FVLKE.

ALTHOVGH this trifling treatise was in hand two or three yeares a­go, as by the threatning of Bristow, and Howlette it may appeare: yet that it might seeme new, and a sud­den peece of worke compyled with small studie, you thought good by carping at my confutation of Howlet last made, and of M. Whitakers work, set forth later than it, as it were by setting on newe eares vpon your olde potte, to make it seeme to be a newe vessell. And first of all you would seeme to haue taken occasion of my confident speech in my confutation of Howlets nyne Reasons, in re [...]earsing wherof, you vse such fidelitie, as commonly Papistes vse to beare towardes God, the Churche, your Prince, and your Countrie. For what face soeuer I set vpon the mat­ter: with a whorish forehead and a brasen face, you make reporte of my saying: which beeing testified by a thou­sande copies printed, as it were by so many witnesses, doth crie out vpon your falshode, and iniurious dealing. For my wordes out of the place by you quoted against Howlet, are these: That some error may bee in translation (although by you it can not be shewed) I will not denye: but that any shameles translations, or wilfull corruptions, can be Such doth Hovvlet charge vs vvithall. found of purpose to draw the Scriptures to any hereticall opini­on, all the Papistes in the world shall neuer be able to make de­monsiration. This was my saying, and I repeat it againe with as great confidence as before, yea and with much greater too, forasmuch as all the Papistes in the Semina­rie, hauing now beaten their heades togither to find out shameles translations and wilful corruptions, of purpose to maintaine heresies ▪ can find nothing, but olde friuo­lous quarrels answered long before, or new trifling ca­uils, not worthy in deede of any learned mans answer [Page 3] but for satisfying of the simple and ignoraunt. Howe this my saying, differeth from your slaunderous re­porte, I trust euery reasonable Papist that will take paines to conferre them togither, will be enforced to acknowledge. For where I say shamelesse translations and wilfull corruptions (as Howlet chargeth vs,) you re­porte me to saye mistranslated, although in playne wordes I did confesse, that there might be some er­rours euen in the best and perfectest of our translati­ons. For to translate out of one tongue into an other, is a matter of greater difficultie than it is commonly ta­ken, I meane exactly to yeeld as much and no more, than the originall containeth, when the wordes and phrases are so different, that fewe are found▪ which in all pointes signifie the same thing, neither more nor lesse in diuers tongues. Wherefore notwithstanding any translation that can be made, the knowledge of the tongues, is 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, haue not attained to the best, and most proper expressing of the nature of all wordes and phrases of the Hebrew and Greeke tongues in English, it is not the matter that I will stande to de­fende, nor the translators them selues, I am well assu­red, if they were all liuing. But that the Scriptures are not impudently falsified, or willfully corrupted by them, to mayntayne anie hereticall opinion, as the aduersarie chargeth vs, that is the thing, that I will (by Gods grace) stande to defende, against all the Papistes in the worlde. And this ende you haue false­ly and fraudulently omitted, in reporting my say­ing, wherevppon dependeth the chiefe, yea the whole matter of my assertion. You plai [...] manifestly with vs, the lewde parte of Procustes the theeu [...]sh hoste, whiche woulde make his guestes stature equall with his beddes, eyther by stretching them out if they were too short, or by cutting off their legges, [Page 4] if they were too long. So if our sayings be too short for your purpose, you straine them to be longer, if they be too long, you cut of their shankes, yea that which is worse, the very head, as you play with me in this place. I my selfe, and so did many hundreds beside me, heare that reuerend father M. Doctor Couerdale of holy and lear­ned memorie, in a sermon at Paules crosse, vpon occasi­on of some slaunderous reportes, that then were raysed againste his translation, declare his faithfull purpose in doing the same, which after it was finished, and presen­ted to King Henry the eight, of famous memorie, and by him committed to diuerse bishops of that time to per­vse, of which (as I remember) Steuen Gardiner was one: after they had kept it long in their handes, and the King was diuerse times sued vnto for the publication thereof, at the last being called for by the King him selfe, they redeliuered the booke: and being demaunded by the King what was their iudgement of the translation, they aunswered that there were many faultes therein. Well said the King, but are there anye heresies maintayned thereby: They answered there was no heresies that they could finde, maintained thereby. If there be no heresies sayd the King, then in Gods name let it goe abroad a­mong our people. According to this iudgement of the King and the Bishops, M. Couerdale defended his tran­slation, confessing that he did now him selfe espie some faultes, which if he might reuiew it once ouer againe, as he had done twise before, he doubted not but to amend: but for any heresie, he was sure there was none maintai­ned by his translation. After the same maner, I doubt not (by Gods helpe) so to defende all our translati­ons, for all your euident markes to know wilful corrup­tions, that not one shal bee founde of purpose to main­taine any hereticall opinion, and not many errours committed through negligence, ignorance, or humaine frailtie.

FVLKE. 2. This marke is too generall, to knowe any thing thereby: when you doe exemplifie it in spe­ciall, you shall easily be answered: in the meane time, it is sufficient to deny generally, that wherwith you so ge­nerally charge vs; that we haue in places of controuersie translated any thing falsely. If one worde be otherwise translated in any place of controuersie, than it is in other places out of controuersie: there may be rendred suffi­cient reason of that varietie, without that it must needes come of parcialitie to the matter in controuersie, but rather of loue of the truth, which in all matters of que­stion betwene vs, is confirmed by plaine 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 newe Testament, it should neither hinder our truth, nor fortifie your errour. As for small faultes, and ouersightes, reason it is (as you say) they should be par­doned on both sides.

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

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

FVLK. 5. If the Greeke wordes doe signifie, as we [Page 7] translate, as hath bene oftē proued, who but a wrangling quarreller would find fault therewith, except it were to maintaine Idolatry, or worshipping of images, which be­fore God and all wise men of the world, is al one. And where you say, none but fooles, or mad men would tran­slate, Ep 5. Col 3 Couetousnes is worshipping of Images. I pray you in whether order wil you place Isydorus Clarius of a Monke of Casinas made bishop Fulginas: which in the 3. to the Collossians vpon your vulgar Latine text, which according to the Greeke, calleth Idolatria, Simulachrorū seruitus, the seruice of images: in his notes vpon the place writeth this. Praeter caet [...]ra peccata auaritia peculiare hoc no­men assecuta est, vt dicatur esse (horrendū nomen) cultus simu­lachrorū, nam pecunia quid aliud est quàm simulachrū quoddā vel argente [...], vel aureū, quod homines auari plus amani & lō ­gè maiore cultu atq▪ honore prosequuntur, quàm ipsum Deū. A­boue other sinnes, couetousnes hath obtained this pecu­liar name, that it is called (which is an horrible name) the worshipping of images▪ for what other thing is mo­ny, but a certaine image, either of siluer or gold? which couetous mē do loue more▪ & prosecute with farre grea­ter worship & honor, than they doe God him selfe. or if you make no count of Is [...]dorus Clarius, in what degre wil you account the deputies of the coūcell of Trent, whose seuere censure, this note hath escaped, of fooles or of mad men, or of enimies to sacred images? yea how will you excuse your owne vulgar Latine translation, which turneth Idololatria out of Greeke into simulachrorum ser­uitus, the seruice or worship of Images? I am not so vn­acquainted with your shameles shifts, but I know right wel, that you wil say, this Latine word Simulachrū signifi­eth a false image, or an idoll that is worshipped as God. For nothīg els you wil knowlege to be an idol. But who shal better tel vs what the Latine word Simulachrū doth signifie, than the father of eloquence in the Latin tong, euen Tully himself, who in his oration pro Archia poeta, v­seth simulachrū, for the same that statua, & Imago, speaking [Page 8] of the cunning image makers of Greece, he sayth: S [...]a­tuae & imagines non animorum simulachra sunt, sed corporum. Standing images, and other images are not similitudes or images of the mindes, but of the bodies. And in his accusation of Verres: he nameth Effigies simulachrū (que) Mi­thridatis: The shape and image of Mithridates. In his se­cond booke de inuentione, he sheweth that Zeuxis, that famous painter, did paint the image of Helena, vt excel­lentem muliebris formae pulchritudinem muta in sese imago cō ­tineret, Helenae se pingere velle simulachrum dixit. That a dumbe image might containe in it, the excellent beau­tie of a womans forme, 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 workemen did make the images of the bo­dies knowen to them that knew them not. And so com­monly he vseth simulachrum iustitiae, virtutis, ciuitatis, for the image or similitude of iustice, of vertue, of a citie or common wealth &c. And so doe other good Latin wri­ters as well as he, vse the worde Simulachrum: not onely for an image, that is religiously worshipped, but euen generally for any image, and in the same signification that they vse the worde Imago. But peraduenture Eccle­siasticall writers vse the worde Simulachrum onely for idols forbidden, and I perhaps shall be chidden of Mar­tin for citing testimonies out of prophane authors, to knowe the vse of Ecclesiasticall termes. Let vs see then what Christian writers saye to this matter, and howe they vse this worde Simulachrum. You your selues saye, we maye not translate that verse of Gene­sis, God made man after his idoll. But Lactanti­us De vero Dei cultu. lib. 6. c [...]p 13. calleth men viuentia Dei simulachra, liuing ima­ges of God whiche wee ought to garnishe rather, than Simulachra insensibilia Deorum, The senselesse i­mages of the Gods, whiche the Heathen garnished, yea he hath a whole chapter, intituled, de simulachris De orig. error. lib. 2. cap. 2. & vero Dei simulachro & cultu. Of Images and of the [Page 9] true Image and Worshippe of God. In whiche also he sheweth that Simulachrum is called of similitude. And therefore the heathenish Idols, hauing no resem­blance of God, can not properly be called Simulachra. S. Ambrose an other writer of the Church, vpon 1. Cor. 10. vpon that text: Non quia simulachrum est aliquid &c. Not that the image is any thing, the Greeke is Idolum, simula­chrum verè nihil est quia imago videtur rei mortuae. The image or idoll is in deede nothing, because it seemeth to be an image of a dead thing. Also vpon the 45. Psalme. God was high in the Patriarches and Prophetes, which did not compare him Imaginibus terrenis & simulachris scrupeis, to images or similitudes of the earth and stone. Tertullian also, a Latine writer, in his booke De specta­culis, speaking of cunning workemanship of Imagery, shewed in those playes, and the auctors of them, sayeth: Scimus enim nihil esse nomina mortuorum, sicut nec ipsa simu­lachra eorum. We know that the names of those dead mē, are nothing, as also their images. Afterwarde to their names Nominibus he ioyneth Imaginibus, to shew that Si­mulachra and Imagines are all one, which of Christians at that time were greatly abhorred, in detestation of Ido­latrie. S. Augustine calleth the same Simulachra which before he called Imagines. Cùm ex desiderio mortuorum con­stituerentur Imagines, vnde simulachrorum vsus exortus est. When for desire of the dead, Images were made, wherof the vse of Images came, through flatterie, diuine honor was giuen vnto them: and so they brought in idolatrie or the worshipping of images. The same Augustine in his booke Octaginta Quaestion. in the 78. quaest. which is intituled De simulachrorum pulchritudine, of the bewtie of Images, ascribeth to God, the cunning, by which they are made bewtifull. And in his questions vpō the booke of Iudges, lib. 7. cap. 41. enquiring how Gedeons Ephod was a cause of fornication to the people, when it was no Idoll, he plainely distinguisheth Simulachrum from Ido­lum, as the generall from the speciall. Cùm idolum non fue­rit, [Page 10] id est cuiuspiam dei falsi & alieni simulachrum. When it was no Idoll, that is to say, an Image of some false or straunge God. Againe he sayth, those things that were commaunded to be made in the tabernacle, were rather referred to the worship of God, than that any thing of them should be taken for God, or for an image of God, pro Dei simulachro. So that Simulachrum with S. Augu­stine, signifieth as generally, as Image, and can not be restrayned to signifie an Idoll, in the euill parte, except you adde, that it is an image of a false or straunge God. Arnobius an ecclesiasticall writer of the Latine Church vseth the worde Simulachrum for an image generally: calling man also simulachrum Dei, as Lactantius doth the image of God, Cont. gent. lib. 8. Putatis autem nos occulta­re quod colimus si delubra & aras non habemus. Quod enim simulachrum Deo fingam, cùm si rectè existimes sit Dei ho­mo ipse simulachrum. Thinke you that we do hide that which we worship, if we haue no temples, and aultars. For what image shall I fayne to God, whereas if you iudge rightly, man him selfe is the image of God. You see therefore that Simulachrum signifieth not an Idoll worshipped for God, but euen as much as I­mago, by your owne rule. Laste of all, for I will not trouble the Reader with more, although more might be brought. Isidorus Hispalensis an auncient Bishop of the Latine Churche, Originum lib. 8. speaking of the firste inuentors of Images, whiche after were abused to Idolatrie, sayeth: Fuerunt etiam & quidam viri for­tes aut vrbium conditores: quibus mortuis homines qui eos dilexerunt, simulachra finxerunt, vt haberent aliquod ex imaginum contemplatione solatium: sed paulatim hunc er­rorem &c. There were also certayne Valiaunt menne or buylders of Cities, who when they were dead, men which loued them, made their images or coun­terfaites, that they might haue some comforte in be­holding the images: but by little and little the de­uilles perswading this errour, it is certayne that so it [Page 11] crepte into their posteritie, that those whome they ho­nored, for the onely remembraunce of their name, their successours esteemed and worshipped as gods. Agayne he sayeth, Simulachra autem à similitudine nun­cupata, &c. Images are called Simulachra of the simi­litude, because by the hande of the artificers, of stone, or other matter they resemble the countenāce of them, in whose honor they are fayned. Or they are called à Simulando, whereof it followeth, they are false things. These testimonies needed not, for them that be but halfe learned, whiche knowe right well, that Simula­chrum is Synonomon with Imago: but that our aduersa­ries are so impudent, that to serue their idolatrous affe­ction, they care not what Idolles they inuent, of wordes, of significations, of distinctions, so they maye seeme to saie somewhat in the eares of the vnlearned, which are not able to iudge of such matters. But perhappes they will saie, their vulgar Latine interpreter vseth the worde Simulachrum, onely for Idols, that are worship­ped with diuine honor. Neyther is that true, and al­though it were, seing it seldome vseth Simulachra, and most commonly Idola, and sometimes Imagines, what reason is their why we may not call those things Images which your Interpreter calleth Simulachra? And to proue that your interpreter vseth Simulachrum for an image generally, as all other Latine writers doe, you may see 1. Sam. cap. 19. where speaking of the image which Mi­chol layed in the bedde, to counterfaite the sicknesse of Dauid, firste he calleth it Statuam, and afterwarde the same image he calleth Simulachrum. And sure it is, that Dauid had no idolles in his house. And least you should cauill about the Hebrew word Teraphim, which the Sep­tuaginta translate [...], Aquila calleth [...]. S. Hieron. telleth you they signifie Figuras or Imagines, fi­gures Quest. Heb. in Gen. or images, which somtimes were abused to idola­trie▪ as those which Rachel stole, and those which are mē ­tioned Iud. 17. Aben Ezra and other of the Rabines saye, [Page 12] they were astronomicall images to serue for dials, or o­ther purposes of Astrologie: and such it is most like was that, which was placed in Dauids bed, which your inter­pretor calleth Statuam & Simulachrum. Therfore wheras wee haue translated Idololatria, Col. 3. worshipping of Images, we haue done rightly: and your Latine interpre­ter will warrant that translation, which translateth the same word Simulachrorum seruitus, the seruice of Images. It is you therefore, and not we, that are to be blamed for translation of that worde. For where you chardge vs to departe from the Greeke texte, which we professe to translate, we doe not, excepte your vulgar transla­tion be false. But you professing to followe the La­tine, as the onely true, and authenticall texte, do mani­festly departe from it, in your translation, for the La­tine being Simulachrorum seruitus, you call it the ser­uice of idolles, appealing to the Greeke worde, whiche you haue set in the margent [...], and dare not translate according to your owne Latine, for then you should haue called couetousnesse euen as we doe, the worshipping or seruice of images. And yet you charge vs in your notes, with a meruailous impudent, and foo­lish corruption. But I reporte me to all indifferent Rea­ders, whether this be not a meruailous impudent, and foolish reprehension, to reproue vs for saying the same in English, that your owne interpreter sayeth in Latine. For Simulachrorum seruitus, is as well the seruice of ima­ges, as Simulachrorum artifex, is a maker of images, whome none but a foole or a madde man, woulde call a maker of Idolles, bicause not the craftes man that frameth the image, but he that setteth it vp to be wor­shipped as God, maketh an idoll, according to your owne acception of an Idoll. But of this matter enough at this time.

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

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

FVLK. 8. Our intention can be no worse, than your vulgar Latine Interpreters was, who, where the Greeke hath [...] translateth it Traditions Act. 6. And the right vnderstanding of the worde [...] according [Page 14] to the Apostles meaning, wil yeeld traditions as well, as [...] in the place before mentioned.

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

FVLKE. 10. The worde Priest, by Popishe [Page 15] abuse, is commonly taken for a Sacrificer, the same that Sacerdos in Latine. But the Holie Ghost ne­uer calleth the Ministers of the worde and Sacra­mentes of the Newe Testament [...], or Sacerdotes. Therefore the translatours to make a difference be­twene the Ministers of the Olde Testament, and them of the Newe, calleth the one, according to the vsuall acception, Priestes, and the other accor­ding to the originall deriuation Elders. Which di­stinction seeing the vulgar Latine texte doth alwaies rightly obserue, it is in fauour of your hereticall Sacrificing Priesthoode, that you corruptly translate Sacerdos and Presbyter alwayes, as though they were all one, a Priest, as though the Holie Ghost had made that distinction in vayne, or that there were no difference betwene the Priesthoode of the Newe Testament, and the Olde. The name of Priest, ac­cording to the originall deriuation from Presbyter, wee doe not refuse: but according to the common acception for a Sacrificer, wee can not take it, when it is spoken of the Ministerie of the Newe Testa­ment. And although many of the auncient Fathers, haue abusiuelye confounded the termes of Sacerdos, and Presbyter: yet that is no warrant for vs to trans­late the Scripture, and to confounde that which we see manifestly the spirit of God hath distinguished. For this cause, we haue translated the Greeke word [...] an Elder, euen as your vulgar Latine translater doeth diuerse times, as Actes. 15. and 20. 1. Pet. 5. and else where calleth them Seniores, or Maiores natu. Which you commonly call, the Aun­cientes or Seniors, because you dare not speake En­glishe, and say the Elders. Neither is Presbyter by Ecclesiasticall vse so approprietated to signifie a Priest, that you woulde alwayes translate it so in the Olde Testament, where your vulgar translatour vseth it for a name of Office, and Gouernment, and not [Page 16] for Priests at any time. Neither do we alwayes translate the Greeke worde Episcopus and Diaconus for a Bishoppe and a Deacon, but sometimes for an ouerseer, as Act. 20. and a minister generally oftentimes.

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

FVLK. 11. If there be any suche mistaking of one word for an other, I thinke 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 vnto the storie of Bell, we attribute so small credit, that we will take no testimonie from thence, to proue or dis­proue any thing.

FVLK. 12. For images, altars, the Catholike Chur­ches authoritie, the kings supremacie, nothing is altered [Page 17] in the later translations, that was falsely translated in the former, except perhaps the Printers fault be reformed. Neither can any thing be proued to maintaine the po­pish images, altars, churches authoritie, or Popes supre­macie, out of any translation of the Scriptures, or out of the originall itselfe. Therefore our translations were not framed according to the time, but if any thing were not vttered so plainly or so aptly as it might, why should not one translation helpe an other.

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

FVLK. 14. Nay, it may be an ouersight, or escape [Page 18] of negligence, or the Printers fault, as it is manifest in that quarrell you make of temple, for altar: for in Tho­mas Mathews translation, the first that was printed in En­glish, with authoritie, there is altar in both places. 1. Cor. 9. & 10. For the terme Congregation changed into Church, it was not for shame of the former, which was true, but because the other terme of Church was nowe well vnderstood, to shewe that the word of Scripture, a­greeth with the worde of our Creede: or perhaps to a­uoid your fōd quarrel, not now first picked to the terme Congregation. Wheras the former was: To the King or chiefe head, the later saying, the King as hauing preemi­nence, doth nothing derogate vnto the former, and the former is contained vnder the later. For I hope you will graunt, that the King is chiefe head of his people, or if the word head displease you, (because you are so good a french man) tell vs what chiefe doth signifie, but an head? Now this place of Peter, speaketh not particularly of the Kings authoritie ouer the Church, or in Church matters, therfore if it had bene translated Supreme head, we could haue gained no greater argument for the su­premacie in question, than we may by the word preemi­nēce, or by the word extolling, which you vse. That Beza altered the word Cadauer into Animam: I haue shewed he did it to void offēce, & because the later is more proper to the Greeke, although the Hebrew worde which Da­uid doth vse, may & doth signifie a dead body or carcase.

FVLK. 15. If of three translations, we preferre that which is the best, what signe of corruption is this? If any [Page 19] fault haue either of ignorance, or negligence escaped in one, which is corrected in an other, and we preferre that which is corrected, before that which is faultie, what cor­ruption cā be iudged in either? Not euery fault is a wil­ful corruption, & much lesse an heretical corruptiō. The example that you quote out of your 3. chapiter concer­ning the translation of Idolum, is no flying from our trā ­slation to an other, but a confuting of Howlets cauill a­gainst our Church seruice: because this word is therein redde translated an image. 1. Ioan. 5. wheras in that Bible, which by authority is to be red in the church seruice, the word in the text is idols, & not images▪ & yet wil we iu­stifie the other to be good & true, which readeth, Babes, keepe your selues from images, as your vulgare Latine text is à simulachris, wherein you flie from your owne authentical text to the Greeke, which except you thinke it make for your purpose, you are not ashamed to count falsified and corrupted.

FVLK. 16. Who would be so mad, but blind ma­lice, to thinke they would disgrace or suppres the things, or names of Catholike Church, whereof they acknow­ledge thēselues mēbers: of grace by which they confesse they are saued: of hymnes, which they vse to the praise of God: of iustifications, when they professe they are of thē selues vniust: of Sacraments & mysteries, by which the benefits of Christ are sealed vp vnto them: of altar, when they beleue that Iesus Christ is our altar: of Priests, when they hold that al good Christians are Priests: of deuoti­ons, when they dispute that ignorance is not the mother [Page 20] of true deuotion, but knowledge, of excommunication, which they practise daily. As for the names and thinges of procession, shrines, images, traditions, beside the ho­ly Scriptures in religiō, they haue iust cause to abhorre. Neither do they vse the one sort of termes, without pro­bable ground out of the originall text: nor auoide the other, but vpon some good speciall cause: as in the seue­ral places (when we are charged with them) shal appeare.

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

FVLK. 18. To the generall charge, I answer gene­rally, we do not as you slaunder vs. Nor Beza whom you shamefully belye, to vrge the worde [...]. 1. Cor. 7. v. 1. not to signifie a wife against virginitie, and chastitie of Priestes. For cleane contrariwise, he reproueth Erasmus restraining it to a wife, which the Apostle saith general­ly: it is good for a man not to touch a woman, which doth not onely conteine a commendation of virginitie in them that be vnmaried, but also of continencie in them that be maried. And as for the virginity or chasti­tie [Page 21] of Priestes, he speaketh not one worde of it, in that place, no more than the Apostle doth. Now touching the other place, that you quote. 1. Cor. 9. v. 5. Beza doth truely translate [...], a sister to wife, because the word sister, is first placed, which comprehendeth a woman, and therefore the word [...] following, must needes ex­plicate, what woman he meaneth, namely a wife. For it were absurd to say, a sister a woman. Therfore the vulgar Latine Interpreter, peruerteth the words, & saith: Mulie­rem sororem. It is true, that many of the auncient fathers, as too much addict to the singlenes of the Clergie, though they did not altogither condemne mariage in them, as the Papists doe: did expound the sister whereof S. Paule speaketh, of certaine rich matrones, which followed the Apostles, whithersoeuer they went & ministred to them of their substance, as we reade that many did to our Sa­uiour 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 wordes, which I haue before spoken of. Secondly this word [...] were needeles, ex­cept it should signifie a wife: for the word sister signifi­eth both a woman, & a faithful woman, and otherwise it was not to be doubted, least the Apostle would leade a heathen woman with him. Thirdly the Apostle speaketh of one womā, & not many, wheras there were many that followed our Sauiour Christ, whereas one alone to fol­low the Apostle, might breede occasion of ill suspition, and offence, which many could not so easily. Fourthly, those that are mentioned in the Gospell, our Sauiour Christ did not leade about, but they did voluntarily fol­low him: but the Apostle here saith, that he had authori­tie, as the rest of the Apostles, to leade about a woman, which argueth the right, that an husband hath ouer his wife, or of a maister ouer his maide. Fiftly, it is not all one, if women could trauel out of Galilie to Ierusalem, which was nothing neare an hundred miles; that women could followe the Apostles into all partes of the world. [Page 22] Sixtly, if the cause why such women are supposed to haue followed the Apostles, was to minister to them of their substance, the leading them about, was not burdenous to the Church, but helpeful: but the Apostle testifieth, that he forbare to vse this libertie, because he would not be burdenous to the Church of Corinth, or to any of them. Seuenthly, seing it is certaine that Peter had a wife, and the rest of the Apostles are by antiquitie reputed to haue bene all maried: It is not credible that Peter, or any of the rest, would leaue the companie of their owne wiues, & leade strange women about with them. As for the ob­iection that you make in your note vppon the text, to what ende should he talke of burdening the Corinthi­ans with finding his wife, when he himself cleerely saith, that he was single? I answer, Although I thinke he was single, yet is it not so cleere as you make it, for Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh he had a wife, which he left at Phi­lippi, by mutual consent. But albeit he were single, it was lawfull for him to haue maried, and Barnabas also, as wel as all the rest of the Apostles. Againe, to what end should he talke of burdening the Church with a woman, which was not his wife, when such women as you say ministred to the Apostles of their goods? Wherby it should follow that none of the Apostles burdened the Churches where they preached with their owne finding, which is cleane contrary to the Apostles wordes and meaning. Where­fore the translation of Beza, and of our Church, is most true, and free from all corruption.

FVLK. 19. Here againe is nothing but a generall [Page 23] charge of disagreeing about translations, of Puritans, & Caluinists, Lutherans & Zuinglians, and of all Sectaries reprouing one an others translation, with as generall a demonstration. See the bookes written one against an other, which would aske longer time, than is needeful to answer such a vaine cauil; when it is alwaies sufficient to deny, that which is affirmed without certaine proofe. Luc. 3. v. 36. Act. 1. v. 14. c. 2. v. 23. c. 3. v. 21. c. 26. v. 20. 2. Thes. 2. v. 15. &c. 9. v. 6.

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

FVLK. 21. We neuer leaue the Greeke to followe your vulgar translation, as in the places by you quoted, I will proue manifestly: but I haue already proued, that you leaue the Latine, and appeale to the Greeke, in tran­slating Simulachra, Idols, both Col. 3. & 1. Iohn. 5. Beza. Luc. 1. Ro. 2. Apoc. 19. 8. Beza in c. 1 [...]. Apoc. v. 8.

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

FVLK. 23. The Verse by you quoted Rom. 5. v. 18. is a manifest eclipsis or defectiue speach, to make any sense, wherof, there must needes be added a Nominatiue case, and a Verbe. Now by what other Nominatiue case, and Verbe, may the sense be supplied, but by that which the Apostle him selfe giueth before? Verse. 15. Vnto which all that followeth must be referred for explication. Where he saieth, as you your selues trāslate it: If by the offēce of one many died: much more the grace of God & the gift in the grace of one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vpō many. Seing therfore that defectiue speach must be sup­plied for vnderstanding in this probation, what is so apt as that which the Apostle him self hath expressed before in the proposition? Although you in your translatiō are not disposed to supplie it, bicause you had rather the text should be obscure, & wōdred at, than that it should be plaine & easie, or able to be vnderstood: albeit in other places you sticke not to adde such wordes as be necessa­rie for explication of the texte, as euery translater must do, if he will haue any sense to be vnderstood in his trā ­slation. For that defectiue speach which in some tongue is well vnderstood, in some other is altogither voide of sense, and must be explicated by addition of that, which is necessarily or probably to be vnderstoode. So you translate Math. 8. Quid nobis. What is betweene vs? Mark. 2. Post dies, after some daies, Accumberet, he satte at meate and many such like. But where you charge our transla­tion to say, the benefite (only) aboūded toward all men, not that iustice came on all: you do shamefully adde to our translation, for the worde onely is of your owne slaunderous addition, and the rest is your malitious co­lection. For we meane not to extenuate the benefite of Christes redemption, but by all meanes to set it forth to the vttermost: as the worde (abounded) doth shew, if you do not blemish the light of it, by your blockish ad­dition [Page 26] of this worde (only). And that we are truely made iust by Christ, and yet by imputation, as wee are truly made sinners by Adam, and yet partly by imputation, as we are actually by corruptiō, we do at all times and in al places most willingly confesse, for the iustice of Christ which is imputed vnto vs by faith, is no false or phan­tasticall iustice, as you do no lesse blasphemously, than phantastically affirme: but a true and effectuall iustice, by which we are so truly made iust▪ that we shall receiue for it the crowne of iustice, which is eternall life, as the Apostle proueth at large, Rom. 4. and 5. whom none but an hellhound will barke against, that he defendeth im­putatiue and phantasticall iustice.

FVLK. 24. In the question of iustification by faith only, where S. Iames saieth no: we say, no also, neyther can it be proued that we adde this word only to the text in any translation of oures. If Luther did in his transla­tion adde the worde only to the texte, it can not be ex­cused of wrong translation in worde, although the sense might well beare it. But seing Luther doth him selfe confesse it, he may be excused of frawde, though not of lacke of iudgement. But why should our translation be charged with Luthers corruption? Because our English Protestants honour him as their father. A very lewde slaunder: for we call no man father vpon earth, though you do call the Pope your father, albeit in another sense Luther was a reuerende father of the Churche for his time. But as touching the doctrine of only faith iustify­ing, it hath more patrones of the fathers of the auncient, primitiue Church, than Martine can beare their bookes, [Page 27] though he would breake his backe, who in the same plaine wordes do affirme it as Luther doth, that only faith doth iustifie. And the Apostle which saieth that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law, speaketh more plainely for iustification by faith only, (as we do teach it), than if he had sayed a man is iustified by faith only. Which text of Rom. 3. and many other, are as expresse scripture to proue that we teach and beleeue, as that S. Iames sayeth against iustification by faith only, where he speaketh of an other faith, and of an other iu­stification, than S. Paule speaketh of, and we vnderstand, when we holde that a man is iustified by faith only, or without workes of the law, which is all one. Their igno­rance of the Greeke and Hebrue ton­gue, or their false & vvil­full trans [...]a­tion thereof against their knovvledge.

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

FVLK. 26. I knowe not what German heretikes [Page 28] those be which maintaine that heresie, that al our works be they neuer so good are sinne, except they be the Li­bertines with whom we haue nothing to do. For we ne­uer say, that good workes are sinne, for that were al one to say that good were euill. But that al our good workes are short of that perfection, which the law of God requi­reth, we do humbly confesse against our selues. Or else, what soeuer seemeth to be a good worke, and is done of mē voyde of true faith, is sinne. For these assertions we haue the scripture to warrāt vs. And if to proue the later any man hath translated those words of Dauid in the 51. Psalme, Lecha, Lebadecha, Tibi solum, or tantūmodo tibi pec­caui, [...] &c. To the only or altogither to thee I haue sinned, in respect of his naturall corruption which he doth ex­presse in the next verse, he hath not departed one whitte from the Hebrewe wordes, nor from the sense which the wordes may very wel beare, which he that denieth, ra­ther sheweth him selfe ignorant in the Hebrew tongue, than he that so translateth. For what doth Lebad signifie, [...] but Solum or Tantum and therefore it may as well be translated Solum tibi, as Soli [...]ibi. And the Apostle Rom. 3. prouing by the later end of that verse, all men to be vn­iust, that God only may be true, and euery man a lier, as it is written that thou mayest be iustified in thy wordes &c. fauoreth that interpretation of Bucer, or who soeuer it is beside. But if Beza translate [...], when wee were yet of no strength, as the Geneua Englishe Bible doth also interprete it, whereas euerye young Gre­cian knoweth that [...], is weake, feeble, infirme, and not altogither withoute strengthe: is not this of purpose to take awaye mannes free wyll altogither? Chapter tenth, Number. 13. Naye it is to shewe as the Apostles pur­pose is, that wee haue no strength to fulfill the lawe of God without the grace of Christ, euen as Christ him selfe sayth, without me you can do nothing, Ioan. 15. v. 5. But euery young Grecian (saye you) knoweth that [...] is weake, feeble, infirme, and not altogither with [Page 29] out strength. And is there then any old Grecian that will proue, that [...] alway signifieth him that is weake, but not voide of strength? Doth [...] alwayes signifie him that hath some strēgth? Certaine it is that the Apo­stle speaketh here, of those that were voide of strength, for the same he calleth in the same verse [...] vngodly, or voide of religion, for whom Christ died. Howe say you then, had vngodly persons any strength to be saued, except Christ had died for them? Therefore he that in this place translateth [...], weake, feeble, infirme▪ must needes vnderstand men so weake, feeble, and infirme, as they haue no strength. For how might it else be truely sayed, what hast thou, which thou hast not receiued? 1. Cor. 4. v. 7. Yes, say you, we haue some peece of freewil at least, some strength to clime to heauen, euen with­out the grace of God, without the death & redemption of Christ. If you say no, why cauill you at Bezaes trans­lation and ours? The Greeke worde [...] as great a Grecian as you would make your selfe, signifieth weake or infirme, sometime that which yet hath some strength, sometime that which hath no strength at all, as I will giue you a plaine example out of S. Paule. 1. Cor. 15. v. 43. The dead bodie is sowen [...] in weakenesse: it riseth againe in power. Doth not weakenesse here signi­fie priuation of all strength? It is maruaile, but you will say a dead bodie is not altogither voide of strength. Be­za telleth you out of S. Paule, Rom. 8. v. 6. That the wise­dome of the flesh without Christ is death, it is enmitie against God, it is neither subiect vnto the law of God▪ neither can it be, where is the strength of free will that you complaine to bee taken away by our translation? Beza doth also tell you, that S. Paule calleth all the ce­remonies of the lawe [...]; as they are separated from the spirit of Christ, the weake and beggerly elementes, Gala [...]. 4. Are they not voide of strength, & riches which are voide of Christs grace and spirit? But your purpose was only to quarrell, and seeke a knot in a rush, & there­fore [Page 30] you regarded not what Beza hath written, to iusti­fie his translation.

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

FVLK. 28. I graunt this to bee 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 chaunge of the gender to declare that in Chataoth, which word being of the feminine gen­der, signifieth sinne, is to bee vnderstoode Auon, or some such worde as signifieth the punishment of sinne, which may agree with the participle in the masculine gender, that the antithesis may be perfect. If thou doest well, shall there not be reward or remission, if thou doest euill, the punishment of thy sinne is at hand. But that the later end of the verse can not be referred to sinne, but vnto Cain, not only the Grammar, but also the plaine wordes, and sense of the place doth conuince. For that which is sayd of the appetite, must haue the same sense, which the same wordes haue before, of the appetite of Eue to­wardes her husband Adam, that in respect of the law of nature, and her infirmitie, she should desire to be vnder his gouernment, & that he should haue dominion ouer her. So Abel the yonger brother should be affected to­ward his elder brother Cain, to whom by the law of na­ture he was louing and subiect, and therefore no cause, why Cain should enuy him as he did. Otherwise it were a straunge meaning, that sinne which is an insensible thing, shoulde haue an appetite or desire towarde Cain, who rather had an appetite to sinne, than sinne to him. But you are so greedie of the later parte, that you consi­der not the former. I knowe what the Iewisne Rabbines fauourers of Hethenish free will, absurdly doe ima­gine to salue the matter, but that which I haue said may satisfie godly Christian▪.

FVLKE. 29. If Beza, Caluine, & the English trans­lations be deceiued about the vse of the Preposition [...], it proueth not that they are deceiued in the translation of the worde [...], which is the matter in question. They haue other reasons to defend it, than the vse of the preposition, although you sclaunder Caluine, in saying he affirmeth, that [...] is not vsed for propter. For he sayth no more, but that the preposition is [...] not [...] or some such like, that may designe 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 vllum exemplum in quo [...] ita vsurpe [...]ur. But I can not easily persuade my selfe, that any example may be brought forth, in which [...] is so vsed, that is, for propter, or secundum, for which [...], or [...] were more proper and vsuall. Now if Illyricus haue hel­ped you with a few examples where [...] is so taken, what say Beza or Caluine against it, but that it doth not vsual­ly and certainly signifie so. Their iudgement vpon the place remaineth still grounded vpon other argumentes, although that reason of the acception of [...] be not so strong, as if [...] had neuer bene so taken. But as for the blasphemie, you say, they conclude vpon that place, will redound vpon your owne necke, for their exposition is honourable and glorious to God the father, and Christ his sonne, and to the Holy Ghost, by whom that Epistle was indited, to the confusion of your Popishe blasphe­mies, of the sacrifice propitiatorie offred in the Masse.

FVLK. 30. Beza in the same place, doth bring ma­ny examples to proue, that the Greeke worde [...] doth signifie a great feare, and so is to be taken Heb. 5. But it is an impudent lye to say, he doth contend, that it neuer signifieth reuerence, or piety: and therfore that he saith it signifieth piety in an other place, is nothing con­trarie to that he spake in this place, for the word signi­fieth both, as no man that will professe any knowledge in the Greeke tongue can deny.

FVLK. 31. Beza doth in deede translate [...] prouidentia, but he expoūdeth himselfe in his annotation. id est, aeterna cognitione, for what hereticall conclusion he should so do, you do not expresse, neither can I imagine. To your other quarrels, of soule, and carcasse, hell and graue, I haue sayd enough in aunswer to your preface, Sect. 46. & 47. Annotat. in Act. 2. v. 24.

FVLK. 32. Nay rather all learned Hebriciās know that Sheol is more proper for the graue, than for hell, and [Page 34] that the Hebrewes haue no worde proper for hell, as we take hell, for the place of punishment of the vngod­ly, but either they vse figuratiuely 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 graue. That Keber signifieth the graue, it is no proofe that Sheol doth not signifie the same, & there­fore you shew your selfe to be too young an Hebrician, to carpe at Bezaes estimation in the knowledge of the tongue.

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

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

FVLK. 35. But if all these bee proued to be vaine cauils, and friuolous quarrells, as in the chap. 5. numb. 6. and in the numbers following in this chap­ter it shall bee playnelye declared, then I hope all men of meane capacitie and indifferent iudgement will confesse, that ignoraunce hath deceiued you, malice hath blinded you, hatred of the truth hath ouerthrowen you, the father of lies and sclaunders hath possessed you. Act. [...]. 21.

FVLK. 36. Beza translateth quem oportet caelo capi. Act. 3. v. 21. You say, Heauen must receiue Christ. Beza sayth, Christ must be receiued of heauen. Call you this tur­ning of actiues into passiues, and passiues into actiues? Or will you deny vs the resolution of passiues into a­ctiues, or actiues into passiues? What difference is there in sense, betwene these propositions? Your purse con­taineth money, and money is contained in your purse. The Church must receiue all Christians, or all Chri­stians must be receiued of the Church. But Caluine, you say, misliketh this translation, and the Geneua Bible is afrayed to followe it. Yet neither of them both misli­keth this sense, nor can, for it is all one with that which you translate, whome heauen must receiue. Caluine on­ly saith, the Greeke is ambiguous, whether heauen must receiue Christ, or Christ must receiue heauen. But when you graunt that heauen must receiue Christ, you can not deny for shame of the worlde, but Christ must bee receiued of heauen: wherefore you vnderstande neither Caluine, nor Illyricus, who speake of the o­ther sense, that Christ must receiue heauen. And Mai­ster Whitaker, not of Bezaes translation, but of the text, and euen of your owne translation, may proue, that Christes naturall bodie is contayned in heauen. And as for your appeale to the greatest Graecians, and the Greeke schooles, both of Oxforde and Cambridge, is vaine and friuolous, for the least Grammarians that be [Page 37] in any countrie schooles, 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 loue thee, or thou art loued of me. But it is straunge Di­uinitie, that Christ shoulde bee contayned in heauen. Verily howe straunge so euer it seemeth to Gregorie Martine, it was not vnknowen to Gregorie Nazian­zen, as good a Graecian, and as great a Diuine as he is. For in his seconde Sermon [...], not farre from the beginning, he writeth thus of our Sauiour Christ [...]. For he must raigne vntill then, and bee receiued or contayned of heauen vntill the times of restitution. Here you see Nazianzen citing this verie place of Sainct Peter Actes. 3. For the meane verbe of actiue signification, doubteth not freely to vse the passiue verbe in the same sense, that Beza trans­lateth the place, against which you declaime so tragi­cally. And if you thinke it to bee suche an haynous of­fence, to render passiuely in the same sense, that which is vttered actiuely in the text, so that no man for his cre­dite woulde so translate Demosthenes, as Beza doeth Sainct Luke: I pray you what regarde had you of your credit and estimation? When Matth. the 4. you translate out of Latine, Qui daemonia habebant, suche as were pos­sest: and Luke the seconde, Vt profiterentur, to bee en­rolled. Belike you haue a priuiledge to doe what you list, when other men may not doe that which is law­full.

FVLK. 37. This must needes be a famous place, for the reall presence of Christes bloud in the sacrament, that neuer one of the auncient or late writers obserued, vntill within these fewe yeares. But let vs see what fault Beza hath committed in translation. The last word in the verse [...], he hath so translated, as it must be referred to the word [...] signifying bloud, with which in case it doth not agree. That is true: but that he confesseth that all Greeke copies without exception haue it, as it is commonly redde: it is false: onely he saith: Omnes ta­men vetusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant▪ All our old Greeke copies, had it so written. He speaketh onely of his owne, or such as he had, and not of all without excep­tion, for since he wrote this note, there came to his hands [Page 39] one other auncient copie, both of Greeke and Latine, in which this whole verse of the second deliuerie of the cup, is cleane left out. For immediatly after these words, [...], doth follow, & so in the Latine, Veruntamen ecce manus qui tradet me, &c. Moreo­uer Beza telleth you, that Basil in his Ethicks [...]. citing this whole text of S. Luke, readeth, [...] in the datiue 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. A­gaine, where you say, he confesseth that in true gramma­ticall construction it must needes be sayd, Quod pro vobis funditur, his wordes are not so, but that those wordes, if we looke to the construction, can not be referred to the bloud, but to the cuppe, which in effect is as much as you say: His iudgement in deede is of these wordes, as they are now redde, that either it is a manifest Soloecophanes, or else an addition out of the margent into the text. And as for the word Soloecophanes, you vnderstand him that he meaneth a plaine soloecisme, & fault in grammar, and so doth M. Whitakers. Howe you vnderstand him it is not materiall, but how he is to be vnderstood, in deede. M. Whitakers whom you call to witnesse, doth not so vn­derstand him, but sheweth that if he had called it a plaine Soloecisme, he had not charged S. Luke with a worse fault, than Hieronyme chargeth S. Paule. But what reason is there that you or any man should vnderstand Beza, by Soloecophanes, to meane a plaine soloecisme? Think you he is so ignorant, that he knoweth not the difference of the one from the other, or so negligent of his termes, that he would confound those, whome he knoweth so much to differ? But Maister Fulke (say you) saith that he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancie, and figuratiue speech, vsed of moste eloquent auctors: and it is a world to see, and a Grecian muste needes smyle at his deuises, striuing to make Saint Lukes speeche here, as he construeth the wordes, an elegancye in the Greeke tongue. Thus you write, but [Page 40] if I giue not all Grecians, and Latinistes iust occasion, before I haue done with you, to laugh at your prowde ignorance, and to spit at your malitious falshood, let me neuer haue credit, I say not of a Grecian or learned man, which I desire not, but not so much as of a reaso­nable creature. Ah sir, and doth M. Fulke saye, that this speech of S. Luke is an elegancie in the Greeke tongue? I pray you where sayth he so? you answer me quickly. A­gainst D. Saunders Rocke. pag. 308. I tremble to heare what wordes you haue there to charge me withall. In deede in that page I begin to speake of that matter a­gainst Saunder, who chargeth Beza as you doe, & moreo­uer affirmeth that Beza should teach, that S. Luke wrore false Greeke, because he sayth, that here is a manifest So­loecophanes. But that neither you shall quarrell, that I chose some peece of my saying for my purpose, nor any man doubt how honestly you charge me, I will here re­peate whatsoeuer I haue written touching that matter, in the place by you quoted.

