the great linguist of the seminary of Rheims, allege, why these phrases are not alike? or rather, changing the words, in figure the very same? And if he have anything to cavil against this example, as I see not what he can have, yet have I another out of the same book, chap. iii. 12: kai γράψω ἐπ' αὐτὸν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ μου, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς πόλεως τοῦ Θεοῦ μου τῆς καινῆς ̔Ιερουσαλὴμ, ἡ καταβαίνουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ μου. "And I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which descendeth out of heaven from my God." The vulgar Latin translation differeth not from this, which saith: Et scribam super eum nomen Dei mei, et nomen civitatis Dei mei, novæ Jerusalem, quæ descendit de cælo a Deo meo. Here the antecedent is of the genitive case, the relative of the nominative, which cometh before the verb έστι, understood in the participle καταβαίνουσα, as in Luke xxii. it is in the participle ἐκχυνόμενον. By these examples, in seeking whereof, I promise you, I spent no great time, you may learn to be wiser hereafter, and not to condemn all men, beside yourself, out of your reader's chair at Rheims, of ignorance, unskilfulness, barbarousness, rusticity, yea, wilfulness and madness, where you yourself deserve a much sharper censure through your immoderate insultation, the matter thereof being both more false and forged, than we might justly have borne, if we had been overtaken with a little grammatical ignorance. By these examples I trust you see, or if you will needs be blind, all the young Grecians in England may see, that as in the Latin translation you confess the relative standeth more likely to be referred to the word sanguine than to the word calix, so in the Greek there is no help to remove it from the next manifest and necessary antecedent to a word further off, with which the signification of the participle cannot agree. For who would say, that a cup is shed for And though you make a metonymy of the cup for that which is in the cup, what is that, I pray you? Not wine, will you say, If I am sure, but the blood of Christ. you so resolve it, then followeth that vain nugation which I have noted against Saunder: "This blood in the cup, which blood is shed for you, is the new testament in my blood." Is that blood in the cup diverse from that blood us? in which the new testament is confirmed? If it be the same, how often was it shed? If it were shed in the cup, how holdeth your unbloody sacrifice? Or how can you say that it was shed in the cup, where, by your rule of concomitants, it is not separated from the body, as it was in his passion? If it were not separated, as certainly his blood was not separated from his body, in the supper, how can that which was in the cup, be his blood that was shed for us? for the word of "shedding" signifieth separation. Wherefore it cannot be referred to that in the cup, but to his blood which was shed on the cross for us; so that there is a manifest enallage, or change of the tense; the present being put for the future, as it is manifest by the other evangelists, where the word of shedding can be referred to nothing else, but to his blood shed upon the cross. Wherefore the Greek text can here resolve you of no ambiguity, as in the place you cite, Acts xiv. Neither was there ever any ancient writer that stumbled upon this ambiguity; but all with one consent refer the word of shedding to his blood, and not to the cup or the content thereof, so many as speak of it. 40. Martin. And this is one commodity among others, that we reap of MARTIN, the Greek text, to resolve the ambiguity that is sometime in the Latin: whereas you neither admit the one nor the other, but as you list; neither doth the Greek satisfy you, be it never so plain and infallible, but you will devise that it is corrupted, that there is a solecism, that the same solecism is an elegancy, and thereupon you translate your own device, and not the word of God. Which whence can it proceed, but of most wilful corruption? See chap. xvii. num. 10, 11, 12. 40. Fulke. This is nothing but general railing, and im- FULKE, pudent slandering, as in the particular sections before is proved. For we neither devise that the text is corrupted, to alter any thing of the text, no, not where it is undoubtedly corrupted, as in the name of Jeremy, Matt. xxvii.: neither devise we a solecism, when we admonish that there is a solæcophanes', which of no papist that ever I heard of was before observed: neither make we a solecism to be an elegancy, when we say against them that confound a solecism with solocophanes, that solacophanes is a figure used sometimes of most eloquent writers, neither is it straight['That which seems to be a solecism, but yet is not.] [FULKE.] 