrew, Greek, S. Hieromes 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  translation and commentary, it is clean contrary, The Virgin daughter of Zion, hath despised thee (O Assur:) 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. All are the feminine gender, and spoken of Zion literally, and 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  of the Church spiritually triumphing over Assur, and all her enemies: you translate all as of the masculine gender, and apply it to Assur, insulting against Jerusalem, etc. I can not conceive what this translation meaneth, and I would gladly know the reason, and I would have thought it some gross oversight, but that I find it so in all your English Bibles, and not only in this place of Esay, but also in the books of the kings, 4. Reg. 19 where the same words are repeated. And it is no less marvel unto us, that know not the reason of your doings, why you have 
1 Bib. 1577.  left out Alleluia 
Alleluia.  nine times in the six last Psalms, being in the Hebrew nine times more than in your translation: specially when you 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  know that it is the ancient and joyful song of the Primitive Church. See the new English Testament, Annot. Apoc. 19  

FULK. 13. It seemeth that our translators followed too much the judgement of the Tigurine translator, who, what reason moved him so to translate, I know not, it seemeth they weighed not well the Hebrew in that place, but such is man's frailty, that he is apt and easy t●●b deceived, if he be not very vigilant, and attentive in those cases. And the example of one man's error, that is of credit, soon draweth other men into the same, by countenance of his authority. Nevertheless two of our translations, the Bishop's Bible, and Coverdales' Bible, translate the very same words according to the Hebrew, 2. Reg. 19 referring the saying against Senacherib despised, and laughed to scorn by jerusalem. And therefore you say untruly, that is is in all our English Bibles, 4. Reg. 19 Where you marvel, why we have left out Alleluia nine times in the six last Psalms, I marvel as much, why you should so say: for in the Bishop's Bible which I have, and which you call Bib. 1577. It is ten times in the five last Psalms, and ten times there is in the translation, Praise ye the Lord. In the 145. it is not in the Hebrew. But in the other five Psalms, it is both in the beginning, and in the end of every one of them.    

MART. 14. Again, you translate thus: Many which had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept, etc. Look well to your Hebrew, and you shall find it according both to the Greek and the Latin, thus: Many which had seen the first house in the foundation thereof, (that is, yet standing upon the foundation, not destroyed) and this temple before their eyes, wept. You imagined that it should be meant, they saw salomon's temple, when it was first founded, which because it was unpossible, therefore you translated otherwise than is in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. But yet in some of your Bibles, you should have considered the matter better, and translated accordingly.  

FULK. 14. The Hebrew is indifferent, Ezra. 3. to either of both translations, and the sense is all one, whether beiasedho be referred to the first house, named before, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  or to this house before their eyes, which followeth. And therefore your conjecture of our imagination, as in other places, is no more bold, than vain. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉     

MART. 15. And surely why you should translate (4. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Reg. 23. v. 13.) On the right hand of mount Olivete, rather than as it is in the vulgar Latin: and why, Ye abject of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Gentiles, Esa. 45. v. 20. rather than, ye that are saved of the Gentiles: you belike know some reason, we do not, neither 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  by the Hebrew, nor the Greek.  

FULK. 15. The Geneva Bible hath according to the Hebrew, the mount of corruption, which was in deed the Mount Olivet, as is proved by 1. Reg. 11. v. 7. and 2. Sam. 15. v. 30. and of the fruitfulness of oil was called Mischethith: but in this place, in detestation of the idolatry, is called Maschith, signifying corruption, as Bethel was called Bethaven. Osec. 4. v. 15.  
In isaiah 45. two of our translations, have according to the usual signification of the Hebrew word pelitei, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  you that escaped of the people, but that the word also signifieth an abject, you might have learned by Pagnine, and so ceased to have marveled, why the Geneva Bible translateth, you abjects of the Gentiles. As your own vulgar translation, jer. 44. translateth it, of them that fled, or fugitives.    

MART. 16. Howbeit in these lesser things (though nothing in the Scripture is to be counted little) you might perhaps more freely have taken your pleasure, in following neither Hebrew, nor Greek: but when it concerneth a matter no less than usury, there by your false translation to give occasion unto the Reader, to be an usurer, is no small fault, either against true religion, 
Bib. 1562. 1577.  or against good manners. This you do most evidently in your most authentical translations, saying thus: Thou shalt 
Deut. 23. v. 19  not hurt thy brother by usury of money, nor by usury of corn, nor by usury of any thing that he may be hurt withal. What is this to say, but that usury is not here forbidden, unless it hurt the party that borroweth, which is so rooted in most men's hearts, that they think such usury very lawful, and 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  daily offend mortally that way. Where Almighty God in this place of holy Scripture, hath not a word of hurting, or not hurting, (as may be seen by the Geneva Bibles,) but saith simply thus: Thou shalt not lend to thy brother to usury, usury of money, usury of meat, usury of any thing that is put 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  to usury.   

MART. 17. Mark the Hebrew, and the Greek, and see, and be ashamed, that you strain and pervert it, to say for, Non foenerabis fratri tuo, which is word for word in the Greek, and Hebrew, Thou shalt not hurt thy brother by usury. If the Hebrew word in the use of holy Scripture, do signify, to hurt by usury, why do you in the very next words following, in the self same Bible's translate it thus, unto a stranger 
ibid. v. 20.  thou mayst lend upon usury, but not unto thy brother? Why said you not, A stranger thou mayst hurt with usury, but not thy brother? Is it not all one word & phrase, here and before? And if you had so translated it here also, the jews would have thanked you, who by forcing the Hebrew word as you do, think it very good to hurt any stranger, that is, any Christian, by any usury, be it never so great.  

FULK. 16. & 17. You say well, that in the Scripture, nothing is to be counted little, and therefore, even in these little things, we have endeavoured to follow the Hebrew, and have so well followed it, that though you say much, yet you can prove little against us. But concerning this text of usury, whereof you would make us great patrons, it is marvel that you can not find in your Dictionaries, that the verb, nashach, signifieth to 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  bite, at least wise you should have regarded, that your vulgar Latin Interpreter, Num. 21. translateth it to strike, or hurt, as they were, that were hurt, or bitten by the fiery serpents. The consent of all Hebritians also is, that neshech, the name of usury, is derived of biting, and hurting, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  wherefore the Bishop's Bible, meaning to express, that all usury is hurtful, according to the etymology of the word, rather than to defend, that any usury is lawful, other than such as God himself alloweth. And therefore it had been well to have translated also in the next verse, a stranger mayst thou bite, or hurt with usury, howsoever the jews would take it, whose abominable usury, under pretence of that place, sure I am, our translators purpose was not to defend.    

MART. 18. What shall I tell you of other faults, which I would gladly account oversights or ignorances, such as we also desire pardon of, bus all are not such, though some be. As, Two 
Cant. Cantic. c. 8. v ●2.  thousand, (written at length) to them that keep the fruit thereof. In the Hebrew, and Greek, two hundred. Again, in 
●ab. 2579.  the same book, c. 1. v. 4. As the fruits of Cedar. in the Hebrew, and Greek, Tabernacles. And, Ask a sign either in 
Isa. 7. v. 11.  the depth or in the height above, for, in the depth of Hell. And, Great works are wrought by him. for, do work 
Mat. 14. u22.  in him. as S. Paul useth the same word, 2. Cor. 4. v. 12. And, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bib. 1577.  To make ready an horse. Act. 23. v. 24. in the Greek, beasts, And. If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, without breaking of the law of Moses. Io. 7. v. 23. For, to the end that the law of Moses be not broken. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And, The son of man must suffer many things, and be reproved of the elders, Mar. 8. v. 31. For, be rejected. As 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in the Psalm, The stone which the builders rejected, we say not, reproving of the said stone, which is Christ. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1. Tim. 3. Mar. 3.  a young scholar, in all your translations, falsely. And, Simon of Chanaan or Simon the Cananite, who is called otherwise, zealots, that is Zealous, as an interpretation of the Hebrew word, Cananaeus: which I marvel you considered not, specially considering that the Hebrew word for Zealous, and the other for a 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Cananite, begin with divers letters. And, least at any time 
Heb. 2. v. ●.  we should let them slip. For, lest we slip or run by, and so be lost.  

FULK. 18. The first in Can. 8. is doubtless the printers fault, who did read in the written copy, one cipher to much. That the second Can. 1. v. 5. was the printers fault, which did read fruits for tents, it is plain by the note upon the word Kedar, which is this, Kedar was Ischmaels' son, of whom came the Arabians, that dwelled in tents. In the third place isaiah 7. there lacketh this word (beneath) or toward the pit downward, for Shealah is here opposite to Lemayelah above, or upward, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  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 text also, there is no difference for the meaning, and some are of opinion, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may be taken passively, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Beza in Marc. 6. v. 14. other translations turn it actively. In the fift text. Act. 23. if for an horse, they had said horses, it had been no fault, for it is not like they rod upon Asses, or Camels. The word signifieth beasts, that are possessed, and of possession they be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but here it is certain, beasts meet for carriage of men are signified. In the sixth, joan. 7. v. 23. I think the translators were deceived, supposing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be translated, so that the law of Moses be not broken, as perhaps it may: but hereof I will not determine, commonly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to the end: yet is there no ungodly sense contained in this translation. The seventh, Mar. 8. v. 31. Is but a knot in a rush: for reproved in that place, signifieth nothing but refused, or rejected. Your vulgar Latin saith Reprobari, which is plainly to be reproved, and 1. Pet. 2. The stone which the builders reproved, Reprobaverunt, refused. By reproved, they do not mean reprehended, or rebuked, but utterly refused, and not accepted. The eight, Neophytus, a young scholar, as I have showed before is better Englished, than a Neophyte, which is neither Greek, Latin, nor English. The ninth, is corrected in two translations, and the Geneva Bible telleth you, that for Cananite you may read Zealous, so that we are not beholding to you for this correction, as it seemeth you would have us. Touching the tenth text, Heb. 2. both those translations that say: lest at any time we should let them slip, have this note in the margin, by which they declare they mean even as you would have them say: least like vessels full of chaps we leak, and run out on every part, for vessels that do run out, do let go or let slip that liquor that is put into them.    

MART. 19 And as for the first Bible, which was done 
A●. 1562.  in haste, and not yet corrected, but is printed still a fresh: that saith, With Herod's servants, as though that were the only 
Mat. 22.  sense: that calleth idiotas lay men: 
1 Mat. 24.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a ship: 
2 Mar. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wondering: 
3 Mat. 25. Eph. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are gone out: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his substance: and, To know the excellent love of the knowledge of Christ. For, the love of Christ that excelleth knowledge. And, of men that turn away the truth. For, that shun the truth 
Tit. 1.  and turn away from it. And, Mount Sina is Agar in Arabia. For, Agar is mount Sina, etc.  

FULK. 19 The first Bible was not that you mean, but not much differing from it, neither was it done in haste, but with as good consideration, as god gave for that time: neither was it printed these 22. years, for aught I know, which you say is printed still a fresh. In that Bible Herod's servants, put for the Herodians, was lack of knowledge of what sect the Herodians should be. Idiotas, Lay men, is no more fault, than, of the vulgar sort, which you say. The ship for the Ark, is a small fault, seeing that ark into which Noah entered, was a ship, or in steed of a ship. The wondering, for the tumult, is a popular term: for so they call a great noise made by a multitude. The lamps are gone out, or are quenched, I know not what great difference may be in it. His substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I know not where you mean, except it be Mark. 13. where Erasmus noteth, that he hath red in some copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, substance, which seemeth to agree aptly with the place. In the text Eph. 3. the true translation is as we have corrected it in the later editions: yet the words may bear that other interpretation also. In Titus the first, the participle is of the mean voice, and therefore may signify actively or passively. In Gal. the transposition, Sina before Agar, seemeth to be the fault 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 us also, if you find the like. Neither do we greatly mislike, that you leave those words, 
1 Deut. 33.  urim and Thummim, and 
* 4. Reg. 23.  Chemarim, and 
2 jerem. 50.  Ziims, and jims, untranslated, because it is not easy to express them in English: and we would have liked as well in certain other words, which you have translated, images, images, and still, images, 
Hamanim. Esa. 17. Gillulim. jer. 50. Miphlet seth. 3. ●o. 15.  being as hard to express the true signification of them, as the former. And we hope you will the rather bear with the late Catholic translation of the English Testament, that leaveth also certain words untranslated, not only because they can not be expressed, but also for reverence and religion (as S. Augustine saith) and greater majesty of the same.  

FULK. 20. Some in deed are small faults, some none at al. That you mislike us not, for not translating a few words, whose signification is unknown, or else they can not be aptly expressed in the English tongue, it is of no equity towards us, but that you might under that shadow, creep away with so huge a multitude of words, which may as well be translated, as any in the Bible, and that in the new Testament, which is scarce the sixth part of the whole Bible. The words which we have translated Images, are out of question terms signifying Images, and of your translator, they be called either imagines, simulachra, sculptilia, Idola, etc. Our English tongue, being not so fruitful of words, we call them sometimes Idols, sometimes Images, which when we speak 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. Augustine will not warrant you, who speaketh only of two, or three words usually received in the Latin Church in his time, not of such a number as you have counterfeited.    

MART. 21. Of one thing we can by no means excuse you, but it must savour vanity, or novelty, or both. As when you affectate new strange words which the people are not acquainted with all, but it is rather Hebrew to them than English: 
Fib. 1579.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Demosthenes speaketh, uttering with 
Demosth.  great countenance and majesty, Against him came up Nabucadnezzar king of Babel, 2. Par. 36. v. 6. for, Nabuchodonosor 
2. Par. 36. r. 6. c. 32. Fol. 172. 173. Fol. 160. Epistle to the Queen.  king of Babylon: Saneherib, for Sennacherib: Michaiahs' prophecy, for Michaeas: Iehoshaphats prayer, for josaphats': Vzza slain, for Oza. When Zerubbabel went about to build the Temple, for Zorobabel: Remember what the Lord did to Miriam, for Marie, Deut. 34. And in your first translation, Elisa for Elisaeus, Pekahia and 
Bibl. 1562. 4. Reg. c. 15. 16.  Pekah for Phaceia and Phacee, Vziahu for Ozias, Thiglath-peleser for Teglath-phalasar, Ahaziahu for Ochozias: Peka the son of Remaliahu, for, Phacee the son of Romelia. And why say you not as well Shelomoh for Solomon, and Coresh for Cyrus, and so alter every word from the known sound & pronunciation thereof? Is this to teach the people, when you speak Hebrew rather than English? Were it a good. ●y hearing (think you) to say for JESUS, jeshuah, and for MARRY his mother, Miriam: and for Messiah, Messiach, and john, jachannan, and such like monstrous novelties? which you might aswell do, and the people would understand you as well, as when our preachers say, Nabucadnezer King of Babel. 
Cal●i●.   

FULK. 21. Seeing the most of the proper names of the old Testament were unknown to the people, before the Scripture was read in English, it was best to utter them according to the truth of their pronunciation in Hebrew, rather than after the common corruption, which they had received in the Greek and Latin tongues. But as for those names which were known unto the people out of the new Testament, as jesus, john Marie, etc. it had been folly to have taught men to sound them otherwise than after the Greek declination, in which we find them. 
Prafat. in Esa.     

MART. 22. When Zuinglius your great Patriarch did read in Munster's translation of the old Testament, jehizkiabu, jehezchel, Choresh, Darianesch, Beltzezzer, and the like, for, Ezechias, Ezechiel, Cyrus, Darius, Balthasar: he called them barbarous voices, and uncivil speeches, and said, the word of God was soiled and depraved by them. Know you not, that proper names alter and change, and are written and sounded in every language diversly? Might not all antiquity, and the general custom, both of reading and hearing the known names of Nabuchodonosor, and Michaeas, and Ozias, suffice you, but you must needs invent other which the people never heard, rather for vain ostentation, to amaze and astonish them, than to edification and instruction Which is an old heretical fashion, noted by Eusebius, lib 4. c. 10. and by the author of the unperfect commentaries upon S. Matthew, ho. 44. and by S. Augustine, lib. 3. c. 26. contra Cresconium.  

FULK. 22. That Zuinglius is no Patriarch of ours, you may know by this, that we do freely dissent from him, when we are persuaded that he dissenteth from the truth. But where you charge us, with an heretical fashion in sounding Hebrew names, according to the truth of the Hebrew tongue if your authors be well weighed, they will convince you of an heretical fashion, in framing of new words, which are more apt to amaze and astonish men, than to instruct or edify them: and in using strange language in all your Church service, and in that also diverse Hebrew words. So did the Marcosians, of whom Eusebius out of Irenaeus writeth in baptizing. And the author of the unperfect work upon Matthew, though himself an Heretic, yet truly saith of heretic Priests, as you are, in the homily by you quoted, Sic & modo haeretici Sacerdotes, etc. Even so the Heretic Priests shut up the gate of truth. For they know that if the truth were made manifest, their Church should be forsaken, etc. For which cause, until this time, you have been utter enemies to the translation of the Scripture. But now you see you can not prevail against the translation, you have begun so to translate the Scripture, as in many things it were as good not translated, for any thing the people shall understand by it. For you have not explicated the fourth part of the feigned inkhorn terms that you have used. And that Saint Augustine saith, Cresconius went fond about to terrify him, with the Greek word Anti●athegoria, you do the like with , Azymes, scandals, Neophyte, yea with Latin words, gratis, depositum, and such like, seek to bring the ignorant in great admiration of your deep knowledge, which is nothing else, but an heretical fashion, under strange terms, to hide the poison of your pestilent doctrine.    