But the Protestants doe not onely make them selues Iudges of the whole bookes, but also ouer the very letter (sayth he) of Christes Gospell, finding fault with the construction of the E­uangelists, and bring the text it selfe in doubt. Example hereof he bringeth: Beza in his annotatiōs vpon Luke 22. of the words: This cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you. In which text, because the word bloud in the Greeke, is the datiue case, the other word that followeth is the nominatiue case, Beza supposeth that S. Luke vseth a figure called Soloe­ [...]ophanes, which is appearaunce of incongruitie, or else that the last word which is shed for you, might, by error of writers, be­ing first set in the margent out of Mathew and Marke, be re­moued into the text. Herevpon M. Sander out of all order and measure, [...]ayleth vpon Beza and vpon all Protestants. But I pray you good sir, shall the onely opinion of Beza, and that but a doub [...]full opinion, indite all the Protestants in the world of such high treason against the word of God? For what gaineth Beza by this interpretation? For sooth the Greeke text is contrary to [Page 41] his Sacramentarie heresie. For thus he should translate it: This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud, which cuppe is shed for you. Not the cuppe of gold or siluer (sayth he) but the liquor in that cuppe, which is not wine, because wine was not shed for vs, but the bloud of Christ. Why then the sense is this. This bloud in the cuppe which is shed for you, is the new Testa­ment in my bloud. What sense in the worlde can these wordes haue? By which it is manifest, that the words which is shed for you, cannot be referred to the cuppe, but to his bloud. For the cuppe was the new Testament in his bloud, which was shed for vs, which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the mani­fest word of God. Neither doth the vulgar Latine translation giue any other sense, although M. Sander is not ashamed to say it doth. The vulgar Latine text is this. Hic est calix nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur. What grammarian in construing, would referre qui to calix, and not rather to sanguine. Againe Erasmus translateth it euē as Beza. Hoc poculum nouum Testamentum per sangui­nem meum qui pro vobis effunditur. Nowe touching the coniecture of Beza, that those words by errour of the scriuener, might be remoued from the margent into the text, is a thing that sometime hath happened, as most learned men agree, in the 27. of Mathew, where the name of Ieremie is placed in the text, for that which is in Zachary, & yet neither of the Prophets was na­med by the Euangelist, as in most auncient records it is testifi­ed. The like hath bene in the first of Marke, where the name of Esay is set in some Greeke copies, & followed in your vulgar translation, for that which is cited out of Malachie, which name was not set downe by the Euangelist, but added by some vnskil­full writer, & is reproued by other Greeke copies. But this place you say is not otherwise found in any olde copie, as Beza confes­seth: then remaineth the second opinion, that S. Luke in this place, vseth Soloecophanes, which is an appearance of incon­gruitie, & yet no incongruitie. Wherein I can not maruaile more at your malice (M. Sander) than at your ignorance, which put no difference betwene Soloecisinus & Soloecophanes, but euen [...]s spitefully, as vnlearnedly, you affirme that Beza should teach, [Page 42] that S. Luke wrote false Greeke, whereas Soloecophanes is a figure vsed of the most eloquent writers that euer tooke penne in hand, euen Cicero, Demosthenes, Greeke and Latine, pro­phane and diuine, and euen of S. Luke him selfe in other pla­ces, whereof for examples, I referre you to Budaeus vpon the worde Soloecophanes. The apparance of incongruitie is, that it seemeth, that [...], which is the nominatiue case, should agree with [...], which is the datiue case, whereas in deede [...] is vsed as a relatiue for [...], as it is often, and the verbe [...] which wanteth, is vnderstoode, as it is commonly in the Greeke tongue, and so the translation must be hoc pocu­lum nouum Testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effunditur, or effusus est. So that this is nothing else, but an impudent and vnskilfull quarrelling, against Beza, whereas you Papistes defende against the manifest institu­tion of the cuppe, and the practise of the primitiue Church, the communion in one kinde of bread onely. Con [...]. Const. Sess. 13. 21.

Where finde you that I affirme S. Lukes speache here to be an elegancie in the Greeke tongue? Yea or Soloecophanes to be nothing else but an elegancie, and fi­guratiue speach? A figure in deede I say that it is, but are all figures elegancies, or all figuratiue speaches, elegan­cies of speach? Some figures I trowe serue to excuse si­militudes of faultes in speach. But I saie Soloecophan [...]s is vsed of the most eloquent writers. Very well, dothe it thereof followe, that it is alwayes an elegancie. Haue not the most eloquent authors, vsed Hyperbatons, Perisso­logies, and other figures that are counted faultes of speech, and not elegancies, and fine speeches? But all the exam­ples of Budee (you saye) to whose commentaries I sende you, are of moste sine and figuratiue phrases. If they be suche, they doe the better proue, that for which I cal­led him to warrantize, namely, that Soloecophanes is not a Soloecisme, or false Greeke, wherewith Sander accuseth Beza to charge S. Luke. But where you vtter your foolish pitie, in saying, Alas howe vnlike they are [Page 43] to that in S. Luke. I thinke the case is not so cleare 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 figuratiue speeches, but not for elegancies and fine figuratiue phrases: as againe those popular sayings which being taken out of the common peoples speech, Budaeus sayeth, the moste eloquent Oratours haue tran­slated into their finest writinges. Peraduenture, as Musitians vse sometime a discorde to set forth the h [...]r­monye of concordes, so they by hardly auoyding of a Soloecisme, woulde shewe the grace of congruitie, and elegancie. But of this whole matter let the iudge­ment be with them that are learned and eloquent in both the tongues. It is sufficient for me that he which vseth Soloecophanes in Greeke committeth not a Soloecisme, or speaketh false Greeke, as Saunder ter­meth it. But where you say, that Maister Fulke was fouly deceyued and tooke his markes amisse, as it were a coun­ter for golde, to thinke that Beza and Budee tooke the worde in one sense, you saye your pleasure, but you shall well knowe, that Maister Fulke is not so younge a babe, to take a counter for golde, as you are a bolde bayarde, to pronounce of all mens meaninges what you list. For howe are you able to proue, that Be­za by Soloecophanes meaneth a plaine Soloecisme? Thinke you that Beza is so simple a childe also, to terme copper by the name of golde? If hee had meant a Soloecisme coulde hee not haue sayde so? But you muste playe Procustes parte, for neyther my saying, nor Beza his meaning, were large enough for you, to frame your sclaunderous cauill against the trueth, and therefore with a lowde lye, you muste lengthen my saying, and with prowde and false presumption, you muste stretche out his meaning. These bee your artes, this is your eloquence, these are the sinnewes of youre accusations. What those good searchers [Page 44] in Oxford were, which being maisters of Art, could not discerne betweene masse bookes, and lawe bookes, for my parte I neuer heard, but I thinke it to be a matter of as good credite as that you report of me and Beza.

FVLK. 38. I had rather it should be compted want of iudgement in me, so it were by a man of iudgement, than to be taken so often with falsification, and lacke of truth. For my skill in Greeke phrases, although I neuer professed any, yet I see nothing brought by you, to change mine opinion of Saunders vnlearned slaunder, in rayling against Beza, for saying that S. Luke should write false Greeke. And if Soloecophanes do differ as much from Soloecismus, as golde doth from copper (as you seeme to say) when you write that I take a counter for golde, I might thinke my selfe very vnlearned in deede, if I did vnderstand Beza speaking of Soloecophanes, as though he spake of Soloecismus. But you demaund why Beza sayeth, that he seeth not why S. Luke should vse Soloecophanes, if he meant that it was an elegancie vsed of the finest au­thores. Still you thrust in your lie, in euery corner: who sayeth he meant it was an elegancie? Beza sayeth he [Page 45] seeth no cause why S. Luke should vse Soloecophanes, that is, departe from the vsuall and ordinarie construction: and therefore passeth to an other coniecture. But you speake me fayre to tell you, whether is the better & ho­nester defense, to say that it is an elegancie, and fine phrase, or to say it is a faulte in the texte, it came out of the margent, the Gospell is here corrupted. First I an­swere you that Beza affirmeth neither, but rather tran­slateth as Basill did re [...]d. Secondly, I say there is no dis­honestie in either of both coniectures, for this Soloeco­phanes though it be no elegancie, yet may be defended from Soloecisme, or false Greeke. And certaine it is that some woordes haue crept out of the margent into the texte, as the name of Ieremye in all copies that are ex­tant Math. 27. and, of Esay in many: Marc. 1. And yet we say not the Gospell is corrupted, which fowle phrase it seemeth, you haue great pleasure in, not withstanding you your self out of Lindanus, charge all the Greeke co­pies of the epistle to the Corinthians to be corrupted by Marcion the mischieuous mouse of Pōtus. You aske fur­ther, whether I thinke Beza such a foole to stande rather vpon the later▪ if he might haue vsed the former, and had so meant by Soloecophanes? Nay rather, thinke you Beza such a foole, that he would meane a plaine Soloecisme, and call it only an appearaunce of Soloecisme? what he rather stoode vpon, his translation doth best shewe, which is both with S. Basilles reading, and with the appearaunce of incongruitie, which is none in deede. Yea what needed any defense at all, say you, if it had bene an vsuall and knowne elegancie. So well you loue a lie when you haue made it, that you can neuer leaue it vntill you haue worne it all to naught. Now you haue it, not onely an elegancie, but an vsuall and knowen elegancie. Verily I neuer saide it was an elegancie, as my wordes are plaine to be redde of euery man, and much lesse that it was an vsuall and knowen elegancie. Only I say it is vsuall and common in the Greeke tongue, that the praepositiue ar­ticle, [Page 46] is vsed for the relatiue, and so much in the next se­ction you your selfe do graunt me: and as for defense you talke of, I see none needefull, except it be for that this phrase here vsed of S. Luke, is lawfull, though it be not so common, as the ordinarie construction.

FVLK. 39. First I take that you graunt me, that it is a cōmon thing in the Greeke tongue, that the article praepositiue is taken for the subiunctiue, and the Verbe substātiue may be vnderstood, where it is not expressed: which if you would not haue graūted, might haue bene extorted from you by confession of all Grecians, and [Page 47] Greeke writers. Secondly where you teach me a gene­rall rule, to adde to the former concession, that the sayd relatiue must alwaies be referred to the antecedent of the same case, as in the example you bring [...], you shall pardon mee to learne of you. I take you for no such▪ Aristarchus, that you haue power to make newe rules in the Greeke Grammar, and such as shall controll not only Homer, but all good authors that euer did write in that language, of Soloecisme and in­congruitie. For if the relatiue must alwaies be referred to the antecedent of the same case, to agree with it in case, or else it is false Greeke, I will abide by it, there is no Greeke auctor whose workes are extant, but he hath committed Soloecisme. The examples that hereof might be brought out of euery seuerall writer, if they were heaped togither, would make a booke as bigge as Ilias. But in this so cleare a case, to cite any examples, I see not to what purpose it shoulde be, vnlesse it were to make little children that learne [...] in the Gram­mar schooles, to be witnesses of your intollerable ar­rogancie, and incredible ignorance. One example I will bring you out of S. Marke, not vnlike this of S. Luke, but that the Verbe [...] is expressed, [...] and they bring him to the place Golgotha, which is being interpreted the place of sculles. This example is more than sufficient, for so plaine a matter. For although it be an elegan­cie for the relatiue to agree in case with the Antece­dent sometimes, yet to make a perpetuall rule thereof it proceedeth of too much rashnesse, wante of know­ledge and consideration. But I shall neuer be able to bring one example like to this of S. Luke, where the rela­tiue not agreeing in case with the Antecedent, the Participle maye be resolued by the verbe Substantiue that is not ex­pressed: and I wilfully abuse what so euer knowledge I haue of the Greeke tongue, to deceyue the ignoraunt, or else I haue no skill at all, to speake so barbarously, and rustically [Page 48] of Greeke elegancies, and I knowe in my conscience, it is as great a Soloecisme in Greeke, and no more elegancie than to say in Latin In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the schoole deserueth whipping: and I knowe not what beside. But touching the similitude of the Soloecismes, if you had made your example a like, that is put in the re­latiue in the Latine, as it is in the Greeke, In meo sanguine qui fusus pro vobis, there is no more Soloecisme in the one, than in the other. But all this while I bring no example, and you vrge an example, yea so extremelye, that you say confidently, I shall neuer be able to bring one: but what if I bring two or three? who then abuseth his knowledge in the Greeke? who hath no skil at all? who deserueth whipping? Haue you so redde all authors, and beare them, and all their phrases so well in minde, that you dare before all the worlde auouche, that I shall ne­uer be able to bring one example? But to lette all the world see your vanitie, I will beginne with Theognis, who in the 863. of his Elegiake sentences writeth thus:

See you heere the relatiue [...] being the nominatiue case not agreeing with his antecedent, [...] of the accusatiue case, but comming before the Verbe [...] that is inclu­ded in the participle [...] that is inclu­ded in the participle [...]; What can you here say? will you cauill at the subiunctiue article, then reade a fewe verses after, and see whether this Poet vseth not as indif­ferently the prepositiue article as the subiunctiue, for the relatiue.

And within two verses,

speaking of the same Wine.

Also Theocritus in 25. Eidyll.

[Page 49] And in the 24. Edyll.

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

Againe in [...].

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

We must see therefore, whether we are not able to bring examples of the like phrase, out of the holy Scrip­tures. First that Soloecophanes is found in S. Luke I wil re­ferre you to the first cap. of his Gospell, v. 74. and cap. 6. v. 4. Likewise Actes 27. v. 3. and act. 13. v. 6. But for the like Soloecophanes to this in question Luc. 22. I will sende you first to S. Paule, Col. 1. v. 26. [...]. In this verse [...], must needes be the accusatiue case, as [...] is, by apposition, then is [...], for all the world, as [...], the nominatiue case, signifying Quod absconditum fuit, which the later part of the verse [...], doth most plainly declare. For what else should be the nomi­natiue case to the verbe [...]; and euen so your vul­gar Latine text hath it translated: vt impleam verbum Dei, mysterium quod absconditum fuit à saeculis & generatio­nibus, nunc autem manifestatum est sanctis eius. But because this is not so euident, for that the nominatiue case & the accusatiue of the neuter gender be of one termination, I will bring you yet more plaine examples out of the re­uelation [Page 50] of S. Iohn, cap. 1. v. 4. [...]. Grace to you and peace from him, or from God, (as some copies haue) which is, and which was, & which is to come. Would not your grammer say it is a plaine Soloecisme, because he saith not, [...], & [...], what haue you here to quarrel? Is not [...], and [...] the same phrase that is in Luke, [...]; Well, let vs goe a litle further, to the next verse of the same chapter, where we reade thus. [...]. And from Iesus Christ which is a faithfull witnesse, the first borne from the dead, and Prince ouer the kinges of the earth. The more vsuall construction would require, that he should haue sayd, [...]. But that hev­seth the same Soloecophanes, which S. Luke doth. ca. 22. (If the reading be not altered) where the article prepositiue is put in the place of the subiunctiue, and agreeth not in case with the antecedent, as often it doth, but being the nominatiue case, commeth before the verbe [...], which is not expressed, but must needes be vnderstoode: as euen your vulgar translator doth acknowledge, rendring it in both verses thus: ab eo qui est, & qui erat, & qui ven [...]u­rus est, and à Iesu Christo qui est testis fidelis, &c. These ex­amples I doubt not, but they are sufficient to satisfie a­ny reasonable man, to shew, that I haue not inuented a newe construction that neuer was heard of, to saue Be­zaes credit, and whereof I am able to giue not so much as one example. But that I may ouerthrow M. Martines vaine insultation, with a whole cloude of examples, I wil yet adde one or two more. In the same reuelation, ca. 8. v. 9. Thus we read [...], and there dyed the thirde of all creatures which are in the sea, which had liues. Your vulgar Latine text turneth it thus. Et mortua est [...]ertia pars creaturae, eorum quae habebant animas in mari. And there dyed the thirde parte of the creatures, of those [Page 51] thinges which had life in the sea. In which transla­tion, although the order of the wordes which Saint Iohn vseth, is somewhat inuerted: yet the sense re­mayneth the same, and [...] is translated, quae ha­bebant, which agreeth not with [...] in case, as euerye childe that can declyne a Greeke noune, doth knowe: where otherwise the moste common constru­ction were to haue sayd, [...]. There­fore the phrase and construction is the same, which is Luke 22. [...]. What can fine M. Gregorie, which carpeth at my skill, that speake so barbarously, and rustically of Greeke elegancies, what can Maister Gregorie Martin I saye, the great linguist of the Seminarie of Rhemes, alledge, why these phrases are not alike? or rather changinge the wordes, in figure the very same? And if he haue any thing to cauill against this example, as I see not what he can haue, yet haue I an other out of the same booke, cap. 3. v. 12. [...]. And I will write vppon him the name of my God, and the name of the cittye of my God, the newe Ierusalem, which descen­deth out of heauen from my God. The vulgar Latine translation differeth not from this, which sayth: Et scri­bam super eum nomen dei mei, & nomen ciuitatis dei mei, nouae Ierusalem, quae descendit de coelo à deo meo. Here the antece­dent is of the genitiue case, the relatiue of the nomina­tiue, which commeth before the verbe [...], vnderstoode 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 learne to be wiser hereafter, & not to condemne all men, beside your self, out of your readers chaire at Rhemes, of ignorance, vnskilfulnes, barbarusnes, rusticity, yea wilfulnes & mad­nes, where you your self deserue a much sharper censure, through your immoderat insultation, the matter thereof [Page 52] being both more false and forged, than we might iustly haue borne, if we had bene ouertaken with a litle gram­matical ignorance. By these examples I trust you see, or if you will needes be blinde, all the young Grecians in England, may see, that as in the Latine translation, you confesse the relatiue standeth more likely to be referred to the word Sanguine, than to the word Calix, so in the Greeke, there is no help to remoue it from the next ma­nifest & necessary antecedent, to a worde further of, with which the signification of the participle can not agree. For who would say that a cup is shed for vs? And though you make a metonymye of the cup, for that which is in the cup, what is that I pray you? Not wine you wil say, I am sure, but the bloud of Christ. If you so resolue it, then followeth that vaine nugation which I haue noted a­gainst Saunder This bloud in the cuppe, which bloud is shed for you, is the new Testament in my bloud. Is that bloud in the cuppe diuerse from that bloud in which the new Testament is confirmed? If it be the same, how of­ten was [...]t shed? If it were shed in the cuppe, how holdeth your vnbloudie sacrifice? Or howe can you saye that it was shed in the cup, where, by your rule of concomitans, it is not separated from the body, as it was in his passion? If it were not separated, as certainly his bloud was not separated from his bodye, in the supper, howe can that which was in the cup, be his bloud that was shed for vs? for the word of shedding signifieth separation. Where­fore it can not be referred to that in the cup, but to his bloud which was shed on the crosse for vs, so that there is a manifest enallage, or change of the temps. The present being put for the future, as it is manifest by the other Euangelists, where the word of shedding, can be referred to nothing els, but to his bloud shedde vpon the crosse. wherfore the Greeke text can here resolue you of no am­biguity, as in the place you cite, act. 14. Neither was there euer any auncient writer that stumbled vpon this ambi­guitie, but al with one consent referre the word of shed­ding [Page 53] to his bloud, and not to the cuppe, or the content thereof, so many as speake of it.

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

FVLK. 41. If Hebrue wordes be ambiguous, wee take that sense whiche agreeth with other places that are playne, and with out all ambiguitie, and this is no partialitie, but wisedome and loue of the truthe: not to grounde any newe doctrine vppon suche places onely, where the Hebrue worde is ambiguous, and may haue diuerse significations. As you do the redem­ption of sinnes by almesse, vpon that place of Daniel. 4. Where you confesse that the Hebrue worde is ambi­guous, & are not able to bring any one plain text for it, where the wordes are not ambiguous. But wee ground our refusal vpon a hundred plaine textes, that acribe the whole glorie of our raunsome & redemption frō sinnes, to the onely mercy of God. But as well this text, as the other two, that you cite in the chapters by you quoted, shall be throughly diseussed, to see if you can haue any aduaūtage at our translators of the same. But on the cō ­trarie side (you say) that at an other time we follow the determination of the Greeke for an other aduantage, as in that texte, Psalm. 89. Adore his foote stoole. be­cause he is holy, whereas in the Hebrue it may be as in your Latine, because it is holy I answer, that we follow not the determination of the Greeke, as moued by the onely authoritie thereof, for any aduantage, but be­cause wee learne our interpretation out of the verie Psalme it selfe. For whereas the Prophet in the 5. verse hath sayed. Exalt [...]e the Lorde our God, and worshippe at the foote stoole of his feete, for he is holy: in the laste verse of the same, he repeateth againe the like ex­hortation. Exalt ye the Lorde our God, and worshippe [Page 55] him in his holy hill, for the Lorde our God is holy. In this verse for his foote stoole he placeth the holy hill, which expresseth where his foote stoole was, namely [...] the holy A [...]ke, and for Cadhosh hu, holy is he, now he sayeth Cadosh I [...]houa, holy is the Lorde our God, which putteth the other verse out of ambiguitie. Where­fore if wee take testimonie of the Greeke, we flie not to the Greeke from the Hebrue, but shewe that the Hebrue may so bee vnderstoode, hauing other more certaine arguments, than the testimonie of the Greeke. Againe it is vtterly false that you saie, we flie from both Hebrue and Greeke to the Latine, for wee neuer flie from the Hebrue, but acknowledge it as the fountaine and spring, from whence wee must receyue, the infalli­ble truth of Gods worde, of the olde Testament, fol­lowing the Latine or Greeke so farre, as they followe the truth of the Hebrue texte, and no farther. As for the saying of S. Augustine to Faust [...]s the Manichee. (You are the rule of truth,) doth moste aptly agree to you Pa­pistes and to your Pope: for you will not aforde vnto the Scriptures them selues, any authoritie or certaintie of truth, but vpon your approbation and interpretation. Wherefore not only that which he sayth to Faustus the Manichee, agreeth aptly to you: what so euer is for you is true, what so euer is agaynst you, is not true: but that also whiche he reporteth, Tyconius the Donatist sayde of his secte ( Quod volumus sanctum est, what so euer we will is holy) you your selues take vppon you. For no doctrine is good nor holy, though it be proued neuer so plainely out of the holy Scripture, except it be allow­ed by you for catholike and holy.

FVLK. 42. That the Hebrue particle Vau, is some­times to be taken for a casual coniunction, & 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 foorth of bread and wine, to be a sacrifice. I graunt that many do, but not al: yet do not they ground vpon the coniunction causal, for Cyprian Lib. 2. Epist. 3. ad Caecilium readeth thus, Fuit autem sacerdos, and hee was a Priest. So dothe Hierom Epist. ad Euagrium, ex­pounding the very Hebrue texte, saye, Et Melchisedech rex Salem protulit panem & vinum, erat autem sacerdos dei excelsi. The worde protulit also hath Ambrose, de mysterijs initiand. Augustine vpon the title of the 33. Psalme. Cy­prian in the epistle before named, and the vulgar Latine hath proferens. Hierome Ep. ad Euagrium, sheweth that the beste learned of the Hebrues iudgement was, that Melchisedech Victori Abraham [...]buiam processerit, & in refectionem, tam ipsius, quam pugnatorum ipsius, panes vinum­que protulerit. Melchisedech came foorth to meete A­braham the conquerour, and for refection, as well of him, as of his warriours, brought foorth bread and wine. And after many interpretations of the Greeke writers whiche he rehearseth, in the ende he will de­termine nothing of his owne iudgement. The author of Scholastica historia, Cap. 64. agreeth with the inter­pretation of the Hebrues. At vero Melchisedech rex Salem obtulit ei panem & vinum: quod (quasi exponens) Iosephus ait: ministrauit exercitui xenia, & multam a­bundantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit, & super epulas benedixit Deum, qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos. [Page 56] Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi. But Melchisedech king of Salem, offered vnto him bread and wine, which Iose­phus (as it were expounding of it) sayth: ‘he ministred to his armie the duties of hospitalitie, and gaue him great plentie of things necessarie, and beside the feast, or at the feast, he blessed God, which had subdued vnto A­braham his enemies: for he was a Priest of the highest God.’ Therefore not all the fathers so iudged of Melchi­sedeches breade and wine. But against all them that re­ferred the same to his Priesthoode, we oppose the Apo­stle to the Hebrues ca. 7. who searching of purpose what­soeuer was in Melchisedech, wherein hee resembled Christ, so that he omitteth not the interpretation of his name, nor of his citie, maketh no mention of his sacri­fice of breade and wine, whereas nothing seemeth to haue greater resemblance, than that, which deceiued ma­ny of the auncient fathers, but yet was not obserued of the holy Ghost.

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

FVLK. 44. Although the sense were not greatlye different, yet the participle [...] following in the later parte of the verse, [...], &c. but fornicators and adulterers God will iudge, sheweth that the former parte of the verse, is an affirmation, rather than an exhortation. A­gaine the purpose of the Apostle is playne, to disswade them from whoredom and adulterie, & not only to ex­hort maried men to vse mariage temperately, but for a­uoiding of whoredome and adulterie, which God will punish, to shewe the remedie that God hath prouided for mans infirmitie, to be honourable and voyde of fil­thinesse.

FVLK. 45. We thinke you not more suspitious, than malicious. From his feare, may well (for explica­tions sake) be translated, from that which he feared, Heb. 5. v. 7. euen as hope is somtime taken, for that which we hope for, as Col. 1. v. 5. Tit. 2. v. 13. So may repentance in Beza Act. 26. v. 20. signifie them that repent, as circum­cision often signifieth them that are circumcised, neither is there any chaunge of the sense, to say the fruites wor­thie of repentance, or the fruits worthie of them that re­pent, or amend their life. And I pray you what doth tra­dition, 2. Thess. 2. & 3. signifie, but the doctrine deliue­red? Doth not the Apostle declare, what his tradition was, when he deliuereth this doctrine, that if any man will not worke, let him not eate. 2. Thess. 3. v. 10. The word [...] as it is vsed, Act. 19. v. 24. signifieth neither tem­ples nor shrines, but certaine idolatrous coynes, on which was stamped the figure of Dianaes temple, more [Page 59] like to your Popish shrines, than to the temple of God. Where idols are translated deuotions, I knowe not, ex­cept you meane, Act. 17. v. 23. where the worde is [...], which your vulgar Latine translatour, 2. Thess. 2. cal­leth quod colitur, that which is deuoutly worshipped, & so the worde signifieth whatsoeuer is religiously worship­ped or adored, and not idols as you say, nor simulachra, i­mages, as your translatour calleth them, Act. 17. For it is deriued of [...], or [...], which signifieth to ad­ore, to worship, to honour deuoutly, or religiously. E­uerie humane creature, signifieth in that place, 1. Pet. 2. euerie magistrate, of what creation or ordination soe­uer he bee, and so is meant by that translation (all or­dinaunces of men) not all lawes of men, which yet were not impious, if you adde the restraint, for the Lorde, for whome nothing can be, that is against his lawe. The rest of your quarrels bee all aunswered be­fore.

FVLK. 46. These speaches are not straunge in Gods Church, howe soeuer they sound in your eares. So many [Page 60] of them as translate for Sheol, the graue, haue their answeres sect. 32. and chap. 7. which is appointed for that question. The couetous man a worshipper of images sect. 5. of this chapter, and chap. 3. numb. 12. The laying [...] of hands of the Eldership, is warranted by the significa­tion of the Greeke worde [...], which signifieth a companie of Elders, as it is translated by your owne vulgar Latine interpreter. Luk 22. vers. 66. Seniore [...] plebis. The Elders of the people, and Act. 22. v. 5. he calleth [...]. Omnes maiores natu. And for a consistorie of Elders, is the worde Presbyterium vsed in Latine by Cy­prian lib. 3. epist. 11. and lib. 2. epist. 8. 10. Of haile freely be­loued we spake lately, sect. 43. Of the text Gen. 4. v. 7. sinne lieth at the dore, &c. sect. 28. and chap. 10. sect. 9. of Dan. 4. breake, for redeeme thy sinnes. sect. 41.

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

FVLK. 47. It is a smal signe, that multitude of mat­ter is cause of your length, when you repeate one mat­ter in so manye sections, your similitude of a manne wading in foule and myrie places, doth well agree vnto you, for you haue beene all this while wading in the puddle of youre slaunders, misprisions, and false [Page 61] and false accusations, in which you haue so berayed your selfe, as you shall not easily purge your selfe from the myre of them. But because you say the greatest demon­stration, that we are wilfull corrupters, is behind, though it be tedious for vs to rake in such a gogmyre of your forgeries, and false accusations, yet we will take courage, and consider what mayne demonstration you can make, to proue vs in our English translations to be wilful cor­rupters.

FVLKE. 48. I thinke there is no man doubteth, but they translated the Scripture, with purpose to main­taine their opinions, but whether they haue wittingly, and wilfully translated falsely, to maintaine any errours, or hereticall opinions, that is the matter in question, and which hath neede of your greatest demonstration, to make it apparant. That Luther might rightly interprete the place Rom. 3. of onely faith iustifying, by the exclu­ding of works, I haue before acknowledged, & Illyricus doth rightly defend it. But that he did put in the worde (only) in his translation, which is not in the originall, I will not take vpon me to excuse, seeing the truth of that doctrine is manifest, without that addition: and Luther him selfe in his later editions, hath reformed it. Againe, [Page 62] what fault soeuer other men haue committed in their translation, we are vniustly charged therewith, except we follow the same in ours. That we professe to follow Be­za by the very name of our Geneua Bibles, it is a very ridiculous argument. For our Bibles are so common­ly called, because they were translated, and first printed at Geneua, not by Beza, who at that time, had scarse finished his translation of the newe Testament, and ne­uer dealt with translating of the olde, so farre as we knowe, but by certaine godlye, and learned Englishe men, which liued there in Queene Maries time, to en­ioy the libertie of a good conscience, which they could not haue in their owne Country.

FVLK. 49. Of purpose against the heresie of satis­faction, Beza will not translate the Greeke worde, as the vulgar Latine translator dothe, but yet as the Greeke worde ought to be translated. Erasmus finding the vul­gar Latine vnsufficient, hath added Vitae prioris, that is, re­pent yee of your former life. Neither dothe Beza finde [Page 63] faulte with the English worde repent, but with the Latine Agite paenitentiam, when you translate it, do pe­naunce, meaning thereby, paine or satisfaction for sinnes passed, to be a necessarie parte of true repentance, which is not conteyned in the Greeke worde [...], which signifieth changing of the mind, that is, not onely a sor­row for the sinne past, but also a purpose of amendment, which is beste expressed by the Latine worde Resipiscere, which is alwaies taken in the good parte as [...] is in the Scripture, where as the Latine wordes paenitere and Paenitentia, are vsed in Latine, of sorrowe or repentance that is too late. As paenitere and paenitentia may be saide of Iudas grief of minde, which caused him to hang him selfe, but not [...], or [...] or resipiscere and resipis­scentia: and therefore the Holye Ghoste speakinge of his sorrowe, vseth an other worde [...], and [...]. And this is the cause, why Beza refused the worde Paenitentia, hauing a Latine worde that more properlye doeth expresse the Greeke worde, as wee might lawefullye doe in Englishe, if wee had an other Englishe worde proper to that repentaunce, whiche is alwayes ioyned with faith, and purpose of amend­mente, for wante whereof, wee are constrayned to vse the wordes repente and repentaunce, whiche maye bee taken in good parte, or in euill. For wee saye, repentaunce too late, and Iudas repented too late, but there is no [...] that can bee called too late. But where you saye that resipiscere, and resipi­scentia, is nothing but amendement of life, and that repentaunce in our heresie, is nothing else but a meere amendment of former life: you speake vntruly: for those words do signifie not only amendment of life, but also sorrow for the sinnes past, although without recompēce or satisfactiō, which you call penance, for the sinnes be­fore cōmitted: for we know no recompence or satisfac­tiō made to God for our sinnes, but the death of Christ, who is the propitiation for our sinnes. 1. Iohn. 1. Neither [Page 64] hath your blasphemous satisfaction any grounde in the Greeke worde [...]: but onely a foolish colour by the Latine translation Agite poenitentiam, which, it is like your Latine interpreter did neuer dreame of, and there­fore he vseth the worde Resipiscere. 2. Tim. 2. Of them to whom God should giue [...] repentaunce to the acknowledging of the truth, Et resipiscant, and so they may repent, or as you translate it, recouer themselues from the snare of the Diuell. Seyng therefore, repen­tance is the gifte of God, it is no recompence or satis­faction made by vs to God, to answere his iustice: but an earnest and true griefe of minde for our transgression of Gods lawe, and offending against his maiestie, with a certaine purpose and determination of amendment, so neere as God shall giue vs grace. Hetherto therefore we haue no demonstration of any wilfull corruption, but a declaration of the cause that moued Beza, to vse a more exact translation, and such as commeth nearer to the ori­ginall worde, than that which the vulgar translation hath vsed, vpon which, occasion of a great blasphemie hath bene taken, and is yet mainteyned.

FVLK. 50. Concerning the Greeke worde [...], which Beza translateth Constitutionibus, constituti­ons, and you confesse that in Scripture it doth very often signifie the commaundements. He sayth first, that as the whole Lawe of God is diuided into three partes, Morall, [Page 65] Ceremoniall, and Iudiciall, so the Hebrewes haue three seuerall words, to expresse the seueral precepts of those lawes. For the Hebrew word which signifieth the Cere­moniall precepts, the Greekes vse to translate [...]. So the sense is, that Zacharie, and Elisabeth were iust, walking in all the Morall commaundements, and ob­seruing the holy rites, and ceremonies, as much as con­cerned them: but the thirde worde, which signifieth Iudgements, S. Luke doth not adde, because the exer­cise of Iudiciall cases, did not belong vnto them, being priuate persons. After this he saith, that the Greeke Interpreters of the Bible, transferred this worde, vnto the whole lawe of God, and especially to the holy ce­remonies: so verily, exceedingly commending the law, that it is a certaine rule of all iustice. And therefore men are wont, commonly in respect of the worde, to turne it, Iustifications. And this worde in this place, Beza in deede confesseth, that he refused to vse, for auoyding of cauillations against iustification by fayth, seeing he hath none other worde, neither woulde he for offence, seeke any newe worde, to expresse iustification by faith, whereas the worde [...] in this text, Luc. 1. verse 6. signifieth not that, by which they were made iust, but the commaundements or precepts of God, by walking in which, they were declared to be iust. For by the workes of the lawe (such as Saint Luke here speaketh of) no fleshe shall be iustified before God. Therefore [...] in this place, must haue an other sense, than iustifications, namely, commaundements, as you saye it is often taken, or constitutions, as Beza calleth them, which before God and the worlde, are not of suche difference, that you shoulde charge him with wilfull corruption, for translating that word con­stitutions, which you confesse, signifieth very often, commaundements. Wherefore here appeareth no he­reticall purpose, except you will say, that iustification by faith, which S. Paule so often, so diligently, and so pur­posedly [Page 66] doth teach, is an heresie.

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

FVLK. 52. True it is, that he meant concerning the maner of Christes presence in the blessed sacrament, and that so he translated, to exclude the carnall maner of presence, which the Papistes haue inuented: but all this while the translation is true, and warranted by Grego­rie Nazianzene, as I haue shewed before, sect. 36. of this chapter. For he that sayth, Heauen must receiue Christ, (as you doe) can not deny, except he be mad, but that Christ must be receiued of heauen. So that Beza doth none otherwise translate, than you doe, Qui daemonia habebant, which is actiuely thus to be translated, those who had deuils, and you saye, which were possest of diuels, that is, were had of diuels. That the Lutherans finde fault with Bezaes translation, it proueth it not to be false, he hath iustified it sufficient­ly in his answere to Selneccerus, and the Diuines of Ie­na. Neither doth Caluine (as you saye vntruly) thinke it a forced translation, but not weying the sentence sufficiently, supposeth that the wordes are placed am­biguously, for that it seemeth to be doubtfull, whe­ther we shoulde save, that heauen must receiue Christ, or that Christ must receiue heauen. But if it be once graunted (as it is of you) that heauen must receiue Christ, there is neyther Caluine, nor Illyricus, nor any man that beareth the face, but of a young Gramma­rian, yea of a reasonable man, which can deny, that conuersion by the passiue: Christe muste be recei­ued of heauen. Therefore if you had any respect of your credite, with men of vnderstanding, you would not for shame, rehearse this quarrell so often, which hath not so muche as any colour or shewe of reason to maintayne it, but that you abuse the names of Illyricus and Caluine, as mislykinge it, whose argumentes by no meanes will serue your turne, [Page 68] because that which is denied by them, or doubtfull to them, is plaine and confessed by you.

FVLK. 53. A manifest ecclipsis, or want of wordes, being in that verse, for which Erasmus hath put propaga­tum est, which word is ambiguous, and may giue occasi­on of error, for men to thinke, that the righteousnes of Christ commeth by propagation, as the guiltines of A­dam doth: Beza thought good to supply the lacke, ra­ther by such wordes as are warranted by the text, verse 12. 15. and 16. and can giue no occasion of errour. And therefore, thus he rendreth that verse, Nempe igitur, sicut per vnam offensam reatus venit in omnes homines ad condem­nationem: ita per vnam iustificationem, beneficium redim­dauit in omnes homines ad iustificationem vitae. Nowe therefore, as by one offence guiltinesse came vpon all men vnto condemnation: so by one iustification, the benefite abounded toward all men vnto iustification of life. In this verse these words, guiltinesse came, and, the benefite abounded, are added for explication sake, and are taken out of the verses going before, in which the Apostle speaketh of the same matter. There­fore Beza to auoyde occasion of the heresie of the Pa­pistes, of iustice inherent, among other causes which he rehearseth, refuseth that worde, by which Erasmus supplyed the text, and vseth suche wordes for that pur­pose, as the Apostle him self in the verses precedent doth offer, for this necessarye supplye: which seeing it must [Page 69] be made, that there may be a sense and vnderstanding: who can mislike that it should be made, by the Apostles owne wordes? or who cā suppose that the Apostle would leaue any other words to be vnderstood, than such as he him selfe had before expressed? And as for the heresie of inherent iustice, can haue no hold in this verse, except some suche worde be added for supplie, as the Apostle neuer vsed in this case. That Christes iustice doth make vs as truly iust, as Adams sinne made vs truly sinners, there is no question, but by what meanes we are made iust, wee say as the Scripture teacheth vs to speake, that iustice is imputed to vs through faith, Rom. 4. The Pa­pistes say it is a qualitie inherent within vs, for which wordes and matter, they haue no warrant in the holy Scripture.

FVLK. 54 These examples proue nothing lesse. For to runne ouer them all briefly, the first two, we translate verbatim, A man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the law, and, repent, and, repētance, we say for [...] and [...]. What make these for Poperie? If Luc 1. v. 6. [Page 70] we should call [...], iustifications, what should Po­perie gaine, but a vaine cauill? when you your selues cō ­fesse, that those iustifications are often vsed for com­mandements? Act. 2. v. 27. all our English translations are as you would haue them. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption, by which verse no descent into Limbus, but the resurre­ction from death can be proued. If wee translate as you do Act. 3. v. 21. whome heauen must receaue, wee will easily conuince that Christe muste be receaued of hea­uen. In the laste example the question is not, howe the worde is to be translated, but by what worde the want of the texte is to be supplied, whiche wee supplie not with wordes of our owne, but with the Apostles owne wordes.

Haue you not gayned greatly by translating verba­tim, exactly, and according to the proper vse and sig­nification of the wordes? I lyke well that euery in­different Reader may iudge by these examples, of Be­zaes purpose in other places of his translation. But you haue two other wayes, to make certaine proofe of their wilfulnesse: The firste is, when the translation is framed according to their hereticall commentarie. A reasonable man would thinke rather, that the commen­tarie were framed according to the texte, than the texte to the commentarie. But to iustifie the truth of those translations, for the firste texte you quote, it is hand­led sect: 26. of this chapter, and so consequently Cap. 7. The seconde is answered sect: 46. the other two con­cerning tradition sect. 23. of the preface, and in the cha­piter following. The second waye of proofe is, when they will auouch their translations out of prophane wri­ters. I thinke there is no better waye, to know the pro­per, or diuerse signification of wordes, than out of aun­cient writers, though they be neuer so prophane who v­sed the wordes most indifferently, in respect of our con­trouersies, of which they were altogither ignorant. As [Page 71] for the ecclesiasticall vse of wordes in the Scripture, and the Fathers, which Beza (you say) doth for the most part reiect, it is vntrue: except there be good and sufficient cause, why he should so do, warranted by the Scripture it selfe, or necessarie circumstances of the places, which he doth translate. For if the Scripture haue vsed a worde in one signification sometimes, it is not necessarie that it should alwaies vse it in the same signification, when it is proued by auncient writers that the worde hath other significations, more proper to the place, and agreeable to the rule of fayth, which perhaps the vsuall significa­tion is not. As for example, the Scripture vseth very often this worde [...] for a boy, or seruaunt: but when the same worde is applied to our Sauiour Christ, in the prayer of the Apostles, Act. 4. 27. Who woulde not rather translate it childe, or sonne, as the worde doth sometime, but more seldome signifie? Howe the Fathers of the Churche haue vsed wordes, it is no rule for translators of the Scripture to followe, who often­times vsed wordes, as the people did then take them, and not as they signified in the Apostles tyme. As [...] for a publicke testification of repentaunce, which wee call penaunce: [...] for imposition of handes, and suche like, in whiche sense these wordes were ne­uer vsed before the Apostles times, and therefore it is not lyke, that they woulde beginne a newe vse of them, without some manifest explication of their meaning, without the whiche no man could haue vnderstoode them: as they haue done in the vse of these wordes [...], and such like. It is not a faulte therefore, prudently to seeke euen out of prophane writers, what is the proper signification of wordes, and howe many significations a woorde may haue, and reuerently to iudge, which is moste apte for the place to be translated, and moste agreeable with the holy ghostes meaning in that texte: and not alwaies to bee tyed to the vsuall signification of wordes, [Page 72] as they are sometimes taken in Scripture, and much lesse as they are vsed of the auncient Fathers.

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

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

Fulke.

TRaditions in deede is a matter of such im­portance, as if you may be allowed what­soeuer you will thrust vpon vs vnder the name of vnwritten traditions, the written worde of God shall serue to no purpose at all. For first as you plainly professe, the holy Scripture shall not be accounted sufficient to teach all truth neces­sary to saluation, that the man of God may be perfect, prepared to all good works. Secondly with the Valenti­nian heretikes, you accuse the Scriptures of vncertaine vnderstāding without your traditions, vnder pretense of which, you wil bring in what you list, though it be neuer so contrary to the holy Scriptures plaine wordes, by co­lour of interpretatiō, as you do the worshipping of ima­ges, & many other like heresies. As for the mention that is made of Apostolicall traditions in diuerse of the aun­cient fathers, some of thē are such, as you your selues ob­serue not, & not for the tenth part of those that you ob­serue, can you bring any testimony out of the ancient fa­thers, as is proued sufficiently by so many propositiōs as were set downe by the Bishoppe of Sarisburie M. Iewel, whereof you can bring no proofe for any one to haue [Page 75] bene taught within 600. yeres after Christ. Now concer­ning the traditions of the Apostles, what they were, who can be a better witnesse vnto vs than Ignatius the disciple of the Apostles, of whom Eusebius writeth, that when he was led towardes Rome where he suffred martyrdom, he earnestly exhorted the Churches, by which he passed, to continue in the faith, and against all heresies which euen then began to bud vp, he charged thē to retaine fast the traditiō of the Apostles, which by that time he protested to be committed to writing: for by that time were al the books of the new Testament written. The words of Eu­sebius concerning this matter are, li. 3. c. 35. [...]. ‘And he ex­horted thē straitly to kepe the tradition of the Apostles, which testifying that it was now for assurance cōmitted to writing, he thought necessary to be plainly taught.’ A­gainst this tradition of the Apostles, which for certaintie & assurance is contained in their holy & vndoubted wri­tings, we say nothing, but striue altogither for it. But be­cause the word traditions, is by you Papistes taken to si­gnifie a doctrine secretely deliuered by worde of mouth, without authority of the holy Scriptures, we do willing­ly auoide the word in our translations, where the simple might be deceiued, to think that the holy ghost did euer cōmēd any such to the church, which he would not haue to be committed to writing in the holy Scriptures: & in steede of that word so commōly taken, although it doth not necessarily signifie any such matters, we doe vse such wordes, as do truly expresse the Apostles meaning, & the Greke word doth also signifie. Therfore we vse the words of ordināces or instructiōs or institutiōs or the doctrine deliuered, all which being of one sense, the Greeke word [...] doeth signifie, and the same doth tradition si­gnifie, if it be rightly vnderstoode: but seing it hath bene commonly taken, and is vrged of the Papistes to signifie only a doctrine deliuered beside the word of God writ­ten [Page 76] in such places where the holy Ghost vseth the Greeke worde [...] in that sense, we translate by that worde (tradition) where he vseth it for such doctrine as is groū ­ded vpon the holy Scriptures, our translatours haue a­uoyded it, not of any hereticall meaning, that all [...] traditions are naught, but that all such as haue not the holy Scripture to testifie of them, and to warrant them, are euill, and to be auoyded of all true Christians, which can not without blasphemie, acknowledge any imperfection in the holy Scriptures of God, which are able to make a man wise vnto saluation, if they shoulde thinke any doctrine necessarie to saluation not to be cō ­tained therein.

