casion, before I have done with you, to laugh at your proud ignorance, and to spit at your malicious falsehood, let me never have credit, I say not of a Grecian or learned man, which I desire not, but not so much as of a reasonable creature. Ah, sir! and doth M. Fulke say, that this speech of St Luke is an elegancy in the Greek tongue? I pray you, where saith he so? You answer me quickly, "Against D. Saunder's Rock, p. 3081." I tremble to hear what words you have there to charge me withal. Indeed in that page I begin to speak of that matter against Saunder, who chargeth Beza as you do, and moreover affirmeth that Beza should teach that St Luke wrote false Greek, because he saith, that here is a manifest solocophanes. But that neither But that neither you shall quarrel, that I choose some piece of my saying for my purpose, nor any man doubt how honestly you charge me, I will here repeat whatsoever I have written touching that matter in the place by you quoted:

6

"But the protestants do not only make themselves judges of the whole books, but also over the very letter (saith he) of Christ's gospel, finding fault with the construction of the evangelists, and bring the text itself in doubt. Example hereof he bringeth Beza in his annotations upon Luke xxii., of the words, This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you.' In which text, because the word blood in the Greek is the dative case, the other word that followeth is the nominative case, Beza supposeth that St Luke useth a figure called solacophanes, which is appearance of incongruity; or else that the last word, which is shed for you,' might by error of writers, being first set in the margin out of Matthew and Mark, be removed into the text. Hereupon M. Saunder, out of all order and measure, raileth upon Beza and all protestants. But I pray you, good sir, shall the only opinion of Beza, and that but a doubtful opinion, indict all the protestants in the world of such high treason against the word of God? For what gaineth Beza by this interpretation? Forsooth, the Greek text is contrary to his sacramentary heresy. For thus he should trans

[In Fulke's work, entitled "A retentive to stay good Christians in true faith and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristow. Also, the Discoverie of the daungerous Rocke of the Popish Church, Commended by Nicholas Saunder, D. of Divinitie. London, 1580."]

late it: "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which cup is shed for you." Not the cup of gold or silver (saith he), but the liquor in that cup, which is not wine, because wine was not shed for us, but the blood of Christ. Why, then the sense is this: This blood in the cup which is shed for you, is the new testament in my blood. What sense in the world can these words have? By which it is manifest, that the words which is shed for you', cannot be referred to the cup, but to his blood. For the cup was the new testament in his blood, which was shed for us; which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the manifest word of God. Neither doth the vulgar Latin translation give any other sense, although M. Saunder is not áshamed to say it doth. The vulgar Latin text is this: Hic est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur. What grammarian, in construing, would refer qui to calix, and not rather to sanguine? Again, Erasmus translateth it even as Beza: Hoc poculum novum testamentum per sanguinem meum, qui pro vobis effunditur. Now, touching the conjecture of Beza, that those words by error of the scrivener might be removed from the margin into the text, [it] is a thing that sometime hath happened, as most learned men agree, in Matthew xxvii., where the name of Jeremy is placed in the text for that which is in Zachary, and yet neither of the prophets was named by the evangelist, as in most ancient records it is testified. The like hath been in the first of Mark, where the name of Esay is set in some Greek copies, and followed in your vulgar translation, for that which is cited out of Malachi; which name was not set down by the evangelist, but added by some unskilful writer, and is reproved by other Greek copies. But this place, you say, is not otherwise found in any old copy, as Beza confesseth: then remaineth the second opinion, that St Luke in this place useth solocophanes, which is an appearance of incongruity, and yet no incongruity. Wherein I cannot marvel more at your malice, M. Saunder, than at your ignorance, which put no difference between solacismus and solacophanes; but even as spitefully as unlearnedly you affirm that Beza should teach that St Luke wrote false Greek, whereas solacophanes is a figure used of the most eloquent writers that ever took pen in hand, even Cicero,

el

Demosthenes, Greek and Latin, profane and divine, and even of St Luke himself in other places, whereof for examples I refer you to Budæus upon the word solœcophanes. The appearance of incongruity is, that it seemeth, that To EKXVVÓμEVOV, which is the nominative case, should agree with TQ atuarı, which is the dative case; whereas indeed To is used as a relative for o, as it is often, and the verb éσT, which wanteth, is understood, as it is commonly in the Greek tongue; and so the translation must be, Hoc poculum novum testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effunditur, or effusus est. So that this is nothing else but an impudent and unskilful quarrelling against Beza, whereas you papists defend against the manifest institution of the cup, and the practice of the primitive church, the communion in one kind of bread only. Conc. Const. Sess. xiii. 21.”