MART. 23. What shall I speak of your affectation of 
jehovah. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the word jehôua (for so it pleaseth you to accent it) in steed of Dominus, the Lord: whereas the ancient fathers in the very Hebrew text did read and sound it rather Adonai, as appeareth both by S. Hieromes translation, and also his commentaries, and I would know of them the reason, why in the Hebrew Bible, whensoever this word is joined with Adonai, it is to be read Elohim, but only for avoiding Adonai, twice together. This I say we might justly demand of these that take a pride in using this word jehôua, so oft, both in English and Latin, though otherwise we are not superstitious, but as occasion serveth, only in the Hebrew text, we pronounce it and read it Again we might ask them, why they use not aswell Elohim in steed of Deus, God: and so of the rest, changing all into Hebrew, that they may seem gay fellows, and the people may wonder as their wonderful and mystical divinity.  

FULK. 23. In our English translation, jehova is very seldom used in other speech, no wise man useth it oftener, than there is good cause why. And when there is cause, we have no superstition in pronouncing it, as we are not curious in accenting it. Although, perhaps you quarrel at our accent, because you can not discern between time and time. The middle syllable we know to be long, whether it be to be elevated we make no question, we know where the accent is in the Hebrew, but we think not that all accents be sharp, and elevate that syllable in which they are. It is a great matter, that you demand the reason why joined to Adonai, it is to be red Elohim, you should rather demand why it is otherwise pointed, when it is joined with Adonai, for being pointed as it is, I see not why it should not be read according to the vowels, Adonai jehovih. Many other questions might be moved, about the names of God, in pronouncing or writing of which we know the jews were reverent, even to superstition: and therefore in books that should come in all men's hands, made other alterations, than you speak of, and yet retained in other authentical copies, the true letters and points. If any desire vain gloriously to utter his skill in the tongues, when he should edify the people, of all them that be wise and learned, he is misliked for so doing.    

MART. 24. To conclude, are not your scholars (think you) much bound● unto you, for giving them in steed of God's blessed word and his holy Scriptures, such translations, heretical, judaical, profane, false, negligent, fantastical, new, nought, monstrous? God open their eyes to see, and mollify your hearts to repent of all your falsehood and treachery, both that which is manifestly convinced against you and can not be denied, as also that which may by some show of answer be shifted of in the sight of the ignorant, but in your consciences is as manifest as the other.  

FULK. 24. Happy and thrice happy hath our English nation been, since God hath given learned translators, to express in our mother tongue the heavenly mysteries of his holy word, delivered to his Church in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Who, although they have in some matters of no importance unto salvation, as men been deceived: yet have they faithfully delivered the whole substance of the heavenly doctrine, contained in the holy Scriptures, without any heretical translations, or wilful corruptions. And in the whole Bible among them all have committed as few oversights for any thing that you can bring, and of less importance, than you have done only in the new Testament. Where beside so many omissions, even out of your own vulgar Latin translation, you have taken upon you, to alter that you found in your text, and translate that, which is only in the margin, & is red but in few written copies. As for Italia you say A●talia, noted before Heb. 13. for placuerunt you translate latuerunt, 2. Pet. 2. for coinquinationis which is in the text, you translate coinquinationes, which was found but in one only copy, by Hentenius, as the other but in one or two of thirty diverse copies, most written.     
FINIS.   

A brief table to direct the Reader to such places as Martin in this book cavilleth to be corrupted in divers translations of the English Bibles, by order of the books, chapters, & verses of the same, with some other quarrels against Beza, and others for their Latin translations, with the answers of W. Fulke.  

Genesis.  
CHap. 4. v. 7. pag. 31. numb. 28. and pag. 316. num. 9  
chap. 14. v. 18. p. 55. numb. 42. and pag. 447.  
chap. 34. v. 35. p. 206. num. 7.  
chap. 42. v. 38. p. 216. num. 12.   

4. of the Kings.  
Chap. 29. v. 5. p. 501. numb. 6.   

2. Paralipomenon.  
Chap. 28. v. 19 p. 518. nu. 10.  
chap. 38. v. 8. p. 116. num. 19 and p. 4●3. num. 1.   

1. Esdras.  
Chap. 9 v. 5. p. 373. num. 16.   

Psalms.  
Psal. 48. v. 16. p. 252.  
psal. 84. v. 7. p. 511.  
psal. 85. v. 13. p. 218. num. 13. and p. 59 num. 46.  
psal. 89. v. 48. p. 219. num. 14.  
psal. 95. v. 6. p. 478  
psal. 98. v. 5. ibidem.  
psal. 131. v. 7. ibid.  
psal. 138. v. 17. p. 460.  
psal. 147. v. 19 p. 252. and ●. 18. p. 516. num. 3.   

proverbs.  
Chap. 1. v. 12. p. 22●. numb. 22.  
chap. 9 v. 2. p. 456. nu. 21. come sequent.  
chap. 27. v. 20. p. 228  
chap. 30. v. 16. ibid.   

Cantica canticorum.  
Chap. 6. v. 8. p. 155. num. 10  
chap. 8. v. 6▪ p. 29. num. 46. see p. 508. numb. 2   

Of Wisdom.  
Chap. 3. v. 14. p. 346. num. 3  
chap. 15. v. 13. p. 127. num. 27   

Ecclesiasticus.  
Chap. 5. v. 5. p. 348. numb. 4  
chap. 7. v. 31. p. 390   

Esay.  
Chap. 2. p. 513. numb. 7  
chap. 26. v. 18. p. 508  
chap. 30. v. 22. p. 121. num. 23 and v. 20. p. 511. num. 5  
chap. 33. p. 513. num. 6   

Hieremie.  
Chap. 7. v. 18. p. 467. num. 9  
chap. 11. v. 19 p. 453. num. 18  
chap. 44. v. 19 p. 467. num 9   

Daniel.  
Chap. 4. v. 24. p. 375. numb. 18  
chap. 6. v. 22. p. 256. num. 3  
chap. 10. v. 12. p. 372. num. 15  
chap. 14. v. 4. p. 126. num. 26 and v. 12. 17. 20. p●. 451. num. 16   

Osee.  
Chap. 12. v. 10. p. 514. num. 8  
chap. 13. v. 14. p. 159 num. 46 and p. 221. num. 16   

joel.  
Chap. 2. v. 23. p. 511   

Habacuc.  
Chap. 2. v. 18. p. 122. num. 23 see p. 510. num. 4   

Malachi.  
Chap. 2, v. 7. p. 412. num. 17  
chap. 3. v. 1. p. 414. num. 18 and v. 14. p. 374. num. 17   

1. Maccabees.  
Chap. 1. v. 51. p. 252.  
chap. 2. v 21. ibid.   

2. Maccabees.  
Chap. 6. v. 7. p. 501. num. 5   

S. Matthew.  
Chap. 1. v. 19 p. 257. num. 4 and v. 25. p. 470  
chap. 2. v. 6. p▪ 417  
chap. 3. v. 8. p. 355.  
chap. 16. v. 18. p. 140. numb. 2 and p. 144. num. 5  
chap. 18. v. 17. p. 140  
chap▪ 19 v. 11 12. p. 314. nu. 8 and p. 411. num. 16  
chap. 26. p. 429.   

S. Mark.  
Chap. 10. v. 52. p. 352. num. 9  
chap. 14. p. 429   

S. Luke.  
Ch●p. 1. v. 28. p. 56. numb. 43. and p. 463. num. 4 and v. 6. p. 252. p. 257. nu. 4  
chap. 3. v. 8. p. 355  
chap. 1. v. 48. 50. p. 353. nu. 9  
chap. 18. v. 42. p. 353. numb. 9  
chap. 22. v. 20 p. 444. num. 10 and p. 445 num. 11   

S. john.  
Chap. 1. v. 12. p. 300  
chap. 9 v. 22. 23. p. 503. num. 9  
chap. 13. v. 16. p. 392. num. 3   

Acts.  
Chap. 1. v. 26. p. 396. num. 5  
chap. 2. v. 27. p. 200. nu. 3▪ 4. 5  
chap. 3. v. 21. p. 439. num. 7  
chap. 4. v. 13. p. 392. num. 3  
chap. 9 v. 22. p. 4●4. num. 2  
chap. 14. v. 22. p. 162. num. 5 and v. 23. p. 398. num. 7▪  
chap. 15. v. 2. 4. 6. 22. 23. p. 161 num▪ 4▪  
chap. 16. v. 4. ibid.  
chap. 17. v. 23. p. 503. num. 8  
chap. 19 v. 24. p. 502. num. 7 and v. 3. p. 382. num. 3  
chap. 20. ibid. and v. 28. p. 417. nu. 21. and v. 17. p. 166. n. 8   

Romans.  
Chap. 2. v. 26. p. 252  
chap. 5. v. 6. pag. 323. numb. 13 and v. 18. p. 328  
chap. 8. v. 18. p. 263 and v. 38. p▪ 346▪ num. 3  
chap. 9 v. 16. p. ●12. nu. 7  
chap. 11. v. 4. p. 116 num. 19   

1. Corinthians.  
Chap. 1. v. 10. p. 135. num▪ 3  
chap. ●▪ v. 11. p. 12. num. 6  
chap. 9 v. 5. p. 450▪  
chap. 10. v. 21. p. 451. num. 16.  
chap. 11. v. 2. p. 89. num. 23  
chap. 15. v. 5. p. 426. num. 4 and v. 10. p. 301. num. 2 and v. 55. p. 221. num. 16   

2. Corinthians.  
Chap. 2. v. 10▪ p. 417. num. 20  
chap. 4. v. 17. p. 273 num. 7  
chap. 5. p. 336. num. 6  
chap. 6. v. 16. p. 90▪ num. 3 and v. 1. p. 309▪ num. 6  
chap. 8. p▪ 392. num. 3   

Galathians.  
Chap. 5. v. 20. p. 135. num. 3   

Ephesians.  
Chap. 1. v. 6. p. 338. num. 7 and v. 22. p. 140. num. 2. and v. 22. 23. p. 163. num. 6  
chap. 3. v. 12. p. 303. p. 349. n. 5  
chap. 5. p. 424. num. 2 and v. 5. p. 6. num. 5. pa. 88 num. 1 and v. 32. p▪ 133. num. 2 and v. 25. 32. p. 140. num. 2   

Philippians.  
Chap. 2. v. 15. p. 395. num. 4  
chap. 4. v. 5. p. 407. num. 13   

Colossians.  
Chap. 1. v. 23. p▪ 491. num. 8 and v. 12 p. 284. num. 17  
chap▪ 2. v. 20. p. 13. num. 8  
chap. 3. v. 5. p. 6. num. 5  
pa. 87. num. 9 p. 103. numb. 12   

2. Thessalonians.  
Chap. 1. v. 4. p. 258. num. 5 and v. 11. p. 282. nu. 15  
chap. 2. v. 15. p. 76. num. 2  
chap. 3. v. 6. ibid.   

1. Timothee.  
Chap. 3. v. 6. p. 392. num. 3 and v. 8. p. 390. and v. 15. p. 140. num. 2  
chap. 4. v. 14▪ p. 166. num. 8. p. 399. num. 8  
chap. 5. v. 17. 18. p. 166. numb. 8. p. 198   

2. Timothee.  
Chap. 1. v. 6. p. 402. num. 10  
chap. 4. v. 8. p. 258. num. 5   

Titus.  
Chap. 3. v. 8. p. 378. and v. 10. p. 17. num. 13. p. 135. num. 3   

Hebrews.  
Chap. 2. v. 9 p. 270. numb. 6  
chap. 5. v. 7. p. 58. num. 45. pa. 243. num. 37.  
chap. 6. v. 10. p. 258. num. 5  
chap. 10. v. 29. p. 280. num. 13. and v. 22. p. 328. num. 2. and v. 20. p. 242. num. 36  
chap. 11. v. 21. p. 474.  
chap. 12. v. 23. p. 140. num. 2  
chap. 13. p. 408. num. 14. and v. 5 p. 56. num. 44   

S. James.  
Chap. 1. v. 13. p. 495. num. 2  
chap. 4. v. 6. p. 488. num. 6   

1. Peter.  
Chap. 1. v. 18. p. 83. num. 6. & v. 25. p. 485. num. 3  
chap. 2. v. 3. p. 419. num. 22. p. 421. num. 24  
chap. 5. v. 1. p. 168. num. 9   

2. Peter.  
Chap. 3. v. 16. p. 493   

1. john.  
Chap. 5. v. 3. p. 325. num. 14 and v. 21. p. 105. num. 13   

Apocalypse.  
Chap. 19 v. 8. p. 256. num. 3   

beza's CORruptions.  


Psalms.  
Psal. 51. v. 6. p. 27. num. 26    


S. Matthew.  
Chap. 23. p. 504. num. 10    


Acts.  
Chap. 1. v. 14. p. 405. num. 12  
chap. 2. v. 23. p. 33. num. 31. pa. ●97. num. 3. and v. 24. p. 33 num. 32. 34. and v. 27. p. 33 num. 31. p. 198. num. 2.  
chap. 3. v. 21. p. 35. num. 36  
chap. 13. v. 39 p. 330. num. 2  
chap. 26. v. 20. p. 58. num. 45 pa. 355. num. 1    


Romans.  
Chap. 4. v. 11. p. 380. num. 2    


1. Corinthians.  
Chap. 12. v. 31. p. 352. numb. ●  
chap. 13. v. 2. p. 350. num. 6  
chap. 15. v. 10. num. 27    


2. Thessalonians.  
Chap. 2. v 3. p. 78. num. 3    


Titus.  
Cham 3. v. 5. p. 385. and v. 6. pa. 46. num. 46    


Hebrews.  
Chap. 5. p. 32. num. 29     
FINIS.   