FVLK. 2. No maruell, though you can not abide the bels sounding against mans traditions, which sound must nedes pearce your cōscience more than it offendeth your eares, seeing you know that many of those things [Page 77] which you defend vnder the name of traditions, against the holy scriptures, haue not God for their auctor, which forbiddeth to be worshipped in such sorte, but man, or rather Sathan, which hath inspired such things vnto mē, thereby to dishonor God, and to discredite his holy and most certaine written worde. Yet you say it is well and honestly translated. God knoweth how faine you would there were no such text extāt in the Gospel against your superstition and will worshipping. But now let vs see our craftie dealing (as you compte it) against good traditi­ons. In the first text 2. Thessal. 2. v. 15. You may see your vnderstanding of traditions, quite ouerthrowen. For the Apostle speaketh of such traditions as were deliuered to them partly by preaching & partly by his Epistle. Ther­fore tradition doth not signifie a doctrine deliuered by worde of mouth onely. But yet you will say it signifieth here a doctrine deliuered by word of mouth also, which is not written. How proue you that? because all that the Apostle preached was not conteyned in his Epistles to the Thessalonians, therefore was it no where written in the Scriptures? what the tradition was in the second text▪ 2. Thess. 3. v. 6. is expressed by and by after: that he which will not labour must not eate. Was this doctrine neuer written before? when God commaundeth euery man to labour in his vocation. As for the third place. 1. Cor. 11. 2. your owne vulgar Latine translater both teacheth vs how to translate it, and also dischargeth our translation of heresie and corruption, for he calleth [...] in that place, praecepta precepts or instructions, or commaū ­dements, or ordinances, I see no great difference in these wordes. By which his translation he sheweth, that in the other places, 2. Thes. 2. & 3. He meaneth the same thing by traditiones, traditions, that we doe by ordinances or instructions, and might as well haue vsed the word prae­cepta▪ in those two places, as he did in this one, if it had pleased him.

FVLK. 3. There is no question but the Apostles by word of mouth, that is by preaching & teaching, deliue­red the doctrine of the Gospel to the Churches, but that they preached taught or deliuered any doctrine, as nece­sarie to saluation, which they proued not out of the holy Scriptures, and which is not contained in the new Testa­mēt or the old, this is not yet proued, neither euer can it be proued. Such matters of ceremonies, order, & disci­pline, which are mutable, no man denies, but they might & did deliuer, but yet in them nothing but agreeable to the generall rules set downe in the Scripture. But in all these places the word tradition can not once be founde. Yet M. Fulke saith it is foūd. Yea doth? where saith he so? You answere pag. 153 against D. Saunders Rocke. Ther­fore if he giue not an instaunce, let him giue him selfe 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 vsed in the better part, can not be suf­fered to be in the Englishe Bible: as though there were [Page 79] some decree of the Synode, or Act of Parliament against it, and sayth: it may be and is suffered in that sense, which the holy Ghost vseth it, but not to bring prayer for the deade, or any thing contrarie to the Scripture vnder the name of traditions Apostolike. By which wordes I meane, that there is no prohibition or edict to the con­trarie, but if any man will vse the worde tradition in translation of the Bible, he is permitted so to doe, I doe not affirme it is so founde. But as if I shoulde say. The Papistes in Englande are suffered to liue as becom­meth good subiectes, I affirme not that they are, or shall be founde so to liue. But to omit this foolishe quarrell, Beza our Maister is sayed to haue translated [...], the doctrine deliuered, putting the singular number for the plurall, and adding doctrine of his owne. What an hainous matter here is, the word do­ctrine is a collectiue, comprehending many precepts or traditions, and in the next chapiter, the Apostle vseth the same word in the singular number. Againe, the 1. Thes. 4. v. 2. he calleth the same [...], precepts or docu­ments, which worde signifieth the same that [...], witnes your vulgar latin trāslator, which giues one word for both, praecepta, 1. Cor. 11. & 1. Thes. 4. And that the word doctrine is added to the text, it is a fonde cauil: for the word doctrine is cōtained in [...], which signifieth a deliuerie▪ but whereof? [...]f not of doctrine. Our Sauiour Christ also, Math. 15. v. 9. by the testimony of Esay, repro­ueth the traditiō of the Pharisees, teaching the doctrines precepts of mē, which testimonye of Esay, could take no hold of thē, if traditiōs were not doctrines & precepts. So that in this trāslatiō of Beza, (cry out as lowd as you can) there is neither fraude nor corruptiō, malice nor partiali­tye, but a prudent declining of that terme, which might giue occasiō of error, & the Apostles meaning truly and faithfully deliuered. To shewe that one word may be di­uersly trāslated, especially whē it signifieth diuers things, to wise mē is needeles. I haue said before you your selues [Page 80] translate, or else you should be taken for mad men, the Latine worde tradere (of which tradition is deriued) sometimes to deliuer, sometimes to betray, and yet the Greeke and Latine worde being all one in all the saide places.

FVLK. 4. It grieueth you that tradition shoulde be mentioned so often in the ill part as it is. And it seemeth you would defend the Colossians against S. Paule, who reproueth them because they were led with ordinaunces according to the precepts and doctrines of men. But you seeme to make light of suche traditions, and therefore you count that the more hereticall translation, which sayth, why are you burthened with traditions? Wherfore I pray you is that more hereticall? Doe you not thinke that such traditions, as are the commaundements & do­ctrines of men, are burthenous to mens consciences? But they that haue skill in the Greeke tongue must tell you sincerely whether this word [...] doe signifie tradition, and [...] to be led or burdened with traditions. [Page 81] I answere you if [...] as you confesse, signifie ordi­nances and decrees or doctrines, and the worde tradi­tion signifieth the same, why shoulde not [...] signifie to be ledde or burdened with traditions, as well as with ordinaunces, customes, or decrees. These wordes differ much in sounde, but not greatly in signification. Dogmata Pythagoraea that might neuer be put in writing, what were they but the traditions of Pythagoras. Such were the Philosophicall decrees called [...] whereof Tullie speaketh in his booke de finibus, which were di­ctata taught by worde of mouth, which to set foorth, among them was compted an heynous offence, might not those rightly be called traditions?

FVLK. 5. Firste out of Scripture I iustifie it thus: Those dogmata against which the Apostle writeth, were according to the precepts, & doctrines of men: but such the Scripture calleth traditions▪ Math. 15. Therfore these were traditions. Secōdly out of the fathers, Chrysostome vpon this place saith, Traditiones graecorum taxat, he repro­ueth the traditions of the Greekes, saying all is but a hu­mane doctrine. Secondly S. Ambrose vpon this texte. Loue not the world sayth he, nor those errours Quos hu­mana adinuenit traditio, which the tradition of men hath inuēted. And afterward, Sagina enim carnalis sensus humana traditio est. For the tradition of man is the pampering of [Page 82] carnal sense, by which he saith men are so burthened, that they cannot be ioyned to the head which is aboue. Yet burthening with traditions, is called of you the more he­retical translation. Say as much to Ambrose, that he ma­keth an hereticall cōmentarie. The interpretor of Theo­doret printed at Collen 1573. hath translated in the very text, for [...], traditiones hominum traditions of mē. You see nowe this matter is not so voide of testimonie of the fathers, as you supposed. The reason you require vs to make, is made often before. Wee thought it not meete, to expresse the Greeke worde in both places, by the same english word, because the english word as it is vsed by you, is not so indifferent, to signifie the doctrine of God deliuered out of the Scriptures: as to signifie do­ctrines of men deuised beside the Scriptures. If we must answere why we call tradition ordinance, and ordinance tradition: let your vulgar Latine interpreter answere vs, or you for him, why he calleth tradition precept, and vsage or precept, traditiō? The one he doth 1. Cor. 11. v. 2. the other Act. 6. v. 14. where the Greeke is [...] signifying there precepts, or obseruations commaūded, he transla­teth traditiones, as in the other place the Greeke being [...] he translateth praecepta. If this be lawfull for him why should it be coūted corruptiō or false translation in vs? seeing we are moued with as good reason, as can be yeelded for him. As for authentical and apostolicall tra­ditions that are grounded vpon the doctrine of the Apo­stles expressed in their writings, we shall be ready to re­ceiue them, when so euer they shal be brought soorth. If they cānot be proued by the Scriptures, which are writtē that we might beleeue, and beleeuing haue eternall life, & which are able to make vs wise vnto saluatiō, we haue nothing to do with them: we may wel spare them: nay we dare not admit them, least we should answer for blas­phemie against the holy Scriptures, in that dreadfull day, if by admitting of such traditiōs, we should professe, that the doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures, is vnper­fect [Page 83] or insufficient to saluation.

FVLK. 6. I maruaile why you should compte it an heretical humor, to vse the worde traditions in the euill part, which the holy ghost so vseth, and your owne vulgar translator also: but that you are more partial in allowing the traditions of mē, than we in auoiding the terme som­times, only for doubt lest traditiōs of mē, should creepe into the place of Gods cōmandemēts. But how is it falsly translated on our part, that professe to folow the Greke, which is truly translated in your vulgar Latin text, which professeth to translate the Greeke, as well as we? belike because we say, receiued by the tradition of the fathers, which according to the Greeke should be, deliuered by the fathers, but that our fingers itched to foyst in the word tradition. What I pray you? hath your vulgar trāsla­tor foisted in that word? did his fingers itch against such catholike phrases, that he would cōtrol thē by a false trā ­slation? do you not perceiue that while you raile vpō vs▪ you reuile your owne vulgar Latin translatiō, which hath the same word traditiō, for which you storme against vs? But for, deliuered, we haue said, receiued. See whether fro­wardnes driueth you, the Apostle saith, they were deliue­red frō the vaine cōuersation of their fathers traditiō. Do you then vnderstād, that it was deliuered by the fathers, but not receiued by their sonnes? Certainely they were [Page 84] deliuered from that vaine conuersation which they had receyued. For receyuing doth necessarily importe deli­uering. And because you called for a Lexicon in the next section before, Scapula will teach you, that [...] doth signifie, as indifferently A patre traditus as à patre acceptus, deliuered by the father, and receyued by the fa­ther. What wrangling then is this, about the moone shine in the water, to crie out false translation, foysting, itching fingers, and I know not what?

FVLK. 7. We will say it is contained in the Greeke worde [...] which signifieth receaued by tradi­tion or deliuerie frō the Fathers, & not in the verbe [...] which signifieth otherwise many times, thā sim­ply to deliuer, & when it signifieth to deliuer, it doth not alway signifie to deliuer by word of mouth, without wri­ting, as you vnderstand tradition: but as well by wri­ting, as by preaching. As when S. Paule saith, I receaued of the Lord, that which I deliuered vnto vou, speaking of the institution of the supper, he meaneth that which the Euangelists had written, & he him selfe doth write. So 2. Thess. 2. when he willeth thē to hold the traditiōs, which they had learned of him, he speaketh not only of such as [Page 85] they learned by his preaching: but such also as they learned by his Epistle. Wherefore if you should expresly adde the worde tradition in your partiall signification, wheresoeuer you finde the word deliuered, you shoulde not onely translate ridiculously, but also heretically and falsly. Wordes in deriuation and composition, doe not alwaies signifie according to their primitiue.

FVLK. 8. You may be sure we will saye, that we know to be true, and sufficient to discharge our transla­tion from your foolish and malicious quarrelling. But we professe (you saye) to translate the Greeke, and not the vulgar Latine. And I pray you, what doth your vulgar Latine Interpreter professe to translate, but the Greeke? if he then translating out of Greeke, could finde traditi­on in the Greeke worde, why shoulde not we finde the same, especially being admonished by him: who if he translated truly, why are we blamed for doing as he did: if his translation be false, why is it allowed as the onely authenticall text. We follow not therefore the Latine translation, but ioyne with it wheresoeuer it followeth the Greeke, as we doe in ten thousand places more than [Page 86] this, and willingly depart not from it, but where it de­parteth from the Greeke, or else vseth such wordes as would be offensiue, if they were translated into English, or occasion of errour, as you doe likewise, when you de­part from the proper and vsuall signification of wordes, which your Latine translator vseth: as when you call foenerator, a creditor, which signifieth an vsurer, Luc. 7. Sta­bulum, an Inne, and stabularius, an host, Luc. 10. Vna Saba­thi, the first of the Sabaoth, Iohn. 2. Ecclesia, the assembly, Act. 7. Baptismata, washings, Marc. 7. and such like. But we in England (you say) condemne the Latine translation, as papisticall. We accuse it as not true, in many places, & we saye it is the worst of all, though Beza, our maister, pronounce it to be the very beste. This toucheth me somewhat, for in the margent is noted Discouerie of the Rocke, pag. 147. where in deede speaking of the Hebrew text, of the olde Testament, and the Greeke of the newe, the Greeke translation of the Septuaginta, and the com­mon Latine translation, I saye the Tridentine Councell alloweth none for authenticall, but the common Latine translation, that is, the worst of all. Now what sayth Be­za contrary to this? speaking of the diuerse Latine tran­slations of the new Testament onely, he sayth of the vul­gar Latine, that he followeth it for the most part, & pre­ferreth it before all the rest, maxima ex parte amplector & caeteris omnibus antepono. So that I speake of the whole Bi­ble, Beza of the new Testament only. I speake of the vul­gar Latine text, in comparison of the originall Hebrew and Greeke, and the Septuagintaes translation: Beza of the Latine translation of the new Testament, in compa­rison of all other Latine translations, that were before him, as Erasmus, Castallion, and such like. According to your olde maner therefore, you rehearse out of my wri­tings, either falsifying the words, or peruerting the mea­ning. These things considered, you haue no cause to ac­cuse vs of partialitie and inconstancie, for following, or leauing your Latine text, which we neuer did but vpon [Page 87] good ground, and reason sufficient.

FVLK. 9. A blind man may see, that you cauill, and slaunder, quarrell and raile, without respect either of cō ­science towards God, or honestie toward the world: in so much, that most commonly, you forget the credit of your owne vulgar Latine translation, so you may haue a colour to find fault with ours. And yet againe you aske, whether it be the Greeke, which induceth vs to say, for [...], ordinances, and for [...], traditions, &c. I tell you, the Greeke alloweth vs so to say, which is sufficient, when other godly causes moue vs beside, so to translate. Is it the Latine that induceth you to say, for an vsurer, a Faenerator. Stabulum. creditor: for a stable, an Inne: for, what was done, what Quod factum. was chaunced: for, fastening to, crucifying: for, be you sa­ued, Act. 5. saue your selues: for, creature, creation: for, confes­sed, Affigentes, act. 2. promised: for a boate, a shippe: for a shippe, a boate: Saluamini, act. 7. Confessus, act. 7. for singing, piping: for hay, grasse: for refection, refecto­rie: Nauiculas, luc. 5. for foolishnes, madnes: for an image, an idoll, &c. I Nauis, marc. 4. blame not all these as false translations, yet euery man Cecinimus, mat. 11. Fanum, mat. 14. may see, they are neither vsuall, nor proper: yet as for Refectio, mar. 14. some of these (though not for all) I know you may giue Insipientia, luc. 6. good reason, so may we, for any shew of alteration, or Simulachrum. departing from the vsuall signification of the Greeke word, that you are able to alledge against vs.

Fulke.

IF you aske for the readiest and moste 1. proper English of these wordes, I must needes answere you, an image, a wor­shipper of images, and worshipping of images, as we haue sometimes transla­ted. The other, that you would haue, I­doll, Idolater, and Idolatrie, be rather Greekish than English wordes: which though they be vsed of many English men yet are they not vnderstoode of all, as the other be. And therefore I say, the more na­turall, and conuenient speech for our English tongue, & [Page 89] as conuenient for the truth of the thing it is to say, co­uetousnesse is the worshipping of images, and the co­uetous man is a worshipper of images: as to say coue­tousnesse is idolatrie, and the couetous man is an idola­ter, as I haue proued before. Seeing Idolum by your owne interpreter is called simulachrum, and simulachrum signi­fieth as much as imago an image, Cap. 1. numb. 5.

FVLK. 2. Before you can shewe that absurditie of this translation, a couetous man is a worshipper of ima­ges, you must defende your owne vulgar Latine transla­tion, which calleth [...] simulachrorum seruitus, which I haue proued to signifie the seruing or worship­ping of images, cap. 1. nu. 5. Now to our English phrase, a riche man maketh his money his God, a glutton his bellie, and so of other creatures honoured aboue mea­sure. I say the worshipping of images may be after two sortes, either when they are worshipped as gods, (as a­mong the grosser sort of the Gentils & Papistes) & then it is against the first commaundement. Thou shalt haue none other gods but me: or else when men pretende to worshippe God by them, as the Israelites did in the calfe Ex. 32. & in Ieroboams calues, & in the brasen serpent, & [Page 90] the wiser sort of the Gentils and Papists pretend to do in worshipping their images: & then it is a sinne against the second cōmaundement. Thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen images. Thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worship thē. By similitude therfore of thē that trusted in images as their gods, & so honored thē, which were not able to helpe them, the Apostle calleth the couetous man a worshipper of images, & couetousnes worshipping of images: & not properly: but because their monie is to thē the same occasion of departing from God, that the ima­ges was to the worshipper of thē. So if we will speake vn­properly, as the Apostle saith, their belly is their God, we may say, it is their idoll, 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 giuen that diuine honor, which is due to God: but by worshippers of idols, and i­mages, is giuen to idols or images. I confesse the vse of the English tongue in these speaches, is rather to call thē idols, than images, and to extend the name idol (which is alwaies taken in the euill parte) to that which the word i­mage can not so aptly signifie: yet in trueth of the thing there is no difference betwene idol and image, worship­ping of idols, and worshipping of images, whether you speake of such as be idols & images so properly called, or of such as be onely by similitude, figuratiuely so na­med. If any of our Superintendēts be such as you speake of, I wish them amended or else remoued. For my parte I know none to be suche, although I wish to the best, en­crease of Gods grace, to despise the world, & to be more earnest in setting foorth Gods glorie. As for the great difference you speake of, betwixt S. Paules wordes, and our translation, I see none as yet.

FVLK. 3. We had neede to see more, before we be conuicted of corruption: for hitherto we haue seene no­thing, but a folish cauill, groūded vpon the cōmon vse of the word idol in English, in which speach it is takē only for vnlawful images, although in the Greeke it signifieth as generally, as Imago in Latin, & by Tully him selfe is v­sed for the same. But in the English Bible printed 1562. we read thus 2. Cor. 6. How agreeth the tēple of God with images? Here you can not be ignorant of Satans cogita­tiōs, that it was translated of purpose, to make the simple people beleue, that the Apostle speaketh against sacred images in churches, which were then in plucking downe in Englande when this translation was first published in print. You are so cunning in Satans cogitations, that he hath inspired into you a manifest vntrueth: for this text was so translated, & printed nere 30. yeres before 1562. in King Henrie the eightes time, when images were not in plucking downe. And when it was printed againe 1562. which was the fifth yere of her Maiesties reigne (God be thāked) there was no neede to plucke downe images out of churches, which were pluckt downe in the first and se­cōd yeres of her reigne. Wherfore that purpose is vainly imagined of you, for the trāslaters purpose was the same that the Apostles: to shew that the religion of God, hath nothing to do with images, made by mans deuise▪ to ho­nor them as gods, or to honor God by them. And where [Page 92] you say that the Apostle alludeth to Salomons temple, which did well agree with images, but not with idols: I answere you, Salomons tēple did not agree with images made by the deuise of man, to honour God by them, or in thē. For the Cherubins were not of mans deuise: but of Gods commaundemēt: the oxen to hold vp the laua­tory, the pomegranats, & other ornaments, were not for any vse of religion to worship God in them, or by them, but for vse & garnishing of the house appointed by God in his law, and by direction of his spirit in Salomon. For the commaundement, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe, is no restraint vnto God, but vnto men of their owne braine, or priuate intent, to make images to serue in re­ligion. Therefore the Apostle speaking of suche images as were forbidden by Gods lawe, is not otherwise to be vnderstoode, and no more is our translation.

FVLK. 4. The brasen serpent first and last was an i­mage, holy, when it was commaunded by God to bee made as a sacrament of our redemption by Christ, law­full, when it was reserued onely for memorie of that ex­cellent miracle: vnlawefull, cursed, and abhominable, [Page 93] when it was worshipped, and therefore iustly broken in peeces, by the godly king Ezechias. You cite Augustine as it pleaseth you, to followe your owne context. Quem sanè serpentem propter facti memoriam reseruatum, cum posteà populus errans, tanquam idolum colere cepisset Ezechias, &c. Which serpent truly being reserued for the memorie of the fact, when afterward the people going astray, began to worship as an idoll, Ezechias the king, seruing God with religious power, with great praise of his pietie, brake in peeces. Here it is certaine, that Augustine as most Ecclesiasticall writers, vseth the word Idolum, for an image abused. But that the people began to adore it as God, he sayth not, for they onely worshipped God by it, falsly in deede, and superstitiously: but yet not beleuing that image to be God him selfe, but a holy representati­on of his power, which was shewed by it in the dayes of Moses. That Ezechias by religious or Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie, did put downe idolatrie you passe it by, as though you saw it not in S. Augustine. But you bring an other example to proue, that images except they be worshipped as gods, be no idols. In truth, seeing all religious worship is due onely to God, although the idolaters intend not to worship their images as gods, yet by worshipping of them, they make vnto them selues gods of them, and so offende both against the first, and second commaundementes. Yet how proue you, that the Israelites made a god of their calfe. Because they sayed these are thy gods, ô Israel, that brought thee out of the land of Aegipt. But euen by that same speach it is mani­fest, that they worshipped not the calfe, as beleuing it to be God: but contrariwise protested thereby, that they meaned not to chaunge their God, but to worshippe the same God, which brought thē out of the land of Aegipt by that image, which they could not be ignorant that it was made but yesterday, of their earings, and therefore could not thinke it was the same god that brought them out of the lande of Aegipt, but that they would worship [Page 94] God by that visible shape, which they sawe before them. And Aaron by his proclamation cōfirmeth the same. To morow, (saith he) shal be holy daie to Iehoua, that is, to the only true God, whom they dishonored, pretending to worship him by that Image: so hainous a thing it is, to make Images to represent God, and to worship them for his honour, although the worshipper do not beleeue them to be Gods. Therefore where wee haue in some translations, 1. Cor. 10. called those Idolaters worship­pers of Images, we haue not erred: for an Image it was they worshipped, thinking to worshippe God thereby. But if either Image, or Idoll; worshippers of Images or Idolaters, would please you, wee haue both in our tran­slations, the one expressing what wee meane by the o­ther, that these cauillations were needelesse, but that ma­lice against the truthe incenseth you to picke quarrels, and that translation whiche vseth the termes of Idols and Idolaters, was then in printing at Geneua, when Images were in pulling downe in Englande, namely the firste and seconde yeares of the Queenes raigne, beyng finished the 10. of April 1560. whiche notably confuteth the fonde purpose, that you slaunder our tran­slators to haue had.

FVLK. 5. We knowe that the Iewes had images without sinne, and so haue we: but to haue images in a­ny vse of religion without Gods expresse commaunde­ment, neither is it lawfull for thē nor vs, because we haue a generall commaundement to the contrary. They were accounted like the Gentils therefore, for hauing images contrarie to Gods commaundement, of their owne ap­pointment, & worshipping them: not for hauing images appointed by God, which yet it was not lawful for thē to worship. But the Protestāts (you say) are like to the Am­monits, and Moabits, of whom S. Hierom writeth, that In Ezech. cap. 25 comming into the temple, and seeing the Cherubins co­uering the propitiatorie, they said, loe, euen as the Gen­tiles, so Iuda also hath idols of their religion, as we ac­cuse the church of God of idolatrie, because we see there the sacred images of Christ, and his Saincts.

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

FVLK. 6. Verily the commaundement of God, be­ing a cōmaundement of the first table, vnto which what soeuer is said in the Scriptures of images, or the worship of them forbidden, must be referred, speaketh general­ly of all maner of images made by the deuise of man, for any vse of religion, whether they be of Iewes, Pagans, or false Christians. But we are offred a demonstration, that our owne conscience condemneth vs herein, and that we applie all translation to our heresie. And that is this. In Esai 31. and Zacha. 13. with one consente all translate I­dols, because God speaketh of the time of the newe Te­stament, where if they had translated Images, they had made the prophecie false, because Images in Christian countries are with honour, but Idols of the Gentiles are [Page 97] destroyed out of the worlde so farre as gentilitie is con­uerted to Christe. A goodly demonstration I promise you. That the translators had no such respect, it is plaine, for that they do not vnderstād the 31. of Esay of the time of Christe: but of the reformation made by Ezechias. But in Esay 44. whiche is a manifest prophesie of the Church of Christ, they all vse the worde Image, also Mi­cheas the 5. and in diuerse other places, where the destru­ction of Idolatrie is prophesied, by the religion of Christ, which is verified onely in true Christians: for o­therwise both the Idolatrie of Pagans, and of false Chri­stians, hath remained in many places, and yet remaineth to this day.

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

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

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

FVLK. 10. Mine answere was framed to Howlets reason, who would proue that our seruice was naught, because the Scriptures were therein redde in false and shamelesse translations: example of whiche hee brin­geth. 1. Iohn. 5. Children keepe your selues from Ima­ges. To whome mine answere was apte, when I saide in the Bible appointed to bee redde in the seruice, it is otherwise, and as he him self saith, it ought to be, which answere as though it were made to the generall accusa­tion of our translations, you with many supposings, as though this, as though that, would make it seeme to be vnsufficient, whereas to Howlets cauill, it was not on­ly sufficient, but also proper. And therfore this is a vaine supposell, as though we accuse them not truely of false translation, vnlesse it be false in that one Bible, whiche for the present is redde in their Churche. For we graunt you not the other to be false, because this is true, and so are all the rest. As though it pertayned not to them howe their other English Bibles be translated. It pertaineth so farre that if their were a faulte in the former, we haue amen­ded it in the later. But in that text, for which I answered, I acknowledge yet no faulte, neither is that mine on­ly answere, for I proue that Image and Idoll with the Apostle, signifieth the same thing. Or as though the people redde not all without prohibition, and may be abu­sed by euery one of them: There is no suche false tran­slation in any of them, that the people canne bee abused there by, to runne into heresie. Yet againe: [Page 101] Or, as though the Bible which now is redde (as we thinke) haue not the like absurd translation, yea more absurd euē in this mat­ter of Images, as is declared before. As though you haue pro­ued, whatsoeuer you prate of: once againe: Or, as though we must first learne, what English translation is redde in their Church (which were hard to knowe, it changeth so often) before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation. If you will accuse that translation, which is redde in our Church, as Howlet doth, reason would you should first learne which it is, and that is no hard matter, seeing there was neuer more appointed than two, as oft as you say we chaunge. Or, (at last) as though it were not the same Bible, that was for many yeares redde in their Churches, and is yet in euery mans hands, which hath this absurd translation, whereof we last spake. As though I could prophecie, when I answered Howlet, for the Bible appointed to be redde in the Church, in 1. Iohn. 5. that you would finde fault with an other text, in that translation, that sometime was redde in the church, and yet is in many mens hands? Which although it be well altered in that point, which you quarrell at, in the two later translations, yet I see no absurditie in the first, which for one Greeke word, giueth two English words, both of one signification, yea, & the later being plainer, explicating the former, which to English eares is more obscure, and lesse vnderstoode.

FVLK. 11. That Bible perhaps you mislike more, than the other translations, because Archbishop Cran­mer allowed it by his authoritie. But howsoeuer it be, (as I thinke, there be more imperfections in it, than in the other) it is not your accusation without due and substantiall proofe, that can make it lesse esteemed, with any indifferent, or wise man. If it haue caused the people to contemne, and abandon all Popish Idols, there is cause, that we shoulde giue God thankes for it. Albeit not the translation onely, but preaching of the Gospell, and Christ crucified especially, by which Christ hath bene truely, and liuely paynted forth vnto them, and euen crucified amonge them, hath made them contemne, yea and abhorre all carnall and hu­mane deuises of the image of our saluation, or repre­sentation of his passion, by vayne and dead images, to be any helpes of faith, religion, or the worshippe of God. Where you saye it is seene by experience, that all other images of infamous harlots, and heretikes, of Heathen tyrants, and persecutors, are lawefull in England, to garnish houses, when sacred images are e­steemed idolatrous, defaced, and burned: I knowe not well your meaning. For if you haue any true ima­ges of the Patriarches, Prophetes, Apostles, or other holye persons, I thinke they be as lawefull, to garnishe [Page 103] priuate houses, as the other you speake of. Yea the stories of the whole Bible paynted, both of the olde Testament, and the newe, are not forbidden, but in many places vsed. Prouided alwaies, that in the pla­ces appoynted for the publike seruice of God, suche thinges are not lawefull, for daunger of idolatrie, nor in priuate places to be abused, as they are of Papistes, but rather, though they were as auncient, and as good­ly monuments as the brasen serpent was, which no i­mages at this daye, can be, it is to the great honour of God, that they shoulde be despised, defaced, bur­ned, and stamped to powder, as that was, which some­tyme was erected by the commaundement of God, by which not onely great miracles were wrought, but the wonderfull mysterie of our saluation through faith in Christ, was prefigured.

FVLK. 12. It pleaseth you worse perhaps, that lesse fauoureth your pelting distinction of images, and idols, but it is neuer the worse to be liked of them, that be wise, and learned, which know that [...], and [...], in Greeke, doe signifie the same thing, which you can not deny. And where you say, in your scornefull moode, loe, this is the Bible, which they referre vs vnto, as better trā ­slated, and as correcting the fault of the former, you fol­low your accustomed vaine of lying. For I acknowledge no fault of the former, in this point of images, but con­fute the frowardnes of that foolish reason, which accu­seth our seruice, of reading the Bible, in shamelesse tran­slations, in that text, 1. Iohn. 5. whereas in the Bible ap­pointed for the seruice, it is not as he sayth, but euen as he would haue vs to saye. I flye not therefore (as it plea­seth your wisedom to say) from that translation also, to the Geneua Bible, neither doe I alledge the Geneua trā ­slation for that cause you pretend, but to shew, that albe­it we translate in such words, as you can not mislike, yet your venemous slaundering pennes, and tongues, can ne­uer giue ouer your peeuish quarrelling. In the place by you quoted, I defend both as true, and answerable to the Greeke, and of one sense and meaning, where the sound of words onely, is diuers, the signification of matter, one, and the same. And yet you must haue your foolish florish in roperipe termes. Where shall we haue these good fellowes, &c? You shall haue vs, by the grace of God, ready to iustifie all our translation, from shame­lesse falsification, and hereticall corruptions, which is your impudent charge against vs. And if in matter of lesser moment, you can descry the least errour, in any, or in all of our translations, we shall be willing to confesse the same, and ready to reforme it. For truth is deerer to vs, than credit: although we thinke it better credit, to [Page 105] reforme a fault, than being admonished, wilfully to cō ­tinue it, or defend it.

FVLK. 13. Still you harpe on the olde vntuneable string, that the former is a corruption, which saith, Babes kepe your selues from images, which sentence sore grie­ueth you, to be written in the toppe of church dores, or in place where the Roode loft stoode. And you aske why it remaineth on the wals, which we correct as a fault in the Bibles? But who tolde you that they correct it as a fault in the Bibles? Is euery alteration with you a corre­ction? The one explicateth the other, that idols of which [Page 106] S. Iohn speaketh, be images abused in religion. Not that all images be idols (as the worde idoll in the Englishe speach is taken) nor that al idols be images, but as ima­ges that are worshipped. But S. Iohn (you say) speaking to the conuerted Gentiles, biddeth them beware of the idols from whence they were conuerted. That is true, but not onely from them, but from all other idols. Ex­cept perhappes you thinke, that Christians by that texte shoulde not abhorre the images of Simon Magus, and Selene, and the images of the Valentinians, and Gno­stikes, and other heretikes, which worshipped the image of Christ, and of Sainct Paule, as Irenaeus and Epiphanius Irenaus libr. 1. e [...]. 20 23. 24. Epiphanius. lib. 1. Tom. 2 H. 27. doe testifie. And it seemeth you so thinke in deede. For you say soone after, whosoeuer esteemeth those wordes, as the wordes of Scripture (if images be put for idolls spoken against Christes image) is made a verie babe. Suchs babes were Irenaeus and Epiphanius, that they condemned this worshipping of images for heresie. Suche a babe was Epiphanius, that finding the image of Christ painted in vaile hanging in a Church at Ana­blatha, he iudged it to be contrarie to the Scriptures, and rent it in peeces. Suche a babe was Tertullian, that speaking of that verie texte of Sainct Iohn, litle chil­dren keepe your selues from idolls, he writeth, Non iam ab idololatria quasi ab officio, sed ab idolis, id est ab ipsa effigie eorum. ‘ Indignum enim vt imago Dei viui, Imago Ido­li & mortui fiat, He biddeth them take heede, not nowe from idolatrie, as from the seruice, but from the idolls them selues, that is to say, from the verie images, or shapes of them. For it is vnworthie that the image of the liuing God, shoulde bee made the image of an i­doll, and that being deade.’ Finally, suche a babe was your vulgar translatour, that he sayth. Filioli cust [...]di­te vos à simulachris, Which is all one, as if he shoulde haue sayed ab imaginibus (as I haue plentifully proued) children keepe your selues from images. As for the purpose you pretende to haue in honouring Christ by [Page 107] images contrarie to his commaundement, is in deede nothing but dishonouring of him and destruction of your selues.

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

‘But admit that in some translation it bee as you say: Children keepe your selues from images: what greate crime of corruption is here committed? You saye that it is to make simple men beleeue that idolls and images are all one, which is absurde. This is no more absurditie, than in stead of a Greeke word to vse a [Page 108] Latine of the same signification. But you replie, that then where Moises sayeth that God made man according to his owne image, we shoulde consequently say, that God made man according to his idoll. I aunswere, howsoeuer the name of idols in the Englishe tongue for the greate dishonour that is done to God in worshipping of ima­ges, is become so odious that no Christian man woulde say, that God made man according to his idoll, no more than a good subiect woulde call his lawefull Prince a tyraunt, yet according to the Greeke word, [...] may bee as truely translated an image, as [...], a King.’

Here if I were disposed to giue the rayne to affec­tion, as you doe often being vnprouoked by me, were sufficient occasion offered, to insult against your false­hoode. But I will forbeare, and in plaine wordes tell you, that if you be so simple, that you can not vnder­stande the difference of these two propositions, [...] wheresoeuer it is reade in Greeke, may be truely trans­lated an image: and this: wheresoeuer the worde image is vsed in Englishe, you may vse the word idoll, you are vnmeete to reade a Diuinitie Lecture in Englande, how soeuer you be aduaunced in Rhemes. If not of igno­rance, but of malice, you haue peruerted both my words and meaning, let God and all godly men be iudge be­twene you and me. My wordes are not obscure nor am­biguous, but that euerie child may vnderstand my mea­ning to be no more but this. That this Englishe worde idoll is by vse restrayned, onely to wicked images. The Greeke worde [...] signifieth generally all images, as [...] did all Kings, vntill Kings that were so called, be­came hatefull for crueltie, which caused euen the name tyrannus to be odious.

FVLK. 15. No man denieth (you say) that [...] may by the originall proprietie of the worde signifie an image. It is well, that being conuicted by all Dictiona­ries, old and new, you will at length yeelde to the truth. But you demaund whether the Dictionaries do tell me that I may commonly and ordinarily translate it so, as the common vsuall signification thereof. Sir I medle only with the translations of the Scripture, and the Dic­ctionaries tell me that so it vsually signifieth, and there­fore so I may translate in the Scripture, or any other an­cient Greeke writer, that vseth the worde according to the originall proprietie thereof. Peraduenture some la­ter Greeke writers restraining it onely to wicked ima­ges, may so vse the terme, as the generall signification thereof will not agree to the meaning in some odde place or other. But that is no matter to pleade against our translation of the Scripture, whē in that time it was written, the word was indifferent, to signifie any image. Further than this, you aske of me, if the dictionaries do tell me, that image and idol are all one, and wheresoeuer [Page 110] I find the worde Imago, I may truly call it idoll? No for­sooth sir, they teach me no such thing: neither doe I say that the worde image and idoll may be confounded But the cleane contrary, if your Mastership had not mistaken me, because it was not your pleasure to take me either according to my wordes, or according to my meaning. Why sir, These are the pointes you shoulde defende in your aunswere, for an example, doe they teache you to translate in these places thus: God hath predestinated vs to be made conformable to the idoll of his sonne. And againe, wee haue borne the idoll of the earthly, &c. I pray you sir, pardon me to defende that I neuer sayd, ne thought, you your selfe confesse in the ende, that I say, that no Chri­stian man woulde say so: wherefore when you say that I affirme, this is a true translatiō according to the proper­tie of the word: can I say lesse? Then you lye like a Po­pish hypocrite.

FVLK. 16. Nay firste note how falsly, and then how foolishly, and yet how impudently he continueth a slaū ­der against me, of his owne deuising, that I would con­found those English wordes, images, and idols. For first he will teach me to speake English, that where I sayd the name of idoll is become odious in the English tongue, because of worshipping of images, I should haue sayed. The dishonour done to God in worshipping of idolls, made the name of idolls odious. And what I pray you were those idolls, the worshipping of which made the name odious, but images? May I not be so bold, vnder your correction, to vse the generall name images, which you say are not idolls, vntill they be abused. When the image of Iupiter, King of Creete, was first made, and nothing else done vnto it, would you call it an image, or an idoll. Sure I am, you called the brasen serpent, first an image, and then an idoll. Euen so I trust I may with­out offence of English men, say, that the abuse of ima­ges, called first without note of infamie [...], idolls, made the name idols to be odious, and therefore not applyed, but to such abused images: and the exam­ple I brought of Tyrannus, which first did signifie a king, is very plaie and like, but that you are disposed to play the peeuish quarreller. And trow you, I will not say, that for the fault of kings, the name of tyrant became odious. Yes verily, I will not spare to saye, and so I sayde before, that for the fault of such cruell Kings, as were called [Page 112] Tyranni, though the name it self first signified not so, that name of tyrant became odious. As for your fombli­tudes of Manlius, and Iudas, two proper names, compa­red with image, and idoll, King, and Tyrant, which be common names, I will not vouchsafe to answer them. But the name of ministers (you saye) is odious, for the faults of ministers, and not for the faults of priestes. Po­pish priestes are odious enough, for their owne faults, so that they neede not be charged vniustly, with the faultes of our euill ministers. Which, I would wish, were fewer, than they be, but I trust there are not so many euill of them, as your popish priestes haue bene, and are dayly found to be. And whosoeuer of our ministers hath bene found worst, I thinke there may be found, not a priest, but a Pope of your side, as euill, or worse than he. But if reuerence done by Papistes, (which you call Christians) to images, had bene euill, (say you,) it should haue made the name of images, odious also. No sir, that followeth not, so long as that reuerence was accounted good, and lawfull, and now that it is found to be abhominable, the people hauing the other odious worde of idolls, in vse, neede not abandon the name of images, except they had an other, to signifie lawfull, and good images. The curse of the idolatrous Councell of Nice the second, no Chri­stian man regardeth, which knoweth that by Gods owne mouth in the Scriptures, all makers and worshippers of idolatrous images are accursed.

FVLK. 17. We can not yet be rid of this mans ex­traordinarie, and vnaduised surmises, which are too ma­ny, and tedious, as where I say, the name Idoll is odious in the English tongue, he gathereth, that I meane, it to be odious onely in the English tongue, and not in the Latine and Greeke. I haue shewed before, that in Tul­lies time, it was not odious in Latine, and it is not long, since Maister Martin confessed the Greeke worde, accor­ding to the originall proprietie, to signifie as generally, as [...], an image, which is not odious. Although in la­ter times, among Christians, both of the Greeke, and the Latine Church, the name of Idolum, became odious, as well as the word Idoll in English. Therefore it is not my fond opinion, but. M. Martines foolish collection, that a [Page 114] man may say in Latine, fecit hominem ad idolum suum: and yet I am charged with rash assertions, when nothing is reproued that I affirme, but that which he him selfe doth imagine.

But nowe you will returne to those wordes of myne, where I say, that though the originall proprietie of the wordes, hath that signification: yet, no Christian man would say, that God made man according to his idoll, no more than a good subiect woulde call his lawefull Prince, a tyrant. These wordes (you say) doe tell vs, that we may not speake, or translate, according to the origi­nall proprietie of the word, but according to the com­mon, vsual, and accustomed signification thereof. For speaking I graunt, as the words are vsed in our time: but for translating, I saye you must regarde howe the wordes were vsed in time of the writer, whose workes you 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, Iupiter, tyrant of the gods, or King of the gods? I thinke not. But in S. Iohn, seeing at that tyme that he wrote, [...], signified an image general­ly, it may be translated, an image, generally, and seeing he speaketh of the vnlawefull vse of images, it may also be translated an idoll, as the worde is nowe taken to signifie. Howe the late pettie Prelates of the seconde Nicene Councell were disposed to vse the worde, to co­lour their blasphemous idolatrie, it is not materiall. The auncient dictionaries of Suidas, Phauorinus, He­sychius, with the examples of Homer, Plato, and other auncient Greeke Authors, are of more cre­dite for the true and auncient signification of that word.

FVLK. 18. Againe, I repeate, that wordes must, or may be translated, according to that signification they had in time of the writer, whome you translate. And to my question, what absurditie is it in that text of Saint Iohn, for [...], to translate image: you aunswer by that meanes, idoll and image, are made to signifie one thing. But that is not so, for image signifieth more generally, than idoll in English, and image aunswe­reth properly to the Greeke worde, [...], idoll, to the meaning of Saint Iohn, that is of wicked images, so that the translation is good. Euen as [...], may be translated a King, generally, according to the worde, and if the Author meane of a cruell King, it may be translated a Tyrant. For King is a generall word, ap­plyed to good Kings, and to euill, as image is to lawefull and vnlawefull images. Therefore our tran­slations, that for [...], saye an image, are not false, much lesse anye malicious corruptions. And if the translators in so doing, intended to disgrace popishe images, I thinke they did wel, and according to the mea­ning [Page 116] of the holy Ghost, who forbidding generally, all i­mages, that may be had in religious reuerence, did not restraine the signification of the word [...], to the wic­ked idols of the Gentiles, but left it at large, to compre­hend all such images, and all kindes of worshipping them, as are contrary to the lawe and commaundement of God.

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

The second, Rom. 11. is no corruption, for seeing you acknowledge, that a substantiue must be vnderstoode, to beare vp the feminine article, what reason is there, why we should not vnderstand [...], rather than [...], seeing it is certaine, Baal had an image, that was worshipped in his temple? 2. Reg. 10. The third place is, Actes the 19. where the worde Image is necessarily to be vnder­stoode, which fell downe from Iupiter, as it was fayned. Herevnto Plinie beareth witnesse, lib. 16. cap. 40. & shew­eth by whom it was made, & of what matter, of the like speaketh Herodianus. And the similitude of this Image, [Page 117] is yet to be seene, in those auncient Coygnes, that yet re­maine, which were called [...] temples. Wherefore your vulgar translation which turneth [...]. Iouis prolis, is not right, and therefore is corrected by Isidorus Clarius, a Ioue delapsi simulachri, with the consent of the deputies of the Councell of Trent.