Where find you that I affirm St Luke's speech here to be an elegancy in the Greek tongue? yea, or solocophanes to be nothing else but an elegancy and figurative speech? A figure indeed I say that it is; but are all figures elegancies, or all figurative speeches elegancies of speech? Some figures, I trow, serve to excuse similitudes of faults in speech. But I say solacophanes is used of the most eloquent writers. Very well; doth it thereof follow that it is always an elegancy? Have not the most elegant authors used hyperbatons, perissologies, and other figures that are counted faults of speech, and not elegancies and fine speeches? But "all the examples of Budee, you say, to whose commentaries I send you, are of most fine and figurative phrases." If they be such, they do the better prove that for which I called him to warrantize, namely, that solacophanes is not a solecism, or false Greek, wherewith Saunder accuseth Beza to charge St Luke. But where you utter your foolish pity, in saying, Alas, how unlike they are to that in St Luke! I think the case is not so clear as you make it; for I suppose those examples that he bringeth of the figure of the whole construction changed after a long hyperbaton, or parenthesis, may well be taken for figurative speeches, but not for elegancies and fine figurative phrases: as again, those popular sayings which, being taken out of the common people's speech, Budæus saith, the most eloquent orators have translated into their finest writings. Peradventure, as musicians use some

time a discord to set forth the harmony of concord, so they by hardly avoiding of a solecism would shew the grace of congruity and elegancy. But of this whole matter let the judgment be with them that are learned and eloquent in both the tongues. It is sufficient for me that he which useth solacophanes in Greek committeth not a solecism, or speaketh false Greek, as Saunder termeth it. But where you say, that "Master Fulke was foully deceived and took his marks amiss, as it were a counter for gold, to think that Beza and Budee took the word in one sense," you say your pleasure, but you shall well know, that Master Fulke is not so young a babe, to take a counter for gold, as you are a bold bayard, to pronounce of all men's meanings what you list. For how are you able to prove, that Beza by solacophanes meaneth a plain solecism? Think you that Beza is so simple a child also, to term copper by the name of gold? If he had meant a solecism, could he not have said so? But you must play Procrustes' part; for neither my saying nor Beza's meaning were large enough for you, to frame your slanderous cavil against the truth, and therefore with a loud lie you must lengthen my saying, and with proud and false presumption you must stretch out his meaning. These be your arts, this is your eloquence, these are the sinews of your accusations. What "those good searchers in Oxford" were, which, being masters of arts, could not discern between mass books, and law books, for my part I never heard; but I think it to be a matter of as good credit as that you report of me and Beza.

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

FULKE, 38.

Fulke. I had rather it should be counted want of judgment in me, so it were by a man of judgment, than to be taken so often with falsification and lack of truth. For my skill in Greek phrases, although I never professed any, yet I see nothing brought by you to change my opinion of Saunder's unlearned slander, in railing against Beza, for saying that St Luke should write false Greek. And if solacophanes do differ as much from solacismus, as gold doth from copper, as you seem to say, when you write that I take a counter for gold, I might think myself very unlearned indeed, if I did understand Beza speaking of solœcophanes, as though he spake of solacismus. But you demand why Beza saith, that he seeth not why St Luke should use solacophanes, if he meant that it was an elegancy used of the finest authors. Still you thrust in your lie in every corner who saith he meant it was an elegancy? Beza saith, he seeth no cause why St Luke should use solœcophanes, that is, depart from the usual and ordinary construction; and therefore passeth to another conjecture. But you speak me fair to tell you, "whether is the better and honester defence, to say that it is an elegancy and fine phrase, or to say it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin, the gospel is here corrupted." First, I answer you, that Beza affirmeth neither, but rather translateth as Basil did read. Secondly, I say, there is no dishonesty in either of both conjectures; for this solocophanes, though it be no elegancy, yet may be defended from solecism, or false Greek. And certain it is that some words have crept out of the margin into the text, as the name of Jeremy in all copies that are extant, Matt. xxvii., and of Esay in many, Mark i. And yet we say not the gospel is corrupted; which foul phrase it seemeth you have great pleasure in, notwithstanding you yourself out of Lindanus charge all the Greek copies of the Epistle to the Corinthians to be corrupted by Marcion, the mischievous mouse of Pontus. You ask further, whether I "think Beza such a fool to stand rather upon the latter, if he might have used the former, and had so meant by solacophanes?" Nay, rather, think you Beza such a fool, that he would mean a plain solecism, and call it only an appearance of solecism? What he rather stood upon, his translation doth best shew, which is both with St Basil's