A BRIEF CONFUTATION OF SUNDRY CAVILS AND QVARELS, uttered by diverse Papists in their several books & pamphlets against the writings of William Fulke.  
I Were very much to blame, if I would not confess with S. Augustine, that as 
Ad Victor. lib. 4. cap. 1.  in my manners, so in my writings many things may be justly reprehended, at which I ought not to be offended, no not although I were reproved by mine adversaries. But when the enemies of Gods holy religion, & of the quiet state of this realm, seek by wounding of me, to hurt the truth, and if it were possible through my sides, to wound her to death: I ought not to be silent in this case, but by showing mine honest defence, as it were by holding up my buckler, to bear off their blows as well as I can, to maintain the credit of that cause which I have taken in hand: lest whilst I forbear to defend myself, the truth might seem to have taken a foil. And yet I mean not so to confound my case with the state of truth, that wheresoever I may be justly convinced, truth should be thought to have lost the victory. For I am but one poor soldier among many thousand captains, that fight under the banner of truth, which if I have not in every respect performed all duties of an expert warrior, it is reason the reproach of my defaults should rest and stay only in mine own ignorance or rashness which have not so happily executed that which of good will to fight in truths cause I have attempted within these five or six years. I have set abroad sundry treatises in confutation of popish books written in English, which purpose if God give me strength, to answer as many as within twenty years of her majesties reign, had been set forth by the Papists, and are not yet confuted by any other. This purpose of mine, the Papists have not greatly hindered by replies, for (except one only Bristol, who observing no good order of replying, but gathering here and there at his pleasure, whatsoever he thought himself best able to reprove, hath made a show of defence of Allens Articles and Purgatory) none other have as yet set forth any just replication to the rest of my writings. And as for Bristol, he hath my rejoinder unto his reply these two years in his hand to consider upon, the other that of late have set forth Popish treatises, have endeavoured themselves almost every one of them, to have a snatch or two at some one odd thing or other in my books, wherein they would seem to have advantage, & that belike they would have their simple readers think, to be a sufficient confuration of all that ever I have written against them. I have thought good therefore as near as I can, to gather all their cavils together, and briefly to shape an answer to every one of them, that the indifferent reader may see & judge what sound matter they have brought against me where with in show of words, they would have it seem, as though they had confuted me.  
First Master Allen in his late Apology. fol. 63. accusing the Protestants to feign an appellation unto the judgement of the most ancient fathers of the primitive Church, and yet not to abide by it, not esteeming them better than the present government of the Popish Church, but as of men deceived, as of human traditions, etc. As in their writings saith he, it is most evident, where from Peter's time downward, they make the chiefest fathers the ministers and furtherers of Antichrist. For this evidence he quoteth Beza in 2. Thess. 2. & Retentive p. 248. How unjustly Beza is slandered to be a witness of this accusation, they that understand the Latin tongue, may see in the places quoted. But touching myself, the book which he quoteth having scarce half so many pages, I might entreat him for a new quotation, but that I guess he meaneth a place in my confutation of Sanders book which he calleth the Rock of the church, which was printed with the Retentive, and continueth the number of pages from it. In that book pag. 248. there is nothing that soundeth toward such a matter, except it be these words: As for Leo and Gregory bishops of Rome, although they were not come to the full pride of Antichrist, yet the mystery of iniquity having wrought in that seat, near five or six hundred years before them, and then greatly increased, they were so deceived with the long continuance of error, that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow Apostles, than the holy scriptures of God (against which no continuance of error can prescribe) doth either allow or bear withal. Wherefore although he have some show out of the old writers, yet hath he nothing directly to prove, that Peter did excel the other Apostles in bishoplike authority: and out of the word of God, no one jot or title, that Peter as a bishop excelled the other Apostles, not as Apostles but as bishops. First it is manifest even to the eye, that Allens slander is not expressed in these words. Then let us see, if it may be employed. The mystery of iniquity did work in the see of Rome from the Apostles time, taking increase by little & little, until six hundred years and more after Christ, when Antichrist began to be openly showed: and many of the ancient fathers not espying the subtlety of Satan's secret purpose, were deceived to think something more of Peter's prerogative, & of the bishops of Rome's dignity, than by the word of God was granted to either of them: this is in effect as much as I affirm, but here of it followeth not, that I make them the ministers and furtherers of Antichrist. For those are the ministers and furtherers of Antichrist, which willingly lend all their power to maintain, and uphold his kingdom, after he hath invaded the tyranny: The ancient fathers meant nothing less by admitting of the bishops of Rome's prerogative, under colour of Peter's successor, than to serve him or advance him into the throne of Antichrist. Not every one whom Satan hath seduced that he might prepare a way for the advancement of his tyranny, is a minister and furtherer of Satan or his tyranny, for than should all men be counted ministers or furtherers of Satan, seeing the kingdom of sin is increased by the frailty of all men, which by temptation of the devil fall into sin. Beside that, many of the ancient fathers, openly resisted the usurped power of the bishops of Rome, when it began only to bud up, and was yet far off from Antichristian tyranny, although it tended somewhat toward the same. 
Euseb. lib. 5 ca 25. & 26 Conc. Carth.  So did the bishops of the East churches countermand Victor bishop of Rome, contending about the celebration of Easter. So did Irenaeus, Polycrates, and many other 
3. ca 26. Gratian dist. 99  godly fathers, in public writings openly reprehend him. So did Cyprian in diverse Epistles expostulate with the bishops of Rome, for meddling with causes 
Milevit. ca 22.  that pertained to his jurisdiction. So did all the bishops of Aphrica make decrees against the usurped authority 
Conc. Aph. ad Celestin.  and titles of the bishops of Rome, denying all appeals unto the sea of Rome, & excommunicating all them that would appeal to any place beyond the sea, discovering also the forged Canon of the Nicen Council, by which the bishops of Rome challenged that prerogative. So that M. Allen by this his slander, hath done injury to me, and hurt to himself, while men by this example may judge of his sincerity in other matters.  
Next cometh in the discovery of I. Nicols, denying that they make the Catholic religion local, or of one province, as he chargeth me (with some scornful terms of reproach) to affirm in my bad answer to Owlet. I said in deed, that S. Augustine De unit. Eccles. Cap. 4. doth clear us of schism, who willingly communicate with all the whole body of Christ's Church, dispersed over the world, and charge the Popish faction both of schism & heresy: of schism, because they maintain the Church to be only in a part of Europe, as the Donatists did in Aphrica, etc. And what injury have I done to the Papists in so saying? The Donatists said, the Church was perished out of all the world, & remained only in Aphrica: not assigning any place of Aphrica, whereunto the Church must be regardant, as the Papists do the city of Rome: but affirming that true Catholics remained only in Aphrica, being consumed out of all other parts of the earth. And what say the Papists of all the Oriental churches of Greece, of Asia, of afric, that acknowledge not the Pope's authority? Do they not account them all for heretics or schismatics? Then it followeth, that they acknowledge the Church to remain only in those parts of Europe, that are subject to the Pope, and Church of Rome. But perhaps they will allege their newly founded Churches in India and America, which vain brag I will not stand to confute: but seeing this enlargement is but new begun, in our grandfathers days, before those parts of the earth were discovered by navigation of the Portugeses and Spaniards, where was the Romish church & pope thereof acknowledged but only in a piece of Europe. If yet they will allege the submission of any patriarchs or Prelates of the Aethiopian or Armenian churches made to the Pope by some wandering pilgrims, which are of no credit among wisemen, yet all men may know, that those Christians continuing to this day, in the same religion, rites and ceremonies, that they did before such pretended submissions, holding and doing many things contrary to the Romish religion and custom, which argueth plainly, that they neither were, nor mean to become members of the church of Rome, and subjects to Popish religion, which they refuse to receive in as many points, as ever they did. Wherefore the Popish church remaineth still shut up within the straights of Europe, for any accession of them. And what enlargement so ever it hath in the new world, it is rather by colonies of Portugeses & Spaniards, than by conversion of those barbarous nations. For as for them that were for fear of death compelled to receive baptism, as many of the barbarous people have been, no true Catholic can acknowledge for good and Catholic Christians, who as occasion always served them, spared not to give sufficient testimony of their counterfeit conversion, whereby it appeared, that the sacrament of baptism was in them profaned, rather than that they by it were sanctified. As for my bad answer to Owlet, as it seemeth was so sufficient, that never a Papist these two years can find time to confute it. Although if they thought it too bad to confute, there hath been since a better set forth with more advise, by master Wyborne, but the reply we shall have at greater leisure, the Owlet as I guess being otherwise occupied in defence of his Censure, for that his proud stomach had rather play the judge than the defendant.  
The next quarrel followeth in the third lease after, where he approveth I. Nicols affirming, as he sayeth, that Purgatory, prayer for the dead, and invocation of Saints, are late inventions of Popes & Papists. Whereas his own companions, namely Fulke in his late answer to doctor Allen and doctor Bristol confesseth that all these three errors were received in the church above 1200. years, that is in the times of Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose and upward, and that these fathers with other believed them also. If to those three doctors which he named, he had not added upward, I must have abated one hundred years at least of his account. But now let us see, what I have confessed of these doctors and upward. First against Purgatory, page 306. But whosoever shall vouchsafe to turn the book to that page, shall find never a word of my writing, good or bad, but only the first section of the ninth Chapter of Allens second book. Well, this may be the printers fault, peradventure it is page 106. because it is not like that 306. should come before 115. the next quotation that followeth, but neither is there any thing to this purpose. Then let us see what may be found page 115. even as much as in page 306. for there is never a word of my writing in that page, but all is Allens. 8. chapter of the first book. Then come we to the third quotation page 316. and there in deed is something sounding toward this matter, touching prayer for the dead, which Augustine did allow, but of purgatory there is nothing. Of invocation of Saints there is mention, but no affirmation that Augustin did believe it, for in the next page followeth a discourse to prove that S. Augustine, as he declareth in his book De cura pro mortuis etc. was not certain how the Saints departed should know any thing that is done in this world, although he inclined to that opinion, that they might have knowledge by relation of dead men, or of Angels, or else he knoweth not how, and so doth plainly confess. From hence we must pass to page 320. where in deed, I do confess that Ambrose alloweth prayer for the dead, as it was a common error of his time, but not sacrifice of the mass in that sense that Papists do. Last of all. Ar●. page 39 I deny, that for 200. years after Christ, it can be proved, that any Catholic writer doth allow prayer for the dead, or invocation of Saints, and that the later error was not confirmed 400. years after Christ, namely in Saint Augustine's time, in that small help was acknowledged by Chrysostom, to come to the dead by prayers made for them. In all those places S. Jerome is not once named, nor purgatory confessed to be received, whereof S. Augustine the last of the three sometime doubteth, sometime utterly denieth any third place: neither did I ever confess, that any of those three errors were holden by these ancient fathers in all respects, as they are by the Papists, nor that purgatory was ever believed of any of them, only Augustine sometimes speaketh of it, as of a doubtful matter, 
De oct. Dulcit. quest. q. 1. De fid. & op. c. 16. ser. in mont. lib. 1.  which he sayeth may be inquired, whether there be any such place or no: and yet confuted those interpretations of the scriptures which the Papists make their chiefest grounds of it. By this you may see, how liberal this jesuite is in extending my confession further than ever it was made or meant by me, or can be proved by him or any Papist of them all.  
The third leaf again, after this, he saith that Nicols by citing a place of Augustine, would have men think that S. Augustine disallowed prayer to Saints, which is contrary to Fulkes opinion, who confesseth Augustine to have defended this superstition, as he termeth it, and raileth on him for it. For this is quoted Purg. pag. 315. 316. 317. How he gathereth, what Nicols would have men think, let other men judge. And what mine opinion is of Augustine's allowing of prayer to Saints, I have before expressed out of the places quoted: but where he sayeth, I rail on him for it, that is but a friars report, which seldom differeth from a lie. For this is all I say of him for it. By such places as I have in those pages cited out of Augustine, it is proved, that although Augustine were willing to maintain the superstition, that was not thoroughly confirmed in his time, about burials and invocation of Saints, yet he hath nothing of certainty out of the word of God, either to persuade his own conscience, or to satisfy them that moved the doubts unto him. Whether in these words I have railed, I submit myself to the judgement of the reader, that will weigh what I have cited out of S. Augustine, in the pages mentioned.  
In the same leaf, and the next page, the margin is painted with quotations out of my book against Purgatory. But what think you to prove? Forsooth, that his adversaries do confess all the old fathers to be on their side, and to have erred with them, as Fulke doth of S. Ambrose, Austen, Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Gregory, and Bede by name, with most reproachful and contemptuous words against them. This is spoken generally, as though we confess all the doctors to be on their side, in every controversy, which we do not acknowledge to be true in any one, although many of the later sort do in some part favour one or two errors of theirs among an hundredth. But let us examine his proves, which seem to be very plentiful, yet of nine quotations I must needs strike out two, page 306. and 279. because in them is not one syllable of my writing, but all of Allens. In the pages 315. & 316. is nothing more contained touching this matter, than I have already declared. There remaineth now, page 349. where I say touching a rule of S. Augustine, which he giveth to try faith and doctrine of the Church only by the scripture, that if he had as diligently followed it, in examining the common error of his time, of prayer for the dead, as he did in beating down the schism of the Donatists, or the heresy of the Pelagians, he would not so blindly have defended that which by holy scripture he was not able to maintain, as he doth in that book De Cura pro mortuis agenda, and else where. What most reproachful or contemptuous words are here against S. Augustine? Seeing the holy scripture is a light shining in a dark place, as S. Peter sayeth, who so goeth without it must walk blindly, which I say in commendation of the light of the scripture, not in contempt of Augustine's reason, whom as I may not honour, with contempt of the truth: so when he is a patron & maintainer of the truth, I honour him from my heart. Likewise page 78. Saint Ambrose is named, but nothing acknowledged to favour any popish error. Augustine is again noted speaking of the amending fire, whereof he hath no ground, but in the common error of his time, and whereof he affirmeth sometimes, that it is a matter that may be doubted of, sometimes that there is no third place at all. Wherefore this place hath neither reproachful words, nor confession of any constant opinion of Augustine, inclining to your errors. Then let us pass to the next place which is page 435. where concerning this matter, I have written thus: I deny that any of the ancient fathers in Christ's time, or scholars to his Apostles, or within one or two hundredth years after Christ, except one that had it of Montanus the heretic, as he had more things beside, in any one word, maintained your cause for purgatory or prayers for the dead. Secondly of them that maintained prayers for the dead, the most confessed, they had it not out of the scriptures, but of tradition of the Apostles, and custom of the church, therefore they are not to be compared unto us in better understanding of the scriptures, for that point, which they denied to be received of the scriptures. Thirdly, those of the ancient fathers that agreed with you in any part of your assertion (for none within 400. years was wholly of your error) notwithstanding many excellent gifts that they had, yet maintained other errors beside that, and about that, diffented one from another, and sometime the same man from himself, and that is worst of all, from manifest truth of the holy scriptures. Therefore neither is their erroneous interpretation in this matter to be received, nor M. Allens wise judgement of us to be regarded. Here also I appeal to the judgement of indifferent readers, what confession I have made of the fathers to be on their side, or what reproachful or contemptuous words I have used against them, for dissenting from us. The next place is quoted, page 247. where I say against Allen, boasting of ancient testimonies, for prayer for the dead: I will not deny but you have much dross and dregs, of the later sort of doctors, & the later, the fuller of dross. But bring me any word out of justinus Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, or any that did write within one hundredth years after Christ, that alloweth prayer or alms for the dead, & I will say you are as good as your word. Here except he will cavil, that I acknowledge much dross and dregs to be in the later sort of doctors, I know not what he findeth that hath any shadow of his slander. But the truth must be confessed, that the pure waters of life are to be found only in the word of God, and beside that the best and purest liquors that are to be seen, are not clear from all dregs and dross of human error and frailty. In the next page Origen delivered from the shameful mangling of Allens allegation, is showed plainly to be an enemy of purgatory & prayer for the dead, in that he affirmeth the day of a Christian man's death to be the end of all sorrow, and the beginning of all felicity. There remaineth now the last place quoted, page 194. where I acknowledge, that Gregory, Bernard, & Bede, upon the text Matth. 12. are of opinion that sins not remitted in this world, may be remitted in the world to come. But how happeneth it (say I) that Chrysostom & jeronyme which both interpreted that place, could gather no such matter, although they otherwise allowed prayer for the dead. The reason must needs be, because the error of purgatory growing so much the stronger, as it was nearer to the full revelation of Antichrist, Gregory and Bede sought not the true meaning of Christ in this scripture, but the confirmation of their plausible error. Here is all the confessions, most reproachful & contemptuous words, that are contained in so many of those places as he hath quoted, in which I will not tarry to rehearse how many untruths he hath uttered against me, but wish the indifferent reader to consider, that if he be so bold to slander me concerning a book printed in English, by which he may be convinced of every simple reader, what dare he not avouch of matters done and passed at Rome, whither none may travel to try out his treachery, but he is in manifest danger never to return the answer of his message?  
From this Popish Parson whatsoever his name be, I must pass to another gentleman nameless in deed, but not blameless, yea much more blame worthy than the other: who among so many and so great flanders, as it is wonder how they could be conveyed into so 