FVLK. 20. This is a sore complaint, that we haue falsified the Scripture, as it were with a Leprosie, in tran­slating sculptile, and conflatile, a grauen and a molten I­mage, and namely in the first commaundement, where there is no worde of Image, or Imagrie: but in deede in the second commaundement, wee translate▪ the Hebrue worde Pesel a grauen Image. You say it signifieth a gra­uen [...] thing, not including the worde Image. I answere you are not able to bring a place in the Bible, where it signifieth any other grauen thing, but onely an Image: & yet it is deriued of a verbe, that signifieth to graue or hewe, as the worde Pisilim, Iud. 3. taken for quarries of [...] stone doth declare. Beside this, the worde nexte follow­ing, signifying a similitude or Image, sufficiently shew­eth, that it is not taken generally for any grauen worke, but for such, wherein the likenesse or similitude of God, or any creature is meante to be resembled: and the same doth also the Greeke worde [...] testifie; as for the Cherubins, Oxen, Brasen serpent, or any thing which God commaundeth, is not forbidden by this precept: but that whiche man maketh of his owne head, to ho­nour as God, or to worship God by it. Wherefore very absurdely, to cloake suche abhominable Idolatrie▪ you say that this commaundement, Non facies sculptile, doth concurre with those words, Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me. By which not only two seuerall cōmaun­dements are confounded, but also a vaine tautologie cō ­mitted: or els that added for interpretatiō ▪ which is more obscure, than the text interpreted. Touching the crosse that stoode sometimes in the Queenes chappel, whereof you speake your pleasure, as also of hir Maiesties Coun­cellours, it is not by and by Idolatrie, what soeuer is a­gainst that commaundement, neither is the hauing of [Page 119] any Images in the Churche (which are had in no vse of religion) contrarie to this commaundement. And al­though wee will not accuse the Lutherans of Idolatrie, neither can wee, because they worship no Images: yet will we not excuse them, for suffering of Images to be in their Churches, whereof may ensue daunger of Idolatrie, but that in some parte they goe against this commaun­dement, deceyued in their iudgement, and of vs not to be defended in their errour. After you haue railed a fitte, with fie for shame, and suche like Rhetorike, you seeme to make the prohibition of Images, none other, but such as the prohibition of mariage, and other conuersa­tion with the Gentiles, which was only for feare of Ido­latrie. But when you can shewe the like absolute com­maundement, to forbid mariage, and conuersation with Hebr. the Heathen, as this is for Images in religion, and wor­shipping Teraphim. of them, we may haue some regarde of your si­militude: Matsebah. otherwise the meaning of this commaunde­ment, 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 commaundement, Tabnith. as properly as of the second. Hamanim.

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

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

FVLK. 23. If it had said, the grauen images of siluer, and the molten or cast images of gold, I know not what aduauntage it had bene to you, or losse to vs. But nei­ther word (you say) is Hebrue for an image. Alacke this is poore sophistrie, when all the worlde of Hebricians know, they are Hebrue for nothing else, but for grauen or cast images, and by the figure Synecdoche, are taken generally for images of what making or matter soeuer they be. And the question is not, by what art images are made: but to what vse, and howe they be vsed, that they may be condemned for vnlawefull. This I take to be the cause, why the interpretour neglected the difference of the Hebrue words, which sometimes is not obserued, & in English vnpossible alwaies, & vnprofitable to be kept. As for your owne conceite, whereat you thinke boyes might laugh, I leaue it to your selfe. For if we were as­ked, what is Latine for an image, we coulde aunswere somewhat else than Sculptile. But if a boy shoulde aske Pesilim or Massecath in this place of Esay doth signifie, we woulde not aunswere a grauen thing, or a molten thing, least he might shewe vs the mantilltree of a chim­ney, and a brasse pot hanging ouer the fire, and demaund further whether Esay in this text spake of them, and all such things as they are. But it is most euidētly false (you say) that Sculptile and Image are all one, and this appea­reth to our great cōfusion, Abacuc the second &c. But I say to your shame, it will appeare by this verie texte, that Pesel and Massecah signifie one and the same thing [Page 123] and that most euidently. For thus the textis, What pro­fiteth the Image ( Pesel) for his maker iots [...]ro, hath made it, or (as you will haue it) hath grauen it Pesalo: what followeth nowe, but Massecah an Image? you had ra­ther say Conflatile a molten Image. But then you muste remember, that the maker of it by grauing, made it a molten Image, whiche is a straunge peece of worke, ex­cepte you will saye, that first he did caste it, and then he did graue it, but saye whiche way you will, the same Image is called Pesel and Massecah without difference. The last wordes are vmoreh shaker, and a teacher of lies. For which wordes your translation hath Imaginem fal­sam, a false Image, whereas Moreh neuer signifieth an Image. But of that afterwarde.

FVLK. 24. I would euery common reader were a­ble to discerne your foolishe malice in this place. For firste while you cauill at the Etymologie of the words, which the Prophete regardeth not, you make him say, [Page 124] that the [...]h [...]o [...]er thereof, hath grauen a grauen thing, a [...]cl [...]ea thing. Secondly, where you say, that the He­brue word Pes [...] hath no signification of an image in it, leaning to the bare de [...]tion from the verbe Pasal, you controule the onely vse of it, which is to signifie an i­mage, or idoll, whether it be grauen, or molten, or by what workemanship soeuer it be made, which you con­fesse to be the sense of it. But when we doe it (you say) to bring all holy images into contempt, we may iustly be controuled, for false and hereticall translatours. First we knowe no holy images, made with handes at this time so accompted, but they are all prophane and abho­minable idols. Secondly, if the translatours purpose were euill, yet so long as the wordes and sense of the o­riginall tongue will beare him, he can not iustly be cal­led a false and hereticall translatour, albeit he haue a false and hereticall meaning. As you Papistes haue in your late translation of the newe Testament: yet where you translate, either according to the wordes, or accor­ding to the sense, no equitie can condemne you for false translatours.

FVLK. 25. Seing the Prophet regardeth not the E­tymologie of the wordes, but vseth both for one and the same Image, no nor regardeth the matter whereof it is made, as appeareth in the nexte verse, where he calleth this Idoll wodde, and stone, which cannot be molten, e­uery reasonable man may see, that the worde Massecah doth in this place signifie generally an Image, which is made to be a teacher of lies. And whereas you repeate, that the two wordes doc signifie each an other diuerse thing from Image, because the one signifieth a grauen thing▪ the other a molten thing, you speake with out all shame, and sense of honestie: for Pesel signifieth not eue­ry grauen, carued, or hewen thing, but onely an Image. For who would say, that a morter, or a gutter of hewen stone were in Hebrue to be signified by the word Pesel, or a pewter pot, or a dishe, by the worde Massecah; Seing the vse of the Hebrue tongue therefore hath appropried these names onely to Images, it is great frowardnesse, & no learning to quarell about the etimologie or deriua­tion 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 extende according to the deriuation, & shewing nothing else but walles of bricke or other matter, prayse them for goodly buildings, he should be thought to speake straungly in our tongue, & yet according to the deriuation, building may signifie a­ny thing that is builded. But for Imaginem falsam, a false image, you charge vs to translate an other thing, with­out any necessary pretence, either of Hebrew, or Greeke. Such affirmations will make vs thinke meanly of your knowledge, in the Hebrew tongue. For what I pray you els, cā Moreh in this place signifie, but a teacher? or where [...] is it euer taken for an image, as your Latine text hath, or a fantasie, as the Greeke readeth. Turne ouer your dicti­onarie, and Hebrew concordance, and see if you can find it vsed for an image▪ or an idoll. At least wise, giue credit to Isidorus Clarius, who thus writeth in his notes vpon [Page 126] the text. Quod ait imaginem falsam, in Heb. est docen [...], vel annuncians mendacium. That he saith a false Image, in the Hebrue it is teaching or shewing foorth a lie The di­stinction you make of true and false Images, is vaine for this purpose: for all Images that are vsed in religion, are false, and teachers of falshood, which you with Gregorie say are Laye mens bookes; but what shall they teache Abac. 2. Ierem. 10. saith Abacuc and Ieremie, but lies and vanitie? where note that Ieremie calleth the Image woodde, by Synec­doche, signifying all Images made with hands, of any matter. Againe he saith, euery artificer is confounded in his Image, because it is false which he hath made, and there is no breath in it. In whiche verse it is to be obserued, that hee vseth firste the worde Pesel, saying Mippasel and afterward Nifco, for the same Image made [...] by the artificer, without distinction of grauing or melting, at leastwise for the sense, though the wordes be diuerse. Euen so your vulgar Latin translator vseth Sculptile, conflatile, imaginem & simulachrum, for one and the same thing. The Scripture therfore telling vs that all Images are false, because they being voyde of life, are sette vp to represent the liuing, it is not our fantasie, but the auctoritie of Gods worde, that causeth vs to reiect your fantasticall distinction, of true and false Images.

FVLK. 26. That (thing) is put for idoll, I confesse it to be a fault in some translations, but in the Geneua Bible it is reformed. Contempt of the authoritie of [Page 127] that Apocryphall chapiter (as it seemed) did breede that negligence. Where you write, that he should by saying, I worshippe not thinges made with handes, haue denyed the Arke, and the propitiatorie to be worship­ped, it is very true, for neither of both was to be wor­shipped, as they were made with handes, but God was to be worshipped where they were, and those thinges to be reuerently esteemed, as the sacraments, of Gods presence. As for the crosse whereon Christ dyed, I see no cause why it shoulde be worshipped, if it were to bee had, but rather, if it were worshipped, it shoulde bee serued as the brasen serpent was. None of the Apostles made anye accounte of it: Nicode­mus and Ioseph of Arimathia, if there had beene any matter of religion in it, might haue preserued it, and not haue suffered it to be buried in the earth, with the two other crosses▪ as the storie of the inuention, sayeth, if it be true. At the finding whereof, Helena as Sainct Ambrose writeth, Regem adorauit non lignum v­tique, quia hic gentilis est error & vanitas impiorum. She worshipped the King, not the tree verily, for this is an Hethenishe errour and vanitie of vngodly men. De obit. Theodosij.

FVLK. 27. I thinke you are not able to proue, that we make, image the English to all the Hebrewe wordes, though you boldly affirme it. But in the place by you mentioned, I suppose they translated the Greeke worde [Page 128] grauen or carued images, rather than idoll, 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 workeman be neuer so wicked, yet can not properly be called idolls, before they be abused by them that worship them.

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

FVLK. 29. Not these onely, but the idols of the Simonists, Valentinians, Gnostici, Carpocratits, Colly­ridians, and such like, made with handes, of Christ, and his mother, of Paule, and Simon, and Selene, and Pytha­goras, [Page 130] &c. and such other, were idolls of false Christi­ans, since the idolatrie of the Gentiles gaue place, by the iudgement of Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and other auncient doctors. And whatsoeuer you cite, or can cite out of Saint Hierom, against the idolls of heresies, agreeth most aptly to your selues, the Papistes, who worship not onely idols made with handes, but also the idols of your braines, which are abhominable heresies.

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

Fulke.

WE haue also aunswered before, that 1. words must not be alwaies translated, according to their originall and ge­nerall signification, but according to such signification, as by vse they are ap­propried to be taken. We agree also that words taken by custome of speech into an Ecclesiasticall meaning, are not to be altered in­to a straunge or profane signification. For such vanities and nouelties of wordes, the Apostle prohibiteth, wher­of the popish translatiō of the new Testament is fraught full. Notwithstanding our meaning is not, that if any Greeke termes, or words of any other language, haue of long time bene vsurped in our English language, the true vnderstanding of which is vnknowen at this day, to the common people: but that the same termes may be either in translation, or exposition, set out plainly, to en­forme the simplicitie of the ignorant, by such wordes, as of them are better vnderstoode. Also when those termes are abused by custome of speech, to signifie some other thing, than they were first appointed for, or else be taken ambiguously for diuers things: we ought not to be su­perstitious in these cases, but to auoide misvnderstan­ding, we may vse words according to their originall 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 idoll as the Papistes vsed to make of their S. Ni­colas bishops, or else for a great Lord onely, that rideth about in a white rochet, they may be told, that the name of a Bishop describeth his office, that is, to be an ouer­seer of the flocke of Christ, committed to his charge. Likewise if the word Deacon, be taken for such an one, as at a popish masse standeth in a disguised tunicle, hol­ding [Page 133] a patten, or some other Idolatrous bable vsed of them: the people must be taught, that this name signifi­eth a minister, which was ordeined not to serue the Po­pish altar, but the poore mens tables, that is, to prouide for the poore, and to see the Churches almes bestowed vpon them. Also if the name of Martyrs be not vnder­stood, but taken onely for them that are tormented and rent in bodie, as the common speach is to say, of men & beasts, that they are martyred, whē their bodies are woū ­ded and mangled: here it is needefull to shewe, that the Saincts that suffered for Christe, had their name of their witnesse or testimonie, not of their paines & torments. The name of Baptisme is so common to Christians, that it neede not to be changed into washing: but yet it may and ought to be explicated vnto the vnlearned, what this worde doth signifie, which is no prophane signification, but a true and general vnderstanding of the word, which is vsed of the Euangelist for other washings than the Sa­crament of Baptisme, and so, you are inforced to tran­slate it, Marc. 7.

FVLK. 2. Absurde trāslations of the English Bibles, [Page 134] you say are congregation for Churche, Elder for Priest, Image for Idoll and such like. The word Church being ambiguously taken of the people for the place of assem­bly, & the assembly it selfe, it was as lawful for vs to cal congregation, as for you to call it assembly, Actes 7. This worde Priest, commonly taken for a sacrificer and the same that Sacerdos, and so by you translated: there was good occasion to vse the worde Elder, for which you vse Senior, or auncient in your translation, which is a name of auctoritie, as ouerseer is of diligēce, minister of seruice▪ pastor of feeding all which names set foorth a true Bishop, Pastor, and Elder, and if you will needes haue it, of a true Prieste Of Image for Idoll is sayde inough in the nexte Chapiter before, Schisme I knowe not how English men should vnderstand, except it were englished by dissension, diuision, rending, or some such like Of general for Catholike, we shal speake anon. Secrete for Sacrament, we vse, because wee would retaine the ecclesiasticall vse of this worde Sacrament which is to signifie the seales of Gods promises, and not confounde it, with euery holy or vnholy secrete thing. The Greeke worde mysterie, which you would enioyne vs to vse, was in the time of the firste translation more vnknowen, than that wee could well haue vsed it, ex­cept wee would haue followed your veine, in vanitie and noueltie of termes, Praepu [...]e, neophyte, gratis, deposi­tum, &c. or else made generall and common the proper vse of this Ecclesiasticall terme Sacrament, to euery my­sterie, and called the Sacrament of preaching, of pu­blishing the Gospel to the Gentils, of the seuen starres, as you do, and yet in the Sacrament of the whore of Baby­lon you leaue it and call it mysterie, Apoc. 17. v. 7. as you shoulde be enforced to doe, if you would translate the old Testament out of Latine, Dan. 2. diuerse times, ex­cept you would call Nabuchadonosors dreame, a Sacra­ment, and Dan 4. where the king sayth, that to Daniell no secrete is impossible; meaning vnknowen, or not vn­derstood, [Page 135] you would say, no Sacrament, & Tob. 12. you would translate Sacramentum regis abscondere bonum est. It is a good thing to hide the kings Sacrament, where you should say secrete, and where the English phrase would hardly beare you to say the kings mysterie. Of the other termes, in the places by you quoted, it shal be sufficient to speake. But I haue rendred reasonable causes of these termes hitherto: so that no mā, but madde with malice, would thinke we conceale the name of Church, & digni­ties therof, in hatred of them, or do dissemble the names of schisme & heresie, in fauour of those abhominations, which are as wel set forth to their detestatiō, in the terms of dissention and sectes: as for the name Sacrament, we find not in the Greeke but mysterium we trāslate a secrete or a mysterie, as the worde signifieth, which nothing fa­uoureth the pretended Sacrament of Matrimonie.

FVLK. 3. S. Paule in deede speaketh plainely in Greeke, but if you speake English & say schismes, fortie thousand of the people in England will sweare they vn­derstande you not. But schismes (you say) are those that deuide the vnitie of the Churche: dissentions may be in prophane and worldly things. Verily all schismes deuide not the Church, for they were not al the Church, [Page 136] of whom it is sayde in S. Iohn 9. There was a schisme a­mong them: for I thinke the best of the Pharisees, were scarse good members of the Churche. Againe where S. Paule doth say, least there should bee a schisme in the bodie. 1. Cor. 12. He speaketh of the natural bodie, wher­vnto he compareth the Churche. S. Paule also sayth, as plainely as he canne speake in Greeke. 1. Cor. 11. v. 18. I heare that there be schismes among you: yet your vulgar Latine translatour is bolde to saye Scissuras, cut­tings or rendings, where you are bold to goe from your Latine texte and call them schismes. And for explica­ting the Greeke name of heresie, by sectes, why should wee be more blamed▪ than the vulgar Latine translator, who commonly translateth it Sectas, and namely Gal. 5. 2. Pet. 2. Actes. 24. diuerse times, 26. and 28 in all which places you your selues translate sectes. Is it because he, or you fauour heresies and heretikes? will you neuer leaue this foolish wrangling, which alwaies turneth you to the greater discredite?

FVLK. 4. I doe not knowe where the name of Ca­tholike is once expressed in the text of the Bible, that it might be suppressed by vs, which are not like to beare malice to the Catholike Church, or religion, seeing we teache, euen our young children to beleue the holy Ca­tholike Church. But not finding the word Catholike in the text, you runne to the title of the seuen Epistles, cal­led as commonly Canonicall as Catholike or Generall. But Eusebius belike testifieth that they haue bene so cal­led euer since the Apostles time, lib. 2. cap. 22. I maruell you are not ashamed to auouch suche an vntruth. Euse­bius speaking of his owne time, saith, they are so called, but that they haue bene so called euer since the Apostles time, he sayth not. And so farre off he is from saying so, that he pronounceth the Epistle of S. Iames in the same place, to be a bastarde, and speaketh doubtfully of the Epistle of S. Iude. But whereas in one translation we vse the worde Generall for Catholike, you make a greate may game of it, shewing your witte and your honestie both at once. For these 5. of Iames, 2. of Peter, one of Iude, and the first of Iohn, which are properly & right­ly so intituled, haue that title, because they are not sent to any particular Church, or persons, but to all in gene­ral, as the Greeke scholiast truly noteth. ‘And OEcume­nius before the Epistle of S. Iames sayth expressely Ca­tholicae id est vniuersales dicuntur hae, &c. These Epistles are called Catholike, that is to say Vniuersall or General [Page 138] because not distinctly to one nation or citie (as S. Paule to the Romanes, or Corinthians) this companie of our Lords disciples doth dedicate these Epistles’, but general­ly to the faithfull, or to the Iewes that were dispersed, as also Peter: or else to all Christians liuing vnder the same faith. For otherwise, if they should be called Catholike, in respect of the soūdnes of the doctrine cōtained in thē, what reason were there more to call them so, than to call all the Epistles of S. Paule? Wherefore in this title which yet is no part of the holy Scripture, it is rightly trāslated general. The other translatours seeing seuen to be called general, where only fiue are so in deede, and seeing them also called canonicall, which should seeme to be a con­troulling of S. Paules Epistles, left out that title altogi­ther, as being no part of the text▪ and word of God: but an addition of the stationers or writers.

FVLK. 5. It is because we woulde haue the Greeke vnderstood, as it is taken in those places, when we turne Catholike generall, Idolum, image, [...], instruction, [Page 139] [...], ordinaunce, [...], dissention, [...], sect, [...], secret, and such like. And where you say, we woulde be glad for our word sect, to pretend to follow your Latine translation, it is a fable. For in translating sect▪ we follow the Greeke as truely, as your Latine translation doeth, which if it be true and sincere, as you confesse, what de­uilish madnesse possesseth your malicious mind to bur­then vs with such purposes, as no reasonable man would once imagine or thinke of, that we should vse that terme in fauour of heresie, and heretikes, whome we thinke worthie to suffer death, if they will not repent, and cease to blaspheme, or seduce the simple.

Fulke.

HOwe can wee suppresse the name Ca­tholike, 1. which the holy Scripture neuer vseth, as for the name of Church, I haue alreadie shewed diuerse times, that for to auoyd the ambiguous taking of that terme, it was at the first lesse vsed, but ne­uer refused, for doubt of any obiection of the Catho­like Church against vs: the profession of which, being contained in our Englishe creede, howe could we relin­quish, or not acknowledge to be contained in the Scri­pture, in which we taught, that all articles of faith neces­sarie to saluation are comprehended? But we are con­tent to be iudged by those places which seeme of most importance for the dignity, preheminence, & authoritye of the Church.

FVLK. 2. In the first English Bible printed, where it was thus translated, Math. 16. vppon this rocke I will build my congregation: ‘the note in the margent is thus, vpon this rock, that is, as saith S. Augustin, vpon the con­fession which thou hast made, knowledging me to be Christ, the sonne of the liuing God, I will build my con­gregation or Church. Was not this translator thinke you sore afraid of the name of the Church?’ What other thing should he vnderstand, by the word congregation, in al places by you noted, or in any like, but the church, as he doth here expound him selfe. And this translation almost worde for worde, doth the Bible you call 1562. follow.

FVLK. 3. A strange matter that the Church mili­tant and triumphant should be excluded, by vsing the word congregation: when by it nothing is signified but the congregation or Church militant and triumphant: and that Christ should no more be head of the Churche when he is head of the congregation, where the differēce [Page 142] is only in sound of words, not in sense or meaning. Your vaine and ridiculous surmise, why the name of Church shuld be left out of the Bible, I haue before cōfuted: she­wing that in euery Bible it is either in the text, or in the notes. But S. Augustin telleth vs (say you) that the Iewes synagoge was a congregation, the church a cōuocation: & that a congregation is of beasts also, a conuocation of reasonable creatures only. But S. Luke in the person of S. Stephen telleth vs, and Augustine telleth vs as much, that the synagoge of the Iewes is called also Ecclesia: which signifieth the church and congregation. That Congregatio the Latin word, may be of beasts also, it skilleth not, for the church of Christ is called also a flocke, and sheepe of his pasture. But he that should say in English a cōgrega­tion of beastes, might be taken for as wise a man, as he that said an audiēce of sheepe. And wheras S. Augustine, telleth you, that the Iewes congregation is somtime cal­led the church: what is the cause that you doe translate it, the assembly, Act. 7. euen as you do the congregation of the Idolatrous Ephesians, Act. 19? But further (you say) Augustine telleth vs, that the Apostles neuer called the church congregation. It is a worlde to see what foolishe fetches you haue, to deceiue the ignoraunt. Augustine sayeth the Apostles neuer called our assembly Synagoga, but alwaies Ecclesia: and yet he is a litle deceiued: for S. Paul calleth our gathering togither vnto Christ [...], but Congregatio, a cōgregation, he saith not. And al­though he make a nice distinction betwene the wordes Congregation & Conuocation, yet all men which know the vse of these words, will confesse no necessitie of a Iewish synagoge, to be implied in the word cōgregation more than in the word [...], which of the holy Ghost is vsed for an assembly or gathering togither, either of Iewes, Christiās, or Gentils. And therfore it seemeth the trans­latour vsed the word congregation, which is indifferent for all, euen as the worde Ecclesia is vsed both in the Greeke, and vulgar Latine.

FVLK. 4. Wee neede not to appeale to the later translations, for any corruption or falsification of the former, no nor for any mistranslation. For seing the spi­rite of God (as I haue said before) vseth the word Eccle­sia generally for a companie of Christians, Iewes, and Gentils, the translator hath not gone from the truth, and vse of the Scriptures, to vse the word cōgregation, which signifieth indifferently all three. Wherefore there nee­deth no condemnation, nor confession of any grosse faulte herein cōmitted, except you will count it a grosse fault in S. Luke, to vse the worde [...] without any scrupulositie for all three, as the translator doth the worde congregation, and you in two significations the worde assemblye. Neither can your heathenish and bar­barous burning of the holy Scriptures so translated, nor your blasphemie in calling it the deuils worde, be excu­sed, for any fault in translation, which you haue discoue­red as yet, or euer shall be able to descrye. That stin­king cauill of leauing out of the Bible this worde Church altogither, being both foolish and false, I haue aunswered more than once alreadye. It is not left out altogither, that in contents of bookes and chapiters, [Page 144] and in notes of explication of this worde congregation is set downe. Neither could there be any purpose against the Catholike Churche of Christe in them that transla­ted and taught the Creede in English, professing to be­leeue the holy Catholike Church. As for our hatred of the malignant Antichristian Church of Rome, we neuer dissembled the matter, so that wee were afrayed open­ly to professe it, what neede had wee then after suche a fantasticall manner (as is fondly imagined) to insi­nuate it.

FVLK 5. You are very hardly, & in very deede ma­liciously bent against vs, that you will accept no confes­sion of faults escaped, neuer so plainly made. As for cor­rupt [Page 147] dealing in the holy Scriptures, and falsifying of the word of god▪ you are not able no not if you would burst your selfe for malice, to conuict vs. And therefore looke for no confession of any such wickednes, whereof our conscience is cleare before God, and doth not accuse vs. As for Bezaes correction of his formen translation, Act. 2. v. 27. if your dogged stomach will not accept, he shall notwithstanding with all godly learned men, be accoū ­ted, as he deserueth, for one who hath more profited the Church of God, with his sincere translation, and learned annotations, than all the popish Seminaries, and Semi­narists, shall be able to hinder it, iangle of grosse & false translations, as long as you will. But the chiefest & prin­cipall place that concerneth the Churches perpetuitie, is not yet reformed to your minde. For in the Bible 1577. we reade still Math. 16. vpon this rocke I will build my congregation. If Christ haue a perpetuall congregation, builded vpon the foundation of the Prophets, and Apo­stles, him selfe being the corner stone, his Church is in no daunger euer to decay. Yet you aske, whether it can be without some hereticall subtiltie, that in this place specially, and (as you thinke) onely, the word congrega­tion, is not chaunged into Church. It is an homely, but a true prouerbe: the good wife would neuer haue sought her daughter in the ouen, had she not bene there first her selfe. You are so full of hereticall subtilties, and trai­terous deuises, that you dreame of them in other mens doinges, whatsoeuer commeth into your handes: yea, where you your selfe can haue no probable imagination what to suspect. And therefore we must giue you a rea­son, in discharge of our credit For my part, I knowe not with what speciall reason the translator was moued, but I can giue you my probable coniecture, that he thought it all one, (as in deede it is.) to say my congregation, or my Church. For what is Christes congregation, but his Church? or what is Christes Church, but his congrega­tion? And yet to put you out of all feare, the Geneua [Page 148] translation hath the worde Church, that you make so great account of, as though it were not an indifferent word to the true Church, of true Christians, and the false Church of malignant Heretikes: being vsurped first to signifie the congregation of Christians, by a Metonymie of the place containing, for the people contained. For the etymologie thereof is from the Greeke word [...], which was vsed of Christians for the place of their holy meetings, signifying the Lordes house, therefore in the northren, which is the more auncient English speech, is called by contraction Kyrke, more neare to the sound of the Greeke word.

FVLK. 6. That Beza translateth the participle, [...], actiuely, it is plaine, both in the text of his tran­slation, & in his annotations. But that he doth it to sig­nifie, that Christ may be without his Church, that is a head without a body, it is a shameles slaūder. His words, vpon which you weaue this cobweb, are these. Omninò au­tem hoc addidit Apostolus, vt sciamus Christum per se non in­digere hoc supplemento: vt qui efficia [...] omnia in omnibus reue­ra: nedum vt suppleatur à quoquam, nisi quatenus pro immen­sasua bonitate Ecclesiam dignatur sibi quasi corporis instar ad­iungere. [Page 149] ‘This the Apostle hath added altogither for this end, that we may know that Christ of him selfe hath no neede of this supplye: as he which worketh in truth all things in al so far it is, that he should be supplied by any body, but that of his infinite goodnes, he vouchsafeth to adioine his Church vnto him selfe, as his body.’ Who but the deuil, would finde fault with this godly & Catholike saying? wherein it is affirmed, that Christ, which accor­ding to the perfection of his diuine nature, needeth no supply, yet of his infinite mercie, vouchsafeth to become head of his Church, as of his body: so that he wil not be counted perfect without it. Is this to say, Christ may be a head without a bodie? or is it for his benefite, or the benefite of his Church, that he is the head thereof? But the more to laye open this malicious slaunder, and im­pudent falsifying of Bezaes wordes, and meaning, I will set downe his saying, going immediatly before, vp­on the worde [...], which he calleth complementum siue supplementum, a fulfilling or supplying. ‘ Is enim est Christi in Ecclesiam amor, &c. For such is the loue of Christ toward his Church, that whereas he performeth all thinges, to all men, vnto the full: yet he esteemeth him selfe as an vnperfect head, & maymed of the mem­bers, vnlesse he haue his Church adioyned to him, as his bodye. Hereof it commeth, that Christ is taken sometime collectiuely for the whole Church, adioyned to her heade, as 1. Cor. 12. v. 12. & 13. and Gal. 3. 16. Hereof commeth also that phrase, (in Christ) so often repeated, which signifieth something more expresly, than with Christ, or by Christ. Hereof that voice of Christ, Saul, Saul, why doest thou persecute me? whether also pertaineth that which is written, Col. 1. v. 24. Finally, hereof proceedeth all our hope and consolation.’ How thinke you, is not this man willing to separate the Church from Christ, the head frō the body? O mōstrous malices of godlesse Papists. His exposition of the place being such, as you see, let vs nowe examine what can be [Page 150] sayde against his translation. For a man must not tran­slate falsly, to make a true sense. It is alledged against him, that Chrysostome, and all the Greeke and Latine fathers take the participle passiuely. Beza confesseth it of Chrysostome, whome the later Greeke writers com­monly doe followe. But the participle, being deriued of the meane verbe, may haue either passiue or actiue sig­nification. But why doth Beza say, that the exposition of Chrysostom is forced, which taketh it passiuely? he saith not in respect of Chrysostomes sense, which he him selfe followeth, and it is contained in the word [...], but in respect of the grammar, that [...] should be put abso­lutely without any word to gouerne it, seeing the parti­ciple of the meane verbe, may be taken actiuely, and go­uerne [...], being the accusatiue case.

FVLK. 7. Marke howe malice carieth this man al­most into madnesse. For who but a madde man woulde thinke, that Beza opposeth prophane writers to Ecclesi­asticall doctours, for vnderstanding of the Scripture? The meane verbe [...], which the meanest Grammarian in the world knoweth to be taken both actiuely & pas­siuely by the Grammar rule De verbo medio, Beza pro­ueth out of Xenophon, and Plato, that it is and may be vsed actiuely. Why not therfore in this place of S. Paule, where bothe the sense requireth it, that one thing be not repeated twise without necessary cause, and the con­struction of the worde [...] calleth for it, which other­wise is lefte at randon, without any gouernment? Seeing therefore we haue the common rule of Grammar, and the example of eloquent writers for vse, I maruaile what M. Martine meaneth to waste so many wordes about so cleare a matter. No man that knoweth any thing, doub­teth but that [...] may be, and is often taken passiue­ly: But seing it is also found to be a verbe meane, who neede to be afraide to vse it actiuely (hauing Xenophon and Plato for his warrant) yea euen in those examples you put of Gods blessing filling all things, or the wine filling the cuppe, if any man would speake so. But if be­cause the worde is more vsually taken passiuely, men would refraine so to speake, yet why should we thinke that S. Paule did not vse it actiuely? when the actiue sig­nification is more agreeable, both with his wordes, and with his meaning. But least you shoulde thinke Beza is alone, which taketh it actiuely, what say you to Philip­pus Montanus one of your owne profession, which in his animaduersions vpon Theophlyactes translation, by him corrected, sayth vpon 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 verbe of indifferent signification, actiue or [Page 152] passiue, but Theophylact seemeth to take it passiuely.’ What say you to Isidorus Clarius, who although in his text he readeth passiuely, yet in his note, cōfesseth it may be takē either passiuely or actiuely. For this is his note. Plenitudo eius\] per omnia enim membra adimpletur corpus Christi, quia omnia in omnibus implet, dum ipse agit in omni­bus, vel per omnes homines haec implet membra. Siue pleni [...]u­dinem & complementum omne suum habet ipsa ecclesia ab illo, qui omnia in omnibus adimplet. ‘That is the fulnesse of him\] for by all the members the bodie of Christ is filled, be­cause he filleth all in all, while he worketh in all, or throughout all men filleth these members. Or else the Church hir selfe hath all hir fulnesse and accōplishment of him, which filleth al in al.’ These mē both Papists, were as good Grecians (I warrant you) as M. Gregorie Martin is, or euer will be, by whom if he will not be controlled, it were folly to presse him with the iudgement of our Greeke readers, which he requireth.

FVLK. 8. I haue shewed how it is inforced, because in taking the participle passiuely, you must either be en­forced to admitte a playne soloecisme, where none nee­deth: or else you must hardly vnderstande the preposi­tion [Page 153] [...] to gouerne, the accusatiue [...], as Montanus telleth you in Theophylact, and as Oecumenius doth, & the sense wil be no more than is contained in the worde Complemenium. Whereas by taking it actiuely, the won­derfull goodnesse of Christ shineth toward his Church, who although he needeth nothing to make him perfect, as Chysostome saith, but supplieth al things in al things, yet it is his gratious pleasure, to accoumpt him selfe im­perfect without his Church, which he hath vnited to him as his bodie, in which he is not perfect without all his members.

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

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

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

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

Fulke.

IF any errour haue escaped the former 1. translations, that hath bene reformed in the later, all reasonable men ought to be satisfied with our owne correc­tions. But because we are not charged with ouersights and small faults com­mitted either of ignorāce, or of negli­gence, but with shamelesse trāslations, wilful & heretical corruptions, we may not acknowledge any such crimes, [Page 158] whereof our conscience is cleare. That we deuised an in­uisible church, because we were few in number, whē our translations were first printed, it is a lewde sclaunder. For being multiplied (as we are God be thanked) we holde still that the Catholike church, which is the mo­ther of vs all, is inuisible, and that the church on earth may at sometimes be driuen into suche streights, as of the wicked it shall not be knowen. And this we helde alwayes, and not otherwise. Nowe touching the worde Presbyter, and Presbyterium why we translate them not Priest, and Priesthoode of the new Testament, we haue giuen sufficient reason before: but because we are here vrged a freshe, we must aunswere as occasion shall bee offered.

FVLK. 2. In denying the blasphemous sacrifice of the popish masse, with the altar, & priesthood, that therto belongeth, we vse no wily policie, but with open mouth at all times, and in all places, we cry out vpon it. The sa­crifices, priestes, and altars of the Gentiles, were abho­minable. The sacrifices of the Iewes, their priestes, and [Page 159] altars, are all accomplished and finished in the onely sa­crifice of Christ our high Priest, offered once for all, vp­on the altar of the crosse: which Christ our Sauiour, see­ing he is a Priest, according to the order of Melchise­dech, hath an eternall priesthood, and such as passeth not by succession, Heb. 7. Therefore did not Christ at his last supper, institute any externall propitiatory sacrifice of his bodie and bloud, but a sacrament, ioyned with the spirituall sacrifice of praise, and thankes giuing. Which sacrament being administred by the ministers thereto appoynted, the sacrifice is common to the whole Church of the faithfull, who are all spirituall priestes, to offer vp spirituall sacrifices, as much as the minister of the worde and sacraments.

FVLK. 3. Nowe you haue gotten a fine nette to daunce naked in, that no ignorant blinde bussarde can see you. The maskes of your nette be the ambiguous and abusiue significations of this worde Priest, which in deede according to the originall deriuation from Presbyter, should signifie nothing else, but an Elder, as we translate it, that is, one appoynted to gouerne the Church of God, according to his word: but not to offer sacrifice for the quicke and the deade. But by vsurpation it is commonly taken, to signifie a sacrificer, such as [...] is in Greeke, and sacerdos in Latine, by which names, the ministers of the Gospell are neuer called by the ho­ly Ghost. After this common acception, and vse of this word Priest, we call the sacrificers of the olde 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 newe Testa­ment by diuerse other names, and neuer by the name of [...], we thought it necessary to obserue that distin­ction, which we see the holye Ghost so precisely hath obserued. Therefore where the Scripture calleth them [...], we call them according to the etymologie, Elders, and not Priestes: which worde is taken vp by common vsurpation, to signifie sacrificers of Iewes, Gentiles, or Papistes, or else all Christians, in respect of spirituall sacrifices. And although Augustine, and o­ther of the auncient fathers, call the ministers of the newe Testament, by the name of sacerdotes, and [...], which signifie the ministers of the olde Testament: yet [Page 161] the authoritie of the holy Ghost, making a perfect di­stinction betweene these two appellations, and functiōs, ought to be of more estimation with vs. The Fathers were content to speake in Latin & Greeke, as the termes were taken vp by the common people newly conuerted from gentilitie, but yet they retained the difference of the sacrificing priesthood, of the one, and the ministe­riall office of the other. This may suffice therefore to render a reason, why we vse not the worde Priest for Mi­nisters of the new Testament: not that we refuse it in re­spect of the etymologie, but in respect of the vse & com­mon signification thereof.

FVLK. 4. In al those places by you rehearsed, Act. 15. and 16. your owne vulgar Latine text hath seniores, which you had rather call auncients (as the French Protestants call the Gouernours of their Churches,) than Elders, [Page 162] as we doe. That Popish Priestes should haue any digni­tie or authoritie in Councels, wee doe flatly denie: but that the Seniors, Auncients, Elders, or Priests (if you wil) of the new Testament, should haue as much dignitie and auctoritie, as Gods worde doth afford them, we desire with all our hartes. That our Christian Forefathers eares were not acquainted with the name of Elders, it was be­cause the name of Priest in their time, soūded according to the etymologie, and not according to the corruption of the Papistes: otherwise I thinke their eares were as much acquainted with the name of Elders, which we vse, as with the name of Auncientes, and Seniors, that you haue newly taken vp, not for that they differ in significa­tion from Elders, but because you woulde differ from vs.

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

FVLK. 6. The name Elders vsed in our translation, is neither more nouell to English eares, nor more pro­phane to godly eares, than the name Auncients, which your translation vseth. And yet I thinke the Apostle 1. Tim. 6. spake not of noueltie to English eares, but of that which was newe to the eares of the Churche of God. But the worde Elders (I weene) muste be pro­phane, because we English the Greeke worde of ordei­ning, as if wee should translate Demosthenes, or the Lawes of Athens concerning the choosing of Magi­strates. Doth not this cauill redounde more against the holy Ghost, to accuse his stile of prophanenesse, which v­seth the same wordes for the ordeining of Priestes, that Demosthenes or the lawes of Athēs might vse for choo­sing of their Magistrates? But this worde we enforce (you say) to enduce the peoples election, and yet the Bishop, not the people, elect our ministers. We meane not to enforce any other election than the worde doth signifie. Neyther doth our Bishops (if they doe well) ordeine any Ministers or Priestes without the Testimo­nie of the people, or at leastwise of such as be of moste credite where they are knowne. Where you vrge the pronowne, [...], to them, as though the people gaue no consent nor testimonie, it is more than ridiculous: and beside that, contrarie to the practise of the primitiue Churche▪ for many hundreth yeares after the Apostles, as also that you would inforce vpon the worde [...], vsed by S. Paule, Tit. 1. as though that worde of con­stitution, did exclude election. That the worde [...] by the Fathers of the Church since the Apostles, hath bene drawne to other signification than it had before, it is no reason to teach vs howe it was vsed by the Apo­stles. Election is an indifferent thing, the election of Bishops, Elders, or Priestes is an holy thing, the holy­nesse whereof is not included in the worde [...] but in the holy institution of Christ, and authoritie by [Page 165] appointment deliuered, by imposition of the handes of the Eldership.

FVLK. 7. The testimonie of S. Hierome whom you In Esa. cap. 58. cite, you vnderstand 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 vnderstande it of the ordi­nation of Clerkes, ‘which is performed not onely at the imprecation of voice, but also at the imposition of hāds, least as we haue laughed at in some men, the secrete im­precation of the voyce should ordaine Clerkes, being ignorant thereof. And so proceedeth to inueigh against the abuse of them,’ that would ordaine Clerkes, of their basest officers, and seruitours, yea at the request of foo­lish women. By which it is manifest, that his purpose is not to tell what [...]. properly doth signifie, but that imposition of handes, is required in lawfull ordi­nation, which many did vnderstand by the word [...]. [Page 166] although in that place it signified no such matter. And therefore you muste seeke further authoritie to proue your Ecclesiasticall etymologie, that [...] signifi­eth putting foorth of the handes to giue orders. The places you quote in the margent, out of the titles of Nazianzens sermons, are to no purpose, although they were in the texte of his Homilies. For it appeareth not, although by Synecdoche the whole order of ma­king Clerkes were called [...] that election was ex­cluded where there was ordination by imposition of handes. As for that you cite out of Ignatius, pro­ueth against you, that [...] differeth from impo­sition of hands: because it is made a distinct office from [...], that signifieth to lay on handes? and so [...] and [...] by your owne author doe differ.

FVLK. 8. We desire not to be more holy in the en­glishe termes, than the holye Ghost was in the Greeke termes. Whome, if it pleased to vse such a word, as is in­different to signifie the auncients of the Iewes, the Se­nators of Rome, the Elders of Lacedemonia, and the Christian Cleargie, why shoulde we not truely tran­slate it into English?

But I pray you in good sadnes, are we so profane, and secular, Act. 20. in calling those whome Saint Paule sent for out of Ephesus, Elders? What shall we saye then of the vulgar Latine text, which calleth them Maiores na­tu? as though they obtayned that degree by yeares, rather than by any thing else? and why doe you so pro­fanely, and secularly call them the Auncients of the Church? Is there more profanenesse and secularitie in the Englishe worde Elders, than in the Latine worde Maiores natu, or in your Frenchenglishe terme, Aun­cients. Surely you doe nothing but play with the no­ses of such as be ignorant in the tongues, and can per­ceiue no similitude or difference of these wordes, but by the sounde of their eares. But nowe for the worde [...], vsed by Saint Paule, 1. Tim. 4. which we call the Eldershippe, or the companye of Elders, I haue shewed before, howe it is vsed by Saint Luke, in his Gospell, cap. 22. and Act. 22. You saye, we will not speake playnely, lest the worlde shoulde heare, that Timothie was made Priest, or Bishop, euen as the vse is in the Catholike Church at this day. And then you tell vs out of the Councell of Carthage, 4. cap. 3. that all [Page 168] the Priestes present shoulde laye their handes on the heade of him that is ordayned, togither with the Bi­shoppe. We knowe it well, and it is vsed in the Church of England, at this daye. Onely the terme of Elder­ship displeaseth you, when we meane thereby the com­panye of Elders. But whereas the translators of the Bible, 1562. call it Priesthood, eyther by Priesthood they meant the same that we doe by Eldershippe: or if they meant by Priesthood, the office of Priestes, or El­ders, they were deceiued. For [...] signifieth, a companie of Elders, as it is twise vsed by S. Luke, and of­tentimes by the auncient writers of the Church, both Greekes and Latines.

FVLK. 9. In these three textes you triumphe not a litle, because your vulgar Latine text hath the Greeke worde Presbyter. The high dignitie of Priestes, or El­ders, in remitting sinnes, we acknowledge with Chry­sostom, in his booke entitled of Priesthood: which se­ing it is [...], we will neuer translate Eldershippe. But we may lawfully wishe, that both Chrysostom, and other auncient writers, had kept that distinction of termes, which the Apostles and Euangelists did so pre­cisely obserue. In the last text, 1. Pet. 5. your vulgar La­tine [Page 169] sayth, Seniores and Consenior, your selues in English, seniors, and fellow senior. What trespasse then haue we committed, in saying Elders, & fellow Elder, or an Elder also?

FVLK. 10. I haue told you already, & you could not but know, that it should be told you, that seeing we tran­slate none otherwise, thā your vulgar Latine trāslator, we are no more to be blamed of falshood, corruption, pro­fanenesse, nouelty, thā he is, who professed to traslate the Greeke as much as we do. But if we had meant no worse (say you) than he, we would haue bene as indifferent to haue said somtimes priest & priesthood, where he hath the word Presbyteros, & Presbyteriū. I aunswer, Presbyteriū he [Page 170] hath but once, and for that you haue Priesthood once, as you confessed before. And if the name Priest were of the same vnderstanding in common English, that the worde Presbyter is, from whence it is deriued, we woulde neuer haue sought more wordes for it, than we doe for the wordes Bishoppe, Deacon, and such like.