The epistle ●f persecution.  small a book, against our prince, her laws, her councillors, her judges, her officers, the nobility, the commonalty, the church, the governors, the pastors, & the people thereof, against all states & persons of the land, in whom there is religion towards God, joined with duty toward their prince and country, hath found yet some empty corners where he might place me in particular. And first of all, page 46. of his Latin Epistle, after he hath described the manner of quartering used in the execution of traitors, and most impudently flandered the officers of justice, to make such haste in cutting down the Papists, which are hanged, as they use not in punishment of other traitors, to the end they might satisfy their cruel minds in their torments, which is proved false by many thousand eye witnesses, that have not lightly seen any of them revive with any sense of their pains, except one Story, who also did hang so long before he was cut down, that it was great wondering to many to see him so soon recovered, not only in life, but also in strength. At length he cometh in his tragical manner, to inveigh against the cruelty of their adversaries, whom this cruel sight doth nothing at all move to pity, but they laugh and make sport at it, and insult against them that are a dying. But especially (saith he) if any overcome with pain, hath given forth any groaning which yet happeneth most seldom, so one of them no mean preacher in a certain imprinted book, doth gather that ours are not true martyrs, because one of them (as he himself affirmeth) gave forth a certain howling as of an hellhound, that I may use his own words. O sentence worthy of a preacher! O new charity of the new gospel! What ruffinaly thief at any time hath not blushed to utter such a voice? What murderer did ever show a mind so cruel and barbarous? This froth of words I might easily match with like rhetorical exclamations. O impudent liar, O shameless slanderer▪ O traitorous backbiter, etc. But I had rather beat it down with truth of matter. Bristol in his book of Motives, maketh Martyrs his 15. Motive. Among whom he commendeth as well for the goodness of their cause, as also for their patiented suffering: The good Earl of Northumberland (I use his own traitorous words) Story, Felton, Nortons', Woodhouse, Plomtree, and so many hundreds of the northern men, whom approved by miracles undoubted he opposeth against Fox's martyrs as he calleth them. Against this traitorous commendation of open rebels and traitors, among other things thus I have written, Retent. page 59 Seeing not the pain but the cause, maketh a martyr, whosoever have suffered for treason and rebellion, may well be accounted Martyrs of the popish church, but the church of Christ condemneth such for enemies of Christ's kingdom, and inheritors of eternal destruction, except they repent and obtain mercy for their horrible wickedness. And seeing patiented suffering is by Bristow'S own confession, a gift of God unto all true martyrs, such as were manifestly void of patience can be no true martyrs, as were most of these rebels and traitors, and Story by name: who for all his glorious tale, in the time of his most deserved execution by quartering, was so impatient, that he did not only roar and cry like an hellhound, but also struck the executioner doing his office, and resisted as long as strength did serve him▪ being kept down by three or four men, until he was dead. O patiented martyr of the popish church! What cause had this slanderous spirit upon these my words, to make such hideous outcries, what thief? what ruffian? what murderer? or what matter is ministered in this my saying, to accuse all the adversaries of Papists in England, of such barbarous cruelty? We are not so void of humanity, but we lament the misery even of our greatest & most graceless enemies: but yet we are not so void of understanding, to acknowledge impatient suffering to be true martyrdom, no not if the cause were never so good. Not that we think true martyrs to be void of sense and feeling of their torments, or that they may not testify their pains, even with tears and strong crying sometimes, but that there is a great difference between the crying of patiented martyrs unto God for strength & comfort, and the brutish roaring of impatient sufferers, expressed only with pain and torment, as was this of Story, who uttered no voice of prayer in all that time of his crying (as I heard of the very executioner himself, beside them that stood by) but only roared and cried as one overcome with the sharpness of the pain, as no martyr is, whom God is faithful to deliver out of temptation: so that although they have never so great sense of their torment, yet are they never overcome thereby. But peradventure this orator for the popish traitors, will take me up, for concluding against Story, that he did not pray, because no voice of prayer was heard to come from him▪ as though I could not consider, that he was immediately before strangled, so that the passage of his voice might be stopped, that albeit that roaring were his prayer, yet it might not be understood by them which heard it. In deed if there had been no other sign of his impatiency, but his crying, I would not have been bold to have judged thereof, and made him an example of impatiency, as I did. But what patiented martyr ever struck his tormentor? Who praying for his persecutors, would strive to buffet and beat them. What man submitting himself to the will of God in his suffering, would resist the executioners that he might not suffer? yea, when there was no remedy but he must suffer? except God for his cruelty showed against his patiented saints, had not only given him a taste of such torments as he procured to others, but also made him an open spectacle of the impatient & uncomfortable state of them, that suffer, not in a good cause, and with a good conscience. By this it is manifest how honestly this proctor of the persecuted Papists reporteth, that upon a little groaning I gather that he was no true martyr, and further raileth as his faculty well serveth him.  
The like honest dealing and truth is showed in the English translation of this pamphlet, toward the latter end, where he speaketh of certain imprisoned & pined with famine at York. There in the margin, Fulke is placed, as though he had been author or executer of some persecution at York, near to which city, he never came by 40. miles. But this will be excused perhaps by the printers fault, because it is not mentioned in the Latin. Howsoever it be, it argueth a lying and a slanderous stomach of the setters forth of this treatise, that would suffer so open and so apparent a slander, to pass uncorrected being in such a place where it could not escape their sight and knowledge.  
But the story of the conference at Wisbich, is a worthy matter, wherein not only this rhetorician, but also the confuter of M. Charke (if they be not both one Parson, as I guess they be) have thought good to exercise their stile. The truth whereof is this, as it is easy to be proved in every respect by sufficient testimonies. It pleased the Lords and other of her majesties council, after those obstinate recusantes were committed to safe keeping in Wisbich castle, to direct their letters to the Bishop of Elye (in whose diocese and castle the prisoners were kept) requiring him to provide, that they might have conference, if they would admit any, and be called upon to come to the Church, and hear the preaching there: whereupon the Bishop making choice of me, among other whom he purposed to send unto them, desired me by his Chancellor M. Doctor Bridgewater, to repair unto him into the Isle, from whence he sent me with a gentleman of his house, to signify to them that had the charge of those prisoners, the cause of my coming. Whereupon ensued that speech in the presence of certain honest men specially called and required to be witnesses, besides a number of other of good credit, the sum whereof as it was written at the present time, by three or four that came with me, of which one is a learned preacher, was collected to certify the Bishop as near as could be, what communication had passed between us, without any further purpose of publishing the same. But the copy thereof coming into the hands of a friend of mine at London, and by him communicated to some other of his friends, at last came into a printers hand, who suddenly set it abroad unknowing to my friend and me. Which how well it was liked of me & my friend, some of the best of the company of Stationers can testify, by that, means was made to have the printer punished, and had not Campions proud and vain challenge come even in the nick, I could not have been persuaded by my friends, to have suffered the party to go so clear as he did. This is the whole truth & every part thereof, which if this dainty orator durst show his face in any honest presence in England, may be proved by such sufficient witness and evidence, as no reasonable person could refuse. Notwithstanding let us see, what a rhetorical liar without fear of God, or shame of the world, without knowledge of the matter, or means to have intelligence, can devise to publish in the face of the world, to bolster the obstinacy of those wilful recufants, and to deface the honest endeavour of them that seek first to reform them, and if that can not be, to take away excuse of ignorance from them. There is a certain minister (saith he) great in his own opinion, but in other men's opinion but mean, etc. Mark how boldly even in the beginning he blusheth not to affirm, that which it is impossible for him to know. For albeit I were as great in mine own opinion, as he reporteth me to be, yet how could he be privy to my concept, who though he know my person, yet is he not acquainted with my manners, that he might make conjecture by them. Neither is it like, he can hear it by report of other men. For I trust they which know me most familiarly, cannot report, that my behaviour argueth any such great opinion of myself. But he gathereth it perhaps either by my preaching, or by my writing. What skill I have in any thing God knoweth best, and then they with whom I live. And that I make as little show of that I know, as any man in such cases may conveniently, I answer, they that have most cause to understand what I am, will not refuse to testify. That he saith I am mean in other men's opinions, it grieveth me nothing: rather I am afraid lest a great number accept me to be better than I deserve. But to omit this matter, by which yet you may gather, what likelihood of truth is in the rest of his assertions, he proceedeth to accuse me that for hope of a little vainglory, by contending with noble men, cum magnatibus (so the honest subject calleth Watson the Bishop, and Fecknam the Abbot so long since by lawful authority deprived of those dignities) I crept secretly into the castle unlooked for. But if my coming were of hope to win glory, why did I not rather come openly, or cause them to be brought into the Church before the whole multitude? Well, admit I was so blind with desire of vainglory that I could not see▪ which way I might best come to it. Why should he say that I crept into the castle, as it were by stealth? Belike because I came without authority, for so he saith afterward, the papists saw that I came to offer them conference by no public authority. If that had been so, how could this stand which he saith, Sisti jubet omnes ad s●●m conspectum, he commandeth them all to be brought into his presence. Did he command them by his private authority? or were they which had them in custody so simple, that they would obey an unknown person, a mean man, of small or no account, coming without authority or commanding in his own name, or pretending the name of them that had authority without sufficient warrant? or rather was it not well said, that a liar in a large tale is the best confuter of himself? Although in very truth, I gave no commandment for their appearance before me, only the bishops will was declared by the gentleman his servant, unto their keeper. But what should I stand to rip up those vanities? All reasonable conditions of books, time and order for the conference were offered them. To conclude, I am certainly persuaded, that something perhaps the disdain of my person, but more the fear of the weakness of their cause stayed them, that they would not adventure their credit in trial by disputation. For if the contempt of my lightness and rashness (as their proctor sayeth) had been the only cause of their refusal, why did they not yield to dispute in the university in which are many of more gravity or learning, yea why did they conclude in the end that all disputation in matters of faith, was unprofitable, alleging examples of the disputation in the convocation house, in the beginning of the Queen's majesties reign▪ and the conference at Westminster in presence of almost all the learned and wise of the realm in the beginning of her majesties reign? For the publishing of the report and the certainty of the contents thereof, I have showed sufficiently, as the truth of the matter was, and as I will be able to justify by good witness, whatsoever this impudent liar hath advouched to the contrary. The same is also sufficient to confute the same slander repeated by the confuter of Master Charke in Epist. pa. 9 concerning my only looking into Wisbich castle, and printing a pamphlet in mine own praise, where if I had feigned matter for my praise I might as well have feigned, how valiantly I had vanquished mine enemies. For small praise is gotten where there is no victory, & victory can be none where there is no battle. The like slander he hath, but with more words of reproach pag. 2. of his defence, where beside his ruffianlike railing, which is a greater fault in him that reproveth others, for intemperate speech, there is nothing more in substance, but that I did set forth that pamphlet in mine own commendation, and I attempted the matter without authority, wherein without all rhetoric I must tell him plainly, he lieth impudently. As for the disputation he saith they have sued for in seditious manner, and for a purpose of sedition by Campion their valiant champion▪ for other suit they cannot prove that ever they made, or by any other means that ever I heard of, how like it is they would sew for it we may know by this, that they would not accept it when it was offered, and how well it was discharged by Campion their lusty challenger, when he could not refuse it, there be many both wise and learned witnesses, that can testify, to the reproof of such impudent reports, as have been bruited in popish pamphlets, by ignorant asses: to whom their own champion is so little beholding, that they have for the most part made his answer a great deal more absurd, and further from show of learning, than in deed it was. But if you be so sharp set upon disputation, as you pretend, why doth never a papist of you all answer my challenge made openly in print to all learned papists, almost three year ago, set before my Retentive against Bristow'S Motives, wherein you may express, what you have in maintenance of your opinion, without suit, without danger, and to the best and surest try all of the truth. But now it is time to come to other cavils of this syrly censurer. They are of two sorts, the one concerning words, the other touching matter. I will begin first with the words, and as near as I can readily find them, I will quote the places of my books where I have used them. And letting the reader see what cause moved me sometimes to such vehement terms, I refer it to his judgement. whether I have passed the bonds of modesty, or equity, yea or nay. First he chargeth me with a ruffianlike spirit, because I say to Allen: Show me Allen if thou canst for thy guts. pag. 241. In that place I answer to Allen, which scornfully biddeth the Papists say unto us: M. Protestant, let me have sight of your only faith, I would be of that religion, etc. that james calleth pure and unspotted, etc. Whiles he requireth a sight of our faith by our good works, I answer that because the trial of singular persons is uncertain, and unpossible, let us consider the whole states. Then followeth: Show me if thou canst for thy guts, or name any popish city, that hath made such provision for the fatherless and widows, as the city of London, etc. What speech is hear like a ruffian? Except the delicate censurer, cannot abide to hear Allens guts named, but he thinketh it russianlike: as though he had never heard of these phrases, ruparis licet, non si te ruperis inquit, rumpantur ut ilia Codro. In which, saving the authority of this noble censurer, no wise man did ever conceive any ruffianlike spirit. It savoureth a great deal more of a ruffianlike spirit, that himself abuseth the phrases of the holy Ghost, to scorning and scoffing, as hear in the margin, Doctor Fulkes talent in railing, and pag. 50. Luther's 
Def. pa. 13.  lying with a nun in the lord, who but an atheist, would not abhor to speak so? But let us examine what railing he hath noted out of my Retentive against Bristow'S Motives. First, lewd Lozel, and unlearned dogbolt, which I find pag. 6. where I say, that some of the Papists were moderators of the conference at Westminster, at least one: namely, D. Heath then occupiing the place of the Bishop of York. Therefore not only lay Lords and unlearned heretics, as this lewd lozel, and unlearned dogbolt, and traitorous papist (I am bold with him because he is so malepeart with the learned and godly nobility of England) most slanderously and maliciously affirmeth, were only moderators of that disputation, but some of the popish faction, were not only present, but presidents of that action, beside all the rest of the popish prelate's, which then were of that parliament, for information whereof that conference was appointed. I say let the reader judge, whether he have not deserved those terms, that being but a man of very mean learning, as his writings declare, was not ashamed to call all the nobilities and commons of the parliament, lay lorde● and unlearned heretics.  
Again, pag. 58. I call Bristol a traitorous Papist, because he slandereth our state not only for public execution of open rebels and errant traitors, as the Earl of Northumberlande, Story, Felton, Nortons', Woodhouse, and so many hundreds of the northern men, whom all he calleth holy martyrs, proved by miracles undoubted, but also with privy murdering by poisoning, whipping, and famishing, what less I could have said of him for this high treason openly printed, and what an honest Papist the censurer is for reproving me in so terming him, I refer to the judgement of all Christian and faithful subjects.  
To proceed I call him shameless beast pag. 18. because he maketh a shameless and beastly conclusion in those words: Whosoever have at any time, set themselves against any doctrine confirmed by miracle, they have been against the truth. There can to this no instance be given: our doctrine which they resist hath been confirmed by miracles, therefore plain it is that they are enemies of the truth. Do you not hear this shameless beast say (quoth I) there can be no instance given against his proposition, when the Lord himself giveth an express law against a false prophet, which showeth signs and miracles? Deut. 13. etc. Weigh the term with the desert of the person in this bold assertion, and if it be too extreme, I desire no favour.  
Yet again pag. 10. I writ thus: Where Luther confesseth that the mockers of the true Church were commonly called heretics, his conscience did not accuse him (as Bristol said of him) that his side were heretics. For he was able to put a difference between him that by heretics is called an heretic, and him that is so indeed: although Bristol, either for his blockish wit cannot, or for his spiteful malice will not conceive it. here I do not simply accuse his wit, but either his wit or his malice: and that one of them was to blame, if not both, every wise man may see by his argument.  
Furthermore, pag. 39 I say, he is an impudent ass, which to 'stablish his ground of custom, is not ashamed to falsify the words of holy scripture. For he had said, that Saint Paul after many reasons 1. Cor. 11. for the uncomeliness of women's going bareheaded, recoileth to this invincible fort: Si quis etc. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom (for women to pray uncovered) nor the church of God. His ignorance and impudence is manifest in this place. If the term ass offend any man, let him consider that nothing but an ignorant person is noted thereby, as also pag. 88 where he is called a blind bayard and blockheaded ass, because he disdainfully upbraideth all our doctors, and universities of much ignorance, and lack of learning, and Caluine he saith erred about the trinity through ignorance, with such odious comparisons, as in so vain and unlearned a fellow, as Bristol showeth himself to be, is intolerable.  
To note his bold ignorance also I said pag. 74. The more beastly is the blundering of this Bristol, who dreameth that the council of Constantinople the first, which made this confession by the apostolic Church, did not only mean the Roman Church, but also none other but the Roman church: whereas the council knowing well the catholic church of the world, from the particular Church of Rome, gave like privileges of honour to the Church of Constantinople to those which Rome had, reserving only seniority to old Rome: beside many other reasons, they alleged to prove, that they acknowledged no such authority of the Church at Rome, as the papists now defend.  
Likewise pag. 89. I call him blundering Bristol▪ for charging M. jewel with ignorance, for affirming Christ to be a priest according to his deity, of which assertion I shall have occasion to speak afterward against the last slander.  
And pag. 75. where Bristol saith, that in all innovations both great and small that ever by heretics were attempted, they can show under what pope they chanced, what tumults rising in the world thereon, what doctors withstand it, what councils accursed it, etc. I reply thus: What an impudent liar is this Bristol, to brag of that, which at this day is unpossible to be done, by any man living in the world? For of so many heretics as are rehearsed by Epiphanius and Augustine, not the one half of them can be so showed, as Bristol like a blind bayard boasteth they can do.  
Yet more touching his ignorance pag. 43. I say Jerome was not so gross, to count walking about the city, to be a peregrination. But what is so leaden or blockish, which these doltish papists will not avouch for the maintenance of their trumpery? This I writ because Bristol would have Jerome, by often entering into the cryptes or vaults of the Churches at Rome, to signify, that he went on pilgrimage. Where the collector of the phrases doth me some wrong, to say I call Bristol leaden, blockish, and doltish Papist▪ where I say those doltish papists which avouch any thing, never so leaden or blockish. Only I require the indifferent reader to consider whether I have just cause to charge him with ignorance and impudence: as for the terms, I will not stand, either to justify them, or to revoke them, but refer them to every reasonable man's censure.  
Furthermore pag. 48. I say that proud scoff, of parliament religion, (which Bristol useth) bewrayeth the stomach of a vanteparler, and not the spirit of a divine, or good subject. Hear I think the term of vantparler, was too mild for such a known traitorous Papist, as commendeth open rebels for martyrs, as affirmeth that the Queen's subjects are lawfully discharged of the oath of obedience given to her majesty, as derideth the religion established by parliament pag. 51. I say, the Papists like impudent dogs, yelp and bark against us, that the fathers are all on their side, because they have sucked out of their writings, a few dregs of a great quantity of good liquor contained in their vessels, having the fathers in the most and greatest matters wholly against them. And pag. 55. I say that Bristol quarreling with D. Humphrey, yelpeth like a little cur, against a great lion, and snatching pieces of his sentences, gnawn from the rest, squeleth out as though he had heard some marvelous strange sounds, etc. If this allegory be too base for Bristow'S dignity, let him humble himself and crave pardon of his treasons, for I will do no reverence to a traitor, that openly bewrayeth himself in a printed book, as he and other of his complices have done. A proud hypocrite priest, of stinking, greasy, antichristian and execrable orders, I cannot find where I have termed him, except I should read over the whole book: but if I have used such speeches, I think they are no worse than his wicked behaviour, & popish sacrificing priesthood deserve to have. Blasphemous heretic he giveth me often occasion to call him, and namely pag. 81. where I reprove him for calling the blessed sacrament his Lord and God, which although transubstantiation were granted, yet because the Papists affirm, that this sacrament consisteth of accidents, as the sign or external part thereof, seeing accidents are neither God nor in God, it could not be said, without blasphemy, that the sacramentis Lord and God.  
Next follow reproachful terms used against Allen. The first, brazen face and iron forehead, I do not yet find: but it signifieth nothing but notable impudence, which is noted pag. 23. where I call him impudent blasphemer because he had said of us: That to such as make no store of good works, they cast only faith under their elbows to lean upon: where as none of us did ever teach that such a faith as is not lively & fruitful of good works, did ever profit any man but to the increase of his damnation.  
Again pag. 24. I note him to pass impudency itself in shameless lying, where he saith: Commit what you list, omit what you list, your preachers shall praise it in their words, and practise it in their works.  
Also pag. 147. I charge him with an impudent lie, where he saith, that M. Caluine doth expound the oil whereof Saint james speaketh cap. 5. for a medicinable salve or ointment, to ease the sick man's sore, when it is manifest, that Caluine utterly rejecteth and confuteth that exposition. Likewise pag. 259. I convince him of impudent lying, because he doth wilfully falsify the decrees of two counsels at a clap, saying they excommunicate all such as in any wise hinder the oblations for the departed, when both the councils Vase, and Carthage speak of them that detain the oblations or bequests of the dead given to the church for the use of the poor. These and many like shameless assertion●, do prove that he hath a brazen face and Iron forehead, which shameth not to put in print such monstrous untruths, and wilfullyes. But let us pass to other points. Where this impudent merchant Allen had railed intolerably against the reverend father M. jewel, calling him the English bragger, one that in summer games might win two games of cracking & lying, with like shameless stuff: I said and do not a whitrepent me: How M. jewel hath answered his challenge, his own learned labours do more clearly testify unto the world, than that it can be blemished by this sycophants brainless babbling.  
Moreover pag. 343. where Allen had called that learned father M. Pilkington a mock Bishop: I said▪ If he be a mock Bishop, which beside his excellent learning, is also a painful and diligent preacher of the gospel, what are those unlearned asses, and reckless ruffi●ns of your sect, which have nothing of a Bishop, but a rotchet and a mitre? Such are many of the prelate's of other countries. Erasmus said that only England had learned Bishops. Likewise I say that Allen raileth like a ruffian at our ministers in the ruff of their new communion. pag. 259. The term of scornful caitiff, I find not, but well he deserveth it, by deriding and scoffing at such godly learned and honourable fathers, as you may perceive by that which I have noted in him against the Bishops of Salisbury and Durisme, which is not yet the 40. part of his proud mocks and disdainful gibes.  
Desperate dick I find pag. 371. where Allen had picked a quarrel to M. Pilkington of Durisme, as he calleth him in his margin, scoffing at him in his text, that he was ashamed of his name, and therefore should lose the glory of his assertion, etc. I answered: you would feign have such a man to be your adversary, that though you took the foil, yet you might boast, that you were so bold as to fight with him. But it is an easier matter for such a desperate dick to begin a fray than to end it.  
Pag. 97. where Allen said, that David seeketh to be better cleansed than by remission of sins only, and to have his sins wholly blotted out, and to be made as white as snow, by his own suffering, which was not done by God's merciful pardon in the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, I could not forbear, but cry out, O horrible blasphemer. Likewise pag. 298. where he challengeth to the popish clergy, the priesthood after the order of Melchisedeck confirmed by an oath Psal. 110. which is peculiar only to our saviour Christ, I affirm it more horrible blasphemy, than ever turk or jew durst presume to boast of.  
Also pag. 240. where we affirm, that men's works must not presume to win heaven, nay to purge sins, nor to meddle with Christ's work of redemption and the office of only faith, which assertions Allen calleth corruptions of Christian conditions, I say, it is a blasphomous barking of an horrible hell hound. And I think I have said nothing more hardly, than such a devilish blasphemy deserveth to hear.  
But leaving Allen, let us come to Stapleton, where he sayeth, our preachers have a new trick, to make the audience cry, Amen. But to tears, to lamenting or bewailing of their sins, no Protestant yet moveth his audience, (which is such a lie, as the devil in his own person for his credits sake would be ashamed to pronounce) I say it is an old trick of a cankered stomached Papist. page 112.  
To proceed, page 110. & 111. where Stapleton had alleged, that which Eusebius speaketh of a heavenly crown of glory the ornament of God's friends and priests, to prove the antiquity of Popish shaven crowns: I thought I had good reason to say, he is worthy to be shorn on his poll with a number of crowns, that understandeth this of a shaven crown. And I ask if there be any block so senseless, to think that Eusebius called a shaven head, the heavenly crown of glory?  
Page 98. I said: They had in the first 600. years men that lived a solitary life called Monachi, Anachoritae, Heremitae, etc. but no more like our Popish boars, living in their franks, than Angels are like devils, noting the Epicurian marks of these last times.  
Also page 103. where Stapleton had cited a falsified Canon of the Nicen Council, confuted by the Greek copies and the right translation of the Latin, by Ruffinus, by Peter Crabs confession. I conclude, But such draff and dregs of falsifications, additions, detractions, mutations, etc. are good enough for popish swine.  
Page 79. where he complaineth, that Protestants have taken away Authority of making that which Christ bade them to make, in his last supper. I answer. If you say you make the body of Christ, in such sense, as you affirm he sacrament to be the body of Christ, God's curse light on you. For to say, they can make the natural body of Christ it is blasphemy, and therefore they are to be accursed. Otherwise I said, The doing of all that which Christ commanded to be done in remembrance of him, (which Jerome calleth making the body of Christ meaning the sacrament of his body) we take not away.  
The term of brazen faced Stapleton, I find not, but notable impudency proved by him in sundry places. As page 28. where he is noted for charging the Protestants to say: That these 900. years and upward the church hath perished, it hath been overwhelmed with idolatry and superstition, which is a loud impudently, for the Protestants never said so. Again, page 39 where he is reproved for affirming Calvin to teach, that God is the cause and author of evil, which blasphemy Caluine always abhorreth and confuteth. Also page 40. he is convicted of many impudent slanders. And page 46. where he sayeth the Protestants commonly call S. Gregory that Antichrist, which I know not whether to impute it to impudence or madness. These few examples among a great number, do prove that he deserveth the epithets of brazen faced or impudent Stapleton.  
Page 77. I call him blockheaded papist, having often before detected his gross ignorance, because he scorneth at M. Haddon, as though he alleged prescription of 30. years continuance, except six of the Protestants doctrine: whereas the Papists as he saith have 900. years.  
Page 75. thus I writ: The miracles reported by M. Fox, the shameless beast when he cannot deny, being testified by witnesses above all exception he can make, affirmeth to be esteemed of his own fellows but as civil things, and such as may happen by course of reason. I say not this as though I would have our doctrine to be credited one jot more, for any such miracle, but to show the shameless dogged stomach of this Popish slanderer, which when he had none other answer to make, as concerning such miracles, forgeth that we ourselves deny all such to have been miracles, which he is not able to prove, although he would burst for malice against the truth.  
The term of gross and beastly ignorance, although I find not, yet I think I have used, as I had often occasion, whereof I will note one, that page 99 To prove the antiquity of Augustine friars, he translateth in S. Augustine frater a friar, whereras that order began more than a 1000 years after S. Augustine, Anno Domini 1406.  
Finally, page 43. where he will prove that the church of the jews never erred, because the high priests answered truly of the nativity of Christ, and because Cayphas prophesied unwittingly of the virtue of Christ's death, I say there can be nothing more blockish, than such kind of reasoning. Again, where he sayeth, the whole synagogue, before the law of Christ took place, in necessary knowledge of the law did never err. For proof of this (said I) more like a block than a man, he bringeth such places of Scripture, as either show what the priests duty should be, but affirm not what their knowledge was, or else prophecy a reformation of the corrupt state of the clergy from ignorance to knowledge. Last of all, I say, what drunken flemming of Douai would reason thus (as Stapleton doth?) The Scribes and the Pharisees sat in Moses chair, therefore the Synagogue did never, or not then err. Whereas the false doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees, concerning adultery, murder, swearing, the worship of God, not only the person but also the quality of Messiah & his kingdom, our Saviour Christ himself so often and so sharply doth reprove.  
Thus have I set down the occasions of as many of these speeches as I could find, except I should have read over the whole books, that the indifferent reader may see, when they be in their proper places, they sound not so hardly, to prove me a railer, as they seem for the most part, by extreme malice, impudence, ignorance, ungodliness, disdainfulness of the adversaries to have been rather wrested from me, than of any uncharitable affection uttered by me. But in common civility, as our stately Censurer judgeth, I should have forborn these learned and reverend men, which in many respects to say the least, may be counted my equals: seeing these or the like terms, were not used amongst the Gentiles, nor of any honest or Christian writer since. I answer, civility is to be used with citizens, but not with traitors: learning and other good qualities to be respected in Christian Catholics, or at the leastwise in them that are no professed enemies of Christian Catholic religion, not in malicious heretics. For equality in learning I will not contend with them, but for superiority in truth. And yet as unlearned as I am, let the proudest of them all, or this Censurer, whom in pride and disdainfulness I think to pass them all, attaint me of such ignorance, as I convince these learned principal pillars of Popery, in their several printed books, in so many books as I have written against them: and then let me justly bear the reproach that I shall be proved to deserve. Where he saith these terms were not used among the Gentiles, (I will add with approbation of Christians) nor of any honest or Christian writer since: his pen runneth before his memory, if he have read: or before his wit and modesty, if he have not read, what both Gentiles against traitors, and Christians against heretics and traitors have written. And if this issue might be tried in presence, I would not doubt but make his blushing countenance bewray his guilty conscience. But of this ministers scurrility against many men, he saith he might repeat a great deal more. I would he might come forth, and show what bull he hath, to rail, and use scurrility against all men, and yet condemn whom it pleaseth him of railing scurrility. But because this minister answereth many men forsooth, one said well of him, that he is the common posthorse of the Protestants, to pass you any answer without a bait, against any Catholic book which cometh in his way. This is even as good, as because this Censurer slandereth many men, another might say of him, he is the common packhorse of the Papists, to carry any farthel of lies devised against any Christian man or book that cometh in his way, and the rather because he weareth a pair of winkers over his eyes like a mill-horse, being ashamed to show either his face or his name. And more truly than of me, for (with what speed soever) I pass no man's answer but mine own: where as he taketh up the bundle of slanders, devised by Staphylus, Eccius, Cocleus, Lindanus, Bolsec, and a number of other beside. But mine answers are not passed in such haste as the replies are returned with laisure, it seemeth the beasts that should bring them, are afraid of stumbling. Yet Marshal's epithets remain to be examined, who being a person so vile and absurd, to rail so unmeasurably and continually against that godly learned man M. doctor Calfhil of learned and Christian memory, I was bold in my Rejoinder against him, to handle in part, according to his virtues.  
In the beginning, which is page 121. of the volume, in consideration of his intolerable ignorance, arrogancy & impudency, which appeareth throughout all his book, I say that whereas he termeth himself to be a bachelor of the law, he is more like a wrangling pettifogger in the law, than a sober student in divinity, which also he professeth to be, for he doth in a manner nothing else but cavil, quarrel, and scold. Likewise in the very end of my book, exhorting the Papists for their credit's sake, to make out a better champion hereafter, I tell them as the truth is, that in this his reply, he doth nothing in a manner but either construe like an Usher, (as he was sometimes of Winchester school) or quarrel like a dogbolt lawyer. To the same purpose, page 128. where master Calfehil said: If an Angel from heaven teach otherwise than the Apostles have preached unto us, be he accursed: martial the quarreling lawyer findeth fault with his translation, because Euangelizamus may be referred, as well to the disciples as to the Apostles, so that the disciples preaching are to be credited as well as the Apostles. No doubt (say I) if they preach the doctrine of the Apostles, of which the controversy is, and not of the persons that preached. But these quarrels sir bachelor, are more meet for the bumcourts, where perhaps you are a prating proctor, than for the schools of divinity. In this saying, if the term of bumcourts seem too light, I yield unto the censure of grave and godly men.  
Page 138. where martial citeth Constantinus for the commendation of his cross, I say, he showeth himself an egregious ignorant person. For the sign which the Emperor commended to be a healthful sign and true token of virtue, was the name of Christ, expressed in the Character which he saw. And page 154. where he maketh this syllogism to prove that in time of the Eliberin Council, pictures were worshipped, which he sayeth, followeth necessarily upon the words of the Canon thus: That was worshipped that was forbidden to be painted on the walls: but pictures were forbidden to be painted on the walls, ergo pictures were worshipped. Answer master Calf. Hereunto I rejoin. Who would have thought that an usher of Winchester and student in Louvain that teacheth us (as he said) an old lawyer's point, would also teach us a new Logic point, to conclude affirmatively in the second figure, & that all upon particulars? Answer master Calf, quod martial. Nay answer goose to such an argument. And reason who will with such an ass any longer about this matter, for I will hearken to his law, seeing his Logic is no better.  
If sir Censurer will defend this syllogism, & prove it to be good and lawful, I will revoke my terms.  
Page 142. where he sayeth, that bread and wine of the sacrament have no promise, I tell him he lieth like an arrogant hypocrite, for bread and wine have as good promise in the one sacrament as water in the other.  
Pag. 178. where M. Calfebill had distinguished traditions into some necessary, some contrary to the word, some indifferent: I say martial like an impudent ass, calleth on him to show in what scripture, doctor, or council he findeth this distinction of traditions. As though a man might not make a true distinction in disputation, but the same must be found in so many words, in scripture, doctor, or council, when he himself cannot deny, but the distinction is true, and every part to be found in the scriptures, doctors, and councils.  
Pag. 133. I call Martial blockeheade and shameless ass, because he would prove, that the spirit of God is not judge of the interpretation of the scriptures: because Paul and Barnabas in the controversy of circumcision, went not to the word and spirit, but to the Apostles, and elders at jerusalem.  
Also pag. 213. I call him asseheade, because he saith that M. Calfehill condemneth his doctrine of only faith justifying, when he affirmeth that outward profession is necessary for every Christian man.  
Likewise pag. 215. where martial would learn whether M. Calfehill kneeling down before his father to ask him blessing, did not commit Idolatry? I say he is an ass that can not make a difference between civil honour and religious worship.  
Pag. 202. I call not only Martial, but all Papists shameless dogs and blasphemous Idolaters, which maintain, and make vows to Images, which travel to them, and offer up both prayers and sacrifices, of candles, money, jewels, and other things unto Images. Whose Idols have given answers, have wagged their heads and lips.  
Pag. 198. I say he raileth upon Caluine, like a ruffian and slandereth him like a devil, because he sayeth a ship would not carry the pieces of the cross that are showed in so many places, which yet is confirmed by testimony of Erasmus.  
Pag. 170. where martial goeth about to prove that the sacraments are no helps of our faith, I said, Did you ever hear such a filthy hog grunt so beastly, of the holy sacraments, that they should be no helps of our faith?  
These are as many of the speeches noted by the censurer, as I can find, wherein I trust the indifferent reader, weighing upon what cause they were uttered, will not so lightly condemn me for a railer, seeing to rail is of private malice to revile them, that deserve no reproach, and not of zeal in defence of truth, to use vehement and sharp speeches, as all the prophets, and the mildest spirited men that ever were have used against the adversaries thereof. But the most heinous accusation is behind, that I call Staphylus a counsellor to an Emperor rascal. I might answer as S. Paul did, when he was reproved for calling the high priest, painted wall: Brethren, I knew not that he was an Emperor's counsellor: or in very deed, I know nothing in him worthy to be an honest man's counsellor. But seeing it pleased an Emperor to accept him, it is as great a fault, as if an enemy of mean condition, should call an English counsellor, rascal. So saith our sharp censurer. But if he mean those that be of the Queen's majesties privy counsel, I will not say he playeth the rascal, but either the ignorant fool, or the malicious vile person to compare the Apostata Staphylus, even in his counsellership, with the meanest of their honours. For they that know the manner of the princes of Germany and of other foreign princes can testify, that personages of mean estate, only being learned in the laws, are accepted of the Emperor and other states, as their counsellors, whose counsel perhaps they never use, but may if it please them, as of counsellors at law. So that one man is counsellor to the Emperor, and to many other princes. As for example, Lutolphus Schraderus doctor of both laws, was ordinary professor in the University of Frankeforde, and counsellor of the Emperor, of the Elector, & Marquis of Brandeburge, of the dukes of Brunswich, Luneburge, Megelburge, and of many other princes of Germany. This was a very great and wise man, but Cassanaeus in Cat. glor. ●●●di, part. 10. Consid. 41. saith, that every simple advocate did use to call himself the kings counsellor of France, before order was taken, that none should usurp that title, except he were called unto some office in the courts. And speaking of such as were counsellors in office, in his time, of whose dignity he writeth much, he complaineth that they were promoted unto that dignity in parliaments, by means of money, or some other unknown means part. 7. Conf. 13. Such a noble counsellor was Staphylus, having some knowledge in the laws, being preferred to that title by the Papists of favour more than of worthiness to give him some shadow of countenance, when he became an Apostata from true religion, and from those Christian princes and noble men, by whom he was before upholden. And yet in truth, if the printer had not mistaken my writing, I called him Renegade and not rascal, as before I called him beastly Apostata. Perhaps the censurer will say, I mend the matter well to call an Emperor's counsellor, a beastly Apostata. But so might I have done, though he had been an Emperor himself, for what else was julian the Emperor but a beastly Apostata or Renegade from Christian religion which once he professed? Yea such an Apostata is worse than a beast, for he declareth himself thereby to be a reprobate. Therefore the Christians in his time, whereas the church had always used to pray for heathen tyrants, that held the empire, and made havoc of the church by persecution, contrariwise prayed against this Apostata, that God would confound him and shorten his time. Yea the godly constant Bishops, did openly inveigh against him, as Mare's Bishop of Chalcedon, which openly called him impious, Atheist & Apostata. And when julian counterfeiting mildness did nothing but revile him by his blindness, saying the Galilean thy God cannot cure thee, he answered, I thank my 