The wordes Presbyter, and Presbyterium, you confesse, that Beza doth alwayes vse, and so doe we, when we write or speake Latine, but we can not vse them in En­glish, except we shoulde be as fonde as you in your gratis, deposi [...]um, and suche fantasies. And to tell you plainely, as our conscience beareth vs witnesse, we will neuer dissemble, that we auoyde that worde Priest, as it is vsed to signifie a sacrificer, because we would shew a perfect distinction, betwene the priesthood of the lawe, and the ministerye of the Gospell: betwene Sa­cerdos, and Presbyter, a sacrificer, and a gouernor of the Church. And I appeale to your owne conscience, whether if the Englishe worde Priest, were as indif­ferent as Presbyter, and sounded no more towardes a sacrifice, than either Presbyter, or your owne En­glishe wordes, Auncient, and Senior, whether (I saye) you woulde make so muche a doe about it, for to haue it in all places of the Newe Testament, where [...] is in the Greeke. But seeing your po­pishe sacrificing power, and blasphemous sactifice of your Masse, hath no manner grounde at all in the ho­lye Scriptures, eyther in the originall Greeke, or in your owne Latine translation, you are driuen to seeke a seelye shadowe for it, in the abusiue acception and sounding of the Englishe worde, Priest, and priest­hoode. And therefore you doe in the seconde secti­on of this chapiter, in greate earnest affirme, that Priest, sacrifice, and altar, are dependents, and con­sequents, one of another, so that they can not be se­parated. If you shoulde saye in Latine Sacerdos, sacrifi­cium, [Page 171] altare▪ or in Greeke [...] be such consequents, we will all subscribe vnto you: but if you will chaunge the first word, and say Presbyter, sacrificium, altare, or [...], euerie learned mans eares will gloe, to heare you say, they are dependents and consequentes inseparable. Therefore we must needes distinguish of the word Priest, in your Co­rollarie, for you meane thereby Sacerdotem, we graunt the consequence of sacrifice and altar, but if you meane Presbyterium, we deny that euer God ioyned those three in an vnseparable bande, or that Presbyter in that he is Presbyter, hath any thing to doe with sacrifice, or altar, more than Senior, or Maicr natu, or Auncient, or El­der.

FVLK. 11. The distinction of Episcopus▪ and Pres­byter to signifie seuerall offices, we graunt to be of great antiquitie, albeit we may not admitte the counterfaite Canons of the Apostles, nor the Epistles of Ignatius, for suche mens writings as they beare the name to be. We make Presbyter, or Elder, a common name to all Eccle­siasticall persons, none otherwise, than you doe this word Priest. For Deacons with vs, are not called Presby­teri, or Elders. As for the distinction of Bishoppes and [Page 172] Elders names, which the Scripture taketh for the same, doth no more condemne all antiquity in vs, than in you. Who acknowledge that the Scripture vseth those names without distinctiō, in your note vpon Act. 20. v. 28. where they are called Bishoppes, which before ver. 17. are called [...], ‘which you translate Auncients, and expound Priests: and thus you write. Bishops or Priests (for those names were sometime vsed indifferently, Gouernours of the Churche of God, and placed in that roome and high function by the holy Ghost.’ But it seemeth you haue small regard to defende your owne notes, so you might find occasion to quarrell at our wordes.

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

FVLK. 13. If in any place we vse not the name of the Apostles, Prophetes, Euangelists, Angels, and such like, wee are able to giue as sufficient a reason why we translate those wordes according to their Generall [Page 175] signification, as you for translating somtime Baptismata, washings, and not baptismes, Ecclesia the assembly and not the Church, with such like. Therefore as Castaleo & such other Heretikes, are iustly reprehended by Beza, for leauing (without cause) the vsuall Ecclesiasticall termes, so when good cause or necessitie requireth not to vse them, it were superstition, yea and almost madnes some­times in translating to vse them, as to call the Pharisees washings Baptismes, or the assembly of the Ephesiā Ido­laters the Churche, yet both in Greeke and Latine the wordes are Baptismata, ecclesia.

FVLK. 14. That Castaleo did for foolish affecta­tiō of finenesse, you slaūder vs to do for furthering of he­resie. And here againe with lothsomnes, you repeate your rotten quarrell of idols, translated images, which was to discouer your abhominable idolatrie, cloked vnder a blind & false distinction of images and idols. The word [...], we translate repentance, as you doe sometimes, [Page 176] when you can not for shame vse your Popishe terme pe­nance, by which you vnderstande satisfaction for sinne, which in diuerse places you are enforced to giue ouer in the plaine fielde, and to vse the terme repentance: as in the fift of the Actes. This Prince and Sauiour, God hath exalted with his right hand to giue repentance to Israell and remission of sinnes, likewise Act. 11. where the Scri­pture speaketh of God giuing repentaunce to the Gen­tils. And when you speake of Iudas, you say also repen­ting him, so that the repentance of Iudas, and that which God gaue to Israell, and to the Gentils is vttered in one terme, whereas else you haue almost euerie where pe­nance, and doing of penance. Where you say we make repentance nothing but chaunging of the minde, or a­mendment of life, you speake vntruely, for not euerie chaunging of the minde is godly repentance, neither is only amendment of life all repentance: but there must be contrition, and sorowe for the life past. That in the Greeke Church they that were Catechumeni, and Energu­meni, were called [...], such as are in repentance it maketh nothing against the true vse of the Greeke word, as it is vsed in the Scriptures. We know the disci­pline of the Churche appointed an outwarde exercise of praying, fasting, and other humbling, for a trial, and te­stimonie of true and hartie repentance, which was some times called by the name of repentaunce by a Meto­nymia signi, whiche hee that will enforce by that name to bee partes of true and inwarde repentaunce, is as wise as hee that will contend the Iuy bushe to be a parte of wine, because some men seing it hang ouer the house, will say, loe here is wine.

FVLK. 15. In translating the Scripture, we vse the worde repentance, in the same signification, that the scri­pture vseth [...]. In other Ecclesiasticall writers, we can neuerthelesse vnderstand it, as they meane it. Con­cerning that vnlearned distinction of Latria and Dulia, we doe rightly, to shewe out of profane writers, that it is vaine, and that the termes signifie all one, and you your selfe confesse in your marginall note, that sometimes in the Scripture [...], and [...], doe not signifie the seruice and honour that is proper to God, as for [...], is in more than an hundred places, vsed for the seruice & honour proper to God. S. Augustine you confesse after­ward, knew wel but one tōgue, & therfore he is no meete iudge of distinction of Greeke wordes. Bede followeth Augustines error. The idolaters of the 2. Nicene councel, were glad of a cloke for the raine, cōtrary to the property [Page 178] of their tongue. As is proued by Eustathius, Aristopha­nes, Xenophon, Suidas, and by later writers, no Prote­stants, Laurentius Valla, and Ludouicus Viues. Mysteri­um we translate a secret, or a mysterie, indifferently, the word signifying no more an holy secret, than a prophane and abhominable secrete, as the mysterie of iniquitie, the mysterie of Babylon. For the wordes Ecclesia, and [...], we haue sayd sufficiently, and very lately. To vse Tul­lies words, when they answer the Greeke, as properly as any barbarous wordes, or lesse commendable wordes, I knowe not why it shoulde be counted blame worthy in Beza, or in any man, except it be of such a Sycophant, as liketh nothing, but that which sauoureth of his owne spittle.

FVLK. 16. If it be as great a fault in vs to translate Presbyterum, an Elder, as for Castaleo to translate Bap­tismum, washing: your vulgar translatour must be in the same faulte with vs, which so often translateth Presbyte­ros, seniores, or maiores natu, which signifie Elders, and not Priestes: it is a vaine thing therefore that you pro­mise to proue, that Presbyter hath bene a peculiar, and v­sual word for a Priest, as long as Baptismus for the Sacra­ment of regeneration. For peculiar you can neuer proue it, seeing it is vsed in the Scripture so often, for such El­ders & Ancients, as you your selfe would not cal Priests. So that if you did translate the whole Bible out of your [Page 179] owne vulgar Latine▪ you must translate Presbyter thrice, an Elder or Auncient, for once a Priest.

FVLK. 17. I thinke you haue cleane forgotten your [Page 180] promise so lately made, that this word Presbyter hath al­waies bin peculiar for a Priest, you bring many testimo­nies, some counterfaite, some autenticall, in which the name of [...] and Presbyter is found, but that in all them it is peculiar for a Priest, you shew not at all. Some colour it hath of that you say, in the 14. Can. of the Nicene Councell, & Carth. 3. c. 24. repeated Const. 6. where men­tion is made of sacrifice and offering, for so they did vn­properly call the administration of the Lordes supper, in respect of the sacrifice of thanks giuing that was offered therein. After which phrase also, they called the Mini­sters [...] and Sacerdotes, sacrificers. So they called that which in deede was a table of wood an altar, and the in­ferior ministers Leuites, by which it appeareth they did rather allude to the names vsed in the old Testamēt, than acknowledged a sacrificing Priesthood, that might as properly be so called, as the Priesthood after the order of Aaron was. Sometime they vsed the name of sacrifice & Sacerdos generally, for religious seruice, & the minister of religion as the Gentils did. And hereof it is that wee read often▪ of the sacrifices of bread and wine, ‘and in the Canon of Carthage by you cited. Nec amplius in sacrificijs offeratur quàm de vuis & frumentis. And let no more be offered in the sacrifices, thā that which is made of grapes and corne.’ This was bread and wine, not the naturall body and bloud of Christe. Wherefore these vnpropre speaches proue not a sacrificing priesthood, whereby the naturall body and bloud of Christ should be offered in the Masse, which is the marke you shoote at.

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

FVLK. 19. Al this while here is nothing for the En­glish word Priest, in that respect we auoid it in trāslatiō, nor against the worde Elder, which we vse, by which we meane [...] other thing, than the Scripture doth giue vs to vn [...]d by the worde [...]. As for the distin­ction of Episcopus, & Presbyter which came in afterward, you your selfe confessed as we heard of late, that it is not obserued in the Scriptures, but the same men are called Episcopi, which before were called Presbyteri. And accor­ding to that distinctiō, you can allow but one Bishop of one citie at once: yet the Scripture in diuerse places spea­keth of many Bishops of one citie, 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 obserued alwaies distinct names of either function of B. & Priest. Would you haue vs to translate the Scripture with distinction of names which the holy ghost maketh not, nor your vulgar Latin obserueth, nor you your selfe for shame can obserue? And if we should haue transla­ted for Elders, Priests, that distinction taken vp after the Apostles times, or the writing of the Scripture, had bene neuer the more confirmed.

FVLK. 20. Of all other importune and vnreasona­ble iudges, you are one of the worst, that would enforce vs to translate the Scriptures, which you confesse obser­ueth not the distinction of Bishops, and Priestes, accor­ding to the fathers, which doe almost alwayes obserue it. If we should translate those sentences of S. Augustine, we might vse the word Priest, for Presbyter, and priest­hood, for presbyterium, and if we vse the words Elder, and Eldership, what offence I pray you, were it, when by these names we vnderstand nothing, but the same function & minister which Augustine doth? That Episcopus, a Bi­shop, was of very olde time vsed, to signifie a degree Ec­clesiasticall, higher than Presbyter, an Elder or Priest, we did neuer deny, we knowe it right well. ‘We knowe what S. Hierom writeth vpon the epistle to Titus, cap. 1. idem est [...]rgo Presbyter, qui Episcopus. The same man is Presbyter, or an Elder, or Priest, which is Episcopus, a Bishop. And be­fore that by the instinct of the deuill, factions were made in religion, and it was sayd among the people, I am of [Page 184] Paule, I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, the Churches were gouerned by common councell Presbyterorum, of the Elders. But afterwarde, when euery one thought those whome he had baptised to be his owne, and not Christes, it was decreed in the whole worlde, that one de Presbyteris, of the Elders, being elected, should be set ouer the reste, to whome all the care of the Churche should pertaine, and the seedes of schismes shoulde be taken away.’ This and much more to this effect, writeth Saint Hieronyme of this distinction, in that place, and in diuerse other places, which nothing proueth, that we are bounde to translate Presbyter in the Scripture, a Priest, and least of all, that we are bound in termes, to keepe that distinction, which the Scripture maketh not, and the Papistes them selues can not obserue in their most partiall translation.

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

FVLK 22. Bezaes words agree to vs, as well as Ger­mans lippes, that were nine myle asunder. For if this en­glish word Priest, by custom of speech, did signifie no more than the Greeke worde [...], we would no lesse vse it in our translations, than Bishops and Dea­cons: which offices though they be shamefully abused by the Papistes, yet the abuse of the wordes, maketh no confusion betwene the ministers of the lawe, and of the Gospell, as this worde Priest doth, by which the Iewish sacrificers are rather vnderstoode, than preachers of the Gospell, and ministers of the Sacraments. But where­as the etymologie of this English worde Priest, com­meth from Presbyter, you charge vs with great follie and malice, that for Sacerdos, we translate Priest, and for Presbyter, Elder. To this I aunswere, we are not Lordes of the common speeche of men, for if we were, we woulde teache them to vse their termes more properly, but seeing we can not chaunge the vse of speeche, we followe Aristotels councell, which is to speake, and vse wordes▪ as the common people vseth, but to vnderstande and conceaue of thinges, accor­ding to the nature and true propertie of them. Al­thoughe for my parte, I lyke well of the Frenche [Page 187] translation, which for [...] or Sacerdotes alwaies transla­teth sacrificateurs, sacrificers, and for Presbyteri, where they signifie the Ministers of the word and Sacramentes, Prestres, Priests. But this diuersitie being only of words and not of matter, or meaning reasonable men wil take an aunswere, fooles and quarrellers will neuer acknow­ledge any satisfaction.

FVLK. 23. 24. Nay, what exceeding follie is it to thinke that an externall sacrificing office, can be establi­shed in the new Testament (which neuer calleth the Mi­nisters thereof, Sacerdotes, or [...]) because men of later time haue vnproperly transferred those termes vnto the Elders or Priests of the new Testamēt. Certainly among so many names as the Scripture giueth them, if sacrifi­cing for the quicke and the deade, had bene the princi­pall parte of their function, as by you Papistes hath bene accounted: is it credible, that the holy Ghost would neuer haue called them [...], as well, yea, and ra­ther than the Sacrificers of the olde Testament? Seeing [Page 189] therefore the holy Ghost had made such a broade diffe­rence, betwene their names, and offices, those auncient fathers that confounded those names, which the spirit of God would haue to be distinct can not be excused: al­though they neuer dreamed of the mischiefe that follo­wed, that the altar of the crosse being ouerthrowē, & the only & sufficient sacrifice, which Christ our high Sacri­ficer offered once for all, being iudged imperfect, a new altar, a newe sacrifice, and a new sacrificing Priesthoode shoulde be set vp in the steede of it. Wherefore the vn­proper speaches of the auncient writers, are no warrant for vs, either to translate the Scripture according to their vnproper speaking, or to set vp a newe sacrifice and function of sacrificing, contrarie to their meaning. They named sacrifice and offering, but they meant not propitiatorie sacrifiee, but only of prayers, or praises and giuing of thankes. They named [...], and Sacerdo­tes, but they meant according to the generall etymo­logie of those wordes, suche as were occupied in di­stributing holy things, not suche as shoulde verily sa­crifice the bodie of Christ againe to his father, but offer the sacrifice of thankes giuing in the Sacrament of the Lordes supper, which after a certaine manner (as Sainct Augustine sayeth) is called the bodie of Christ, Epist. 23. [...]onifac. De cōsec. dissinct. 2. cap. hoc est, & Glossa ibidem ca­lestis. when in deede it is the Sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ. And it is called the sacrificing of the bodie of Christ, not in trueth of the thing, but a signi­fying mysterie▪ as Gracian citeth out of Hierome.

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

FVLK. 26. Where S. Hierom vseth the worde Pres­byteri, we wil make no great curtesie to translate Priests: knowing that when he sayth, at their prayers, the bodie and bloud of Christ is made, he meaneth the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud: of Christ, as he him selfe sayth in an other place. ‘ Dupliciter sanguis Christi, & [...]ar [...] intelli­gitur. The bloud and flesh of Christ is vnderstoode two maner of wayes either that spirituall and diuine, whereof he him selfe sayde: my flesh is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede: and except yee shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud, you shall not haue eternall life: or else the flesh and bloud which was crucified, and which was shedde by the speare of the souldier. This and such other places teach vs to vnderstand S. Hierome,’ if he speake any where obscurely or vnproperly of the myste­rie of our Lordes supper. We graunt with Ambrose, that God hath giuen auctoritie to all the ministers of the worde, to remit all sinnes that be remissible. But this do not you graunt, for you reserue some to the Bishops, and some to the Pope alone to remitte, wherein you goe cleane against Ambrose, who fauoureth you not so [Page 192] much by the terme Sacerdos, which you say he vseth, as he condemneth your partiall & Popish reseruation of cases, when he alloweth euery Priest to forgiue, as well great sinnes as litle▪ without exception. S. Hierom you cite at large, as it seemeth, to insinuate auricular cōfession. But the whole saying you liked not, because it▪ sheweth how they forgiue sinnes. It is writtē in Math. lib. 3. cap. 16. vpō those wordes spoken to Peter. ‘Vnto thee will I giue the keies of the kingdome of heauen &c. Istū locū episcopi & presbyteri nōintelligentes &c. This place Bishops & Priests not vnderstanding, take vpon them somewhat of the pride of the Pharizees: so that they thinke they may ey­ther condemne the innocentes, or lose the guiltie per­sons: whereas with God not the sentence of the Priests, but the life of the persons accused is inquired of. Wee read in Leuiticus of the Lepers, where they are cōmaun­ded to shewe them selues to the Priestes, and if they haue the Leprosie, then by the Priest they are made vn­cleane. Not that Priestes make Lepers and vncleane per­sons, but that they may haue knowledge of him that is a Leper▪ and him that is no Leper: and may discerne who is cleane or who is vncleane. Therefore euen as the Prieste doth there make the Leper cleane or vncleane: So here also the Bishop and Prieste doth binde or lose, not them that be innocent or guiltie, but according to his office, when he shall heare the varietie of sinners, he knoweth who is to be bound, and who is to be loosed.’ But where you saye, the people went to diuerse ghostly fathers, as before, when that extraordinarie penitenti­arie Priest was taken away, for the adulterie of a Deaco [...] at Constātinople, you speake beside the booke, to make the ignorant beleeue that the people went to auricu­lar shrift. For in Constantinople, where this priuie con­fession was taken away, the people were left to their owne consciences. At Rome the same time, great offen­ders did open penance, neither were there any such di­uerse ghostly fathers, as you speake of. That Chryso­stom [Page 193] sayth, lib. 3. de sacerdotio, we receiue it, being so vn­derstood, as i [...] be not contrary to that I cited euen nowe our of Hie [...] But what maketh all this against transla­ting Presbyter, an Elder?

FVLK. 27. A cloude of testimonies in deede you haue heaped togither, not as the Apostle did to vpholde the certainty of faith: but to obscure the light of truth. For our trāslation of [...] an Elder is true, cleare & plaine, without ambiguity. Insomuch as the vulgar Latin interpreter▪ who as it semeth was a Greciā, & therfore v­seth gladly many Greeke termes, doeth yet translate this wo [...]d almost twise as oftē senior or maior natu, as he doth Presbyter, whē he speaketh of the ministers of the gospel. How the anciēt writers applied vnto thē improperly the name of sacrificer, as vnto the sacramēt the name of ob­lation or [Page 194] sacrifice, I haue spoken already sufficiently. Our transla­tion therefore is nothing lyke your vai [...] supposall of of new fangled companions, which to [...] ▪ Apostles, Angels, and Baptisme, would turne the wordes into Le­gates, Messengers, & washing. Whereas we haue no pur­pose to denie any office or function of the Churche ap­pointed by Christ, but to distinguish in name, as his spi­rite in the Scriptures doth alwaies, the sacrificers of the old Testament, from the Ministers of the new Testamēt. The worde Clerus, 1. Pet. 5▪ which we translate parishe or heritage, your selues in your notes of that place confesse, to comprehende in signification all Christians, whiche you are not able to proue, that in S▪ Peters time it was transferred vnto the college of ecclesiasticall ministers, as Beza saith it was afterwarde: wherefore it is one of your accustomed slaūders, to say we trāslate it so of pur­pose, to take away all distinction of Cleargie and Lai­tie, when al men know, that wheresoeuer our Churches are established, we retaine the distinction, and so thinke it necessarie alwayes.

FVLK. 28. A meruaylous corruption, for vs to cal them Elders, whom you in your translation call Aunci­ents, and the vulgar Latine before vs both called Seniores. But what is come to passe I pray you by this wonderfull corruption? The name of Popish Priestes is so contem­ptible, that nothing is more odious in England. And good cause why: both for their blasphemie against God, and traiterous practises against the honourable state of the realme▪ and our most gratious Queene. But Elders and Eldership (you weene) is more contemptible be­cause the Queenes Maiestie & her Counsailors will per­mit none in gouernment of any Churches in England, and so they haue brought all to nothing else, but pro­phane Laitie. This trayterous slaunder of yours, is as true, as all the rest. For although the Queenes Maiestie and the Counsaile do not permitte such consistories of Elders for onely discipline and gouernment, as be in some other Churches, yet doe they not only permit, but also mainteyne and reuerence, such Elders, being signifi­ed by the Greeke worde [...] as are necessarie for the gouernment of the Church in doctrine, Sacraments, and discipline to the saluation of Gods people. The day­ly sacrifice mentioned in Daniell, was the Morning and Euening sacrifice of the old Lawe, wherevnto your blas­phemous sacrifice of the Masse hath no resemblaunce. You may not therefore looke to recouer the credite of Massing Priestes, by that sacrifice, which being once in­stituted by God, was at length taken away by the onely sacrifice of Christes death: Against which all the Apo­logies in the worlde shall neuer be able to defende your Massing Priesthood. As for the chapter of Allens Apo­logie, wherevnto you refer vs, conteyneth certaine quo­tations, [Page 196] & a few sentences of the auncient writers which haue bene answered an hūdreth times, to iustifie massing Priests, but all in vaine, for neuer shall he proue, that any one from the Eldest which he nameth vnto Beda, which is the yongest, was such a Massing Prieste in all pointes, as those traytours are, which by the Queenes lawes and edict are proscribed and prohibited. I meane not for their manners, but for their Masse and all opinions inci­dent therevnto.

Fulke.

WE may be bolde to say with S. Augu­stine, 1 We beleeue according to the au­ctoritie of God▪ that the kingdome of heauen is the first place appointed for Gods elect, and that hell is the seconde place, where all the reprobrate & such is be not of the faith of Christe, shall suffer eternall punishment. Tertium penitus ignoramus, imo nec esse in scripturis sanctis inuenimus. The thirde place we are vtterly ignorant of, yea and that it is not, wee finde in the holy Scriptures. But hereof it followeth, say you, that the godly of the olde Testament, went not af­ter their deathes to Abrahams bosome, or Limbus pa­trum, but immediately to heauen. Of Limbus patrum. which is a border of the Popes hel, I graūt it followeth▪ [Page 198] but of Abrahams bosome it followeth none otherwise, than if I should say, Gregorie Martin went into Chepe­side, Ergo, he went not to London. That the fathers of the old Testament were in Heauen, before our Sauiour Christ had suffered death for their redemption, it is no incōuenience: for his death was as effectuall to redeeme them that liued before he suffered actually, as them that liue since, because in Gods sight, hee is the Lambe that was slaine from the beginning of the world. And the fa­thers that were iustified by faith in his bloud, receyued the same crowne and rewarde of rightuousnesse, that we do beyng iustified by the same meanes. And yet our Sa­uiour Christe was the first man, that in his whole man­hood ascended and entred into heauen, into the fulnesse and perfection of glory which is prepared for all Gods elect, to be enioyed after the generall resurrection. That our Sauiour Christe descended into no prison after his death, we verily beleeue, and yet we do also constantly beleeue the article of our Creede, that he descended in­to hel, by suffering in soule the paynes due to Gods iu­stice, for the sinnes of all whome hee redeemed, and by vanquishing the Deuill, and all the power of hel, in working the redemption of all the children of God. If Beza in his confession had cleane left out that article, whiche is vntrue, hee had bene no more to bee blamed than the auctors of the Nicene Creede, and many o­ther Creedes in which it is not expressed, because it is partly conteyned vnder the article of his sufferings, part­ly it is in parte of the effect and vertue of his death and redemption.

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

FVLK. 3. If you take more labour than you are wel able to beare, yet shall you proue it no hereticall corru­ption. As Castaleo, and Illyricus, the one an heretike, the other a schismatike, haue inueyed against Beza, so hath he sufficiently confuted them. But to our English trans­lation, where in the margent, they say, life, or person, when in the text they say soule: what doeth this offende you? They render the vsuall English word for the Greke word, but they admonish the reader, that the word soule in this place signifieth not the soule separated from the bodie▪ but either the life, or the whole person. Because that although the bodie onely be layed in the graue▪ yet [Page 201] according to vulgar speache and sense, the whole man is sayed to be buried, and his life seemeth to be inclosed in the graue, according to which popular and humane con­ceyt, the Prophet in that Psalme speaketh, as appeareth in the later parte of that verse, which is all one in sense with the former. Neither wilt thou giue thy holy one to see corruption: where corruption which is proper onely to the bodie is there spoken generally of the whole man. If this expositiō please you not, yet you haue no cause to finde fault with the translation, which in that place is ac­cording to the cōmon and ordinarie signification of the Greeke worde [...], soule. Which as it is somtime taken Act. 2. for the whole person, as you note, Act. 7. 14. So is it here, as the later parte of the verse doth most plainly declare.

FVLK. 4. The Greeke word [...] wel beareth to be translated in some places a graue, & here the later part of the verse, speaketh of corruption, which can not be vn­derstoode to be but in the graue, & so doth S. Peter vn­derstand it, saying▪ that Dauid the Patriarch died and was buried, and his sepulchre remayneth with vs vnto this [Page 202] day: and S. Paule vpon the same verse of the Psalme saith, he saw corruption. Both the Apostles therfore interpre­ting this verse of the resurrection of Christ, we thinke it in deede a resolute conclusion, that the Scripture in this place, speaketh not of Christs being in hell, which we ac­knowledge in the article of our Creede, but of his bu­riall and resurrection. Your trifling of white and blacke, chaulke and cheese, may seeme pleasaunt Rhetorike to grosse eares, whom you seeke to fill with such vanities. But the wiser sort, that are acquainted with figuratiue speaches, wil thinke it nothing straunge, if words be not alwaies taken in their vsual & proper signification. That the Hebrue worde Nephesh, which the Prophet in that [...] verse of the Psalme vseth, is taken diuerse times in the Scripture for a deade bodie, I haue before proued more plainly, than euer you shall be able to deny: where you may, if you be disposed to sport your selfe, vse your figu­ratiue comparison of white & blacke, chaulke & cheese, but you shall sooner of white make blacke, of chaulke cheese, than you can possibly auoide the cleare light of those textes, which was seene euen of your owne vulgar Latine interpretours.

FVLK. 5. By confessing in our Creede, that Christ descended into hell, you might knowe, but that you had rather be ignorant, that you might maruell still, that we purposed not in translating this place, to denye that arti­cle, as you falsely slaunder vs: but because this place might seeme vnto the ignorant, to confirme the er­rour of Christes descending into Limbus patrum, as it doth not, if it be rightly vnderstoode, it was thought good of some translatours, (that seeing this verse must haue the same sense in the Greeke Sermon of Peter, that it hath in the Hebrewe Psalme of Dauid, and the Greeke worde [...], vsed by the Euangelist, in steede of the Hebrewe worde Sheol, may beare to signifie a [...] graue, as the Hebrew worde doth moste vsually,) by translating it the graue, to shewe that this verse in Greeke, maketh no more for that errour of descending into Limbus, than the same doth in Hebrewe. As for your distinction of grosse Caluinistes and Puritans, it [Page 204] may be packed vppe among the rest of your quarrells, and slaunders. What Maister Whitaker hath written in his aunswer, to Frier Campion, he is able to explane vnto you him selfe, if you doe not vnderstand him. That the Bishoppe of Saint Asaph did once fauour your er­rour in some parte, and for that was misliked of the V­niuersitie of Cambridge, it is as true, as that afterward reforming his iudgement at Oxford, where he procee­ded, he was also incorpored Doctor at Cambridge. The Englishe meeter vppon the Creede, except it be drawen to an allegorie, in my iudgement, can not be defended, which iudgement I declared openly at Paules crosse foureteene or fiueteene yeares agoe. Maister La­timers errour of Christ suffering torments in hell, af­ter his death, is iustly reprehended, by whome soeuer it be. By all which, I knowe not what may be rightly ga­thered, but that we flatter not one another in errours, but if any among vs be deceiued, of what account or credite soeuer he be, we spare not to reproue his errour, preferring Gods truth before all worldly and priuate re­spects of friendship, countenaunce, credite, and whatso­euer.

FVLK. 6. The truth is, howsoeuer you slaunder vs with odious names of schisme, and diuerse interpretati­ons, we al agree in the faith of that article, and in the true sense and meaning thereof. As also we consent against your errours of Limbus patrum, or any descending of Christ into that fantasticall place. As for Abrahams bosome, we account it no place of descent, or going downe, but of ascending, euen the same that our Saui­our Christ vpon the crosse, called Paradise, Luc. 23. say­ing to the penitent theefe, this daye thou shalt be with me in Paradise, which of Saint Paule is called the thirde heauen, 2. Cor. 12. saying, that he was taken vp into the thirde heauen, whether in the bodye, or out of the bo­dye, he knewe not, (but he was taken vp into Paradise, and there heard wordes that could not be vttered, which it is not lawefull for a man to speake. And that Abra­hams Bosome is a place farre distant from hell, that onely text where it is named, Luc. 16. doth euidently declare. First the Aungels carry the soule of Lazarus into Abrahams bosome, he might as well haue sayde Hell, if he had meant Hell. But Aungels vse not to goe downe into Hell. Secondly, it is a place of comfort, for Lazarus was there comforted. Thirdly, there is a great Chaos, whiche signifieth an infinite distance be­twene Abraham and the riche glutton, which vtterly ouerthroweth that dreame of Limbus, which signifying a border or edge, supposeth that place to be harde ad­ioyning to the place of torments. Last of all, if the Article of our fayth had bene of Limbus Patrum, or of Abrahams bosome, we shoulde haue bene taught to saye, he descended into Limbo patrum, or he descended [Page 206] into Abrahams bosome, which all Christian eares ab­horre to heare. The worde Sheol vsed in the olde Testa­ment [...] for a common receptacle of all the dead, signifieth properly a place to receiue their bodies, and not their soules: and therefore most commonly in our translati­ons, is called the graue.

FVLK. 7. A proper quidditie you haue found out of Iacob, supposing his sonne to be deuoured of wilde beastes: yet sayth, I wil goe downe vnto him mourning, which you thinke can not be into the graue, because he did not thinke he was buried. But you must remember, it is the common manner of speech, when men saye in mourning, they will goe to their friendes departed, they meane, they will dye, although their friendes [Page 207] perhaps were drowned in the sea, or their bodies bur­ned, or perhaps lye in desolate places vnburied: So Ia­cobs descending to the graue, signifieth no more, but death, by which he knewe he shoulde be ioyned to his sonne in soule, though he were not in bodie. The name of graue is vsed, because it is vsuall, that dead men are buried, though it be not vniuersall. And that the graue is taken commonly for death, it appeareth by that phrase, so often vsed in the Scriptures. He slept with his fathers. and was buried, which being spoken indifferently of good men, and euill, can not be vnderstood of one place of their soules, but of death, which is common to all, and is proper to the bodie, not vnto the soule, for the soules of the departed sleepe not. The like is to be sayde of the phrase vsed in Gen. of Ismael, as well as of the godly Pa­triarkes, he was laid vp to his people. And lest you should please your selfe too much in your childish conceit of Iosephes being deuoured, whereof yet his father was not certaine. You shall heare howe Isydorus Clarius transla­teth the same place, in his Bible censured by the Depu­ties of Trent Councell, Descendam ad filium meum, lugens in sepulchrum. I will goe downe to my sonne, mourning, into the graue. This is one of the places which he thought meere to be corrected, according to the He­brew, and in other places, where he is content to vse the old word Infernus, he signifieth in his notes, that he mea­neth thereby Sepulchrum, the graue. And in deede this word Infernus signifieth generally any place beneath, as the Greeke worde [...], which the Greeke translators v­sed for Sheol, the Hebrue worde, signifieth a place that is darke, and obscure, where nothing can be seene, such as the graue or pitte is in which the dead are layde, which therefore of Iob is called the land of darkenesse, and the Iob 10▪ shadow of death.

FVLK. 8. Where you reason that there was no ascē ­ding into heauen, because the way of the holies was not yet made open, when the firste tabernacle was standing, you abuse the Reader, and the Scripture. For the Apo­stles meaning is, in that verse, to shewe that to the great benefite of Christians, that firste tabernacle is fallen, because that nowe we haue more familiar accesse vnto God, by Iesus Christ. For whereas the High Priest one­ly, but once in the yeare, and then not without bloud, entred into the second moste holye Tabernacle, because the way of the Holyes, that is vnto the Holyest, or san­cta sanctorum, was not then opened, nowe our Sauiour Christ hauing once entred into the holiest place, by his owne bloud, and founde eternall redemption, we haue Heb. 4. v. 16. by him without any ceremonies, sacrifices, or mediati­on of any mortall Priest, free accesse vnto the throne Heb. 10. v. 19. of grace, euen into the holye place, by the newe and li­uing waye, which he hath prepared for vs. But all this [Page 209] is to be vnderstoode of the cleare reuelation of the mer­cie of God in Christ, which was obscurely set forth vn­to the fathers of the olde Testament, and not of the ef­fect & fruite of his passion, which was the same for their saluation, that it is for ours. Neither haue the soules of the faithfull, since the cōming of Christ, any other place of rest, than the fathers had before his incarnation, God Heb. 11. v. 40. prouiding most wisely, that they without all the rest of their brethren, that shall be vnto the worldes ende, shall not be made perfect. And whereas you saye, that all the soules of good and badde, then went downeward, you are controlled by the wise man, Eccles. 3. Where he speaketh in the person of the carnall man, doubting of that which is not comprehended by reason, but belee­ned by faith: who knoweth whether the spirite of man ascende vpwarde. And more plainely in the last chapter of that booke, where he exhorteth to repen­taunce, shewing in the ende that though dust returne to the earth from whence it was, yet the spirite returneth to God that gaue it. It returneth to God therefore, it goeth not downe. For who woulde abide to heare this speache, the soules of the faithfull went downewarde to God, yea went into hell to God. Nay returned downe­ward into hel to God that gaue 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 soules. For the soule of Lazarus was not carried by the Angells into hell, but into Abrahams bosome, which was not onely a place of rest, but also of ioy, and comfort, contrarie to tormentes: betwene which and hell, was an infinite di­staunce. Who woulde call that a common receptacle, when there was an infinite distance, vnpassable from one to the other.

FVLK. 9. We say in our Creede, that Christ de­scended into hell, which being an article of our faith, must haue relation to suche benefite, as we receiue by his descending, namely, that thereby we are deliuered from the paines of hell. But that he should descend into Limbus patrum, to fetche out the fathers, which before you sayd were in prison, nowe you say in rest, we neither say it in our Creede, neither doth it pertaine vnto vs. But Hierome is cited as a fauourer of your opinion, who, I confesse in some parte held as you doe, but not altogi­ther. For thus he writeth in Epitaph. Nepos. After he hath giuen thanks to Christ for our redemption by his death. ‘ Quid ante miserius homine, qui aeternae mortis terrore prostra­tus viuendi sensum ad hoc tantum acceperat vt periret, &c. What was more miserable than man before, which be­ing cast downe with terrour of eternall death, receiued sense of liuing for this ende only, that he might perishe. For death raigned from Adam vnto Moises, yea vpon those which haue not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam. If Abraham, Isaak, and Iacob in hell, who in the kingdome of heauen? If thy friendes [Page 211] were vnder the punishment. If Adam and they which sin­ned not, were held guiltie by other mens sinnes, what is to be thought of them which said in their harte there is no God &c. And if Lazarus be seene in the bosome of Abraham and in a place of rest, what like hath hell and the kingdome of Heauen? Before Christe Abraham in hell, after Christ the theese in Paradise. In these wordes Hierome after his Rhetoricall manner,’ amplifying the benefite of our redemption by Christ, doth rather touch this errour, than plainely expresse it. For first hee ma­keth all men miserable before Christe, and cast downe with terror of eternall death, which is true, if yee consi­der them without Christ, in which state are all men since Christe, but of all men that liued before the time of Christes death, and yet embraced their redemption by him, it is not true. As also that there are some which haue not sinned. But that al this is to be vnderstood, spe­cially of the death of their bodies, and allegorically of their soules, he addeth immediately, ‘ Et id [...]rco in resurre­ctione eius multa dor [...]ntium corpora, &c. And therefore at his resurrection, many bodies of them that slept arose, & were seene in the heauenly Ierusalem. See you not how he turneth all into an Allegorie,’ to set foorth the vertue of Christes redemption? who brought all his elect by his death, from hell, and the power of darkenesse, into the kingdome of heauen. Furthermore you bidde vs see Augustine in Ps 85. v 13. Where in the beginning he professeth his ignoraunce in discussing the question of the nethermost hell. First supposing this world in which we liue, to be Infernum superius, and the place whether the dead goe Infernum inferius, from which God hath deliue­red vs, sending thether his sonne, 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 &c. Peraduenture euen in hell it selfe there is some parte lower, in which the vngodly, which haue much sinned are deliuered. For whether [Page 212] Abraham had bene now in certaine places in hell we can not sufficiently define. And afterward whē he hath spokē of the diuerse places of Lazarus, and the rich glutton, he concludeth as vncertainly as he began. Ergo inter ista for­tasse duo inferna, quorum in vno, &c. Therefore peraduen­ture betweene these two hels, in one of which the soules of the righteous rested, the soules of the wicked are tor­mented,’ one attending prayeth in the person of Christ, &c. Here you may see, what an article of beliefe this was with S. Augustine, when he hath nothing to define, but onely bringeth his coniecturall opinions and peraduen­tures. Also how he taketh Infernum for any lower place, in so much that he calleth this worlde, Infernum. Where­fore much more may Infernum signifie the graue, and be so sometimes translated.

FVLK. 10. I haue set downe his very words in deed, which being well weighed, make nothing so clearly for [Page 213] your phātasied Limbus, as you wold haue mē weene. You say Augustine doubteth whether Abrahams bosome, in the Scripture be called hell, Ep. 99. & de gen. ad lit. lib. 12. ca. 33. But there he doth vtterly denie it, & in Ps. 85. as by his wordes cited before appeareth, he doubteth. So that where he flatly denieth, with you he doubteth, & where he doubteth, with you he is better resolued. Wherefore this matter of Abrahā, & the faithful being in hell, is no article of faith, except you will say that S. Augustine was not resolued in the articles of our faith, who touching the thirde place, whatsoeuer at diuerse times he speaketh doubtingly in his Hypognosticon, he affirmeth reso­lutely, that he findeth in the scriptures, that there is none.

FVLK. 11. As wise & humble as he was, he was not readie to yeeld to euery opinion of Hierom, as his Epi­stles writtē to Hierom do declare. Neither was Hierome sore solute in this matter, whereof he speaketh vnder a cloude▪ and in an Allegorie, as it is playne, where he saith the bodies that were raised at the resurrection of Christ, were seene in the heauenly Ierusalem, whereas it is cer­taine they were seene only in the earthly Ierusalem actu­ally. But he meaneth, the effect of Christes redemption, was acknowledged either in the Catholike Churche, which is Ierusalem aboue in one sence, or else that they shal be seene in the new Ierusalem & blessed felicitie of the godly at the worldes end: whereof a testimonie was giuen in that sight of their appearing and particuler re­surrection knowen at Ierusalem on earth. But you cite an other place out of Tertullian lib. 4. aduersus Marcionē, and in the margent you say, Loco citato, but I wote not where. And these be Tertullians wordes, if you be an honest man. I knowe that the bosome of Abraham was no heauenly place, but onely the higher hell, or the higher parte of hell. I see you will bee as bolde with the auncient doctours workes, as you are with my poore writinges, whome you make to saye euen what you liste. In the last Section before you sayde S. Augustine Epistol. 99. & de gen. ad lit. Lib. 12. Cap. 33. ‘Doubted whether Abrahams bosome were called hell. Quod si nusquam &c. If it bee neuer reade in the holy Scriptures ( scili­cet that hell is taken in the good parte) verily that bosome of Abraham that is the habitation of a cer­taine secrete reste, is not to bee beleeued, to be any parte of hell.’ And againe by reason of the infinit Chaos, Satis vt opinor appareat, It may appeare as I thinke suffi­ciently, that the bosome of that so greate felicitie, is not a certaine parte, and as it were a member of hell. In the other place he speaketh to the same effect, & vpon [Page 215] the same ground, that he neuer findeth in the Scriptures hell, taken in good parte, and cap. 34. where he proueth that paradise is heauen, he sayth: ‘ Quanto magis ergo. How much more then, may that bosome of Abraham, after this life be called paradise?’ This sayth Augustine, and much more to this purpose, wherein I thought to haue forborne you, but that you come vpon vs still with newe forgeries. Tertullian in the booke by you quoted, pag. 274 of Frob. printed 1550 thus writeth. ‘ Sed Marcion ali­orsum cogit, &c. But Marcion driueth it another way, so forsooth, that he determineth both the rewardes of the Creator, either of torment, or of refreshing, to be layd vp for them in hel, which haue obeyed the law and the Pro­phets. But of Christ, and his God, he defineth an heauen­ly bosome, and heauen. We will answer and euen by this selfe same Scripture, conuincing his blindnesse, which a­gainst hel discerneth this Abrahams bosom, to the poore man. For one thing is hell, (as I thinke) and Abrahams bosome, an other thing. For a great depth he saith, is be­twene those regions, and that doth let the passage to and fro. But neither should the riche man haue lifted vp his eyes, and that truely from a farre of, but into higher pla­ces, and that of an exceeding height, by that infinite di­stance of height and depth. Whereof it appeareth to eue­ry wise man, that hath euer heard of the Elysian fieldes, that there is some locall determination, which is called Abrahams bosome, to receiue the soules of his sonnes, euen of the Gentiles, he being the father of many na­tions, to be accounted of Abrahams familie, and of the same faith, by which Abraham beleeued God, vnder no yoke of the lawe, nor in the signe of circumcision. That region therefore I call the bosome of Abraham, and if not heauenly, yet higher than hel, which shall giue rest in the meane season, to the soules of the iust, vntill the con­summation of thinges doe finish the resurrection of all, with the fulnesse of reward. This is as much as I can find in Tertullian,’ touching Abrahams bosome, which is [Page 216] cleane contrarie to that you affirme him to speake. For by this saying it is manifest, that your opinion is Mar­cions heresie. Secondly, that Abrahams bosome is not hell, but higher by an infinite distance, although not in full perfection of heauenly glorie. Thirdly, that it is not Limbus patrum, but the receptacle of all the iust soules, to the ende of the worlde. Tertullians authoritie there­fore doth you small pleasure, and lesse honestie, vnlesse you did cite him more truely. But I am vnwise to looke for plaine dealing, and sinceritie, at your handes. Well, your Limbus patrum, the very brimme, or vppermost, or outmost part of hell, wherein all the Patriarches should rest, we haue now found from whence it came, euen from your olde acquaintance, the Mouse of Pontus, Marcion the abhominable Heretike. The other saying of Hie­rome, but that the opinion of the fathers in hell, had by that time taken some strength, might be vnderstood of the mortalitie, wherevnto they were subiect, and neuer shoulde haue bene raysed, but by the resurrection of Christ, as it seemeth by that which he opposeth of all na­tions, since the passion and resurrection of Christ, ac­knowledged to speake like Philosophers, of the immor­talitie of the soule, and reioycing in the resurrection of the dead, as the fathers mourned at their death. Chryso­stoms place is more apparant for your errour, although he also may be vnderstood to speake allegorically of the effect of Christs death and resurrection, by which all the Patriarches were deliuered from death, and hell was spoyled: not that they were in prison there, but that the iustice of God had condemned them thether, if Christes death had not redeemed them: but I will not stande to cleare Chrysostome of this errour, which it is sufficient for me to haue foūd that Marcion the old Heretike, was the firste author thereof, by Tertullians confession, howsoeuer it came to passe, that many good men after­ward deceiued by the words [...] & Infernus, did hold it.