Trip. hist. li. 6. Cap. 6.  God Christ, that I am blind, that I might not see one so void of godliness as thou art. Therefore Staphylus being but an emperors counsellor, as he was, ●●y endure to hear worse for his Apostasy, than I have spoken against him.  
The quarrel of words being ended, it is time to go to the matter. First pag. 14. of his answer to Master Charkes preface, he noteth that D. Fulke against Bristow'S Mot. pa. 98. findeth, that it is evident by scripture, that heretics may be burned, against Luther. That blasphemous heretics are to be put to death, I find in scripture, by the law of blasphemers Leu. 24. and by the law of false prophets Deut. 13. neither doth Luther (I think) deny, but the equity of the same laws doth still remain, although not every one that erreth obstinately, aught to be dealt with so extremely. Also pag. 82. of that book I say, that all protestants are one in God and Christ, their redeemer, from which unity, dissension about ceremonies cannot separate them: and yet I except such schismatics as delight in contention. The controversy between Luther and us, doth not hinder us from this unity, although Luther and other of preposterous zeal of godliness, do otherwise account of us, which error is of infirmity and not of malice.  
The pag. 23. of the same answer, there is another charge where I say: that text, Vow ye and render your vows to the Lord, is a text that pertaineth to the old Testament, meaning that it must have the exposition according to the law, of such things as God did allow and were in men's power to perform. For what if a man vowed to sacrifice a dog? What say we to jepthes rash vow? To the vow of them that vowed to kill Paul? Our censurer reporteth my words, that this text belongeth only to the old Testament, as though I said, there was no use of it in the new Testament. There is one lie by addition. In the same place to the text, If thou wilt be perfect, go and s●ll what thou hast, etc. I say, it is a singular trial, to that one person. F●● every man is not bound so to do, yet our censur●● cavileth, that so all the other words spoken to that young man, may be restrained and made singular, as whatsoever else was spoken to any singular person. As though my reason were, that therefore it was singular, because it was spoken to one man. As if we had not general laws and rules to know what is enjoined to all men, what to some men, and what to a singular person. In the next pag. 24. he quarelleth at my exposition of the saying of S. james cap. 2. that a man is justified of works, and not of faith only. Where I say, works, are not denied to justify before men, and only faith without works, is thought to justify before God, Rom. 3. This he calleth a poor devise, because Saint james talking of faith without works, saith it cannot save a man. Nay rather this is a poor cavil. For S. james talketh of another kind of faith, as well as of an other kind of justification, when his saying seemeth to be contradictory to Saint Paul. And that in the place in question he meaneth justification before men as in the other place a faith void of good works, it is manifest, both by his own words: Show me thy faith by thy works, and also by the example of Abraham's trial, which was not to inform God of his justification, but to give testimony before men.  
Pag. 25. to show how protestants deny all fathers, he bringeth me for an example in many places. First he saith, the consent of ancient fathers is alleged, attributing superiority to Peter, upon that text Math. 16. Thou art Peter, etc. This he saith I avoid very lightly, saying that diverse of the ancient fathers were deceived in opinion of Peter's prerogative. As for the consent of all, which he would seem to make for it, is false: but this is not all mine answer, but that this prerogative appeareth not in the scriptures, which was heavier than the answerer's pen could bear: or if he think it doth, let him prove by syllogism out of the scriptures if he can. But until he can, I will say this is a lie by detraction.  
Secondly where I say, those ancient fathers that expound 
Against the Rock p. 291  the text john 5. I came in my father's name, etc. of antichrist, have no ground of their exposition. I prove it by example of Theudas, the Egyptian, Cocabus, and other that deceived the jews in their own name, yet none of them was antichrist.  
Thirdly where he saith, Jerome with all the ecclesiastical writers, are alleged for the interpretation of the words of Daniel cap. 7. which interpretation I do not admit, because it hath no direction out of the scriptures, he maketh a lie by multiplication: for only Jerome, with such ecclesiastical writers out of whom he gathered his interpretation, is alleged.  
Fourthly he slandereth me, when he chargeth me 
Against the Foretresse. pag. 52.  to say, Austin doth wrongfully interpret the place, for I allow of Augustine's sayings to be true, but I say he speaketh it upon a text wrongly interpreted, that is falsely translated. He hath placed his Tabernacle in the sun, whereas the truth is, He hath made in the heavens a Tabernacle for the sun, and so doth Jerome interpret it ●o●i posuit tabernaculum in eyes.  
Fifthly. where he sayeth, that S. Ambrose, Ephrem, 
Against pur gatorie. p. 262.  and Bede are alleged for interpretation of certain scriptures, he saith, he noteth not what, for they are alleged for memories of the dead, which I say I will not deny but they were used before their times, and prayer for the dead also: but without warrant of God's word, or authority of scriptures, but such as is so pitifully wrested and drawn unto them, as every man may see, the holy ghost never meant any such thing, as they gather of them. This I speak not of these three, but of such as would go about to prove prayer for the dead out of the scripture: as Chrysostom, who followeth 
Pag. 237.  in the sixth place, who in deed I say allegeth scripture for it, but he apply it madly, and yet he often applieth it to the same purpose, belike it was the best he had for that purpose. God saith unto Ezechias, I will defend this city, for mine own cause, and for David my servants sake. Alas good man, what manner of reason is this? Be it as he saith, that the memory of David being a righteous man, and not rather the truth of Gods promise made to David, moved him to defend the city from the enemies: doth it therefore follow that prayer and alms are available for the dead? etc. If M. Censurer think Chrysostom have applied the scripture rightly, let him gather his argument into a syllogism, and we will shape him another answer.  
Seventhly I will not deny, but I said that those fathers, 
Against martial. P. 146.  whom martial quoted, did rather dally in trifling allegories, than sound prove, that the cross was prefigured in such places of scripture as they allege. As Augustine maketh the two sticks, that the widow of Sarepta gathered, a figure of the cross. Augustine and Tertullian, the lifting up of Moses hands, etc. in which places yet they meant the virtue of Christ's death, rather than the holiness of the sign.  
Moreover, page 33. Master Fulk is charged to abuse the simple people, in saying often times: prayer for the dead is an heresy, because the montanists, which were heretics held it. Nay sir, because the montanists are the first that invented prayer for the dead, & Purgatory, seeing neither in scripture, nor doctor, is any mention of either of both before Montanus, therefore he sayeth prayer for the dead is an error. But he will have me prove, that this was ever accounted one of Montanus heresies. Tertullian being a Montanist proveth it sufficiently, for he inveigheth against the Catholics of his time, whom he used to call Psychicos, for de●●●ing Purgatory, & objecteth against them the paraclet which was the spirit of Montane, which affirmed, that none but martyrs went straight to heaven, and that all other went to hell, where they must pay the uttermost farthing before they come forth, lib. de anima, capite de inferis, & an aliquid patiantur apud inferos animae, whereas he was of another judgement, while he was a Catholic, and did write against Martion, noting it as one of his errors, that he affirmed all the fathers before Christ, to have gone to hell, as you Papists do. Aduersus Marcionem lib. 4. whereas he saith against Martion, aliud enim Inferi ut puto, aliud quoque Abrahae sinus: Hell I trow is one thing, and Abraham's bosom another thing. But against the Catholics, he writeth, that Christ descendeth to hell, to make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of him, whereby (saith he) you may knock them on the elbow, qui satis superb non pu●ent animas fidelium inferis dignas: servi super dominum, & discipuli super magistrum, aspernati si forte in Abrahae sinu, expectandae resurrectionis solatium capere, which proudly enough think, the souls of the faithful are not worthy of hell, being servants above their Lord, & scholars above their master, which disdain to receive the comfort of the resurrection looked for, if it were perhaps in Abraham's bosom. That other later Catho like writers, which lived long after Tertullian, allowed prayer for the dead, it proveth not that it was no error in Montanus, but rather that it was an error in them, seeing before Montanus no Catholic allowed prayer for the dead. To his proud challenge, I offer not only this that I have said, of the error of praying for the dead, and Purgatory, but of some parts of the heresy of the Pelagians, condemned in old time, and accused for heresy: revived by the Papists, and the contrary doctrine by them accursed. As the Tridentine Council, Sess. 6. Can. 7. Accurseth them that say● that all works done before justification, howsoever they are done, are sins in deed, or deserve the hatred of God, or by how much so ever a man doth endeavour to dispose himself to grace, that he sinneth so much the more grievously. This doctrine, and that which necessarily followeth of it, is directly contrary to the scripture, saying that whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and to the decree of the Milevitane Council, Cap. 5. and to the scripture there alleged, Without me you can do nothing, ergo a man without grace cannot dispose himself to grace. For no man can dispose himself to grace, except he please God, but without faith it is impossible to please him.  
Again, where the 16. Can. of the same Tridentine Chapter, accurseth him that shall say: That the commandments are impossible to be kept, by a man justified and set under grace: it is contrary to the sixth Canon of the Milevitane Council, which concludeth, that no man can be without sin, according to the saying of the Evangelist: If we say we have no sin, etc.  
But whereas we acknowledge, that we hold for truth, that which by Epiphanius and Augustine was held for an error, in Aerius, namely, prayer for the dead, answering that those two doctors were deceived, he sayeth, we condemn the whole church, as though it were necessary that the whole church were deceived as much as they, or if the whole church were deceived, that we condemn it of heresy, seeing prayer for the dead as it was allowed by those fathers, was an error, not an heresy. But when by Epiphanius images in the Church are condemned and defaced, when the worshipping of the image of Christ and his Apostles, is both by Epiphanius and Augustine condemned for an heresy of the Carpocrati●es & Gnostikes, what have they to answer but either to condemn those fathers, or themselves of error, or else to find out some cavil against their own conscience, and against the knowledge and judgement of all learned and indifferent men?  
Page 54. against Bristow'S Motives, I say that Vigilantius (whom the Papists make so great an heretic, for denying invocation of Saints & superstitious reverence of their relics) was banished only by Hierom, of other learned men in his time he was counted a godly man, and a learned. Master Censurer changeth my words, as pleaseth him. The pride & cruelty 
pag. 333.  of Augustine the Monk, which came to convert the Saxons, is accused by our British stories, and proof thereof brought of his disdainfulness, in receiving the British bishops, and in procuring the slaughter of so many hundred students of Bangor. His ignorance & unskilfulness is bewrayed by himself in his writing to Pope Gregory: where he moveth questions, which a mean licentiate in Louvain, would be ashamed to doubt of. And truly I said of him, that he did not so 
Against Brist. M●t. pag. 19  much good in planting faith where it was not, as in cor rupting the sincerity of the faith where it was before he came. And if he planted any human traditions, & confirmed them by lying signs and miracles, as a forerunner 
Against Stap pag. 1.  of Antichrist, which was even immediately after his time to be openly showed: or if by subtle practice, miracles have been feigned to have been done by him and reported by a credulous man Bede, it hurteth not 
Gal. Mon.  our cause: seeing other writers report him to have been both a proud and a cruel man. And yet we receive all that doctrine which he taught, agreeable to the doctrine of the Apostles of Christ: whatsoever he taught beside, we are not to receive it of an Angel from heaven, much less of Augustine from Rome. But where the Censurer reporteth, that I should call Bede a fabulous man, he is not able to bring any proof thereof: for albeit I acknowledge, that he reporteth many fables for true miracles, yet this reverence I profess to have of him, that I think, he feigned not one of them himself, but had them as he confesseth by relation of other. Purg. 333. But a fabulous man is he, that maketh lies, and ●uenteth fables. Page 97. he accuseth me of palpable flattery, because I say, that Owlet had no consideration of her majesties singular virtues, and other of high estate under her, while he complaineth of the wicked and lose times: and this I did to scrape a little favour from the court, and to make the other odious. I thank God, favour is not so hard for me at the court, that I need to scrape it, especially by such fond means which hath rather flowed towards me from her majesty and other of high place more than I have deserved: But to make the other odious for his slanderous railing and hypocrisy, I will not deny but my purpose was, and yet with truth, & sufficient ground of his own writings. For whereas in public writing, both he and some other of his complices have professed their reverent opinion of her majesties singular virtues, and other of high estate, that are under her, in his familiar letter to his worshipful friend, he condemneth all persons of this time, to be void of all sense of virtuous life, except these few popish gentlemen, which he termeth precise in matters of religion, and respective of their conscience, whom he doth so ambitiously commend, that he doth most slanderously condemn all other, that be friends to religion and the state, among whom there be (God he praised) great numbers to speak nothing of the prince and nobility, who in godly life and precise walking in the fear of God, and the obedience of his laws, may shame all the popish hypocrites in the world. But it is best to set down Owlets own words & mine answer to them, that the reader may judge, whether I have flattered as the Censurer saith more palpably, or Owlet slandered more venomously.  
It was no mean comfort unto me (saith Owlet) to consider that in those wicked and lose times of ours, wherein there is no feeling or sense of virtue left, but all men enwrapped in the love of God's professed enemy, the world, following with all force and fully sail the vanities & ambition of the same: that there should be found in England so many gentlemen both for their years, livings, and other abilities, as fit to be as vain as the rest, yet so precise in matters of religion, and so respective to their consciences, as that they will prefer their soul before their body, etc.  
Hereto I began to answer thus:  
In deed sir you have followed your shameless slander with full sail, and have had wind at will. What say you? Is there no sense or feeling of virtue left, but all men enwrapped in the love of God's enemy, except those few gentlemen, the matter of your rare comfort? In your familiar letters, we must suppose you write as you think, and as to your dear and worshipful friend: Wherefore whatsoever you do in common writings profess, of your reverent opinion of her majesties singular virtues, and other of high estate, that are under her, executors of her christian laws, all is but dissimulation and hypocrisy, feigned glozing and servile flattery. For you acknowledge not only no virtue, but not so much as any sense or feeling of virtue, to be left in any other, than those gentlemen recusantes, all other men not alured nor entangled, but enwrapped in the love even of God's professed enemy the world, not seduced and drawn thereby, but following and that not slowly, but with all force and full sail, vanities and ambitions of the same. If this were true, it would make a more miserable estate of England, than you before imagined, by imprisonment of a few good housekeepers. And I would hearty wish that you falsely say of all, might not be verified of some. But that there is no sense or feeling of virtue, but all men enwrapped in the love of God's professed enemy, and that in so extreme a degree: except a small number of obstinately and wilfully blinded Papists, that is more than ever could be justly said, almost of any Heathenish or Turkish state, in which the sense or feeling of virtue, was never so wholly extinguished, but some remained even in them that knew not God nor served him aright, etc.  
Beside this intolerable slander of the whole state, and all the professers of the truth, from the prince to the poorest subject, I would the hypocrisy and flattery of this Papist, and other of his cote were known, who in his public epistle which he presumeth to dedicate to the Queen's majesty, not a little extolleth her princely virtues, with no small commendation of the nobility, but here in his familiar letter, sent over sea to his friend, bewrayeth that he hath no opinion in deed of any sense of virtue, remaining in any person, save only in a few obstinate Papists. Wherefore let men of understanding judge, whether he in his dedicatory epistle, or I in this reproof of his familiar letter, have flattered so palpably: and whether in this reply I have played the parasite, or the censurer in this malignant slander, the shameless sycophant. But let us hear what reason he hath to convince me of flattery. When men accuse the times (saith he) must they except Princes by name or else be accounted traitors? As though Owlet accuseth the times only and not the persons also. Yea all men except the recusantes, are with him utterly void of all sense of virtue, and in worse case also. But why say you, men must be accounted traitors? I accused Owlet but of dissimulation, and flattery▪ but belike you acknowledge such slander more meet to descry an heinous traitor, than a dissembling flatterer. I do not altogether mislike your censure▪ although for that matter my purpose was not to accuse him so deeply. But you proceed and ask, What Apostle, what ancient fathers did ever so? And I will ask you again, what Apostle, what ancient father, did ever in public writing profess his reverent opinion of any princes singular virtues and of other of high estate under him, and yet nevertheless in a familiar letter, condemn the whole state of that prince's government (as Owlet doth) excepting no persons, but such as are disobedient subjects, and the princes, either privy or professed enemies? Beside that the comparison is very odious, between an Apostle and an Owlet, a public trumpet sounding against sin, and a bird of the night shrieking in a secret and familiar letter. And if you will say, it was not meant, that the letter should be private, but public, as I can easily believe you, if you do affirm it: I will answer, that such Owlets come not from Athens, as can no better observe the measure and comeliness of the person they pretend to be. For to use such hyperbolical amplifications, in a familiar epistle as by zeal could not honestly be excused in a public sermon, saving your censure and his correction, I take it to be but homely rhetoric. But you pardon our necessity, because extreme poverty driveth us to these shifts. You are a man of great consideration, to bear with our infirmities: yet I hope you shall find few men so easy to believe, as you are bold to affirm, that only want of other reasons, maketh us fly to accusing of your persons, of disloyalty and disobedience to the prince and state. But if you will in deed discover our poverty, answer our writings thoroughly, directly, and orderly, or else giving over all prejudicate conceit of former handling or mishandling any cause. Take any question in controversy, and set forth the riches of your arguments in plain syllogisms, & try whether we be able to answer you, or else if you had rather answer us, let us know your mind, and you shall find some ready to maintain any cause of ours, by plain syllogisms only. In the mean time to find you occupie●▪ ●here hath been a book called syllogisticon set forth by master Fox, more than twenty years ago: let us see in a sheet of printed paper, what ye have to answer those syllogisms, whether you will find them defective in form or matter, or else there is no reason, but you should grant their conclusion.  