FVLK. 12. Iacob sayde he would be ioyned to his sonne by death, as in the other text you bring, it is more manifest, than the Sunne at noone dayes. For Iacob speaking of his graye head, must needes meane of his bodie, and therefore of the graue, and not of Hell. So in the 3. Reg. 2. which you quote, Dauid chargeth Sa­lomon, that he suffer not the gray head of Ioab, to goe downe to the graue in peace, and that he shall cause the hoare heade of Shemei to goe downe to the graue with bloud, which by no meanes can be vnderstoode of his soule going to hell, which goeth not with bloude, al­though it is plaine enough by the word hoare head, that he meaneth his bodye in age, or his olde bodye. And this text Pagnine, in his Dictionarie, thought necessarie to be vnderstoode of the graue, although he make the worde Sheol indifferent to signifie Hell, and the Graue. That all went to Hell, some to reste, and some to tor­mentes, it was firste deuised by Marcion, the Here­tike. But Saint Hierome is once againe cited in O­seam cap. 13. where he sayth, that Hell is a place where­in soules are included, &c. by which you see that he speaketh not of Limbus, wherein soules were included before Christ, but of suche a place wherein they are nowe included, taking the worde Infernus, generally [Page 218] for any place▪ that receiueth the soules of the departed, as he sayth most plainely him selfe, in the same place: Quicquid igitur separat sratres, infernus est appellandus. Whatsoeuer doth separate brethren▪ is to be called hell. Augustine is quoted, to multiply a lye, and for nothing else, as I haue shewed before.

FVLK. 13. That which is spoken indifferently of the elect, and reprobate, must needes be vnderstoode of that which is common to both, that is, corporall death. How can it be verified of their soules, that they were laid to the fathers, when betwene the godly, and the wicked, there is an infinite distance: but the earth, the graue, or pitte▪ is a common receptacle of all dead bodies. That Samuel, which being raysed vppe, spake to Saul▪ might truely say of his soule, though not of all his sonnes, that he should be with him in hell, for it was the spirite of [Page 219] Satan, and not of Samuel, although counterfaiting Sa­muel, he might speake of the death of Saule, and▪his sonnes. As for that verse of the eighty and fiue Psalme, whereupon you do falsely so often alleage S. Augustines resolution, what absurditie hath it, to translate it, from the lowest graue, or from the bottome of the graue: whereby Dauid meaneth extreame daunger of death, that he was in, by the malice of his persecuting ene­mies Saule and his complices. But we are afrayed to say in any place, that any soule was deliuered and retur­ned from hell. We say that the soules of all▪ the faith­full, are deliuered from hell: but of any which after death is condemned to hell, we acknowledge no re­turne. And these wordes are spoken by Dauid while he liued, and praised God, for his deliueraunce, which might be not onely from the graue, but also from hell, sauing that here he speaketh of his preseruation from death.

FVLK. 14. I haue shewed before diuerse times, that although the Hebrue word Sheol doe properly signifie a [Page 220] receptacle of the bodies after death, yet when mention is of the wicked, by consequence it may signifie hell, as the day signifieth light, the night darkenesse, fire heate, peace signifieth prosperitie, and an hundreth suche like speaches. But where you say that Prouerb. 15. v. 24. that is translated hell beneath, which before was translated the lowest graue, Psalm. 85. v. 13. You say vntruly, for al­though in both places there is the worde Sheol, yet in that Psalme there is Tachtyah, in the Prouerbes Mattah, [...] for which if it were translated the graue, that declineth, or is downewarde, it were no inconuenience. In the o­ther textes, you trifle vpon the worde soule, whereas the Hebrewe worde signifieth not the reasonable soule, which is separable from the bodie, but the life, or the whole person of man, which may rightly be said, to be deliuered from the hande or power of the graue, as the verse. 48. doth plainely declare, when in the later parte is repeated, the sense of the former, as it is in many places of the Psalmes.

FVLK. 15. We can not alwaies take the word graue properly, when the Scripture vseth it figuratiuely. But if we say, to goe downe to the graue, and to die is all [Page 221] one, you aske vs why we followe not the wordes of the holy Scripture. I aunswere, we doe, for the Scri­pture calleth it graue. and not hell. Where is then your vaine clattering of the mysterie of Antichrist, that we must open? Because we will not acknowledge that he­reticall common place, inuented by Marcion the here­tike, we purpose to defeate the article of Christes de­scending into hell. A monstrous sclaunder, when we doe openly confesse it, and his triumphing ouer hell in more triumphant manner than you determine it. For if he descended into that hell onely, in which were the soules of the faithfull, which was a place of rest, of com­fort, of ioy, and felicitie, what triumphe was it to ouer­come suche an hell, which if you take away the hatefull name of hell by your owne description, will proue ra­ther an heauen than an hell. But we beleeue that he tri­umphed ouer the hell of the damned, and ouer all the power of darkenesse, which he subdued by the vertue of his obedience and sacrifice. so that it should neuer be able to claime or holde any of his elect, whome he had redeemed.

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

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

FVLK. 18. He that by the graue vnderstandeth a place to receiue the bodies of the dead, and figuratiuely death, doth no more confound the wordes of death, and [Page 224] the graue, then he that by a cup, vnderstandeth a vessell to receiue drinke properly, and figuratiuely, that drinke which is contayned in such a vessell. Therefore that you cite out of Hierome, maketh nothing against vs, for hee him selfe, although deceyued by the Septuagintes, or rather by the ambiguitie of the worde [...], which they vse, in the signification of the Hebrue worde [...], yet by Infernus vnderstandeth them that be In in­ferno, and the dead, as wee doe by the worde graue of­tentimes. As for his opinion of the godly soules in hap­pie hell before Christes death, or his interpretation of a­ny other parte of Scripture, wee professe not to followe in our translations, but as neere as wee can the true sig­nificatiō of the words of holy Scripture, with such sence (if any thing be doubtfull) as the proper circumstances of euery place will lead vs vnto, that wee may attayne to the meaning of the holy Ghost.

FVLK. 19. The difference of Mors & Infernus which Hierome maketh, can not alwaies stand, as I haue shewed of the hoare heades of Iacob, Ioab, and Shemei, which none but madde men will say, to haue descended into a receptacle of soules, beside other places of Scripture, where Sheol must of necessity signifie a place for the bo­die. And euen those places of the Psalmes, that S. Hierom calleth to witnesse, do make against his error. For where Dauid sayth, Psal. 6. In hell who shall confesse vnto thee? How can it be true of the soules of the faithfull being in that holy hell Abrahams bosome? Did not Abraham [Page 225] confesse vnto God, & acknowledge his mercie? Did not Lazarus the same, did not all the holy soules departed confesse God in Abrahams bosome? Were all those blessed soules so vnthankefull, that being carried into that place of rest, and comfort, none of them would cō ­fesse Gods benefits? It is plaine therefore, to the confu­sion of your error, that Sheol in that place of Dauid must nedes signifie the graue, in which no man doth confesse, praise, or giue thanks vnto God, of whom in death there is no remembraunce. Therefore he desireth life and re­storing of health, that he may praise God in his Church or congregation. Likewise in the Psal. 54. where he pro­phesieth vnto the wicked a sodaine death, such as befell to Chore, Dathan, & Abiram, which went downe quicke into the graue. Not into hell, whether come no bodies of men liuing, but the soules of men that are dead.

FVLK. 20. The very nature of the Hebrew worde [...], is most properly to signifie a graue, or receptacle of dead bodies, as all that be learned in that tongue, doe knowe. About the Greeke and Latine termes, is not our question, and therefore you deale deceitfully, to handle them all three togither. Although neither [...], nor Infer­nus are so proper for hel, but that they may be taken also sometimes for the graue, and so perhaps were meant by the Greeke and Latine translators in diuerse places. You speake therefore as one voyd of all shame, to say they are as proper for hell, as panis, for breade. Where you aske [Page 216] what is Hebrew, Greeke, or Latine, for hell: you must vnderstand, that if you speake of a proper word, for those inuisible places, wherein the soules departed, are either in ioy or torments, I answer, there is no proper word for those places▪ either in Hebrew, Greeke, or Latine. For that which of all these tongues is translated heauen, is the proper word for the sensible skye, in which are the Sunne, Moone, and Starres, and by a figure is transferred to signifie the place of Gods glorie, in which he reigneth with the blessed spirits of Angels, and men, aboue this sensible world. Paradise and Abrahams bosome, who is so childish, not to acknowledge them to be borrowed wordes, and not proper. So fo [...] ▪ [...] of the re­probate soules in the Hebrue tongue T [...]phe [...] or Gehin­nom which properly are the names of an abhominable place of Idolatry, are vsed, & Sheol somtimes figuratiuely may signifie the same. In Greeke & Latin G [...]henna is vsed for the same, which is borrowed of the Hebrue. Some­times also the word [...] in Greeke is taken for the place of the damned, and the kingdome of darkenesse. The Latine word Infernus is any lowe place. Wherefore I can not maruaile sufficiently at your impudencie, which af­firme these three words [...], and Infernus, to be as proper for our English worde hell, as Panis is for bread. That there be other wordes beside these in all the three tongues to signifie a graue, I maruaile to what purpose you tell vs, except you would haue ignorant folke sup­pose, that there cannot be two Hebrue, Greeke, or Latine wordes for one thing.

FVLK. 21. We note wel your foolish subtiltie, that will haue vs to shewe you one place, where it is oertaine and agreed among al, that, sheol muste needes signifie graue I am perswaded that you and such as you are, that haue sold your selues to Antichrist, to maintaine his he­resies with all impudencie, will agree to nothing that shall be brought, though it be neuer so plaine and cer­taine, that it must needes so signifie. I haue already shew­ed you three places, where the hoare head is sayd to goe down into sheol, that is into the graue For whether shold the hoare head goe but into the graue? Nothing can be more plaine to him that will agree to truth, that sheol in all such places is taken for the graue. But to omit those places, because I haue spoken of them all readie: what say you to that place, Numb. 16? where the earth opened her mouth, & swallowed vp the rebelles with their tents, and all there substaunce of cattaile, and what soeuer they had: where the text sayeth. They went downe, and all that they had aliue sheolah into the pitte or graue. God made a great graue or hole in the earth, to receiue them all. Where no man will saie that evther the bodies of these men or their substaunce of Tentes, cattaile, and stuffe went into hell, as it is sure their soules wente into torment. And if authoritie do way more with you than good reason, heare what S. Augustine writeth vpon the same texte▪ ‘and how he taketh your inferos or infernum, which in the Hebrue is sheol, Quest. super Num. lib. 4. c. 29. Et descenderunt ipsi & omnia quaecunque sunt eis viuen­tes ad inferos. Notandum secundum locum terreni [...]m dictos es­se inferos, hoc est, &c. And they themselues descended, and all that they had aliue vnto Inferas, the lower partes. It is to be noted, that Inferi are spoken of an earthly place, that is in the lowe partes of the earth. For diuersly and [Page 228] vnder manifold vnderstāding euen as the sense of things which are in hand requireth, the name of Inferi is put in the Scriptures, & especially it is wont to be taken for the dead. But for asmuch as it is saide that those descended aliue ad inferos, & by the very narration it appeareth suf­ficiently what was done: it is manifest, as I said, that the lower partes of the earth are termed by this word inferi, in comparison of this vpper part of the earth in which we liue. Like as in comparison of the higher heauen, where the dwelling of the holy Aungels is, the Scripture saith, that the sinful Angels being thrust downe into the dark­nesse of this ayre, are reserued as it were in prisons of a lower part or hel, to be punished.’ S. Augustine here doth not only vnderstand this place of the graue or receptacle of bodies: but also sheweth that the Latin word inferi or infernus, doth not alwaies signifie hel, as you made it of late, as proper for hel, as Panis for bread. But bicause you shal not complaine of the singularitie of this exāple, al­though you require but one, I wil adde out of the Psalme 141. where the Prophet saith, our bones are scattered at the very brinke or mouth of sheol the graue. Howe can you vnderstand him to speake of hel? For the graue and not hell is a place for dead mens bones: as he speaketh of the faithfull, by the wicked compted as good as dead & rotten, consumed to the bones. By these and many other examples, it is manifest, that the proper signification of sheol in English, is a graue and not hell.

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

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

FVLK. 24. The best of the Hebrues, that either in­terpreted Scriptures, or made Dictionaries, Iewes, or Christians, do acknowledge that sheol doth properly sig­nifie the graue. That the Septuaginta do alwaies trāslate it [...], it proueth not that it alwaies signifieth hel, for [...] signifieth not alwaies hell, as in the place of Nūb. 16. As for the turning of Latin into Hebrue, is not our cō ­trouersie, but of translating Hebrue into English, sheol may signifie the graue, the hole, the pit, as F [...]ea, though it be not all one with the Latine worde Sepulchrum. And yet Rabbi Salomon whome you boldly cite in the 27. Section, saith plainely that the true and proper interpre­tation In Gen. 37. of Sheol is Keber, whiche you say, is as proper for graue, as Lac is for milke.

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

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

FVLK. 27. Although the Septuaginta doe alwayes translate Sheol by the word [...], yet doe they not thereby alwayes vnderstand hel: as it is manifest in all those pla­ces, where the Scripture speaketh of a receptacle of dead bodies. But now you will beare vs downe with Rabbins, Talmudists and Chaldee paraphrases. And firste you saye that all these, handling that verse of the 49. Psalme. He will deliuer my soule from the hand of Sheol, interprete it by Gehinnom, that is, hell. I graunt that Rabbi Ioseph vsing the libertie of a Paraphrast, rather than a translator, interpreteth the worde by Gehinnom, that signifieth hell fire, and so the sense is true. For God deliuered Dauid from eternall damnation. But Rabbi Dauid Chimchi, ex­pounding the same place according to the proper signi­fication of Sheol, sayeth. [...]. &c. ‘The Prophet sayde when he sawe the destruction of the soules of the wicked in their death: In the day in which my bodie shall goe downe to ( Sheol) the graue, God shall deliuer my soule from the hande of ( Sheol) the graue, that my soule shall not perishe with my bodie.’ You see therefore that all the Rabbines be not of your [Page 234] side, no nor Rabbi Salomon Iarchi, whom you cite. For vpon 37. of Genesis, verse 35. where Iacob sayth, he will goe downe to the graue, mourning, ‘thus he writeth, [...]. Mourning to Sheol, according to the plaine and literall sense the inter­pretation thereof is the grane, in my mourning I will be buried, and I will not be comforted, all my dayes: but after the Midrash, or exposition, not according to the let­ter, it is hell. This signe was deliuered by handes, or by tradition, from the mouth of his power, (that is from a diuine oracle) if not one of my sonnes shall dye in my life time, I had confidence, that I should not see hell.’ By this saying, it is manifest, that this Rabbine acknowled­ged the true and proper translation of this worde Sheol, was to the graue, although after figuratiue, and some­times fond expositions, it was interpreted for hell. Like­wise you say, but vntruly, of this verse, Psal. 9. v. 18. Let all sinners be turned to Sheol, for there the Chaldee Para­phrast retaineth the worde Sheol, and doth not giue any other word for it. Dauid Chimchi interpreteth it accor­ding to the literall sense, [...]. Let the wic­ked be turned into the graue, which is so straung with you to be aunswerable to Sheol, although as R. Salomon he sayth, it may be vnderstoode of their buriall in hell. That Sheol in the Prouerbs, & Iob is ioyned with abaddō, Prou. 1 [...]. Iob. 26. it hindreth it not to signify the graue, where is the destru ction and consumption of the body. ‘And Prou. 15. v. 11. the Chaldee Paraphrast retaineth Sheol, which Kabuena­ki expoundeth thus, [...], &c. It is sayd of Sheol, and A­baddon, that Sheol is the graue, [...], and Abaddon is hell, which is deeper than the graue, &c.’ And although in Iob Rabbi Leui, and others expound Sheol for a secret place about the center of the earth, which should seeme to be [...] hell: yet they say not that this is the proper signification of the word Sheol. For in the 21. of Iob. v. 13. the Chaldee Paraphrast for Sheol, interpreteth Kebureta, the graue, and in the 14. verse. 13. beith kebureta, the house of the graue, [Page 235] and 17. v. 12. and 15. the graue. In both which places Rab­bi Abraham Peritsol ioyneth Sheol, and Keber togither, both signifying the graue, and in the later verse, he ma­keth Iob to say to his friends [...], The barres of [...] lies with which you comfort me into the middest of the pit of the graue shall go downe with me when I dye. By all which testimonies it is manifest, that Sheol is not the proper for hel, the receptacle of soules, but for graue, the common dwelling house of mens bodies.

But you will presse vs yet further, with the authoritie of Rabbi Abraham vpon Ionas. 2. In deede in Abraham Aben Ezra, I reade as you say, but this is onely his opi­nion of the figuratiue sense of that place. ‘for vpon Ho­see cap. 13. v. 14. he expoundeth [...] thus, I haue bene a redeemer of thy fathers, nowe I will be a destru­ction of death which is to thee.’ And so doe R. Shelomo Iarchi, and Rabbi Dauid Chimchi: yea, so doth Saint Paule, more worth than all the Rabbins that euer were, expound it.

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

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

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

FVLK. 31. I looked for some great matter, when you beganne to consider so diligently from point to point: but I see we shall haue nothing, but this colde collection, that both the prophane and Ecclesiasticall vse of this worde [...], is for hell, and not for the graue. That it is vsed for hell, no man denieth: but that it is vsed onely for hell. Beza sayeth not, and I haue proued that it is not. As also it may be proued by diuerse o­ther places out of the Apocriphall writings, namely Sap. 16. v. 13. where it is translated for death by your [Page 238] owne Latine translatour, being the same verse, that is in the songe of Anna 1. Sam. 2. where Sheol is vsed, and is re­peared in that signification Tob. 13. v. 12. Likewise Sap. 2. v. 1. where the vngodly that professe the mortality of the soul say, that none was knowen to returne from [...], the word can signifie nothing but graue. For hell it can not signifie in their speach, that beleue no hell, & say plainly that their soules shall vanishe like smoke, or light ayer. Likewise in Baruch. 2. it is taken for the graue, where he sayeth the deade which are in the [...], shall not giue honour to God, where it is certaine, that by that worde is meant the graue, seeing the soules of the righteous that were in Abrahams bosome, did praise God, and moreouer, he maketh it plaine that he speaketh of the deade bodies, when he sayth their spirite is taken out of their bowels.

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

FVLK. 33. Your conclusion is as good as your premisses, because the Greeke and Latine Interpretors had before vs translated amisse, which gaue occasion to diuerse errours, therefore we also knowing the true sig­nification of the worde, muste haue followed them in wrong and doubtfull translation, and afterward debated the meaning of the seuerall places. But in the margent, you tell vs, that such Catholikes as haue translated the word Sheol▪ for a graue, haue also done amisse. Pardon vs M. Martin, we take you for no such learned Hebritian, that you should controll Pagninus, Isidorus Clarius, and all other Hebritians of this time vpon suche slender sleeuelesse reasons, as you haue brought hetherto. And you shewe an intollerable proude stomake, that being a man so litle seene in the Hebrue tongue (as you shewe your selfe to be) you should condemne such graue and learned persons of your owne side, of rashnesse, or igno­rance. For you make them in the case of chaunce med­ley, that haue translated sheol a graue. Thinke you the de­puties of the Councell of Trent had no more discretion in perusing Isidorus Clarius correctiō of the Bible, than to suffer him to chaunge life & safetie into chance med­ly and manslaughter? you may in time to come if you [Page 240] apply your studie, proue learned in that language wher­in as yet you are but a smatterer not worthy to be heard against so many, so learned, so famous professors of the Hebrew tongue, Iewes, and Christians, Protestants, and Papistes, authors of Grammars, Dictionaries, and translations. But in the second of Ionas, it pleaseth you well, that our Geneua Bible translateth this word Hell, out of the bellie of hell, &c. but you like not that they shoulde interprete it a metaphoricall Hell, or the extre­mitie of affliction, whereinto the Prophet was brought: where you make it no doubt what they would insinu­ate, you shew your selfe more bold to affirme, than ready or able to proue.

FVLK. 34. They haue in other places trāslated it ac­cording to the proprietie of the word. & if in this place they had done so likewise, I see not what faulte they had committed. Certaine it is that the whales belly, did ra­ther resemble a graue, wherein Ionas seemed to be bu­ried, than hell the receptacle of separated soules. It is the [Page 241] office of a translator not so much to regarde what other haue written vpon the place he translateth, be they aun­cient, be they godly, be they learned, as what sense the interpretation of the wordes will beste beare. Without preiudice therefore of any mans credite, the truth in this case must be sought out.

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

FVLK. 35. That which Ionas spake, was first true of his owne person, and then of Christ, as Ionas was in this a resemblaunce of him. But by this similitude of Christ remaining so many daies and nightes in the harte of the earth, as Ionas did in the whales bellie, it is manifest that he speaketh of his bodie remaining in the graue, not of his soule tarying in hell. Wherfore the descending of [Page 242] Christ into Limbus patrum, hath no manner of hold, ey­ther of the saying of Christ in the Gospell▪ Math. 12. or of Ionas in his praier, Ion. 2.

FVLK. 36. I graūt the translations had bene more proper, and agreable to the Greeke worde, to haue said, which he hath dedicated, or by dedication prepared. But here is no fraude, against any trueth or errour of yours. For the Apostle speaketh not of the way by which we ascend immediatly to heauen, but of the way by which we haue free accesse to God through faith, without the vailes and ceremonies of the law, as it is manifest by his exhortation. And whereas you said before, that Christ a­scending into heauē, to those whom he had brought out of hell, you must tell vs then, where they remained all those fortie dayes that were betwene his resurrection and ascention, except you will make two ascensions of [Page 243] Christ into heauen, one in soule alone, the other in bo­die & soule: which hath not bene heard of in the church before. For that his soule was first receyued into hea­uen or Paradise immediatly after his death, it proueth not an ascension: seeing the same was common to him, with other saincts. Againe, seing the mysterie of our re­dēptiō is diuided into the death, & resurrectiō of Christ, and that by his death wee are deliuered from sinnes, by his resurrection wee are iustified: if you will not allowe his death to haue purchased equall redemption to the fa­thers of the old Testament and vs, but measure the ver­tue therof by the instance of time, in which it was actu­ally performed: you must stay your prisoners from en­tring into the kingdome of heauen, at least vntill his re­surrectiō. For none can enter into the kingdome of hea­uen, but iustified persons. Seing therefore that iustifi­cation dependeth vpon his resurrection, you must eyther graunt, that it was communicated to the fathers in their time before his incarnation, or else you must stay them from entring into heauen before they were iustified by his resurrection. The place of Micha 2 that you quote▪ is nothing to the purpose of Christes ascending For there the Prophete threateneth the Israelites with the violence of their enimies the Chaldees, whome God him selfe would prosper against them, to haue the victorie, and to driue them into captiuitie.

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

FVLK. 38. If we haue in the later reformed an er­rour 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 euer foūd out this [Page 245] interpretatiō. It appeareth you were neuer wel beaten for lying, it is such a cōmon fault with you. Beza speaking of the interpreters of this age, saith that Caluin (as he thin­keth) was the first that shewed the true & naturall inter­pretatiō of this place. He saith not, the first that euer foūd it. Yea cleane contrarie wise he saith, Denique vt non du­bium sit, &c. Finally that it should not be doubtfull, but that some of the auncient fathers also haue interpreted this place euen so, Nazianzenus Conc. de fil. 2. doth plain­ly number [...] this feare among the infirmities of Christes manhood. As for that whiche you call a blas­phemie, is a holy and comfortable true doctrine, that Christ for the redēption of our soules, suffered the wrath of God in his soule, as those teares, and that strong crie declareth, in which hee complayned according to the sense of his humanitie, that he was forsaken of God.

FVLK. 39. How know you, that al antiquitie hath so [Page 246] redde? if we had the commentaries of many of the aun­cient fathers vpon this text, we might perhaps proue vn­to you, that they reade otherwise. Nazianzenus as I shewed before among Christes infirmities, reckeneth this feare. Primasius although he expoundeth it of reue­rence, yet alledgeth out of Cassiodorus that the worde is taken sometime for loue, sometimes for feare. Theo­doretus also interpreteth this place of Christes feare, ac­cording to his humane nature, shewing that hee feared death, which S. Paule feared not, both to shewe him selfe a man, and to haue experience of all our infirmities without sinne. But where you say, that Caluine maketh him to feare damnation, and the eternall paynes of hell, it is false. Caluine saith plainely, his feare came not of distrust, but of the sense of his humane nature, forbea­ring the iudgement of God, which without vehement endeuour, coulde not be ouercome. Therefore was the astonishment, the teares, the strong crie, the droppes of bloud, the Angell needefull to comfort him, the laste extreeme conflict, in which he cried, my God my God why hast thou forsaken me. As for the signification of the Greeke worde [...] although it be so often taken for pietie and religion, yet it is also taken for feare. As Actes 23. Where S Luke saith the Tribune was greatly afrayed, least Paule shoulde haue bene rente in peeces, betweene the Pharizees and Saducees, hee vseth this worde [...] for beyng afrayed, which was of no pie­tie or religious feare in him, that was a Pagane, but a na­turall and ciuill feare, least a prisoner being a Romane, of whom he had charge, should be violently murdered amongst them.

FVLK. 40. You haue great leysure thus to trifle, or rather intollerable malice thus to cauill. Beza in the place by you cited, speaketh of the word [...], when it is taken for religion, for then it is rather ioyned with re­uerence, than with astonishment.

FVLK. 41. Any reasonable man reading the note vpon the word [...], religious, vsed by S. Luke of Sy­meon, will vnderstand Beza to speake of the significati­on of that worde, as it is taken in that place, for he spea­keth against the barbarous word Timoratus, vsed by the vulgar Interpreter, which signifieth, if it haue any signi­fication, one made afraid, rather than fearing God, with loue and reuerence. But where you saye, we shall hardly giue an instance, where the worde signifieth that feare of astonishment, which they translate, if you would haue taken paines to reade Bezaes annotations your selfe, vp­on this text in question, you should haue found, that he bringeth many instances out of Aristotle, Sophocles, [Page 248] Plutarch, Nazianzen, and S. Luke, Act. 23. If you had re­membred what S Marke writeth of our Sauiour Christ, Mar. 14. v. 33. it should not haue bene so straunge a mat­ter vnto you, to heare that our Sauiour Christ with great astonishment, and terrour of mind, was afraid of death, where he vseth the wordes [...], and [...]: which was not for bodilye paine or bodily death. (which not onely thousands of holy Martyrs haue ioyfully em­braced, but infinite wicked persons haue contemned) but for the feeling of Gods wrath, which was infinitely more heauy vpon his soule, than any torments were vp­on his bodie.

FVLK. 42. When Beza hath shewed his skill in the Greeke tongue, not onely in his translation, and annota­tions, but also in diuers Greeke Epigrams, which he hath set forth, who but one starke mad with malice, & blind with conceit of his owne slender skil, would doubt whe­ther Beza had any skill at all in the Greeke tongue. As for that he sayth of the signification of the preposition [...] ▪ he speaketh in respect of the propertie of the Greeke tongue, for yet you bring no examples, but Hebraisms out of the Scripture, for that signification of the prepo­sition.

FVLK. 43. And we by the same authoritie, sende you to Bezaes answer, in his last edition of his annota­tions. And yet the Reader must know that Beza did not simply deny, that the preposition might haue such sense. But he sayde, Non facile mihi persuaserim, I can not easi­ly perswade my selfe, that any example can be brought, wherein [...] is so vsed. And in all these examples that you haue brought, it signifieth rather prae, which is [...], than propter, [...], as your vulgar translator obserueth 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 aun­swer to the vulgar Latine, pro reuerentia. For who would translate in Saint Mathew, 13. [...], pro gaudio, prop­ter gaudium, or secundum gaudium, or [...], pro do­lore, and so of the rest, but of these, let Beza him selfe giue account. As for these tedious grammatications, which you confesse to haue bene fitter to be handled in Latine, it seemeth you vttered in English, for that of many ignorant, you might be thought to bringe some great learning out of the Hebrewe and Greeke tongues against vs, whereas the learned, if you had written in Latine, of other nations, as well as ours, might haue bene witnesses of your fonde trifling, and quarrelling against our translations. As for the necessarye cause you pretende, that the vnlearned may aske them that haue skyll in Greeke, is very ridiculous. For neyther can they haue at hande al­wayes such as be able to resolue them, neither if they be [Page 250] of your faction▪ wil they aske any indifferent mans iuge­ment, but onely such as will auouch before the igno­rant, that all which you write, is good and perfect.

FVLK. 44. How faine would you obscure the light of that excellent testimonie, euen contrarye to your owne vulgar Latine translation? that you might not haue such a faithfull witnesse against your Limbus pa­trum? You require a reason, whye wee keepe not the Greeke pointes, Apoc. 13. I aunswer, we keepe those pointes, which the most auncient written copies haue, which the Complutensis Edi [...]i [...] hath, and which the beste Greeke printes nowe haue. If you would knowe a rea­son why we followe not them that point otherwise▪ I aunswer you, the composition of the wordes, is against that pointing. For except Saint Iohn had meant that the Lambe was slayne from the beginning of the world, he would not haue placed those wordes, from the begin­ning of the worlde, next to those wordes, the Lambe which is slayne, but next the worde written. And there­fore [Page 251] Aretus that could not vnderstande howe the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world is forced to imagine Hyperbaton in this text, where none needeth, the sense being good and plaine without it, as the wordes doe lye. ‘Whose names are not written in the booke of life of the lambe, that hath bene slaine since the begin­ning of the worlde. And although it be true, that the names of the Antichristian Idolaters,’ were not written in Gods eternall booke of predestination, from the begin­ning, as it is said Apoc. 17. v. 8. Yet is that no reason, why this also shoulde not be true, that the lambe was slaine since the beginning of the worlde, seeing without vio­lence you can not distract [...], from the lambe slaine whom it doth immediatly follow.

FVLK. 45 We say that wrong pointing may great­ly alter the sense, but good composition and placing of wordes in a sentence is a good rule to direct pointing, where it is either lacking, or falsly signed. Wee refuse [...]ot the testimonie of the vulgar Latine, where it agreeth with the truth of the Greeke or Hebrewe, yea before God & our consciences, we reuerence it, as a monument of some antiquitie, from which wee neither doe, nor are willing to dissent, except the same dissent from the ori­ginall text. Otherwise the truth of this assertion, that Christ was slaine from the beginning of the world, hath not only testimonie of the ancient fathers, but also may bee confirmed out of the Scripture. For by the obedi­ence of Christ Saint Paule Rom. 5. teacheth that ma­ny [Page 252] are iustified, meaning all the elect of God, who ex­cept Christes death had bene effectuall to them, before he suffered actually on the crosse, must haue gone, not into Limb [...] patrum, but into hell Diabolorum, which is the place appointed for all them that are not iustified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption of Christ Iesus, whom God before hath set foorth, to be a propi­tiatorie in his bloud, Rom. 3. v. 24. &c. The title of this chapter threatneth a discouerie of heretical translations against Purgatorie especially: but in the whole discourse thereof, which is shamefull long one, containing 45. sections, there is not one place noted against Purgato­rie, Amphora coepit institui, curren [...]e rota cur vrceus exit?

Fulke.

THese matters were driuen so thinne in 1. the first chapter, that you shall sooner presse out bloud, than any more pro­bable matter. For the olde Testament, which we translate out of the Hebrue, you your selfe doe set foorth our aun­swere, that we giue the Englishe of Chukim, when we say, ordinaunces, or statutes, and not [...] of the Greeke worde [...], which of the Septua­ginta is vsed in the same sense for preceptes, and com­maundementes, as you your selfe confesse cap. 1. sect. 50. that verie often in the Scripture it signifieth com­maundementes. But the Septuaginta, you say, are suf­ficient to teache vs the interpretation of the Hebrewe worde, who alwaies interprete it [...]. If they had alwayes interpreted it so, it is not sufficient to teache vs: [Page 254] then there needed none other translation, but according to theirs, then must you depart from your vulgar transla­tion, which in many things departeth from them. But where, you say they alwaies interprete the Hebrue word Chukim, by [...], it is false. For Exod. 18. v. 20. [...] they translate it [...], Praecepta, which your vul­gar translation calleth Ceremonias, ceremonies, as it doeth also Gen. 26. v. 5. where the Septuaginta translate [...]: by which you see, that iustification, is not alwayes the Englishe for the Greeke worde, which the Septuaginta doe vse. Also Num. 9. v. 3. for Chukoth they translate [...] the lawe, which the vulgar Latine calleth [...] Ceremonias, ceremonies, and for the Hebrewe worde Misphatim, they giue [...], comparation, the vulgar [...] Latin iustification, by which you may see, how your trās­latour vseth euen the Latin word, that you make so much a do about. Likewise in the foureteenth verse of the same Chapter, the Septuaginta translate Chukath, twise togea­ther [...] [...], and that which the vulgar Latine calleth iu­stification of the passeouer, the Greeke calleth [...], the order of the pascall, Deut. 4. your vulgar Latine turneth Chukim, thrise Ceremonias, ceremonies. And [...] Deut. 5. twise, and Deut. 6. twise, Deut. 7. once, and so commonly almost in euerie chapter. But in the chap. 11. v. 32. the Greeke for Chukim hath [...], where [...] as in the beginning of the chapter, he had [...], the Latine in both Ceremonias, ceremonies. By which it is euident what the Greekes and Latines meant by those wordes. chap. 20. for this Hebrue word, and in an other the Greeke hath nothing but [...] commaundementes. So hath he 1. Reg. 2. v. 3. for [...] cōmandements. Also 1. Reg. 8. v. 58. for Chukim, he hath [...], and [...] for Misphatim, he hath [...], as he hath it twise in the nexte verse, where Salomon prayeth that God will defende his cause, and the cause of his people Is­raell, as the cause shall require. More examples might I bring, but for tediousnesse, to conuince the bolde [Page 255] rashnesse of this quarreller, but these may suffice all indifferent Readers: and aunswere sufficiently for vs, within the newe Testament, we translate [...], ordinaunces, or statuts, seeing it is proued, both by the Septuaginta which calleth the same Hebrewe worde, not onely iustifications, but often commaunde­ments, statuts, precepts, iudgements, & by the vulgar La­tine Interpretor, which commonly calleth it ceremonies or precepts.

FVLK. 2. None but fooles considering what I haue brought of the vsage of that worde [...] wil iudge that it signifieth onely iustifications: and all wise men may see that we haue good warrant to translate it other­wise in the Greeke Testament, where it must needes haue [Page 256] an other signification. The concurrence of workes with faith to iustificatiō before God, which the Apostle doth exclude. Rom. 3. we may not admit. But iustification by workes, as Saint Iames teacheth, we doe acknowe­ledge. I hope you will not saye, that your Latine tran­slator against iustification by workes, translated the worde so often ceremonies, or that ceremonies of the lawe doe concurre to iustification by faith. The com­maundements in deede are called iustifications, because the workes of the lawe, if a man keepe it wholy, are able to iustifie. Not that euery ceremonie or obseruation of any peece of the law, is a iustification, [...]or maketh a man iust: which you may better say, vpon the etymologie of the worde, than that euery particular obseruation of the lawe, or good worke, doth concurre with faith vnto iu­stification.

FVLK. 3. When [...] Apoc. 19. are translated iustificationes, they signifie iuste works, as I haue already proued the significatiō of the word to beare, beside that it is so vsed by Aristotle in his Ethicks, who of iustificatiō before God (whereof wee speake) vnderstoode neuer a whit. Therefore, if in steede of rightuousnesse, which is the singular number, it were translated rightuous or iust workes, it were not amisse in mine opinion. Although by rightuousnesse in that place, is nothing meant, but good or rightuous workes, as Bezaes note doth tel you. Bib. of the yere 1577. most ap­proued.

FVLK. 4. This is a maruelous difference, neuer heard of (I thinke) in the English tōgue before, betwene iust & righteous, iustice & righteousnes. I am sure there is none of our translatours, no nor any professer of iusti­fication by faith onely, that esteemeth it the worth of one haire, whether you say in any place of Scripture iust or righteous, iustice or righteousnesse: and therefore freely they haue vsed sometimes the one worde, some­times the other. Therefore, it is a monstrous falshoode, [Page 258] that you fain them to obserue this distinction, that they ioyne iust with faith, and righteous with workes. Doe they not translate Rom. 2. ver. 13. the hearers of the lawe are not righteous before God, but the doers of the lawe shall bee iustified. Haue you not again, the righteous­nesse of God is made manifest without the law &c. by the faith of Iesus Christ. And where you reade the iust shall liue by faith, haue you not immediatly, the righ­teousnesse of God is reuealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the iust shall liue by faith? Who then but the Diuell, which hath his name of sclaundering, woulde here inuent a distinction of iust and righteous?

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

FVLK. 6. What so euer you may cauill vpon the wordes iuste and iustice, you may doe the same, with as great aduauntage, vppon the wordes righteous and righteousnesse. That God as a iust iudge rewarde [...] good workes, of them that are iustified freely by his grace, by fayth without workes, with a crowne of iustice, it proueth not eyther iustification by workes, or the merite or worthinesse▪ of mennes workes, but all dependeth vppon the grace of God, who promi­seth this rewarde of his meere mercie, and of the wor­thinesse and merites of Christe, whiche is our iustice, whereby wee beyng iustified before God, our workes also, whiche hee hath giuen vs, are rewarded of his iustice, yet in respecte of Christes merites, and not in respecte of the worthinesse of the workes. Againe, God is not vnmindefull of his promise, to rewarde our workes, for then he should be vniuste: he is iuste there­fore to performe what so euer he hath promised, though wee nothing deserue it. Neyther hath Chrysostome, or Theodorete, any other meaning. That you cite out of [Page 261] Oecumenius a late writer in comparison, is blasphemous against the grace of God, neyther is S. Augustine, that liued 500. yeares before him, a sufficient interpreter of his saying, to excuse him. With Augustine we say, God In psal 70. & in Psal. 101. crowneth his giftes, not our merites. And as he acknow­ledgeth Gods mercie, and also his iustice, in rewarding our workes, so do we. Where [...] is translated he wil giue, I confesse it had bene more proper, and agreeable to the Greeke, to haue saide, hee will render, or re­paie, which yet is wholy of mercie in respecte of vs, or our deseruing, but of iustice in respecte of his promi­ses, and of Christes merites, vnto which is rendred, and repayed, that whiche hee deserued for vs. The crowne therefore is due debte, because it is promised to vs for Christes sake, not because any workes of ours are able to purchase it.

FVLK. 7. If you would abide by your first protesta­tion▪ we should not neede to contend much aboute this question. But after you haue in the beginning magnified [Page 262] the grace and mercy of God, and abased your owne me­rites, you come backe againe with a subtill compasse, to establish your owne free will, the worthinesse of your workes, and your merite of the kingdome of heauen. First, you say God telleth vs in all his holy Scriptures, that to doe good workes, is the way to heauen. In deede to fulfill the lawe, is to deserue heauen. But who so euer is guiltie of sinne, must seeke an other way, than by good workes to come to heauē, namely to Iesus Christ, who is the onely way to heauen, the truth, and the life, by whose bloud, when he is purged from his sinne, and reconciled vnto God, and the kingdome of heauen pur­chased for him, then he hath the way of good workes appointed him to walke in, towarde the same. Second­ly, you say you presume not vpon your owne workes, as your owne, or as of your selues, but vpon the good workes wrought by Gods grace, by you his seely instru­mentes, you haue great confidence. Thus while you would seeme to flie from Pelagia [...]isme, you fall into flatte Pharisaisme. For you trust that you are righteous in your selues, though not as of your selues. Suche was the Pharisee of whom Christe telleth the parable, which Luc. 18. ascribing all his workes to the grace of God, had confi­dēce in them, that he was iust before God by them. God I thāke thee (saith the Pharisee). He acknowledgeth the grace of God, as author of all his workes: yet against such as he was, Christe telleth that parable. And whereas you call the Apostle, Heb. 10. to witnesse of your errour, you doe him great wrong, for he speaketh not of any confidence to bee had vpon good workes, wrought by the grace of God by vs: but in the newe couenant of re­mission of sinnes, by the sacrifice of Christes death, by whom we haue accesse to God, that we may be accepta­ble to him, not for any meritorious workes wrought by vs, but by the only oblation of his bodie once for all, by which he hath made perfect for euer, those that are sanctified.

Fulke.

ALthough an inuincible argument a­gainst 1. merites, and desert of good workes, may be drawen out of this text, yet the meaning of the transla­tors is to shewe, no more, than the Apostle saith, that the heauenly glo­rie is incomparably greater, than all the tribulations of this life. And this the Apostle speaketh, not doubtīgly, as our english word (I suppose) doth signifie, when a man may be deceaued in his supposel, but he auoucheth it cōstantly, as a thing, which being wel considered, with the reasons thereof, he concludeth of it with certaintie. And so doth [...] si­gnifie in this place, and in diuerse other, by the iudge­ment of better Grecians, than Gregorie Martin will be these seuen yeares, as Rom. 3. 28. where the Apostle ha­uing discussed the controuersie of iustification by faith, or workes, concludeth, as of a certaintie, [...]. we determine therefore, that a man is iustified by fayth, without the workes of the lawe. Likewise, Rom. 6. v. 11. after he hath proued, that sanctification is necessary to all them that shal▪ or haue put on the iustice of Christ, he sayth with great asseueration vnto the Romanes, [...] Make you ful account therefore, that you are dead to sinne, & not vncertainly thinke or suppose it so to be. Therefore for the translation of [...], in this place, we wil accept no pardon of you, it is better translated than your wit or learning serueth you to vnderstand. Now let vs come to the other wordes, [...], are not worthy of the glorie. Where you say, it should be not equall, correspondent, or comparable, to the glorie. Verily those words we vse, haue none other sense in this place, than the wordes which you supply vs withall, but our wordes doe expresse the moste vsuall signification [Page 265] of the Greeke worde [...], euen as your vulgar Latine doth, calling it in the same sense condignae, which you in your owne translation dare not render, equall, correspon­dent, or comparable, but condigne: lest following the sense, you might be accused to forsake the word, euen so we thinke it best, where the vsuall signification of the word will beare the sense in our English, to reteine the same, and not to change it.

FVLK. 2. We contend not, as it seemeth at this time, about the meaning of the place, but about the true translation of the words. If you can proue therefore, that the Greeke worde [...], doth not signifie worthy, or that this English word worthie, can not expresse the meaning of the Apostle in this text, your accusation is iust, but [Page 266] if you can proue neither of both, you multiply words, as your maner is, without matter, to no purpose, but to weary the Reader. And wisely you translate▪ Bezaes Latine word Statuo, I am of opinion, which signifieth more truly, I determine, or as our translation hath, I am certainely perswaded, and not, I am of an opinion, wher­of there is no certaine knowledge, for an opinion may be false, and is of vncertainties.