Pag. 146. to prove that protestants are lords of the scripture, to make them say what they list, D. Fulkes 
Against Mot. p 6. 8.  words to master Bristol are cited. For the division of parishes, excommunication, suspension, public solemnizing of marriages, with the laws thereof, and punishing of heretics by death, they are all manifestly proved out of the scripture. This I say alleging no one place of scripture to prove it, saith our censurer. I say as much of holding of counsels, which Bristol with the rest, will have us as apes to have borrowed of the popish church. Whereas I affirm, they are proved out of the scriptures, if Bristol will reply & deny, that such things may be proved out of the scriptures, it shall be no hard matter to do it.  
Yet in the mean time, if you think I have said more than I can show, I will give you this taste. For division of Churches or parishes Act. 14. v. 23. Elders in every church and Tit. 1. v. 5. elders in every city or town. Holding of councils Act. 15. excommunication where the party cast out is to be taken for an heathen or publican. Math. 18. v. 17. separation or suspension where the party separated is to be taken as a brother. 2. Thess. 3. public solemnizing of marriage Mat. 1. v. 18. where betrothing and public coming together are expressed. Example joan. 2. for punishment of heretics, I have cited before. What the Puritans will grant, I care not, although I think there are none of them that are so called will deny any of these except he be some mad schismatic: and for the last, which you say, was for a long time denied by ourselves, till now we have burned some for religion in England, you should have told how long. For we have not now first of all consented to the burning of heretics. The Arrians and anabaptists burned in king Edward's days, for thirty years ago can bear witness. But you may say your pleasure. I know few in other countries, but heretics themselves, that deny it to be lawful to punish blasphemous obstinate heretics by death. If any have any private opinion, what have we to do which it, or to be charged by it? If I should note your phrase, when you say that protestants do now reign in England, as though there were more kings than one: you would say perhaps I were over captious. Well, let it pass. But such things (said I) as are not evidently contained in the word, a Christian is not absolutely bound to believe them. In plain dealing you should have bestowed a note in your margin, where I have so said, as well as placed there heretical audacity, of your papistical charity. The saying I confess or the like, yet the circumstances of the place, where it was uttered, would perhaps have bewrayed some part of your usual and honest dealing. But what cause have you to cri●●ut so loud. Behold the last refuge of a proud heretical spirit, in breaking where he cannot otherwise get out? Call you it proud heresy to hold that nothing is to be credited upon necessity of salvation, which hath not authority of the holy scripture, which are able to make a man wise to salvation, which are written that believing we might be saved, which are able to make the man of God perfect prepared to every good work?  
And why do ye dare M. Charke to avouch, that which I have affirmed? I know he dare affirm and is able to defend this truth, but there is no reason that he should be dared with my assertions. I dare affirm to your face, if you dare show it, that a christian man is not bound to believe, that the common creed was made by the Apostles, after that fabulous manner that you papists do teach: Namely, that Peter made one piece, Andrew another, and so of the rest: yet I doubt not, but it is gathered out of the doctrine and writings of the Apostles. But you have ancient doctors, which affirm that it was made by the Apostles. Origen, Ter●llian, Jerome, Ruffinus, Ambrose, Austen, and all the primitive church do so constantly affirm to be their doing. Let us consider then in order. First Origen in pro●●. lib. de princip. testifieth, that the Apostles by their preaching did most plainly deliver the sum of faith according to the capacity of the most simple, whereof he maketh a rehearsal containing in deed some articles of the creed, but neither all nor any one in such form of words as our creed doth express them. And before he beginneth the rehearsal of them, thus he sayeth: Species verò eorum quae per praedicationem Apostolicam manifesté traduntur, istae sunt. These are the particulars of those things, which by the preaching of the Apostles are manifestly delivered. Which words do show, that the Apostles in deed taught the doctrine, yet prove not that they made this creed, rather than the Nicen creed or Athanasius Creed.  
Tertullian against Praxeas, much after the same manner, yet more near the words of the creed rehearseth the articles pertaining to the three persons of the deity, and then he addeth: H●●c regulam ab initio evangelii de cucurrisse, etiam ante priores quosque heretics, nedum ante Praxeam hesternum, probabis ●●● ipsa posterita● omnium h●●●●icorum, quàm ipsa novellitas Praxeae hesterni. That this rule hath run down from the beginning of the gospel, even before all former heretics, not only before Praxeas a yesterdays bird, as well the later spring of all heretics shall prove, as the very novelty of Praxeas one that came but yesterday.  
That the rule of faith contained in the Creed, is as ancient as the preaching of the Gospel, I always agreed with Tertullian: but that the Apostles made the Creed, I hear him yet say never a word.  
jerom ad Pammachium against the errors of john of jerusalem, saith: In symbolo fidei & spei nostrae, quod ab Apostolis traditum, non scribitur in charta & atramento, sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus, post confessionem trinitati●, & unitatem ecclesiae, omne Christiani dogmatis sacrament●m carnis resurrectione includitur. In the symbol of our faith and hope, which being delivered from the Apostles, is not written in paper and ink, but in the fleshy tables of our hearts: after the confession of the Trinity, and the unity of the Church, all the mystery of Christian doctrine is enclosed in the resurrection of the flesh. Although it be granted that Saint Jerome here speaketh of our common Creed, yet it followeth not, that he affirmeth it to be made by the Apostles, which it is sufficient, that it is received of the doctrine of the Apostles. Ruffinus in deed, expositione in symbolum, sayeth it was an opinion received from the elders, that the Apostles before their dispersion made this brief form of belief, which is called their Creed. And I acknowledge the opinion hath some probability, but that it is to be believed of necessity of salvation, neither Ruffinus sayeth, nor if he did were he able to prove it. Ambrose, Ep. 81. Syricio, to prove that Marie in the birth of Christ was a virgin, sayeth: Credatur symbolo Apostòlorum quod Ecclesia Romana iteratum semper custodit & servat. Let credit be given to the Apostles Creed, which being repeated often, the Church of Rome doth always keep and observe. That this Creed is called the Apostles symbol or Creed, it may well be, because it containeth the sum of the Apostles doctrine although it had not been compiled by them. The testimony of Augustine, which you quote Serm. 118. De tempore, must needs be some younger man's, because he repeateth the very words of Ruffinus. which Augustine living almost in his time, would not repeat as his own. You might as well, and more for your purpose have quoted Serm. 115. De tempore, where every Apostle maketh an Article, which is the absurd opinion of the late Papists, but never was credited by Augustine himself, howsoever these sermons have gotten under the shadow of his name. To conclude, as some of the ancient fathers think the Creed was of the Apostles making, so none of them affirmeth, that it is damnable to doubt thereof, so a man doubt not of the doctrine contained therein, whereof the holy ghost is author, as it is proved by the holy scriptures, whether the Apostles or their successors did gather this short sum or form of belief, which we call the Apostles Creed.  
For the observation of the Easter day, which is the second point wherein you dare Master Charke, I dare affirm, that seeing it is not commanded in the scripture, the observation thereof is not necessary to salvation. That Eusebius calleth it an apostolic tradition, it is not material, seeing that very contention, which he reporteth was about the observation of Easter, according to the apostolic tradition, by the immediate successors of the Apostles, Anicetus and Polycarpus do plainly testify, what credit is to be given to the traditions of the Apostles without the warrant of the Apostles writings. Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 26. For while Anicetus pretendeth the tradition of S. Peter, and Polycarpus S. john, and neither would yield to other, they teach us what to esteem of traditions apostolical, not contained in the holy scriptures: Namely, that in these days there can be no certainty of them, when they which might see and hear the Apostles themselves, could not agree about them. Last of all, which you make the greatest matter, the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ after his birth, although for my part I do believe it, and wish all men so to do, yet dare I affirm, that it is not damnable, not to believe it except it can be proved, that the scripture hath taught it. But you object against me, first the condemnation of helvidius, testified by Sozomenus. Whereto I answer, that he was justly condemned, not because he believed not, but because he did obstinately deny it, & troubled the peace of the church, about an unnecessary question.  
But you ask us, if we remember not the solemn curse for this matter, of so many holy bishops recorded and confirmed by S. Ambrose. Ep. 81. & 79. It seemeth you remember it not yourself, for that curse contained in the end of the Ep. 81. was against them that like Manichees, denied that our Saviour Christ took flesh of a virgin. And Ep. 79. he reproveth them which did contend, that the virgin Marie had more sons than our Saviour Christ, which to affirm is a great error: and convinced by the authority of the scripture, seeing as Ambrose well noteth, our Saviour Christ committed his mother to john the Evangelist, which had not been needful, if she had natural sons of her own, which might take care of her.  
But you will stop our mouths if you can, (as you say) with these words of Saint Augustine, Integra fide credendum est, etc. We must believe with a sound faith blessed Marie the mother of Christ to have conceived in virginity, to have brought forth her son in virginity, and to have remained a virgin after her childbirth, neither must we yield to the blasphemy of helvidius. Your author goeth on and telleth, what that was. Qui dixis, fuit virgo ante partum, non virgo post partum. Who said, she was a virgin before her childbirth, she was no virgin after her childbirth. But where shall we find this saying in Saint Augustine? Your quotation directeth us to Augustine in Encherid. Cap. 34. where in deed some mention is of Mary's virginity, namely, that she conceived in virginity, but nothing of helvidius or his heresy. Wherefore it secmeth, that out of Canisius, or some other man's collection, your common places of the doctors sayings are borrowed, and not taken out of your own reading. Therefore howsoever you have mistaken the matter, the saying you allege is in the bastard book De dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, Cap. 69. which may as easily be known from Augustine's writing, as a goose from a swan. And yet if it were of as good authority as Augustine's own writing, it were not sufficient to stop our mouth, when we hear that we are slandered. For we dare not say, with helvidius, (which is the blasphemy noted by that writer) that the virgin Marie was no virgin after her childbirth, although we say, that it is no article of faith, necessary to salvation, except it have demonstration out of the holy scriptures: neither doth your author say, it is blasphemy to doubt of it, but to deny it, although for my part I do neither deny it, nor doubt of it, but believe it as I do many other truths, not expressed in the scripture, but yet not as articles of Christian faith necessary to salvation. I will conclude with a saying of Saint Jerome, and stop your mouth if I can, which concerning this very question in controversy against helvidius, to show what a man is bound to believe upon necessity of salvation, even that which is contained in the scriptures: and that which is not contained, that he is not bound upon loss thereof, to believe, thus writeth: Sed ut haec quae scripta sunt, non nega●ius, ita ●a quae non sunt scripta, renuimus. Natum D●●● es●e de virgine credimus, quia legimus: Mariam ●●psisse post partum non credimus, quia non legimus. But as we do not deny those things that are written, so we do refuse those things that are not written. That God was borne of a virgin we believe, because we have read it: that Marie used marriage after her childbed, we believe not, because we have not read it. That you say, Lo M. Chark S. Augustine maketh it both a matter of faith, and the doubting thereof to be blasphemy: how will you avoid this? It is easily avoided, for it is false in many respects, first S. Augustine faith it not, but some obscure man of much latter time, less learning, and authority, as the barbarous stile in many places declareth▪ secondly, he faith not, that it is a matter of faith, to believe the perpetual virginity of Marie, but that she conceived, brought forth, and remained a virgin after her childbirth. Thirdly, he maketh not the doubting thereof to be blasphemy, but the obstinate denying of helvidius, which said she was no virgin after her childbirth. But how will you avoid that which S. Jerome writeth, We refuse those things that are not written, we believe not because we have not read in the scripture, anything hereof as necessary to salvation.  
Pag. 158. you do not see why you should believe a Charke or a Fulke, coming but yester day from the grammar school, before a Cyprian, a Tertullian, a Basil, a Ierom, an Ambrose, or an Augustine, especially in a matter of fact (as your case is) seeing they lived more than twelve or thirteen hundred years nearer to the deed doing than these ministers do. Why sir, I pray you, who requireth you to believe any minister of these days, before any of those ancient fathers, in respect of the credit of the persons, and not of the truth which they bring? You know that Panormitane thinketh more credit is to be given to one lay man, speaking the truth according to scripture, than to all men of all ages, speaking contrary to the truth or beside the truth of the scriptures. But it is a matter of fact you say, whether such and such traditions came from Christ & his Apostles or no, and therefore they that lived nearer the time of the deed doing by twelve or thirteen hundredth years, are more like to know the truth than we. I answer, that all things that you pretend for traditions, are not of one sort, some are contrary to the word of God, and are reproved by evidence of the holy scriptures, other are beside the word of God, and therefore not necessary to be received, because they are not found in the holy scriptures. As for the prerogative of antiquity, cannot argue a certain knowledge of the fact in these ancient fathers, seeing in two or three hundredth years, that was before their time, and the time of the deed supposed to be done, any fable might be obtruded under pretence of such tradition as we prove that many were. Yea when they that were nearest of all to the Apostles time, as Polycarpus and Anicetus, do not agree what was the Apostles tradition, which was not expressed in their writing, it is manifest, that they of much latter time, could have no certainty thereof. And that whatsoever ceremony or practise the Apostles delivered, which was not expressed in the scripture, was but temporal or arbitrary in the power of the Church to use, or not use, as it might best serve for edifying. Finally, where you affirm, that Fulk came but yesterday from the Grammar school▪ to make it seem that he is but a young grammatian, either your days be near as long as thirty years, or else your pen runneth beyond your knowledge of him, or at leastwise your malice over reacheth your knowledge. But yet to this extremity (of crediting one Charke, or Fulke before so many ancient fathers) you say you are driven, and bid men hearken a little how D. Fulke handleth these men about traditions. And first S. Cyprian alleging 
Against Mart. p. 170  the tradition of Christ himself, concerning the mingling of wine and water in the chalice: but if Cyprian had been well urged (faith Fulke) he would have better considered of the matter. Thus you would make men believe, that I oppose nothing but mine own authority or credit against S. Cyprian. But than you shamefully beelie me: for this is the matter, and these are my words which you have gelded at your pleasure.  
Whereas Cyprian ad Pompei●● calleth all traditions to the writings and commandments of the Apostles, martial crieth out, that Cyprian is slandered, because he himself allegeth the tradition of Christ, for mingling of water with wine. If Cyprian break his own rule, who can excuse him? But if he had been urged as much for the necessity of water, as he was for the necessity of wine in the sacrament, he would have better considered of the matter. Who seethe not I suppose no less authority against Cyprian, than of Cyprian himself, and therefore I boast not of mine own credit above his?  
To proceed, Tertullian is alleged saying that the blessing with the sign of the cross, is an apostolic tradition. Fulke: tertullian's judgement of tradition without scripture in that place is corrupt. If I should search no further, here is a reason of Fulkes mislike of tertullian's judgement added, because he affirmeth tradition 
Against Mart. p. 178.  of the Apostles, without the writing of the Apostles. But in deed there is in the place by you noted, other arguments in these words: tertullian's judgement of tradition without scripture in that place is corrupt, for martial himself confesseth, that a tradition unwritten should be reasonable and agreeable to the scriptures: and so he saith the tradition of blessing with the cross is, because the Apostles by the holy ghost delivered it: But who shall assure us thereof? Tertullian and basil are not sufficient warrant for so worthy a matter, seeing S. Paul leaveth it out of the universal armour of God. This last and invincible argument in rehearsing my words you leave out, which because perhaps you could not see in sew words, I will set it more abroad. The universal spiritual armour of God, is delivered by S. 
Ephes. 6.  Paul Eph. 6. blessing with the sign of the cross is not there delivered by S. Paul: therefore blessing with the sign of the cross is no part of the spiritual armour of God. Now let us see, whether you will believe a Paul before a Tertullian, or a basil: or a Fulke with S. Paul, before a Basil with Tertullian without S Paul or against S. Paul?  
But you go forward. S. Jerome is alleged, saying that lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles. Fulke. Jerome untruly ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles. My words are against Bristow'S Mot. pag. 35. these: Again S. Jerome faith, it was a tradition of the Apostles to fast 40. days in the year. If this be true, then is the popish story false, that maketh Telesphorus bishop of Rome author of that lenten fast. Eusebius showeth the great diversity of fasting before Easter. li. 5. cap. 26. saying that some fasted but one day, some two days, some more, some 40. hours of day and night. This diversity proveth, that Jerome untruly ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles, which should have been kept uniformly, if it had any institution of the Apostles. Among so many arguments and authorities, cited for proof you can find nothing, but Fulke faith bluntly, Jerome untruly ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles. Sed perge mentiri. S. Chrysostom is alle●ged saying that the Apostles decreed, that in the sacrifice of the ●●●tar, there should be made prayer for the departed: Fulke: where he saith, it was decreed by the Apostles, etc. he must pardon us for crediting him, because he cannot show it out of the acts and writings of the Apostles. If I had added none other argument, this had been sufficient for us, to for bear crediting any thing of the Apostles, whereof we have not the holy ghost in their writings to be witness. But you shall hear what I oppose against Chrysostom, beside this. Against pag. 303. it followeth immediately upon these words noted by M. Censurer: And we will be bold to charge him with his own saying: Hom. de Adam & Heus, S●●is sufficere. etc. We think it sufficeth enough, what soever the writings of the Apostles have taught us, according to the foresaid rules, insomuch that we count it not at all catholic, whatsoever shall appear contrary to the rules appointed. And again in Gen. H. 58. Vides in quantam, etc. Thou seest into how great absurdity they fall, which will not follow the canon of holy scripture, but permit all things to their own cogitations. But if we be further urged, we will allege that which he sayeth in evang. joan. H. 58. Quisacra. etc. he that useth not the holy scripture, but climbeth another way, that is by a way not allowed, is a thief. We may be as bold with Chrysostom, as he said he would be with Paul himself, in 2. ad Tim. Hom. 2. Plus aliquid dicam, etc. I will say somewhat more, we must not be ruled by Paul himself, if he speak any thing that is his own, and any thing that is human, but we must obey the Apostle, when he carrieth Christ speaking in him. Wherefore seeing it is certain, that by testimony of justinus Martyr, that there was no mention of the dead, in the celebration of the lords supper, for more than an hundred years after Christ, we must not believe Chrysostom without scripture, affirming that it was ordained so by the Apostles. As though this place had not been sufficient to convince your impudent lying, you go forward, and say that page 362. and 363. of the same book I answer to diwerse fathers alleged together, beside Chrysostom, for the same purpose: Who is witness that this is the tradition of the Apostles? you will say: Tertullian, Cyprian, Austen, Jerome, and a great many more. But I would learn why the Lord would not have this set forth by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul? Why they were not chosen scribes hereof rather then Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Austen, and other such as you n●me? But this is a counterfeit institution, and feigned tradition. here you note in the margin a proud question, which is not so right as if I should note against it a proud censure. For it is a question that may be demanded in humility, why the Lord if it were his pleasure, that the dead should be prayed for at the communion, as a thing necessary for them, and dutiful for us: would not reveal so much by those witnesses that are above all exception, rather than by such as are all manifestly convicted of errors, as you Papists cannot deny. But because nevera Papist of you all is able to answer this question, to the satisfaction of any man's doubtful conscience, you think best to reject it, and say it is a proud question. As though it were pride for any man to seek confirmation of his faith, against so 
In diverse proud and foolish questions.  just a cause of doubt. But in truth, my words are more full than you allege them, against the pretended institution. If it be lawful for me once to pose the Papists, as you do often the protestants, I would learn why the Lord would not have this doubtless institution, and as you take it the most necessary use of the sacrament, plainly, or at the leastwise obscurely set forth by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or Paul, which all have set forth the story of the action of Christ, the institution of the sacrament, and the end or use of the same. If it were not meet at all to be put in writing, why was it disclosed by Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, & c? If it were meet to be put in writing, why were not those chosen scribes, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, worthy of all credit, rather appointed for it, than Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and such as you name? But against this counterfeit institution, and feigned tradition S. Paul crieth with open mouth unto the Corinthians 1. Cor. 11. That which I delivered to you I received of the Lord, etc. which wrote to that effect. Last of all you say, that being urged by the like, I discredit all 
Ag. Brist. M●t. p. 36.  antiquity, saying: It is a common thing with the ancient writers to defend every ceremony which was used in their time, by tradition of the Apostles. In deed the words are mine, the occasion as of all ●he rest frandulently and falsely omitted. For upon occasion of Chrysostom, alleged to prove that mention of the dead was made at the communion, by tradition of the Apostles, for which I remit him to mine answer of Allen lib. 2. ca 5. I add moreover these words. If we should admit all things to be ordained of the Apostles, which some of the old writers do ascribe to their traditions, we should receive many things, which even the Papists themselves do not observe. As that it is a wicked thing to fast on sunday, or to pray kneeling, that oblations are to be made for men's birth days, etc. Which with diverse other superstitions, Tertullian fathereth upon the tradition of the Apostles, as well as oblations for the dead. De cor. Mil. Hearing therefore such manifest unthruthes, are fathered upon the Apostles tradition, by most ancient writers, what certainty can we have of their tradition, without their writing? By this the reader may see, how honestly and truly, you say there are set before you, a pair of balances, with Charke and Fulke, in one end: and Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, basil, etc. in an other end. And Fulke opposeth himself against them all. Whereas in every place by you noted, he opposeth either the holy scriptures, or other ancient writers, or the same writers themselves, or evident and manifest reason, to prove that such things are untruly fathered upon the Apostles tradition.  
Last of all, for your farewell, you charge D. Fulke to affirm, that the book of the Maccabees was written with a profane and Ambitious spirit. Against purge. pag. 209. In deed in that place among many other reasons which I bring, to prove that story not to be the Canon of the scriptures, I say, that he maketh a very profane preface, ambitiously commending his travels and showing the difference between a story at large and an abridgement etc. If you be able to defend that book to be Canonical, answer my reasons, & prepare yourself to answer as many ●●re, as may be alleged to convince the vanity and falsehood of that stories and so I leave you to a better mind, if it be Gods will to give it you.  
I find also, that in the Popish annotations, upon the new Testament printed at Rheims, my writings are carped at in two places, the former upon 2. Thes. 2. where my words against Saunders Rock, page. 248. & page 278. are rehearsed: In which I say that Leo & Gregory bishops of Rome, although they were not come to the full pride of Antichrist, yet the mystery of iniquity having wrought in that seat near five or six hundred years before them, and then greatly increased, they were so deceived with the long continuance of error, that they thought the dignity of Peter, was much more over the rest of his fellow Apostles, than the holy scriptures of God (against which no continuance of error can prescribe) doth either allow or bear● withal.  
Again, the testimonies of Leo & Gregory, bishops of Rome, as always so now I deem to be unmeet to be heard in their own cause, though otherwise they were not the worst men, yet great furtherers of the authority of Antichrist, which soon after their days took possession of the chair, which they had helped to prepare for him.  
For this I am called a malepeart scholar of beza's impudent school. But by what reason? For placing the mystery of Antichrist, as working in the see of Rome even in S. Peter's time. That the mystery of Antichrist did work in S. Peter's time, the text of S. Paul is plain. That it did work in Rome, where Antichrist should be openly showed, S. john is plain in the Revelation. Ca 17. ver. 9 & 18. yea, the Papists confessing that S. Peter called Rome Babylon, must needs grant as much: this only then remaineth in controversy, whether in the sea or church of Rome, the mystery of iniquity did work, from the Apostles time, until Antichrist was openly showed. Seeing it wrought at Rome, it wrought either in the church or altogether out of the church: but it wrought not altogether out of the church, therefore it wrought in the church. That the mystery of iniquity preparing for that Antichrist wrought not altogether out of the church, it is manifest, because the seat of Antichrist is prophesied to be in the Temple and Church of God. Without the Church, was not the mystery of iniquity against Christ, but open wickedness and persecution of Christ's Church. Therefore within the Church that mystery did work. By what means first, it is not certain, because it was a secret, not revealed by the Apostle. Some conjecture that it was by preferring one bishop before all the clergy of elders or priests, which at the first were equal. Some think that such factions began at Rome, as afterward were at Corinth, one holding of Cephas, that is Peter, another of some other. How ever it was, the challenge made to Peter's chair, and from the days of Victor, diverse bishops of Rome creeping up by little and little, & pretending authority over other Churches, & other churches reverencing that see, for many good respects, were abused by Satan to set forward his purpose in advancing the throne of Antichrist. And where I said, that Leo & Gregory were great furtherers of the authority of Antichrist, my meaning was not, that they did wittingly & willingly prepare a seat for Antichrist, but that the devil by God's permission, because he was to send the efficacy of error into the world, took hold in the time appointed of that authority, which the bishops for the dignity of their see, and as they thought for the benefit of the church, did labour so greatly to maintain & increase. Neither writ I any thing contrary to the challenge of that reverend father the bishop of Sarum, as they charge me, who said at Paul's cross, O Gregory, O Leo, if we be deceived, you have deceived us: For his meaning was not thereby to allow whatsoever they had done or written, but that in some such matters as are in controversy between the Papists and us▪ even Gregory and Leo are witnesses against them.  
A great accusation is in the note upon Heb. 5. ver. 6. in these words: You must beware of the wicked heresy of the Arrians and calvin's (except in these latter it be rather an error proceeding of ignorance) that stick not to say, that Christ was a priest, or did sacrifice, according to his godhead, which is to make Christ God the father's priest, and not his son, and to do sacrifice and homage to him, as his lord, and not as his equal in dignity and nature. Therefore S. Augustine sayeth: in Psal. 109. That as he was man▪ he was priest: as God, he was not priest. And Theodoret in Psal. 109. As man he did offer sacrifice, but as God he received sacrifice. And again, Christ touching his humanity was called a priest, and he offered none other host but his own 
Re●em. p. 89  body, etc. D●m. 1. circa med. Some of our new masters not knowing so much, did let fall out of their pens the contrary▪ and being admonished of the error, and that it was very Arrianisme, yet they persist in it, of mere ignorance in the grounds of divinity. First note the intolerable pride of these Popish interpreters▪ that challenge to themselves all learning and knowledge in divinity, condemning all other men of ignorance & mere ignorance in the grounds of divinity. So playeth Bristol with the bishop of Sarum, whom in the place by them quoted, I reproved in these words: The like impudent cavil he bringeth against M. jewel, whom no man I think without laughter can read, to be charged with ignorance by blundering Bristol, for affirming Christ to be a priest according to his deity, whom the Apostle expressly sayeth by his eternal spirit to have offered himself, Heb. 9 ver. 14. But that you may the better understand this controversy between us, we deny not that Christ was a priest according to his humanity, but we affirm that whole Christ is a priest as he is both God and man. For in the office of priesthood two things must be considered, a ministery and an authority. In respect of the ministerial part, our Saviour Christ performed that office as man: but in respect of authority of entering into the holiest place, & reconciling us to God & presenting us unto God, which was the principal part of his priesthood, he did perform it, as the son of God, as Lord and maker of the house, and not as a servant, but as God, which hath created all things. Heb. 3. vers. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. & 6. Against this sound doctrine, let us examine what the heretics allege. First, they charge it most odiously with Arrianisme, but without all spark of reason, seeing we distinguish plainly the authority of God the son, which is equal with his father▪ from the ministery of the man jesus Christ inferior to his father as touching his manhood. Secondly, they charge us that we stick not to say: Christ was a priest or did sacrifice according to his Godhead. We say he was a priest and did offer sacrifice, both according to his godhead & according to his manhood. And the same sa●eth the Apostle in effect, when he saith: The blood of Christ, which by his eternal spirit offered himself unreprovable to God, shall purge your conscience, etc. Heb. 9 14. For not the blood of beasts, nor of any man though he had been innocent, but the blood of that man which was God, was the price of our redemption, in which respect the Apostle Act. 20. ver. 28. sayeth that God purchased his Church unto himself by his own blood. For by the eternal spirit is understood that infinite power of the divinity, united to the humanity, by which the sacrifice of Christ was consecrated, that by the same lively or quickening virtue, by which he created us he might also restore us. Whereunto our Saviour Christ had regard, when he said joh. 6. It is the spirit that giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing. But this (say the Papists) is to make Christ God the father's priest, & not his son. Nay rather, this is to acknowledge Christ to be both his father's son, and his priest, even as the Apostle sayeth: The law appointeth priests, men that have infirmity: but the word of the oath which is after the law, the Son for ever perfected. Heb. 7. v. 28. Where by the opposition of men having infirmity, with the Son perfected for ever: it is most clear, that the word of the oath maketh Christ, as he is the Son of God, a priest after the order of Melchisedech. Where I cannot omit the shameful corruption of this text, in the popish translation, which to hide this opposition, between men, and God the son of God, hath altogether left out this word, men, although it be in the Latin expressed manifestly: Lex enim homines constituit sacerdotes infirmitatem habentes, which they translate thus: For the law appointeth priests, them that have infirmity.  
But to proceed. Our accusers add further, that our assertion is to make Christ to do sacrifice and homage to God his father, as his Lord, and not as his equal in dignity and nature. I answer no more than when S. Paul sayeth, that Christ when he was in the form of God, and thought it no robbery to be equal with God▪ he made himself of no reputation, took upon him the shape of a servant, became obedient to the death, even the death of the cross. I have sufficiently before distinguished, that all parts of his priesthood that required obedience, service, homage, ministery, subjection, he performed as man: but the authority of reconciling men unto God, he wrought as God and man, even as the Apostle writeth: God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, 2. Cor. 5. ver. 19 That he might be a priest therefore able and worthy to make atonement with God, he was God: that his reconciliation and satisfaction might extend to men, he was man: and so being God and man he is ● perfect mediator between God and man, and an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech.  
All this notwithstanding, they oppose against us the authority of the fathers, who doubtless had no other meaning, than we to keep this distinction. First Augustine in Psal. 109. is produced to say: that▪ as he was man he was priest: as God he has not priest. But Augustine's words are somewhat otherwise upon the text, juravit Dominus, etc. Ad hoc enim natus ex utero ante luciferum, ut esses sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Si natum ex utero de virgine intelligimus ante Luciferum noctu, sicut ●uangelia contestantur, procul dubio inde ex utero ante luciferum, ut esset Sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Nam secundum id quod natus est de patre Deus apud Deum, coaeternus gignenti, non Sacerdos: sed sacerdos propter carnem assumptam, propter victimam, quam pro nobis offerre●: á nobis acceptam. The Lord hath sworn, etc. For to this end thou wast borne out of the womb before the day star, that thou mightest be a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. For according to that he is borne of God the father God with God, toeternall with him that begetteth, he is not a priest: but a priest for his flesh assumpted, for the sacrifice which being taken of us, he might offer for us.  
In these words Augustine's meaning is plain enough that Christ according to his divine and eternal generation, could not have been a priest for us, except he had taken our flesh and been borne a man, which we do always confess. But that our redemption by his sacrifice was the mere work of his manhood only, he saith not but the contrary if he be marked. For he saith that the son of God was a priest, for the flesh which he took of us, that he might offer for us that sacrifice which he took of us. here it is plain that Christ as God offereth sacrifice, but he offereth as a priest, for to offer sacrifice pertaineth to a priest, therefore Christ as God, is a priest: yet not as God only, but as God and man. Whereupon the same Augustine saith afterward: O domine qui i●rasti, etc. O Lord which hast sworn and said, Thou ar● a priest for ever, after the order of M●lchis●dech, the same priest for ever, is the Lord on thy right hand, the very same I say priest for ever, of whom thou hast sworn, is the Lord on thy right hand, because thou hast said to the same my Lord, Sat thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. here he affirmeth, that the eternal God David's Lord, as he was God, David's son as he was man, is that eternal priest. And to what end? but to perform those parts of a priest, which were proper to God, that is to reconcile us unto God, to have authority of himself and of his own nature and worthiness, to come before God, and to remain in the favour of God always, which no creature hath but through his worthiness and gracious gift.  
The next authority brought against us is Theodoret in Psal. 109. who is cited thus: As man he did offer sacrifice, but as God he did receive sacrifices: verily, we say as much and more also, that he offered sacrifice as God also reconciling the world to himself. But in truth the words of Theodoret are otherwise and to an other end. Sacerdos autem non est Christus, qui ex Iuda secundum carnem ortus est, non ipse aliquid offerens, sed vocatur caput eorum qui offerun●: quandoquidem eius corpus ecclesiam vocat, & propterea sacerdotio fungitur, ut homo, recipis autem ea quae offeruntur ut Deus: offeri verò ecclesia, corporis eius & sanguinis symbola, omne fermentum per primitias sanctificans. And Christ is now a priest, which is sprung of juda according to the flesh, not offering any thing himself, but is called the head of them that offer, seeing he calleth the church his body, and therefore he exerciseth the priesthood as a man, and he receiveth those things that are offered, as God: and the church truly doth offer the tokens of his body and blood sanctifying every leaven by the first fruits. In these words Theodoret speaketh not of the sacrifice that Christ offered himself, but of the spiritual sacrifice of thanksgiving which the church offereth to him in celebrating the memory of his death. Not of the priesthood which Christ did exercise in earth, but of the priesthood that he doth exercise in heaven, not now offering any thing, but as God receiving oblations. And where he saith that now he exerciseth the priesthood as man, he denieth not but that he doth exercise it as mediator, God and man. Which is more plain in his exposition of the Epistle to the Heb. cap. 8. where he inquireth how Christ doth both sit at the right hand of majesty, and yet is a minister of the holy things. Quonam enim munere sacerdotali fungitur qui seipsum semelobtuli●, & none offered amplius sacrificium? Quomodo autem fieri potest ut idem & sedea●, & socerdotali officio fungatur? Nisi fortè dixerit quispiam esse munus sacerdotale, salutem quam ut dominus procurat. Tabernaculum autem vocavit coelum, cuius est ipse opifex, quem ut hominem dixit Apostolus fungi sacerdotio. For what priestly office doth he exercise, which hath once offered up himself, and doth no more offer any sacrifice? And how can it be that the same person should together both sit, and exercise the priestly office? Except perhaps a man will say that the salvation which he procureth as Lord, is a priestly office.  
Neither hath he any other meaning: Dialog. prime, where his purpose is to prove, that Christ had a body. Si est ergo sacerdonum proprium, offer munera, Christus autem quod ad humanit atem quidem attinet, sacerdos appellatus est, non aliam autem hostiam quam suum corpus obtuli●, Dominus ergo Christus corpus habui●. If therefore it be proper for priests to offer gifts, and Christ as concerning his humanity truly is called a priest, and he offered none other sacrifice but his own body, therefore our Lord Christ had a body. He saith not that Christ is a priest according to his humanity only, whereas the excellency of his person being both God and man, caused ●is sacrifice to be acceptable, and available for the redemption of man. But to make the matter clear, beside that which the Apostle writeth to the hebrews ca 9 these arguments may plainly be drawn out of the 7. cap. where he speaketh expressly of his priesthood after the order of Melchisedech.  
Christ as he is without father and without mother is ● priest after the order of Melchisedech:  
Christ as he is God and man is without father and without mother, therefore Christ as he is God and man is a priest after the order of Melchisedech.  
Again, Christ as he hath no beginning of his days nor end of his life, is a priest after the order of Melchisedech:  
Christ according to his divinity hath no beginning of his days nor end of his life according to his whole person:  
Therefore Christ according to his divinity and according to his whole person is a priest after the order of Melchisedech.  
Again, except you understand Christ to have been a priest according to his divinity, he was tithed in the loins of Abraham as well as Lcui, but according to his divinity he was not in the loins of Abraham, and therefore paid no tithe in Abraham as God, though as man he was subject to the law, but received tithes of Abraham in his priest and figure Melchisedech. For the priest receiveth tithes in the name of God, as also he blesseth in the name of God. Therefore if Christ give priestly blessing in his own name, he giveth it as he is God and not as man only. Finally to say, that that Christ was a priest only in respect of his manhood, ●auoreth rankly of Nestorianisme, whereas our assertion that Christ is an high priest both according to his deity, in which he is equal with his father, and also according to his humanity, in which the father is greater than he, is as far from Arrianisme, as the Papists are from honesty and sincerity, to charge us with such open blasphemy.  
God be praised▪   

Imprinted at London by George Bishop, and Henry Binneman.  
1583.