FVLK. 3. Verily I can not see, nor any wise man else, I thinke, what this English worde, worthines, doth signifie, but a comparison of equalitie in price, valour, goodnes, excellencie, or such like. And euen in those En­glish phrases, that you bring for example: Good works [Page 267] are not worthie of heauen, the meaning is. There is not an equalitie of excellencie in good workes and heauen: or good workes compared to heauen, are not equall in valure. And euen so: this man is not worthie of my fa­uour. The goodnesse of this man, is not so great, as the goodnesse of my fauour. And so of the rest. And where you say, euerie English man vnderstandeth it thus: that they deserue not heauen, and suche a man deserueth not this, &c. I graunt they may of worthinesse gather desert, in such as may deserue, and so may they of the compari­son of equalitie, conclude desert in the like case. For to deserue, is by doing, to make him selfe equall in good or euill to that rewarde, or punishment which is valued with such doing. Therefore whether you say worthie, or equall, it is all one. And in this text▪ by either of both, merite or desert is necessarily excluded. For if the hea­uenly glorie be incōparably greater, than the afflictions of this life, it followeth of necessitie, that the afflictions of this life deserue not, that is, make not an equalitie of excellencie with heauenly glorie. But the Greeke phrase (you say) is otherwise, for [...] is not ioyned with a Ge­nitiue case, but with an Accusatiue, and a Preposition: In deede this later construction of [...] is not so vsuall, and doeth more fully set foorth the comparison, but the same also is set foorth by the Genitiue case, as you your selfe can not deny. Now our Englishe phrase would not beare, that we should say, worthie to the glory, & there­fore we said worthie of the glory. But if that were good, you say, the Greeke phrases were all one, and might be vsed indifferently. I see no great difference betwene the Greeke phrases, and yet it followeth not, that they may be vsed indifferently. For vnusuall phrases are not to be vsed as indifferently, as common phrases. And therefore your example of turning English into Greeke, is not all one, with turning Greeke into English. If I translate our of Greeke into Englishe, I must obserue the Englishe phrase, as neare as I can, and so if I translate into Greeke, [Page 268] must I haue respect to the vsuall Greeke phrase. And to speake of your ridiculous translation, out of English in­to Greeke. I thinke he that shoulde say, [...], for worthie of thankes, shoulde deserue no great commen­dation. But he that should say, [...], for worthy of the kings fauor, though it be no v­sual phrase▪ I see not why he should be ridiculous. And if you should translate these wordes into English, [...]. Woulde you not, or might you not translate it thus? Nero was not worthie of the king­dome. Therefore we haue not done amisse, to translate, worthie of the glorie.

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

FVLK. 5. If the Englishe word (worthy) did not si­gnifie a cōparison▪ as wel as the Greke word [...], it were somwhat that you say, but seeing one signifieth as much as the other, there is no more sauour in your disputatiō, than in an egge without salt. When we say, there is no weight of gold to be cōpared to a continent minde, it is all one, as if we said, worthy of a continent minde, for we meant, to be compared in goodnes, price, excellency, &c. And therefore you speake out of measure falsely, & im­pudentlye, when you say, we meane not that the worde (worthie) in this text of S. Paule, should signifie a com­parison, for it is not possible that it shoulde signifie o­therwise. Doth not the Geneua note in the margent say, or of like valure. If you be so blinde, that you can not [Page 270] see a comparison in the worde worthie, at the least shore vp your eyes, and beholde it in those wordes of like or equall value. For all comparison is either in quantitie or qualitie. And where you say, that you can not ex­presse your conceite, but onely to the learned, there is none so meanely learned, but they may well laugh at your foolish and vnlearned trifling.

FVLK. 6. We say our translation, both in word, and sense, is the same in Englishe, that S. Paule did write in Greeke. As for the argument, against merite, or desert which doeth followe thereof, we affirme that it is as ne­cessarily gathered of the wordes equall, or comparable, or correspondent, as of the word, worthie. But to ouer­throw this argument, you haue fiue reasons. The first is of the authoritie of Beza, and Caluine, which you say telleth vs, that the Apostle speaketh of the one, and not of the other. To this I aunswere, that they both affirme the consequence against merits out of this text, although it be not the Apostles direct purpose, to abase the me­rite of workes, by comparison of the excellencie of the glorie. To your seconde argument, I aunswere, that though the afflictions that Christ our Sauiour suffered, were not comparable in respect of the length of time, with the eternall glorie that he obtayned thereby: yet in respecte of the excellencie of his person, and the perfection of his obedience, they were comparable, and of equall value tó deserue eternall glorie according to the iustice of God, by which one mans disobedience was sufficient, to eternall condemnation, Rom. 5. What the least of his afflictions, separated from all the rest, was in valure, I haue not learned out of the Scripture, onely I thinke, he suffered nothing superfluously, ▪nor lesse than was needefull to aunswer the iustice of God. Your other fonde surmises, I omitte, vntill you expresse them. To your third argument, I saye, that one acte of a­dulterie is worthy of damnation, and deserueth eternall torment, not by comparison of the short pleasure, with infinite paine: but because it is a sinne committed a­gainst the maiestie of the eternall God: and therefore is worthy of eternall punishment. For the sinne is to be measured after the excellencie of the person, against whome it is committed. Therefore that word▪ which be­ing spoken against a poore man, is a light fault, as to say he is a knaue, the same being spoken against a Lorde, is [Page 272] an hainous offence, and deserueth the pillorie, hut be­ing spoken against a King, is high treason, and is worthy of death. Seeing therefore the eternall maiestie of God is contemned in euery sinne, that sinne doth iustly de­serue eternall torments. Fourthly, it is true, that the A­postle doth exhort vs cheerefully to abide the small and momentarie afflictions of this life, in respect that they shall be rewarded with incomparable glorie. But here­of it followeth not, that the glorie is deserued, by short and small sufferings, but is giuen of the bountifull libe­ralitie of God, to them that for his sake patiently suffer such small afflictions. Therefore, if it be an incourage­ment for a man to labour, to heare that he shall be payd his hyre, as much as his worke deserueth: it is a much greater incouragement for him to heare, that he shal re­ceiue a thousand times more, than his labour deserueth. The words you adde, (you are neuer the nearer heauen, onely beleeue) are yours, and none of ours: for we say with the Apostle, we must suffer with Christ, if we will reigne with him, and the patient suffering of the faithful, is nothing repugnant to the iustification before God, by faith onely. To the last argument of the Apostles autho­ritie, I aunswer, our patient suffering worketh infinite weight of glorie, not by the worthinesse, merite, or de­sert of our suffering, but by the bountifull liberalitie of God, who hath promised so incomparable rewarde, to small tribulation, suffered for his sake. Wherefore all your fiue reasons notwithstanding, our translation is sounde and true.

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

FVLK. 8. For lacke of Scriptures, you flye to the Doctors, to finde merits, in whome neuerthelesse being Catholike, and sound Doctors, you shall sooner find the word Meritum, than your meaning of it. The place of Cyprian, I maruell why you geld, except it be to ioyne the reward that he speaketh of, with the worde merites, which he vseth, either generally for workes, as it is often vsed in the auncient writers: or if he meane thereby de­serts, he speaketh but of examination onely of all mens deserts, that he may giue to the wicked that they haue deserued, ‘and to the godly that which he hath promised, therefore he calleth it the rewarde of their faith and de­uotion. His wordes are these: O diesille qualis & quantus aduenies, fratres dilectissimi, cum caeperit populum suum domi­nus recensere, & diuinae cognitionis examine singulorum me­ritum recognoscere, mittere in gehennam nocentés & persecu­tores nostros, flammae paenalis perpetuo ardore damnare, nobis verò mercedem fidei & deuotionis exoluere. O that day what manner a one and how great shall it come, my deerest beloued brethren, when the Lorde shall beginne to re­count his people, and by examination of his diuine knowledge consider the merites of euery one, to sende into hell fire the guiltie, and to condemne our persecu­tors with perpetuall burning of penall flame? but vnto vs to pay the reward of faith and deuotion.’ The rewarde of faith is not that which beliefe deserueth: but which it looketh for, according to Gods promise, wherevnto it leaneth. ‘For in respect of deserte of Gods fauour, he saith, and bringeth diuerse textes for proofe: Fidem tan­tum prodesse & tantum nos posse quantum credimus. That Ad Quirin. lib. 1. ca. 42. faith only doth profite, and that so much wee can doe, how much we beleeue.’ Wherfore, we see not in Cyprian the incomparable glory to be a reward of desertes.

FVLK. 9. A man may see you are driuē to extreme shiftes, when you will seeke Praemia meritorum, in S. Au­gustine, & can finde it no where, but among the Sermones de sanctis, which beare no credite of Augustines workes: but of some later gatherer. The true Augustine in Ps. 70. Con. 1. thus writeth. ‘ Nihil es per te, deum inuoca, tua peccaia sunt, merita dei sunt, supplicium tibi debetur▪ & cum praemium venerit, sua dona coronabit non merita tua▪ Thou art nothing by thy selfe, call vpon God, thine are the sinnes, the me­rites are Gods, to thee punishment is due, and when the rewarde shal come, he will crowne his giftes not thy merites. Finally Augustine in nothing is more earnest than in denying the reward which is of grace,’ to be due in respect of merite or worthinesse of workes.

FVLK. 10. The booke of wisedome writtē by Phi­lo the Iewe, as S. Hierome thinketh, is no holy Canoni­cal Scripture, to cōfirme the credite of any article of be­liefe. Therefore whether he thought that mens merites were worthy of the fauour and grace of God, & the re­ward of eternall life, or no, it is not materiall. But some­what it is that you say, that our translators for [...] haue not translated worthie, but meete. For my parte, I wishe they had reteyned the vsuall signification of that worde, and said worthie of him selfe, onely to take away your cauill. For otherwise in the sense, there is no difference, if that he saith be true, none is meete for God, but they that are worthie of him, which are not meete or worthie of thē selues, but made such by grace, not for merite of their workes, but by the righteousnesse of Christe, im­puted to them by faith. This if the wiseman meaneth not, but that their vertues were such as deserued Gods fauour and eternall life, we may boldely reiect him, as going against the wisedome of God reuealed in the Ca­nonicall Scriptures.

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

FVLK. 12. Your first foundation is false, therefore all your building falleth to the groūd. For when we trā ­slate that text thus: The afflictions of this time, are not worthy of the glory to come, we meane not thus: deserue not the glory to come, but euen as you do, they are not equal or comparable: but thereof it followeth, that they deserue not, for to deserue, is to doe a thing equall vnto the reward: the afflictions be not equal, therefore they deserue not. But when it is said the workeman is wor­thy of his hyre, wee acknowledge that he deserueth his wages, yet we should not doe well to translate it, that he deserueth his hyre: because worthinesse may be where there is no desert. Gold is worthy to be esteemed before siluer, and yet there is no merite, or deserte of golde, if we speake properly. That of Tob. 9. is not in the Greeke, but in some Bibles translated out of Latine accor­ding to the vsuall phrase of Englishe, rather than to [Page 279] the propertie of the worde, where it is sayd Apoc. 5. The Lambe, that was killed, is worthye to receiue power, and riches, though we will not contende of the de­serts of Christ, yet we may be bold to say, that in respect of the godhead, he was worthy of all honour and glorie from euerlasting, before he had created any thing: and therefore worthines doth not alway import desert, as no worthines doth no desert. Likewise, when it is said of the wicked, Apoc. 16. they are worthy to drinke bloud, it is true, that they deserued that plague, because their cruell workes were iustly recompensed with that punishment: but yet some may be worthy of their punishment, that haue not deserued it. The sonne of a traytor, is worthy to beare the punishment of his fathers attainder; yet he hath not alwayes deserued it by his owne deedes. There­fore it is not all one: they are worthy, and they haue de­serued. The infants of the reprobate, as soone as they haue life▪ are worthy of eternall damnation, and yet they haue not deserued the same, by their owne deedes. Ther­fore where it is sayd of the elect, They shall walke with me in white, because they are worthy, it is not meant, that they haue deserued by their owne workes, to walke with Christ: but because they are made worthye by Christ, who hath giuen them grace, not to defile their garments, who also shall giue them the rewarde of white garments, that is, of innocencie, which no man can de­serue, because no man is cleare from sinne, but onely by forgiuenes of sinnes, in the bloud of Christ. Therefore you haue performed nothing lesse, than your promise, which was to proue the equiualent of merite, out of the Scripture, and to force vs, by our translation, to confesse the same. Fos worthines doth not alwayes argue or en­force desert▪ as desert doth worthines, worthines being a more generall word, than merite or desert.

FVLK. 13. You thinke to haue great aduauntage at our translation of the worde [...], Heb. 10. shall be worthye: which is true according to the sense, but not so proper for the worde, which signifieth ra­ther to be iudged, or accounted worthye, whether he be worthye in deede, or not. And so it shoulde haue bene translated, if the nature of the worde had bene exact­ly weighed. But the translators looked rather to the purpose of the Apostle, which is by all meanes to ter­rifie such contemners and backeslyders, of whome he speaketh. The Greeke worde therefore doth not signi­fie to deserue, but to be iudged worthye, although it is true, that those of whome the Apostle there speaketh, deserued extreame paynes of damnation. And euen so it signifieth in all other places, as Luc 20. [...], they that shall be counted worthye to attayne to that worlde. and, Luc. 21. [...], that you may be counted worthye and, 2. Thess. 1. [...], that you may be counted worthye. And so the word doth signi­fie [Page 281] in other places, without controuersie, as Luc. 7. the Centurion sayd, [...], I accounted not my selfe worthye. and, 1. Tim. 5. The Elders that gouerne well, [...], let them be counted worthy of double honour. For it is the imperatiue mode, therefore it is a fault in our translations, to make it the indicatiue. For we can not saye, let them be worthye, or let them be made worthy: but let them be iudged, reputed, or ac­counted worthy.

FVLK. 14. I haue shewed you howe we shoulde translate that word in any place▪ wheresoeuer it is redde, euen as the vulgar Latine hath in the places by you noted▪ and in those three textes, Luc. 20. 21. 2. Thess. 1. We meane not falsely counted worthye, but wor­thye in deede, as when it is sayde, that Abraham was reputed iust, we acknowledge that he was truely so reputed, and that he was iuste in deede. But where you appeale to our consciences, whether to be counted worthy, and to be worthy, and to deserue, and to merite, be not all one. I answer you plainly▪ and according to my conscience, they be not. But euen as Abraham was re­puted iuste, and was iuste in deede, not by deserte, [Page 282] but by faith, so in those three texts, the faithful are coū ­ted worthy, and are worthy in deede, not by their merit, and desert, but for Iesus Christes sake. For herein your heresie is greatly deceaued, to imagine, that he which is iust by Christ, by faith, or by imputation, is not truely iust, or not iust in deed. For Christ, faith, and imputation, are not contrary, or opposed to truth, but to merit or de­sert of the party, that is iust by Christ, by faith, or by im­putation, and so we say of them that are accounted wor­thy for Christes sake, and not for their owne merits.

FVLK. 15. They must needes be worthye, whome God maketh worthy: but then are they not worthye by their merits or deserts, but by his grace in Iesus Christ, & so our translators meane, when they say, 2. Thess. 1. 11. that our God may make you worthy of this calling, al­though the clearer translation had bene, that God may account you worthy, as the vulgar Latine hath, vt digne­tur. For dignor is not to make worthy, but to vouchsafe, or to account worthy. Wherefore, you doe vainely here snatch at a word, contrary to the meaning, both of the [Page 283] translator, and of the text. For those whom God maketh worthie, are not worthie by their desert, but by his grace accepting them. How the Greeke Doctors vse the word, it is not now the question, but how it signifieth in the Scripture: although I see not how you proue that the do­ctors vse it, to make worthye, or to be made worthie by desert.

FVLK. 16. Sainct Chrysostome putteth not the matter any whit out of doubt, for your side. For he doth not expound this text of 2. Thess. 1. But only in the later end of his Sermon prayeth, that God hauing mer­cie vpon vs all, will make vs worthie of his kingdome. Where you might haue seene, if you had not bene blind with frowardnesse, that God maketh vs worthie, by his mercie, not by our merites. That [...] in his prayer [Page 284] vpon the 3. to Titus is taken to be made worthie, ra­ther than to be accounted worthie, you haue no proofe, but your owne authoritie: although for God to make worthy by his mercy, & to account worthie, is all one in effect. The third place▪ in Epist. ad Col. cap. 1. is altogither against you. Where he sayth, no man liueth such a trade of life, that he may be iudged or accounted worthie of that kingdome, but all is the gift of God. Is not his mea­ning plaine, that no man can be accounted worthie by workes or merites, but altogither by the grace and gift of God?

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

FVLK. 17. If you be not able to draw merit out of word [...], which properly signifieth worthie: you shall haue somewhat a doe to wring it out of the word [...], which properly signifieth, apt, or meete, and sometime sufficient, according to which later signification, Beza in three places translateth dignus, because sufficiens is no La­tine worde in that sense to be vsed. But nowe you aske, why we went not a steppe further▪ to translate [...], Collos. 1. v. 12. which hath made vs worthy. I aunswere you, first there is no reason that a worde which hath di­uerse significatiōs, should alwaies be translated after one. Secōdly, when a word hath one most vsuall signification, and two or three other significations not so vsuall: by translating it once or twise according to the sense of the place, after one of the best vsuall significations, we are not bounde to giue ouer the most common and vsuall signification, when the sense of the place requireth it. Thirdly, when a verbe is deriued of a nowne that hath diuerse significations, it signifieth most commonly af­ter the most vsual signification, as [...], sometime signi­fieth cheape, we must not thereof conclude, that [...] si­gnifieth to make cheape. So [...], signifieth sometime greate, or muche, you may as well say, that [...], signi­fieth to magnifie, to make greate, or to multiplie: [Page 286] which none but a madde man woulde say: and yet you thinke you haue made a great argument, when you say, if [...] be worthie, then [...] is to make worthie. It remaineth therefore, that seeing the most vsuall signifi­cation of [...], is apt or meete, the true and best signi­fication of [...], is to make apt or meete, which we haue followed in our translation. But if you will still contende that [...], is all one with [...], then you must tell vs, as you require vs often, whether [...], be as good Greeke, as [...], if you woulde say, worthie of death. Beza therefore fol­loweth not his pleasure, where he chooseth to say, for [...], Idoneum, but the nature of the worde, and the v­suall signification thereof▪ compared with the sense of the place. And if we shoulde followe your vulgar La­tine translation, and say, that God hath made vs wor­thie to be partakers of the inheritaunce of the Sainctes in light, you are neuer the narre for your merites. For God maketh vs worthie by his grace, and by the righ­teousnesse and holinesse of Christ, which is imputed to vs being incorporated to him, and made liuely mem­bers of his mysticall bodie. Howe vainely you charge the translatours, with bragging, vnskilfulnesse, and malice, they that are learned can iudge, and God will one day reuenge it.

FVLK. 18. If the Greeke fathers did so interprete the Apostles wordes, yet your merit is to seeke, as I haue sayd. For I will not contend, whether God make vs wor­thye, but whether he make vs worthye by desert of our good works, or by his mercie, & grace, in the redēption of his sonne. But let vs see what the fathers saye to the matter. First Oecumenius words are flat against you, if they be truely translated, [...], he hath counted vs worthy, and hath freely graunted vnto vs to be meete. See you not, that all our worthines and meetenes dependeth of his grace, and free acceptation? The Liturgie intitu­led of Basill, although it haue a much younger author, maketh neuer a whit more for you. The minister prayeth that God would accoumpt him worthy, or make him meete for the ministerie. And if you should in both pla­ces translate, that God maketh worthy, you cā not proue merite thereby: but contrarywise it soundeth against merite, for God maketh vs not worthy by our desertes, but by the worthinesse of Christ. Chrysostome also, as I haue shewed before vpon this place, doth vtterly con­demne your opinion of merites, for he saith, ‘Suche are the things that are giuen, that he hath not onely giuen [Page 288] them, but also made vs able to receiue them. Againe, he hath not onely giuen vs the honour, but also strength to embrace it. What is our strength? what is our abilitie, to receiue the giftes of God, but fayth in the merites of Christ?’ The place of Chrysostome, Hom. de cruce & latrone, is not be be vnderstoode of deseruing by works, but by the grace of God, and remission of their sinnes, which maketh men meete and worthye of his glorye: as the example of the Publican, iustified onely by re­mission Luc. 18. Luc. 7. of his sinnes, and of the harlot saued by faith, which he vseth, doth plainely declare. And yet sanctifi­cation, and the fruites of good life, are not excluded from the persons iustified, and saued, but onely me­rite or desert of workes, according to which, as the same Chrysostome sayth, in ep. Col. 1. we must saye, we are vnprofitable seruaunts, when we haue done all that is commaunded vs. But this is no place, to handle con­trouersies of religion, but translations of the Scrip­ture. The worde [...], except you bring vs better e­uidence, than yet we see any, in all places where we reade it, we may translate it dignari, which is to vouchsafe, or account worthy.

FVLK. 19. We doe not yet see, that the holy Scri­ptures vsed any worde aequiualent to merite, whereby it might be gathered, that wee are iustified or saued by merite of good workes. But you haue other wordes and phrases, that doe plainely importe and signifie merite, as in Ecclesiasticus 16. euery man shall finde according to his workes. Where you put vs in minde, what our Maister Budee writeth of the proper signi­fication of [...], that is, to deserue, bringing ex­ample therefore, out of Demosthenes oration [...]. But I pray you, doeth our saide Maister af­firme this to be the onely signification of that verbe? Where he bringeth you the example out of Grego­rie, of Saule, whiche seeking his fathers Asses [...] founde a kingdome, doeth he meane that by seeking his fathers Asses, he deserued a king­dome? Againe, the example he bringeth out of Sainct Luke, [...], thou hast founde fa­uour or grace with God: doeth he vnderstande, that the virgine Marie deserued the grace of God? But you obiect, that it is a common phrase of the Scripture, that God will iudge or rewarde, or repay to euerie man ac­cording to his workes. It is true, but not to euerie one according to his merites, for then all shoulde bee damned, for all haue deserued death: and no man shoulde bee saued, for no man meriteth saluation. But God rendereth to the faithfull according to their workes, when he freely giueth for Christes sake eternall life to them, that by perseueraunce of good workes (as the Apostle sayeth) seeke glorie, honour, and incorru­ptiō. Their workes therfore, are the fruites of his grace. [Page 290] not the merites or desertes of his grace by which wee are saued: Eph. 2. But here againe you quarrell, that for works, we saie sometimes deedes, as though they were not all one. Or if they be not, why doe you, 1. Cor. 5. translate Qui hoc opus fecit, that hath done this deede.

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

FVLK. 21. You fare with vs, as a mery fellow did with his friendes, of whom Erasmus telleth, who affir­ming that he sawe in the skie a fiery dragon, with often asking them if they did not see it, he induced them at length, euery one to cōfesse they saw it, least they should haue bene thought to be purblind. But in good earnest, & in my conscience, I see no more merite in the Scrip­tures, than I did before. Yea I haue this argument more, to persuade mee that it is not founde in the Scriptures, because the chiefest patrones thereof, hauing taken such paynes to finde it, are nowe as farre from it, as euer they were. But to the matter, I say there is no merite in­cluded in the saying of S. Iohn, although you rehearse it in the seconde person, after the vulgar Latine tran­slation, and not after the Greeke, whiche is in the firste person, and may be referred to the rewarde of the Apo­stles, which shall be full, if they whom they haue con­uerted to the faith, doe perseuere vnto the ende. But make it as strong for your parte as you can, the full re­warde is giuen according to the moste bountifull pro­mise of God, to our good workes, of his meere mercie and grace, and not by deserte of our workes. And the parable of the labourers, whom God hired into his Math. 20. vineyarde, declareth moste euidently, that the rewarde is of grace, not of merite. For if it were of merite, they that came first earely in the morning, should haue receyued more, as their labour was greater, than they whiche came at the laste houre. Where our Sauiour Christe sayeth▪ the workeman is worthie of his hire, hee Luc. 10. teacheth his Disciples, that they maye lawfully take meate and drinke of them to whome they preach, ac­cording to that common saying, or Prouerbe. But thereof it followeth not, that euery one which worketh [Page 293] in Gods vineyarde, is worthie for his workes sake, and by deserte of his labour, of eternall glorie, for he promiseth greater rewarde to his workemen, a thou­sande folde and more, than their labour doth deserue▪ So that yet wee see not, that wee merite and deserue by working, although we receyue rewarde for our work▪ or according to our workes. Vnde mihi tantum meriti Ambros. ad virg. in exhor. (saith a godly father) cui indulgentia est pro coron [...]? whence should I haue so greate merite when pardon or mercie is my crowne.

FVLK. 22. If you can finde [...] in the Scrip­ture, you conuince vs of merite by Bezaes iudgement. Therefore, tell vs I pray you, in what booke and chap­ter wee shall finde it. First you tell vs, that you finde many wordes like vnto it. Yea, but neyther the same, nor any that is aequiualent. For rendring of rewarde▪ which all your wordes doe signifie, may be according to promise by grace: and not by desert. The confidence of [Page 294] our workes, that Photius speaketh of, muste be vnder­stood as they are testimonies of Gods sanctifying spirit, or else it is contrary to the Scripture. The parable tolde Luc. 18. & 17. against them that trusted in themselues, that they are righteous, whereas we must confesse, that we are vnpro­fitable seruants in all our obedience, and beste workes that we doe. Yea but you haue [...] and [...] in the Scripture, which must needes signifie as much as Bezaes [...]. Who will yeelde to this necessitie? If a man promise a laborer 20. shillings for euery dayes worke, the rendring of this wages may be called [...], or [...], and yet no man will say, that a daies labour deserueth twentie shillings. That there is great rewarde promised for them that keepe Gods cō ­maundements, wee confesse: but this rewarde is ey­ther of merite, if they perfectly keepe all Gods com­maundements, which no man doth: or of mercie, if be­ing iustified by faith through remission of their sinnes, they endeuour according to the measure of Gods grace, giuen vnto them, to keepe Gods commaundements in some parte, as God giueth strength. In the testimonie of S. Paule, the worde of inheritaunce following imme­diatly Coll. 3. after the worde of rewarde, or retribution, exclu­deth merites: for the inheritaunce dependeth of Gods free adoption, by which he maketh vs his sonnes, that he may giue vs that inheritāce, which we can neuer deserue. In the other place the Apostle promiseth reward of glo­ry, to them that suffer for Christes name: which God ha­uing promised of his meere mercie to giue vs, and the same being purchased for vs by the merites of our Saui­our Christ: it is as iust before God to render vnto vs, as to repay the wicked with eternall condemnation, accor­ding to their merites. So that the merites of Christ, and his satisfaction, pleade for vs in all rewardes, and not the merites of our good workes, which yet are not ours, but Gods gifts in vs. That you alledge out of the Psalme, fol­loweth afterward to be considered.

FVLK. 23. You neede not be halfe so earnest, for the word of reward, in that verse of the Psalme, which we translate vnto the ende: for if it were graunted vnto you, that for which you make so much of it, the merite of good workes will neuer be established by it. For re­warde, as I haue often sayd, and plainly proued, doth not of necessitie import the merite or desert of him that is rewarded: but often tymes the liberalitie & bountiful­nesse of the rewarder, which for small labour giueth wonderfull great rewarde. Nowe concerning the tran­slation of this word yekebh, the Seuentie Interpreters, nor [...] yet S. Hierom, are sufficient to determine the ambigui­tie in this place, more than in an hundred other places, where our translations depart from their iudgement. But it is still free for men of euery age, to vse the gifte of knowledge, and interpretation of tongues, vnto the exact finding out of the true meaning of the holy Ghost in the Scriptures. Neyther doe we ioyne with them, one­ly for aduantage, as you fondly charge vs, but as I haue shewed you reason in the example you bring, so is there reason also to be shewed, wheresoeuer we eyther ioyne [Page 296] with them, or depart from them. Where you say, we can not abide holinesse of places, it is false, for we doe ac­knowledge the holinesse of all places, which you can proue, that God hath sanctified, as he did the Arke, the temple, the tabernacle, &c.

FVLK. 24. If Sanctes Pagninus, Benedictus Arias, and Isidorus Clarius, be vpstart newe Maisters in your iudgement, because they depart here from the Septua­ginta, and Saint Hierome, we poore men must looke for small fauour at your handes. But because you say we fol­lowe nothing, neither iudgement nor learning, in He­brew or Greeke, but onely our owne errour and here­sie: I will set downe the iudgement of Isidorus Clarius, [Page 297] vpon this place, who translateth it, as all the Hebritians of this age doe, and yeldeth his reasons in these wordes. Inclinaui cor meum.\] ‘ Accommodaui animum meum, vt opere praestem praecepta tua, &c. I haue inclined my hart.\] I haue applied my minde, that in worke or deede, I might per­forme thy commaundements, euen vnto the ende of my life. For that worde, propter retributionem, for reward, the Hebrew wordes haue not: and truely it is to be taken a­way, for it is too seruile a thing, and not worthy of so great a Prophet, to giue diligence to Gods commaun­dements for reward, and hope of retribution. For that is the part of an hyreling, and of him which is vnworthye the name of a sonne: neyther can he be worthily called a Christian man, that serueth Christ with this minde. For what? if God should say so, that he would not rewarde vs with any other retribution, seeing for this one thing, that we are created by him, we can neuer satisfie this debt, shal we refuse to serue him. Therfore we are bound to serue him with our whole minde, although he had decreed to thrust vs into hell fire, both for that which we owe him, and for that we liue onely that time which we bestow in well doing, for they which giue ouer them selues to all wicked works, by no meanes can be sayd to liue. Yet there may be an interpretation of the Hebrew wordes, without such offence, so that it may be sayde, for euer is the rewarde, as else where we reade, in kee­ping of them is great rewarde. For by this meanes it is signified, that the fruite in deede of keeping Gods law is very great, but yet that retribution is not the ende and scope, but the loue of God. Let all indifferent Readers iudge by this,’ what iust cause you haue thus to rayle, not only vpon our translators, but also vpō al learned Pa­pistes, that haue translated euen so. And let the ignorant iudge, what knowledge you haue in the Hebrewe tongue, which vrge the false translation of the Seuen­tie, against the opinion and translation of all the learned Hebritians of this age, both Papistes and Protestantes: [Page 298] although it were no hard thing to proue, that the Greeke text of the Psalmes, which nowe we haue, is none of the Seuenties translation, as euen Lindanus might teach you, de opt. gen. l 3. [...]. 6.

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

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

Fulke.

SEeing you confesse that the Greeke 1. worde signifieth not onely power, but also dignitie, and that in this place it signifieth both, it can be no corruptiō, but the best and truest interpretation, to translate [...], dignitie, for that in­cludeth power, whereas power may be seuered from dignitie. Where you woulde haue vs vse a word, that is ambiguous, whē the sense is cleare by your owne confession, you bewray your owne corrupt affe­ction, which desire to haue the Scriptures so ambiguous­ly or doubtfully translated, that the ignorant might re­ceiue no benefite of certaine vnderstanding by them. When a worde hath diuerse significations, a wise transla­ter must weigh, which of them agreeth with the text in hand, & that to vse: but not to seeke ambiguous words, that may bring the matter in doubt, when the meaning to him is certaine. As here you say, there is no doubt but it signifieth both, and yet you quarrell at our transla­tion, which comprehendeth both, and vrge the word of power, from which dignity may be seuered, whereas frō dignity, power or ability or licence can not be diuided.

FVLK. 2. ‘S. Hierome fauouring this translation of ours, as he doth in diuerse places, lib. 2. aduers. Ioui. Gra­tia dei quae in me est, & lib. 2. aduers. Pelag. & ad Principē. Gratia dei quae mecū est.’ The grace of god which is in me, or which is with me. I maruell why you count it among heretical corruptions, except you take S. Hierome for an heretike. By the later, you say it is signified, that y ^e grace of God, & the Apostle both labored togither, although it be no proper speech to say, the grace of God laboreth, yet that you woulde haue, is expressed before, where S. Paul sayth, I haue labored more than they al, which none but a blocke would vnderstande, that he was forced like a blocke. The grace of God vseth no violence, but fra­meth the will of man to obedience and seruice of God. But that S. Paule had of him selfe no free will to per­forme this labour, but that it was altogither of the grace of God, which gaue him this will, he confesseth more plainly, than that it can be denied, where he sayth, Not I. Whereby he meaneth, not that he was onely helped by the grace of God, and did it not alone: but that he did nothing by his owne strēgth, but altogither by the grace of God, which made him willing, which of nature was vnwilling to set forth the Gospell, yea by froward zeale became a blasphemer and a persecuter thereof. Which grace gaue him not only a will to promote the Gospell, [Page 303] but inspired him also with diuine knowledge, by reue­lation, without studie or hearing of other men: which gaue him also strength to ouercome so many difficul­ties, that no labour, nor trauaile, nor persecution, nor continuance of time, did make him weary, or faint in his labour. All this (I saye) he doth ascribe wholy vnto the grace of God. And this sense doth not make Paule a blocke, nor enforced by violence, but a willing, prompt, & painefull labourer. But if you meane, that S. Paule had a free will, and strength of him selfe, which onely was holpen by the grace of God, then is your sense abhomi­nable Pelagianisme, heresie, worthy to be troden vnder feete, by all Christians, and of Caluin, and Beza moste iustly reprehended, who are vtter enimies to free will, that derogateth any thing frō the grace of Christ, with­out whome we can doe nothing: which text alwayes Iohn. 15. v. 5. choked the Pelagians, and so doth it their halfe faced brethren, the Papistes.

FVLK. 3. Concerning the omission of the Greeke article, which Caluine and Beza reproue in the olde tran­slator, you make many wordes to no purpose: for they reproue him not for omitting it, where either it can not, or it neede not be expressed, but in this place, where both it may, and meete it is, that it should be expressed. But we (you say) to expresse the article, doe adde more than is in the text: yet in truth we adde nothing, but that which is necessarily to be vnderstoode, as when wee say Iames the sonne of Zebedee, where you had rather say Iames of Zebedee, as though you were so precise, that for necessarie vnderstanding, you would not adde a word to the text, & yet you do verie often, yea sometimes where no neede is. As Act. 8. where the Latine is Curauerunt Ste­phanum, you translate it, they tooke order for Stephans funerall. Doth Curare signifie to take order for a fune­rall? So likewise Luc. 10. Paeniterent, they had done pe­naunce. But to answere for our owne doings. Io 5. v. 36. where Christe saith, I haue a greater witnesse, than Iohns [Page 305] witnesse, why may not the article [...] be referred rather to [...], that is of necessitie to be vnderstood, than to [...]. In the other place 1. Iohn. 2. v. 2. the worde sinnes, muste needes be vnderstoode in the pronoune adiectiue ours. In the thirde texte, where you accuse the transla­tors of hereticall purpose, the sense is all one, whe­ther you adde the article or no. For when the Apo­stle sayeth, by Christe we haue boldnesse and entrance with confidence, by faith, howe can you vnderstand con­fidence by workes, and whether there be confidence by workes or no, there can none be proued by this place. Where Beza vnderstandeth an article, Rom. 8. whom our English translation doth follow, it is only to make that plaine, which otherwise is necessarily to be vnderstoode. For there is no differēce betwene these sayings. The law of the spirit of life in Christ Iesus, & this, The lawe of the spirit of life which is in Christ Iesus, hath deliuered me from the lawe of sinne and death. The article or relatiue therefore declareth no more, but that the lawe of the spirit of life, is in Christ Iesus, which deliuereth vs. For both the text sayth, in Christ Iesus, and it can not be in any other to deliuer vs. For he sayeth not, The lawe of the spirite of life in vs, but in Christe Iesus, and the nexte verse following doeth manifestly confirme the same, as euerie man may see that will consider it. Like­wise Iames the seconde, wilt thou knowe O thou vaine man, that faith without workes is deade? If you say, the faith which is without good workes is deade, is not that the meaning of the Apostle? Where he addeth im­mediatly, that Abraham was iustified by such a faith, as was fruitefull of good workes. And when he bringeth example of Deuils faith, is it not manifest he speaketh of suche a faith, as is vtterly voyde of all good workes? Where you say that Beza putteth the article into the text, and translateth it accordingly, you do most shame­fully belye him. For to the original text, he addeth none of his owne collection, but in his translation onely, [Page 306] where he iudgeth that according to the sense of the place, it must of necessitie be vnderstood: which if it be a fault in articles, it must be so in other wordes also, for like cause added. Then answere to your owne translati­ons, where beside those that I haue noted before, which seeme to proceede of some Popish purpose, you haue added to your Latine authenticall texte. As in these ex­amples, Mat. 8. Quid nobi [...] & tibi? what is betweene vs? Cap. 9. Confid [...], haue a good hart. Cap. 22. Mal [...] p [...]rdet. he wil bring to naught. Marc. 2. Post dios, after some dayes. Accumberet, he satte at meate. Luc. 17. Ab illo, more than he. Io. 12. Discumbentibus, them that satte at the table. Non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum, not because he cared for the poore. Act. 9. Ecce ego Domine. Loe here I am Lorde. cap. 10. gustare, to take somewhat, cap. 17. colentibus, that serued God. Nobiliores eorum qui sunt Thessalonicae, more noble than they, that are at Thessalonica, Rom. 1. Vocatis sanctis, called to be Saincts, &c.

FVLK. 4. You take vpō you to prescribe rules of trā ­slatiō, as though you were Prince of the Critici or Aerop [...] ­gitae. But al reasonable men will cōfesse that the article is so oftē to be expressed, as it may, & maketh any thing to the sense, and vnderstanding of the place. But as for your rule, that it is not to be expressed in trāslatiō, when there may be more senses than one of the same, is so good a rule, that by the same reason, and by equitie thereof, when so euer any worde commeth in the text, that may haue more senses than one, we must skippe it ouer, and not translate it at all, and so wee shal leaue out fiue hun­dred wordes 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 verbe substantiue is both more vsuall, and also more probable to be vnderstoode in this text 1. Cor. 15. than the parti­ciple [...].

FVLK. 5. And I likewise appeale not onely to all [Page 308] that haue skill in Greeke speaches and phrases: but to al them whose eares are accustomed to reasonable speachs, whether it be like that the Apostle would vnderstande that participle, whereof (perhaps) there is no verbe, for where shall we reade [...]? Secondly whether hee would vnderstand the participle of an other verbe adie­ctiue, than wēt before, for before he said [...]. Third­ly, whether hee were so desirous to set forth his owne cooperation with the grace of God, that he woulde ex­presse it with two prepositions, one in apposition, the o­ther in composition. Fourthly, whether he meant to at­tribute any thing to him selfe, whē, as it were correcting that which he saide of labouring, he saith, yet not I, but the grace of God. Fifthly, whether he purposed to chal­lenge any merite of the labour to him selfe, or make his labour any thing separate or separable frō the grace of God, when he said before, by the grace of God I am that I am. Laste of all whether his wordes being resolued, if this participle be added, they conteyne not a ridiculous tautologie, or vaine repetition. I haue laboured more than they all, vet not I, but the grace of God which la­boured togither with mee hath laboured. To con­clude in your example which you faine. Because you can finde none to answere your fansie: if the wordes were as you suppose [...], wee would and muste if wee did well, translate it thus. It is not you that speake but the holy Ghost. which is in you, and so vnderstand, spea­keth. The saying of Philo, or what so euer eloquent Iewe that was, whiche gathered that booke of wise­dome, is not of such importaunce, that wee neede to seeke any interpretation thereof, although it is cer­taine, that by wisedome, hee meaneth not the Sonne of God, the wisedome of the Father, but diuine know­ledge and vnderstanding, which is a gifte of his spirite, whereof hee speaketh by a rhetoricall Prosopopoea, or fi­ction of person.

FVLK. 6. S. Paule saith 1. Cor. 3, 9. that hee and Apollo are [...], ioyned togither in the worke and businesse of God, he saith not that they are helpers of God, for God needeth no helpe. A helper is of him that lacketh strength, which is blasphemous to say of God. Therefore euen Faber Stapulensis (as Beza telleth you) reproueth that terme adiutores, which your vulgar tran­slator vseth, and you your selfe in fauour of your he­resie [Page 310] of freewill, doe not translate, but flie to the Greeke worde [...], and say Coadiutors, which if you would expresse in English, signifieth fellow helpers of God. The word Cooperarij, which S. Augustine vseth (as Beza al­so telleth you) may bee referred to the ioynt labour of the ministers, in seuerall offices of planting and wate­ring. And although it be referred to God, that he as the Lorde and Maister, and they as the seruauntes, altogi­ther by his grace and strength, doe worke togither, the sense is not euill, yet not proper for this place. Be­cause the Apostle doth not here sette out the dignitie of the ministers, but abaseth their labour and sub­mitteth all to God. For hee had to doe with them, that did attribute too much vnto the ministers worke, with whome it was vnseasonable, to extoll their la­bours, and make them coadiutors or fellow helpers of God. But contrariwise hee ascribeth the fruite of all their labours to God, and to take away the Schismes that were among them, by depending of one minister more than an other, declareth that they altogither are Gods labourers, Gods husbandmen, &c. In the other place 2. Cor. 6. v. 1. [...], it is more proper to say; that the Apostles ioyned their labours vnto Christe of­fering his grace, that it shoulde not bee receyued in vayne. Where neuerthelesse the strength of mans free will, is not auouched, but the grace of God, who wor­keth by his ministers, giuing them strength to labour, and fruite to their labours. Nexte followeth an open outcrie against Beza, for false translation, & our transla­tors, for being ashamed to follow him. If we mislike Be­zaes translation, are wee by and by ashamed to followe him? And if his translation be false, as you affirme, and we ashamed to folow him in falsehood: do we deserue to be defied as hypocrits, because we prefer the truth before the credite of our maister, as you call him. O how glad you are, when you haue neuer so small an occasion to set abroad the sailes of your railing, & reuiling oration. [Page 311] But let vs see, whether Beza deserue so much blame, as you charge him withall. Beza hauing translated (as he thought) most neare to the Apostles meaning, Eph. 2. v. 5. in his annotation vpon the place, thus writeth: Conuiui­ficauit, &c. The vulgar, and Erasmus translate, he hath quickened vs togither with Christ, which sense I doe in no wise reprehend. But yet nothing shall be detracted from the selfe same matter, and perhaps it may be sayde more aptly, that the preposition [...], in this place, is vsed rather to declare the vniting togither of the Gentiles and Iewes in one Christ: after which maner, the word [...], which signifieth to be builded togither, is af­terward vsed, verse 22. This is Bezaes iudgement, not cō ­trary to the common translation, and ours, but agreeing in the sense thereof, and comprehending a further mat­ter, whereof the Apostle in that chapter speaketh. But our translators thought best to followe the plaine and com­mon vnderstanding, not for shame of Beza, or his tran­slation, but for desire of sinceritie and plainenesse. Con­trariwise, where your vulgar translator is sometimes so barbarous, that his phrase hath no sense according to the text, it may wel be thought you were ashamed to follow him, lest you should haue bene ridiculous to all men. As you translate Timoratus, religious oftētimes. Non quia de Ioh. 12. egenis pertinebat ad eum, which in English is, not because of the poore it pertained to him, but you haue, trāslated, not because he cared for the poore. Vna sabbathi, the first Ioh 21. Act. 1. Act. 14. of the Sabboth. Sabbati habens iter, hauing the iourney of a Sabboth, you translate, distant a Sabbats iourney. Yea you are bold to correct your text, and for Italia, to Act. 25. Ibid. say Attalia. Ad abluenda crimina, which is, to washe away the crimes you say, to cleare him selfe of the crime. Cum multa ambitione, which is, with much ambition, you saye, with great pompe. Exhortentur, which is a deponent, you 1. Cor 14. 1. Cor. 15. translate, may be exhorted: ad reuerentiam vobis, which is, for reuerence to you, you saye, to your shame: and such like. I doe not blame you that you are ashamed to fol­low [Page 312] your vulgar Latine text in these phrases, but that you are not ashamed to allowe that translation, as the onely authentical text, which no man for shame will follow in many places. To conclude, our meaning for free will, is, that we confesse it at all times, to be free from cōstreint, but neuer free to embrace that which is good in deede, but only when it is reformed by the grace of God: who also in all good thinges that we take in hande, doth not onely make vs willing, but also giueth all the strength we haue to performe them. If this be your meaning (as I am afrayde it is not) by your termes of working and helping, and directing, (as though it coulde goe a­lone with a litle helpe and direction) we ioyne with you: but if you thinke you can doe any thing that good is, without the grace of God, like to Pelagius Celesti­us, and other like Heretikes of the deuils blacke gard, we leaue you.

FVLK. 7. The translation you reprehend, I graunt is not proper for the words, and therefore is reformed in the later translations, yet in sense it is all one: for salua­tion lyeth not in the will, or running of man, but in the mercie of God: ‘euen as S. Iohn saith, the children of God are not made of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but they are borne of God.’ But thus you reason a­gainst it. We are not saued, except we will, and runne, er­go, saluation lyeth in willing and running. I denye your argument, which is as good as this; we are not saued from sinne, except we haue committed sinne, ergo, salua­tion from sinne, lyeth in committing sinne. The famous place of Augustine, is a famous corruption of Papistes, to establish the strēgth of free will, cleane cōtrary to S. Au­gustines minde, where a point interrogatiue is chaunged into a periode: for in auncient written copies, it is redde with interrogation. Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustifica [...] sine te? He therefore that made thee without thee, doth he not iustifie thee without thee? And the whole dis­course of that father, both before and after, requireth that reading. ‘For thus he writeth. Si hominem te fecit De­us, & iustum tu te facis, melius aliquid facis, quam fecit Deus, sed sine te fecit Deus. Non enim adhibuisti aliquem consensum, vt te faceret Deus. Quo modo consentiebas qui non eras. Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustificat sine te? Ergo fecit nescientem, iustificat volentem. tamen ipse iustificat, ne su iustitia tua. If God haue made thee a man, and thou makest thy selfe a iust man, thou makest some better thing than God hath made: but God made thee with­out thee. for thou gauest no consent, that God shoulde make thee? howe diddest thou consent which wast not. He therefore that made thee without thee, doth he not iustifie thee without thee? Therefore he hath made thee not knowing, but he iustifieth thee being willing, yet it is he, that doth iustifie thee, that it should not be thy iustice.’

The meaning of Saint Augustine is, that we haue no [Page 314] more free will to be iustified, before we be preuented by the grace of God, than we had will to be created. For it is Gods grace, that maketh vs willing to be iustified, and saued, not the strength of mans free will, as he pro­ueth at large throughout the whole Homilie. Nowe to the textes of Scripture, which you cite, I aunswere, there is not one, that proueth any strength or swaye of mans free will, towarde the true goodnesse, before, of an vngodlye man, and enimie of God, he be reconci­led by the grace and mercie of God, and made an obe­dient childe in some parte, willing to doe the will of his father. First, those textes of fighting, and running, proue, that fighting and running is necessary for them, that are exhorted thereto, but not that fighting or run­ning are in the free will of man, or that saluation ly­eth in them. Eating and drinking are necessarie for the life of man, yet the life of man lyeth not in eating and drinking. Where the Apostle sayth, the doers of the lawe shall be iustified, he meaneth them that full­fill the lawe, and doth our Sauiour Christ, aunswe­ring to the question of him that asked, what she should doe to obtaine life, declare, that there is no way to en­ter into life by doing, but onely by doing of Gods commaundements. For the man that doth them shall liue by them. But if he were asked which is the way to eternall life, as he was by Thomas, he will aunswer, I Ioh. 14. am the way, the truth, and the life. Those textes ther­fore declare not, howe a man, that is a transgressor of the lawe, may be saued, but that to obtayne saluation by workes, it is necessary for a man to keepe the whole lawe and commaundements of God, or else he is ac­cursed.

FVLK. 8. The Greeke worde [...] doth signifie to be able to hold, or containe, and so it is vsed Mar. 2. [...]. Which you translate, so that there was no place, no not at the dore. Doe you not meane, that the place about the dore, was not able to hold that multitude? Your vulgar Latin is. Ita vt non ca­peret neque ad ianuam, in barbarous words, but in sense as I haue sayd before. So Iohn. 2. the sixe pottes, when they were emptie are sayed [...], able to receiue euerie one of them two or three measures. Likewise, Iohn. 22. where the worde is [...], you your selues translate not able to containe. Seeing the worde therefore signifieth not onely to receiue, but also to be able to receiue, it is rightly translated, Matth. 19. and according to the mea­ning of our Sauiour Christ, all men can not receiue this saying, but they to whom it is giuen, which he doth af­ter euidently confirme, when he addeth the participle [...], he that is able to receiue it, let him receiue it. Which were vainly said, if all men were able that would, and if it were giuen to all that would: for then he should say, all men doe not receiue this saying, but they that will, let them receiue it. Where you call Augu­stine to witnesse of your foolishe glose, you doe him shamefull iniurie, for he sayeth not all men doe not, be­cause all will not: ‘but these are his wordes in the place [Page 316] 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 vt impleant quod volunt. All men receiue not this word, but they to whom it is giuen, for they to whom it is not gi­uen, either they will not, or else they fulfill not that which they will: but they to whome it is giuen, doe so will, that they fulfill that which they will.’ Augustine is plaine to the contrarie, that it is not in euerie man that wil, to be continent, but it is the speciall gift of God that any both will, and be able to performe it, for which he citeth also the saying of the wise man Sap. 8. ‘which with you is Canonicall Scripture. When I knewe that otherwise I coulde not be continent, except God should giue it, and this same was wisedom to know whose gift it is, I went vnto the Lorde and prayed to him.’ These things considered, our translation is iustified, both ac­cording to the word, which signifieth sōetime to be able to receiue: and according to the sense, which here must needes require, that it shoulde be so translated. Where­fore it is vnpossible for any man to liue chast▪ except he haue the gift of God, whereof vnlesse a man be cer­tayne, he doeth foolishly, and presumptuously to vowe that, which he knoweth not, whether he shall be able to performe.

FVLK. 9. The relatiues be the masculine gender in the Hebrue tongue, and therefore referred to Abel, and not to sinne, which is of the foeminine gender. Againe, sinne hath no appetite to Cain, but rather Cain to it, therefore euen as it was sayed to Eue, thy appetite shall be to thy husbande, so it is sayed of Abel, his appetite shall be to thee. Sainct Augustine followeth the cor­rupt translation of the Septuaginta, which for appetite reade conuersion, and therefore there is the lesse account to be made of his authoritie, being also ignoraunt in the Hebrue tongue, and not regarding the Greeke rela­tiue to be also of the masculine gender. Hierome also in that place, interpreteth not appetite, but societie, and fantasie, ththat chataoth is the masculine gender, and not [...] the foeminine. Whereas it is neuer read but in the foe­minine gender, out of this place of controuersie. But the text it selfe (you say) is sufficient▪ to conuince this ab­surditie, because in this speache of God to Cain, there is no word of Abel. It is somwhat that you say, if this that Moises reporteth were all that God sayd to Cain, but [Page 318] seeing it is certaine, that God at large discoursed wyth him, of the cause of his enuie againste his brother, wee may easily vnderstande in this speach, two arguments to reproue Caines enuie, the one of the person of God, the other of the person of Abel. For God doth reprooue his enuie by his owne iustice, and by Abels innocencie. Which latter argumēt your false translation doth vtter­ly suppresse. But that a Relatiue is referred to an Antece­dent, whiche in the same verse is not expressed, it is no strange thing, to them that reade the scripture. Examples I will giue you, Iob 26. v. 6. 11. & 12. and cap. 27. v. 9. & 10. yea it is verye vsuall, when the antecedent maye bee easily vnderstoode, as heere, both by the gender, and also by manner of speache, whiche beeing the same that was spoken of Eues infirmitie & subiection to hir husband, must needes here haue the same sense of Abel towarde Caine his elder brother.

FVLK. 10. I haue shewed before, the cause of the Cap. 1. sect. 28. [...] change of the gender in the worde robets to be, for that by sinne is meant here the punishment of sinne. Sanctes Pagninus taketh the worde sinne, for an oblation for sinne. And for the punishment of sinne, it is taken, Zach. 14, 19. The Septuaginta also doe plainly referre these re­latiues vnto Abel, and therefore they are in the mascu­line gender, [...], the cōuersion of him pertaineth to thee, and thou shalt rule ouer him.

FVLK. 11. Not only the Hebrue Grammar, but the same phrase vsed before, maketh plainely for our transla­tion. That S. Hierome saith, the Hebrue is of the mas­culine gender, as great an Hebritian as he was, he may not carrie the matter away with his authoritie, except he bring an instance, where it is of the masculine gender. [Page 320] The Iewish Rabbins, patrones of free will, as ignorant of the grace of God, erre in this place, as they doe in a thou­sand more, and are forced to inuent straunge applicati­ons of the worde, appetite, to make their sense probable. How the gender of Hebrew wordes may be found out, we are not now to learne, which because you haue but lately learned, you thinke all men ignorant thereof, but your selfe. By the chapter of Pagninus, where he sheweth that feminines are ioyned to masculines, you might learne that chataoth is the feminine gender, although it be ioyned with a participle of the masculine gēder. Who [...] also might haue taught you, the difference of nounes en­ding in he, praecedente camets, to be this, that feminines haue the accent in the last syllable, masculines in the last [...]ilr [...] & milel. [...] saue one, and therefore chataoth in this place, hauing the accent in the last syllable, notwithstanding the par­ticiple, which is masculine, must needes be of the femi­nine gender.

FVLK. 12. We tel you that wee may not iustifie a­ny fault committed in our translations, but we haue re­formed them (if any were espied) in the later. Neuerthe­lesse those faults are not so great, that we neede call in al the Bibles in which is any fault, it is sufficiēt 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 mē are not agreed, as in this place you should rather cōmend our equity, that suffer such trāsla­tions [Page 321] to be in the peoples handes, in which is some co­lour of maintaining your errors against vs. But if you be so rigorous, that a booke of Scripture may not be red, in which there is any fault, I charge you call in your translation of the new Testament, for therein are shame­full faults, and such as you can not defend or excuse, ex­cept it be by the fault of the Printer, whereof yet you haue not admonished the reader. I will giue you a tast of some, and let all men iudge whether they be not intole­rable faultes. For they are no lesse than detracting and taking away from the word of God. As 1. Cor. 14. v. 38. where both the Greeke and the Latine is, If they will learne. Your translation is: If they learne any thing. Likewise Actes 5. v. 4. where bothe the Greeke and La­tine is: Festus answeared that Paule is kepte at Caesa­rea: you translate. Festus answered that Paule is in Caesarea: leauing out the worde (kepte) as before you lefte out the worde (will) or (desire) whiche alte­reth the sense very much. But in a place of greater moment, and in a matter of some controuersie, of Gods particuler preordination, and fore appointment, you leaue out a whole clause Act. 10. v. 41. For where it is bothe in the Greeke and in the Latine, that God made the resurrection of his sonne manifest: not to all the people, but to the witnesses chosen before of God, to vs which did eate and drinke with him, &c. Your En­glish translation hath no more but thus: Not to all the people, but to vs, who did eate and drinke with him, &c. Leauing cleane out that which is in your Latine text, Testibus praeordinatis à Deo. Also in the Epistle to the Hebrues cap. 7. v. 28. where bothe the Greeke and your vulgar Latine hath. The law appointeth Priests, men that haue infirmitie, your translation is, the lawe appointeth Priests them that haue infirmitie, leauing out Homines, a word very material in this place▪ to obserue the opposi­tiō betweene the Priesthood of mē & the Priesthood of the sonne of God. These faultes in the new Testament [Page 322] being some of them whiche I by no diligent reading haue obserued, nowe you be admonished of them, we shall see whether you will call in your translation, or cō ­maunde your disciples to burne their bookes: If you will not, I pray you be good maister to vs, and let our Bibles goe abroad stil, for any faults we haue our selues amended, and admonished all diligent Readers thereof by our later translations. And because you cracke so much of the exposition of the Doctors and of the whole Churche of God against vs: I muste let the Reader vn­derstand that the whole Greeke Churche which for the most parte knewe none other text but the Septuaginta, must needes expound the place of Abel as we do, because the Greeke text is manifestly in the Masculine gender. And so doth Chrysostome in Gen. Hom. 18. expound the place in these words.

‘ Ne putes inquit licet tuum auersatus sim sacrificium ob prauam mētem, fratris (que) oblationem acceptam habuerim ob sa­nam intentionem, quod ideo primatu te destituam, & primoge­niturae dignitatem à te auferam. Nam licet honore ego illum prosecutus fuerim, accepta (que) fuerint illius dona, &c. Thinke not (sayeth he) that although I haue refused thy sacrifice, for thy naughtie minde, and haue receiued thy brothers oblation, for his good and sound meaning, that there­fore I will depriue thee of the primacie, and take away from thee, the dignitie of the birthright. For although I haue vouchsafed him of honour, & that his gifts haue bene receiued, yet vnto thee belongeth his conuersion, and thou shalt rule ouer him. And this I permit after thy sinne, that thou mayest enioy the priuiledges of thy birthright, and I commaund him to be vnder thy power and dominion.’ You were best now to rayle vpon Chry­sostome and charge him with heresie, and schismaticall exposition, contrarie to the holy Doctors, and the whole Church of God, against freewill of man. Which because it is your quarrell, you haue S. Ambrose also your enemie, De Caine & Abel, lib. 2. cap. 7. Who although [Page 323] as he redde it in Latine, ‘did thinke it must be referred to him, and not to his brother, yet he expoundeth it not of the strength of free wil, but chargeth Came to be author of his owne errour, Culpae ipsius ad [...]e conuersio est. The cō ­uersion of the fault it selfe is vnto thee. For his brother is not added to him, but errour is ascribed, whereof he him selfe is author to him selfe. The crime (sayth he) will returne vpon thee, which began of thee. Thou hast not whereby to accuse necessitie more than thyne owne minde. The wickednesse is retorted backe vpon thee, thou art Prince of it. He sayth well, thou art Prince of it, for impietie is the mother of sinnes, &c’ You see there­fore, that if you could obtaine that these relatiues were referred to him, yet your free will were not by and by to be builded vpon the place, and that all be not heretikes, which drawe that text to an other exposition, than stan­deth with your good liking.

FVLK. 13. This cauill is fully aunswered, cap. 1. sect. 26. therefore I wili not spende many wordes here about it. The worde [...], we knowe signifieth weake, that is of small strength, and sometimes so weake, that there is no strength. As Gal. 4. where Saint Paule, calleth the ceremonies of Moses lawe, nowe exspired, the weake and beggerly elements, that is voyd of all strength and riches. Likewise the Apostle to the Hebrewes, cap. 7. saith, the commundement of the Aaronicall priesthood is abolished, [...], because it was weake and vn­profitable without Christ, as vnprofitable is void of pro­fit, so is weake voyd of strength. S. Paule, 1. Cor. 15. saith, our dead bodie is sowed in weaknes: Is there any strēgth of a dead body? Moreouer Rom. 8. that which was vn­possible by the law, [...], by meanes it was weake, is not that voide of strength to saue vs, which hath no possibilitie to doe any thing? These instances may serue to proue, that [...] may signifie that which is so weake, [Page 325] that it hath no strength. Vpon the etymologie alone we stand not, But where you say, that man was wounded in free will, by the sinne of Adam, not slayne altogither, (grounding your assertion vpon a fond & false allegorie of him that fell among theeues, which is no parable of a man in this case, but of man in necessitie to be helped by right of neighbourhood) I praye you, howe came man to be dead altogither in sinnes? Eph. 2. Col. 2. & in ma­ny other places of the Scripture. Beside, is there any free­dom of wil to godlines, remaining in them that are al­togither dead in sinne? But we are not now to handle cō ­trouersies, but translations, as you doe wel admonish vs.

FVLK. 14. Seeing our English word grieuous, cō ­meth of the Latine word graue, which is not only weigh­tie, but also troublesom, It better aunswereth both the Greeke and the Latine, than heauye, which is properly that which is of great weight, and the same worde being both in Greeke and Latine, 2. Cor. 10. you your selues [...]. translate sore: his epistles are sore and vehement: but in effect there is no great difference. We acknowledge that his commaundemēts are not heauy to him that is borne of God, which ouercometh the world by faith, otherwise the yoke of the lawe, as the Apostle confesseth, is such a burthē, as neither we, nor our fathers were able to beare, but beleeue to be saued by the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ, who hauing taken away the curse of the lawe, and satisfied for our transgressions of the law, hath also giuen vs grace to loue the law, and commaundements of God, and in some weake measure to obserue them. So that the curse being taken away, our transgressions aunswe­red in Christ, and our harts framed by his grace, to loue his commaundements, and some strength giuen vs to keepe them, they are not heauy, they are not burdenous, or grieuous. That which God speaketh, Deut. 30. is of the knowledge of the law, which was plainely reuealed, and not of the strength that men haue to keepe it, and there­fore is by the Apostle referred vnto faith, for the obser­uation thereof, Rom. 10. for by faith in Christ, which hath fulfilled the lawe for vs, we are accounted to haue fulfilled it in him. Beza speaketh plainely enough, if you had grace to vnderstand him, and therefore is nothing ashamed to saye, that we can not keepe the commaun­dements of God, not onely without the grace of God, but neyther hauing the grace of God in such measure, [Page 327] as God giueth it to no man but that he sinneth. Other­wise, what grace God is able to giue, we doubt not, but what he doth, and will giue to any man in this life wee speake. That God should commaunde vnder paine of damnation, that which is impossible to be done, is no absurditie: seing for them whom God will haue to be saued, he prouided an other way of their saluation, than by keeping the lawe, namely the redemption of Christ. As for the reprobate voyde of Gods grace, say you (if you dare) that they are able to keepe the lawe without grace, or without grace haue so much as any will to de­sire to haue grace.

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

Fulke.

THis one place is deliuered from your 1 vaine cauillation, Cap. 1. Sect. 23. when the sentence is ecclipticall or defe­ctiue, they that will translate to haue it vnderstoode, muste needes supply the woordes that are wanting. And where shall they finde what wordes are lac­king, but in the same place, and in the treatie of the same matter? It appeareth you had rather the texte had no sense, than that it mighte seeme to make against your blasphemie of iustice inherent. As for that fonde quar­rell of yours, that they be not iust in deede, to whom the iustice of Christe (whiche you like an helhound doe scorne at) is imputed, deserueth no answere. For who is such a blocke, to say or thinke, that those whom God doth iustifie, are not made iuste in deede? Was not A­braham iust in deede, when God imputed his faith vn­to iustice? Is not he made riche in deede, which is made rich by an other mans gifte? Christe is giuen vnto vs of God to be iustice, wisedome, sanctification, & in him we are iust, wise, and holie, not in our owne righteousnesse, wisedome, or holinesse. As for adding to the text, God knoweth how we abhorre it, but adding of words which do explicate the sense of the holyghost, is no additiō for­biddē, for then all preaching were accursed, which is, or ought to be nothing els, but an explaining & settīg forth of the worde of God, in more words, the matter wherof (though in fewerwords) is cōteined in the scripture. And if we speake of adding of wordes in translation, haue I not shewed before, that you haue added many? some in deede vpon necessarie cause, & some without necessitie. [Page 330] What needed you to say for Poeniterent, they had done penance, Luc. 10. for In omnibus bonis, in all his goodes, Gen. 6. for separamini, separate your selues, 2 Cor. 6. &c. To say wee are iustified, and to say we are made iuste, is all one: and therefore I meruayle why you thinke vs loth to say the one, rather than the other. Is any man so senselesse to thinke wee can say, a man is made righte­ous, and dare not say he is made iuste. I tell you plaine­ly, we defie the heresie of righteousnesse inherent, as much as of iustice inherent. We are iuste, we are righte­ous in the sight of God, not by the iustice or righte­ousnesse of our workes: but by the iustice or righteous­nesse of Christe imputed to vs through faith. And we are made iuste by Christe, as wee were made sinners by A­dam▪ in some respect, but not in euery respect, for the Apostle maketh a broade difference betweene the trans­gression and the benefite Rom. 5. v. 15. and other diffe­rences there be, which none, but a Pelagian, will denie. Nay Pelagius will not say, that we are iust by Christ ac­cording to propagation: but according to faith.

FVLK. 2. Al learned mē I hope do see, that you haue no regarde, how vainely you cauil, so you may seeme to the ignorant to say somthing against thē that be godly and learned. Act. 13. v. 39. Beza translateth [...], ab­solui, that is (saith hee) to bee declared iust, or absolued. and giueth this reason, why he vseth not the worde iusti­fica [...]i in that place which he vseth 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 iustis habeamur, hoc quidem loco malui absoluē ­di verbum vsurpare. vt magis perspicua esset oratio: Least a­nie man should take this worde of the texte ab omnibus, as though it were the case of the meane, or instrument, by which we are iustified, that is, made and pronounced iust, or accounted for iuste. In this place I chose rather to vse the worde of absoluing, that the sentence mighte bee more cleare. The Latine ab omnibus, may signifie by all things▪ or from all things.’ Therefore, leaste anye manne shoulde mistake the Apostle, as thoughe hee saide wee are iustified by all those thinges, where hee meaneth wee are iustified from all thinges, Beza in [Page 332] this place vseth the worde of absoluing or acquitting, in the same sense that he doth iustifying in other places, where hee speaketh of the same matter: and sayeth as plainely as a man can speake, that to be iustified, and to be made iuste, or pronounced, or accompted iust bee­fore God is all one. Yet our Momus findeth faulte with him, for expounding, to be iustified, Rom. 2. v. 13. to bee pronounced iuste, as thoughe God will pronounce anye man iuste, whiche is not iuste indeede. But Beza (hee saith) elsewhere, protesteth that to be iustified, is not to be pronounced or accompted iuste, but rather to be iust indeede. If Martin hadde not beelyed Beza, we shoulde haue hadde Bezaes wordes sette downe, bothe in Latine and Englishe. But in truth Beza hath no suche words: yet in sense he hath thus muche, that to be iustified be­fore God, is to be iuste indeede, and not to bee onely pronounced or accompted iuste, when hee is not so in deede. But that wee are made truely iust indeede, by the iustice of Christe, whiche is imputed vnto vs freely by faith. And as for that newe life or iustice whiche is called inherēt in vs, it is not the cause but the witnes of that iustice, by imputation of whiche, wee are saued, folowing him that is iustified, and not going before iu­stification: and faith indede, is the instrument by which we apprehend Christ our iustice. Neither doth Beza say, that we are not truely iustified by faith: but that faith is not the principall efficient cause, which is the mercie of God, but the instrumentall cause, by whiche wee take holde of the mercie of God in Christe. In al this, Beza hath said nothing contrarie to himself, nor to the truth. And it is no absurditie to say, that the iustice of Christe, by which we are iustified is no more inherent in vs, than his glorie. And yet both assured vnto vs by faith. As for that iustice, whiche is an effect of Gods sanctifying spi­rite, and a fruite of our iustification beefore God, by whiche also we are iustified, or declared iuste beefore men, as S. Iames teacheth, is inherēt in vs: as also the first [Page 333] fruits of glorification, by that peace of cōscience, & ioy that we haue in God, being reconciled to vs by Christ.

FVLK. 3. Our translation taketh not from Abra­ham true iustice, nor yet iustice inherent, but declareth that he was not iustified before God by workes, that is by iustice inherent, but by faith whyche apprehen­deth the iustice of Christ, whych is altogyther without vs. And therefore you cauil in your olde rotten quarrell, when you goe aboute to make reputed to bee contrarie to truthe, or indeede. Faith was reputed by God to A­braham for iustice indeede, but not as iustice inherent. And Abrahā was truly iustified by faith as by an instru­mentall cause, not that faith was the iustice by which he was iust in the sight of God, excluding all other causes: [Page 334] but there was nothing in Abrahā but faith which God accompted for iustice. But Abrahams faith embraced the mercie of God in the promised seede, in whiche as well hee, as all the tribes of the earth should be blessed. The places of scripture that you cite speaking of sinne & iustice alike, be not contrary to the imputation of iu­stice vnto them in which it is not inherent. For in nei­ther of both places the holy ghost vseth the word of im­putation, howsoeuer S. Hierome translateth it, but the verbe substantiue. And the meaning is plaine. It shal be sinne in thee: for sinne is indeede inherent, as perfecte iustice also shoulde bee if wee coulde obserue all the commaundements of God as Moses sayeth. Deut. 6. and we shoulde be iustified thereby. But by one iuste acte whereof Moses speaketh, Deut. 24. thoughe it proceede of iustice that is in vs, the scripture neuer saith that wee shall be iustified. To conclude, wee confesse, that bothe sinne and iustice are in the children of God, but not that iustice, whereby they are reputed iuste or iustified, or made iuste beefore God, but an effecte or fruite there­of.

FVLK. 4. I knowe not against whome you fight, but against your owne shadow. For we say, that to be iustified, and be reputed iust, and to obtaine iustice, is all one in this case. But where S. Iames sayth, that Abraham was iustified by workes, he meaneth, that he was decla­red iust before men, euen as he sayth, shewe me thy faith by thy workes, for Abraham was not iustified by a dead faith, but by a working faith: and yet he was not iustifi­ed before God by workes, but the Scripture was fulfil­led which sayd, Abraham beleued God, and it was repu­ted to him for iustice, which is as S. Paule expoundeth it, Abraham was iustified before God, by faith, and not by workes, But in Gen. 15. v. 6. there is not the preposi­tion (for) or (in steede) but simply iustice; therefore it should be translated he reputed it to him iustice. And will you then controule both the Apostles, Paule, and Iames, for adding the preposition [...]; which signifieth vn­to, or for? Or will not common sense inforce the same vnderstanding that both the Apostles doe giue it? He reputed it to him as iustice, or for iustice. Must not such particles in translation be alwayes expressed, to make the sense plaine, which in English without the particle, hath no sense or vnderstanding? To translate precisely out of the Hebrew, is not to obserue the number of wordes, but the perfect sense and meaning of them, in fewer or more wordes, as the phrase of our tongue will serue to be vnderstood: or else 2. Cor. 8. qui multum, why do you translate, he that had much? and, qui modicum non minorauit, he that had litle wanted not? you should haue said which much, & which little not lessed, if you would haue giuen word for word, and not added any word for explication. Againe, 2. Cor. 1. Supra virtutem, aboue our power, why adde you (our) which is not in the text? and in deede not necessarie to be added in the translation? Againe, 1. Cor. 13. Euacuaui quae erant paruuli, I did away the things that belonged to a litle one. Here for foure Latine wordes you haue giuen tenne or eleuen English [Page 336] wordes, which no reasonable man can greatly mislike, if you were not such a quarreller at other mens doing, without all cause, or wise colour, but onely to bleare the eyes of the ignorant.

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

FVLK. 6. There is no texte in all the Bible more cleare against iustification by iustice inhae [...]ent. than this 2. Corinth. 5. wherein not altogither causelesse you reproue our firste interpreters to translate dissolutely. There it is certaine they had no suche purpose as you ascribe vnto them. For their translation dothe rather obscure than sette out our iustification by the iustice which is not in vs, but in Christ. The texte is there­fore playne: him that knewe no sinne, he made sinne for vs, that wee might become the iustice of God in him, that is in Christ, and not in our sel [...]es. For though we be in deede most foule sinners, and all our iustice be (as the Prophete saith) as a menstruous cloth: yet in Christe he washeth and cleanseth vs from our sinnes, and reputing his iustice as ours, he maketh vs truly iuste before him, not hauing our owne iustice whiche is of the lawe, but the iustice which is by faith of Iesus Christe, the iustice Philip. 3. which is of God through faith. Where you charge vs to affirme, that our iustice being none at all in vs, yet is allowed and accepted before hym for iustice and righteousnesse, it is no assertion of ours, but a dogged slaunder of your owne.

FVLK. 7. Wee make S. Paule saye no otherwise, than hee saith in deede: [...], hee hath made vs ac­cepted, or he hath freely accepted vs in his beloued son. And so we truely say, the blessed Virgin Mary was freely accepted, or freely beloued. But this taketh not away the gratious gifts of God, which the blessed Virgin in most plentifull maner was, and we in some measure are indu­ed by his grace and fauor, which also God loueth in vs, because they be his giftes, and because he loueth vs free­ly in his beloued sonne, whom alwaies you forget, when you speake of iustice, or acceptation before God. For that being sanctified by his spirite, we are holie indeed, thoughe not perfectly, as sanctification is begunne, and not consummate in this life: for if it were, we should be [Page 339] voyd of sinne, & death, we doe thankfully acknowledge, yet those vertues wherewith our soule is inwardly indu­ed and beautified, are not the cause that iustifieth vs, or maketh vs acceptable in Gods sight: but onely his mer­cie in Iesus Christ, for whose sake also, he accepteth this vnperfect holines and righteousnes, which is in vs by his grace and gift, rewarding the same for his sake also with euerlasting glorie. And nothing else doth Chrysostome say, or meane in the place by you cited, about whom you make so many wordes, that you might be thought, by giuing him his due praise, to haue him as it were bound to you, to maintaine your vnrighteous cause. But Chry­sostome careth not for your commendation, and that which he sayth, maketh nothing for iustice inherent, by which we shoulde be iustified: for he sayth not so much, as that our soule is made amiable and beautiful by ver­tues and good qualities infused by his grace, much lesse that for such qualities inherent in vs, GOD shoulde iustifie vs, but hee haeth made vs acceptable in Christe, amiable, and beautiful, and louely to the Angels: some effect of which grace, also appeareth in our life and conuersation, to the praise of God, and good example of men.

FVLK. 8. I haue told you before, that [...], signi­fieth not to make worthye, but to account worthye, for many a man may desire (vsing this verbe) to be accoū ­ted worthy of him, which can not make him worthy, but [Page 340] in his owne iudgement and account. But where you de­maund further, whether he whome God maketh meete, worthy, gratefull, iust, holy, be not so in deede, but by ac­ceptation onely: I aunswer, those whome he accepteth for worthy, meete, iust, holy, gratefull, are so in deede: but then it is further to be knowen, whether they be such in them selues, or in Christ. We say they are not such in them selues, but in Christ. Then are they made nothing better (say you) in them selues. Yes verily, as soone as they are accepted to be Gods children, and the iustice of Christ is imputed to thē through faith, they receiue the spirite of adoption, which reneweth them in the inwarde man, and beginneth in them holines, and iustice, pu­ritie, vertue: but because all these qualities are vnper­fect, they are not worthy in Gods iustice to be accepted for them, but the cause of their acceptation, is still the mercie of God in Christ, in whome both they, and their vnperfecte good qualities are accepted to re­ward.

FVLK. 9. I can but wonder at your impudence and malice, which saye so confidently, that for this purpose they translated thus: Would any man by the iustice, or innocencie that was in Daniel, or in any iust man, feare lest any thing should be detracted from the iustice of Christ, whereby Daniel, and all iust men, are iustified in Gods sight? Well, let that purpose rest in Gods iudge­ment, as Daniels iustice did, when he was shamefully slaundered. But what is the fault of the translation? Ac­cording to the Chaldee, Greeke, and Latine, it should be, Iustice is found in me. For Greeke and Latine, we will not contende, because we translate not Daniel out of [Page 341] Greeke, and Latine, but out of the Chaldee. But in good sadnes, are you so deepely seene in Chaldee, that you will auouch the proper signification of [...] to be in me. A hū ­dreth boyes in Cambridge knowe, that it signifieth as well in Chaldee, as in Hebrew, to me, rather than in me. But moste properly haue our translators expressed the phrase in English, saying, my iustice, or vnguiltines was found out: for of a vertue inherent, Daniel speaketh otherwise, Dan. 2. v. 30. to the king [...] [...] not by wisedome, which is in mee. So that heere your quarrell bewrayeth more spite than wit, more malice than learning.

FVLK. 10. It must needes come of an high wit, to haue such deepe insight into other mens intents, & pur­poses. But why I praye you, is not righteousnes imputed by God, &c. and so forth, as Paule sayth, a description of mans blessednes. If they had sayd, defineth, where they saye, describeth, you would haue made much a doe. But can you not allowe this, that the Prophet sayth, to be a description of mans blessednesse? howsoeuer it is, [...] signifieth not to describe, but to speake, to saye, to pronounce, and in effect, there is nothing els meant by the worde▪ describeth, here vsed, but that Dauid pronounceth or setteth forth the blessednesse of man in such wordes. You in your translation saye, termeth, as Dauid termeth, which if you meane it not scornefully, commeth as neare a definition, as, describeth, the worde which we vse, and our, describeth, is as neare the Greeke [...], as your, termeth, is to the Latine dicit. [Page 342] But looke to our fingers, and spare not to tell vs where you see vs goe wide from the Greeke or Hebrew, but if you doe nothing but trifle and quarrell, as you haue done hetherto, be sure we will be bold to beshrew your fingers▪ and hit you on the thumbes now and then also to your discredite.

FVLK.

AL other meanes of saluation being taken away, 1. and only faith apprehending the mercie of God in the redēption of Iesus Christ, being left, we haue great & sufficient cause, to account our selues happy, and assu­red of eternall life, because he that hath promised, is faithfull also to performe. But where you saye that our only faith, is not the Christian faith of the articles of the creede, you lye without measure impudently: for that faith, and none other doe we beleue, teach, and professe. And that faith is a speciall faith and confidence in the mercie of God, whereof euery man that beleueth, doth make a singular confession for himselfe, saying, I be­leeue in God, &c. And of all thinges contained in that profession of faith (that is, of forgiuenesse of sinnes, resurrection of our bodies, and life euerlasting, by beliefe and trust in God the Father Almightie, maker of heauen and earth, and in Iesus Christ his only Sonne our Lorde, conceiued, borne, suffered, crucified, deade, [Page 343] buried, descended into hell; risen againe, and ascended into heauen, and in God the holy Ghost, by whose gra­cious and mightie working we are incorporate into the bodie of Christ, and made members of his holy Catho­like Church, which is the communion of Saincts) euery Christian man ought to be as certainely persuaded, as the things are most true, being inwardly taught by the spirite of truth, that he is the childe of God, and conse­quently elect, & predestinate vnto eternall saluation. But that a man s [...]l neuer be saued, except he haue such cer­tentie of this faith, as the truth of Gods promises doth deserue, none of vs doth teach, none of vs doth thinke. For we know our owne infirmitie, we knowe the temp­tation of Satan, neuerthelesse wee acknowledge in our selues, and so seeke to persuade all men, that these things standing vpon the immoueable pillers of Gods pro­mises, who can neyther deceiue nor be deceyued, ought to be most certaine vnto vs, and for dayly confirmation and increase of this faith all those meanes are of vs dili­gently to be vsed, that God for this purpose in his holy Scripture hath appointed.

FVLK. 2. Hauing nothing to impugne this cleare interpretatiō of the Greeke word [...], but the vn­perfect translatiō of your vulgar Latine interpreter, who was both an vnperfect grecian, & a very barbarous Lati­nist, you are not ashamed to say, we force the Greeke, to make it signifie assurance: whiche all men that are but meanly learned in the Greeke tongue, may know, that it signifieth assurāce, or ful & certaine persuasiō. Although for the question in controuersie, the fulnesse of faith wil proue the certeintie, as much in a māner, as the assurāce. But that the Greeke signifieth a full and certaine per­suasion, I report me not only to the best Greeke Dictio­naries of this time, but also to Budeus, who citeth Iso­crates out of Trapezuntius for proofe, that it is so vsed, & also interpreteth that of S. Paule Rom. 14. [...], let euery man be certaine of his owne minde. But you haue a doughty argument, that it is not onely ioyned with faith, but also with hope, knowledge, [Page 345] and vnderstanding, as though there could not be a cer­taine persuasion and assurance of hope, knowledge, and vnderstanding: yea the assurance of hope dependeth vpon the assuraunce of faith, and the assuraunce of faith vpon the certaine persuasion of knowledge and vnder­standing. Yea your vulgar interpretor translating [...], Rom. 4. v. 21. Plenissimè sciens, knowing most ful­ly, may teach you, that it signifieth more than fulnesse, for else he should haue saide being fulfilled. And better doth Beza expresse the worde [...], 2. Tim. 4. than some of our English interpreters, whiche say, fulfil thy ministry: wheras the Apostles meaning is, that he should approue the credite and dignitie of his ministerie, vnto other men. But the Greeke fathers (you say) find none o­ther interpretation of it, and for proofe you cite Ignatius ep. ad Smyr. which although it be not authenticall, yet I see no cause why we may not interprete [...], being certainly persuaded in faith & loue, and [...], in the assurance of faith. And so is it transla­ted in Bibliotheca sacra Margarini de la Bigne, Plenè in­structae in fide & charitate, & cognoui vos absolutè perfectos in fule stabili, fully instructed in faith and charitie, and I haue knowen you absolutely perfect in a stedfaste faith. Chrysostome and Theodoret, because you vouch at large, I know not what you would shew out of them. In Theophylact I finde, that he speaketh against all hesi­tation & doubtfulnesse of faith, but against the certaine persuasion thereof neuer a worde. ‘ Ne aliquam inducas in animum tuum haesitationem, neque pendeas animi, dubij quid­dam cogitans. Bring not into thy minde any staggering, neither be incertaine of thy mind, thinking any doubt­full thing.’ But for the signification of the worde [...], S. Basil may bee a sufficient witnesse, who com­monly vseth it for assured and certaine persuasion. [...] [...]. 26. Euery worde and deede must be proued by [...] testimonie of the holy Scripture, ‘ [...], to the full and certaine persuasion of the go [...] ▪ & [Page 346] to the shame of the wicked.’ Againe desin. 80. what is the propertie of a faithfull man [...], &c. By such assured persuasiō to be disposed, &c. Euē so [...], to the cer­taine persuasiō of godlinesse &c. and so in other places. And you your selfe confesse as much, where you say, the Greeke fathers expound it of the full assured faith &c. which is enough to iustifie our trāslation. Now if the fa­thers vnderstood this full assured faith only of an histo­ricall faith (as you say) & not of trust and confidence in God, it is an other controuersie. Our translation is not false, although we had a false meaning, if it be answere­able to the words. Neither doth Chrysostome speake of an historicall faith only, by certaintie whereof we haue accesse vnto God: but also of cōfidence, which remissiō of our sinnes doth cause, and that we are made coheires with Christ, & that we enioy so great loue, ‘neither doth he proue that the Protestāts only faith is not sufficient to iustisie. But the Apostle sheweth (saith he) that not faith alone, but also a vertuous life is required, & that a man be not guiltie to him self of malitiousnes. For these ho­ly places doe not receiue those men, with certaine assu­rāce, which are not made such.’ This iudgmēt of Chryso­stome the Protestants do allow of better thā the Papists: for we know, that a godly life is necessarie in them that beleeue to iustification, without which they can haue no assurance of faith, no nor faith in deede, but that which is by aequiuocation called faith, such saith as the Deuil and the reprobate may haue.

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

FVLK. 4. We hold, that a man, when he is truly pe­nitent, ought to assure himself, that his sins bee forgiuen him, because God hath so promised, in an hūdred places, without iniurie of whose credit, we cannot doubt of the performance of his promise. But that which the sonne of Syrach speaketh of propitiatiō, is meant of the shadowie propitiation by the sacrifices of the lawe, which can not assure anie man of the forgiuenesse of his sins by them­selues, much lesse them that heape sin vpon sin, which are neuer truely repentant. For vnto true repentaunce is re­quired an hatred of sin, & a desire, & purpose of amend­ment. Our translation is (as your vulgar Latine) not pre­cise to the words of the Greeke, but iuste vnto the mea­ning, for the words are, concerning propitiation, be not without feare: and your Latin is, De propitiato peccato, of sin forgiuen. And if you wil reprooue your Latin, aswel as our English, and say, we must be afraid of the very for­giuenes, I haue told you, that the forgiuenes of God te­stified by the sacrifices, pertained vnto them that be tru­ly penitent, and not to hypocrites. And where you make it a doubt, whether sin shall bee forgiuen, or no, in them that heape one sin vpon an other: we are out of doubte, that sin shall neuer bee forgiuen to suche, as so continue [Page 349] without true conuersion vnto God.

FVLK. 5. For vnderstanding of the article, I haue answered alreadie, & meane not here to repeate it. The point you misse, in the Bible 1577. is obserued in that boke which I haue of Richard lugs printing. By whom we haue boldenesse and entrance in the confidence, by faith of him. But it cannot be, the confidēce (you think) but, confidence: because the article [...] is not put before the worde, that signifieth confidence. But al Englishe­men know that our English (the) may be put, and some­time must be put before nounes, without any article ei­ther in Greeke or Latine. And in this place, I would not giue a rush to choose, whether it be in or out, for anye sense that it chaungeth. What confidence we haue by a good conscience, by suffring tribulation, and by al good workes, it skilleth not for this question, so it be deter­mined, that we haue no confidence in the merites of a good conscience, of suffering, of al good works that we can do▪ to haue boldenesse and entrance vnto God. But [Page 350] of merites we haue spoken before in their proper place.

FVLK. 6. When your spightfull and dogged ma­lice cannot reprooue our English translation, then wee muste aunsweare for Bezaes Latine, who hath sufficient­ly aunswered for himselfe, to them that vnderstande, and liste to reade him. In the place mentioned by you, hee chooseth to say totam fidem, rather than omnem, because it apeareth by the effects, that he speaketh of faith, as it was a speciall gift of working of myracles, of which effectes he nameth one, remouing of mountaines. And that [...] is so taken, namely for the perfection of one kynde, not the vniuersall comprehension of al kindes, he brin­geth you example, Ro. 7. v. 8. and elsewhere oftentimes. But if it shoulde be taken (as you say) all knowledge, & all mysteries is generally to be taken, yet he telleth you, this separation is but vppon an impossible supposition, for iustifying faith can neuer bee separated from chari­tie, but if it might be separated, it shoulde not profite [Page 351] to iustifie. The Angels of heauen 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 iustification by faith onely, that a solitarie, dead, or barraine faith doth not iustifie.

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

FVLK. 8. The rarenesse of the phrase, [...] &c. as al indifferēt men wil iudge, rather than any mind to suppresse the excellencie of charitie, caused Beza to giue dyuerse interpretations of that place, of whiche yet the latter more commendeth the excel­lencie of charitie, than the vulgar Latin, or our Ea­glishe translation, whiche expoundeth it as the La­tine doth: for if charitie be the way to excellencie, it is a greater commendation thereof, than to saye, it is a more excellent waye than other giftes, whereof he spake last, as of healing, of tongues, of interpretations, &c. Luther. to. 2. fol. 405. edi. VVit­tenb. 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.

FVLK. 9. That which Luther might wel do as an in­terpretor, or expounder, it was much boldnesse for him to doe, as a translator: but seeing he him selfe hath re­dressed his owne offence, wee haue lesse to say for him, and you against him. For our additions, except suche as the necessitie of our English phrase dothe require for vnderstanding, you slaunder vs to say, that wee haue in any controuersies done the like. The question you aske, is not worthy any answere, why wee translate, thy faith hath saued thee, &c. seing wee vse all these wordes in­differently, healing, making safe, and making whole, as in S. Iames we say, Can faith saue him? And it is al one, to say, thy faith hath saued thee, and thy fayth hath made thee whole. But you say, wee alledge this place for onely faith iustifying, citing the answeres of Maister Gough, & M. Tomson, against Feckenham. I thinke you lie, as in other places very commonly. And yet an argu­ment, though not a plaine testimonie, may be taken out of these places for only faith iustifying. Seing Christ was not a phisition for the body, but to teach mē that he was a Physition for the soule, and as he healed the diseased in [Page 354] bodie onely by faith, so hee cureth the sickuesse of the soule by the same instrument of faith onely, which by o­ther places may be more directly prooued, and here also in some sorte is insinuated.

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

Fulke.

IF by penance you meane satisfaction 1. for sinnes, by any suffering of ours, we abhorre your penance, as an horrible blasphemy against the bloud of Christ. And for that cause, Beza, as hath bene shewed before, vseth the worde resipis­centia, rather than poenitentia: because the Greeke word signifieth, not onely a sorow for sinne, but also a purpose of amendment of life. We in English vse the worde repentance, or amendment of life, which worde of repentance, you vse also sometimes, when it pleaseth you, or when you can not for shame vse your popish terme of doing penance,

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

FVLK. 2. Such is your malicious frowardnes, that you will not vnderstande resipiscentia, repentance, or a­mendement of life, a sorow or griefe of mind for the life past: which is testified sometimes by outward signes of sackcloth and ashes, fasting and humbling of mens bo­dies, as in the texts of Math. 11. and Luc. 10. and diuerse other, is expressed. But shew vs that the wearing of sack­cloth and ashes, is a satisfaction for the life past, or any part of amends to Gods iustice, or else you do but trifle, and waste the time. But S. Basil sayth, that sackcloth ma­keth for penance, &c. I maruell whether you redde that saying in Basil, and durst for sinne & shame alledge it for your popist [...] penance: where he plainly sheweth the vse & ende of sack cloth. ‘ [...], Sackecloth is an helper vnto repen­tance, being a signe of humiliation, for of olde tyme, the Fathers repented sitting in sackeclothe [Page 358] & ashes. This signe of humbling, or of submission, you haue cleane omitted.’ Thus you vse to gelde the Doctors sayings, when you rehearse them. Sackecloth therefore serueth to repentance, as a testimonie of sorrow, and humbling of our selues before God, not as any satis­faction or amendes for our sinnes. The rest of the pla­ces that you cite, to proue, that sorrowe is a part of re­pentance, are altogither needelesse, for we also doe ac­knowledge the same. Our question is not of sorrow, but of satisfaction, to be a part of repentance. Like­wise the workes worthy, or meete for repentance, doe argue the repentance to be vnfained, and vndissembled, but they proue not that by them a satisfaction is made for the sinnes committed before repentance. For a newe life, newe maners, newe fruites, must follow a mind, that is truely turned vnto God; and chaunged from delight in sinne, to hate and abhorre sinne, and to studye vnto a­mendment of life.

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