10 MARTIN, 41. Psal. cxix. Octon. Nun1. way a virtue or elegancy of speech, whatsoever eloquent writers sometimes have used: wherefore we translate nothing of our own device, but we translate the word of God without any wilful corruption. Martin. If in ambiguous Hebrew words of doubtful signification, where the Greek giveth one certain sense, you refuse the Greek, and take your advantage of the other sense; what is this but wilful partiality? So you do in Redime eleemosynis peccata tua, Dan. iv.; and, Inclinavi cor meum ad faciendas justificationes tuas propter retributionem ; and, Nimis honorati sunt amici tui, Deus, etc.: and yet at another time you follow the determination of the Greek for another advantage, as Psalm xcviii. "Adore his footstool, because he is holy." Whereas in the Hebrew it may be as in our Latin, "because it is holy." See chap. xiii. num. 18; chap. ix. num. 23, 24; chap. xviii. num. 1, 2. So you flee from the Hebrew to the Greek, and from this to that again, from both Lib. ii. cont. to the vulgar Latin, as is shewed in other places; and as St Augustine Faust. cap.22. saith to Faustus the Manichee, "You are the rule of truth: whatsoever is for you, is true; whatsoever is against you, is not true.” הוא FULKE, 41. Fulke. If Hebrew words be ambiguous, we take that sense which agreeth with other places that are plain and without all ambiguity; and this is no partiality, but wisdom and love of the truth: not to ground any new doctrine upon such places only, where the Hebrew word is ambiguous, and may have divers significations; as you do the redemption of sins by alms, upon that place of Daniel iv.; where you confess that the Hebrew word is ambiguous, and are not able to bring any one plain text for it, where the words are not ambiguous. But we ground our refusal upon a hundred plain texts, that ascribe the whole glory of our ransom and redemption from sins to the only mercy of God. But as well this text as the other two, that you cite in the chapters by you quoted, shall be throughly discussed, to see if you can have any advantage at our translators of the same. But on the contrary side you say that at another time we follow the determination of the Greek for another advantage, as in that text, Psalm [1 Ps. cxix. 112. i. e. in the octonary, or division of eight verses, which commences with the Hebrew letter, nun.] [Vides certe quam nescias, vel te nescire fingas, quid sit evangelium, nec ex doctrina apostolica, sed ex vestro errore nomines evangelium. Augustin. Contra Faustum, Lib. 1. 2. Opera. Vol. vш. p. 316.] הוּא w xcviii. "Adore his footstool, because he is holy," whereas [Psal. xcix.] in the Hebrew it may be as in your Latin, "because it is holy." I answer, that we follow not the determination of the Greek, as moved by the only authority thereof, for any advantage, but because we learn our interpretation out of the very psalm itself. For whereas the prophet in the 5th verse hath said, "Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at the footstool of his feet, for he is holy;" in the last verse of the same he repeateth again the like exhortation: "Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship him in his holy hill; for the Lord our God is holy." In this verse for his 'footstool' he placeth the 'holy hill,' which expresseth where his footstool was, namely the holy ark, and for cadhosh hu, ne 'holy is he,' now he sayeth, cadosh Jehova, 'holy is the Lord our God,' which putteth the other verse out of ambiguity. Wherefore if we take testimony of the Greek, we fly not to the Greek from the Hebrew, but shew that the Hebrew may so be understood, having other more certain arguments than the testimony of the Greek. Again, it is utterly false, that you say we fly from both Hebrew and Greek to the Latin; for we never fly from the Hebrew, but acknowledge it as the fountain and spring, from whence we must receive the infallible truth of God's word of the Old Testament, following the Latin or Greek so far as they follow the truth of the Hebrew text, and no farther. As for the saying of St Augustine to Faustus the Manichee, "You are the rule of truth," [it] doth most aptly agree to you papists and to your pope: for you will not afford unto the scriptures themselves any authority or certainty of truth, but upon your approbation and interpretation. Wherefore not only that which he saith to Faustus the Manichee agreeth aptly to you, 'Whatsoever is for you is true, whatsoever is against you is not true' but that also which he reporteth Tyconius the Donatist said of his sect, Quod volumus sanctum est, "Whatsoever we will is holy," you yourselves take upon you. For no doctrine is good nor holy, though it be proved never so plainly out of the holy scripture, except it be allowed by you for catholic and holy. Martin. What shall I speak of the Hebrew particle vau? which MARTIN, (Gen. xiv. 18.) must in no case be translated because, lest it should 42. Quia benedictus, for et benedictus fructus ventris tui. FULKE, 42. prove that Melchisedec offered sacrifice of bread and wine, as all the fathers expound it: but (Luke i. 42) where they translate the equivalent Greek particle kaì', there Beza proveth the said particle to signify because, and translateth accordingly, and the English Bezites likewise. I will not urge them, why: we like the sense well, and Theophylact so expoundeth it. But if the Greek copulative may be so translated, why not the Hebrew copulative much more, which often in the scripture is used in that sense? See chap. xvii. num. 13, 14. Fulke. That the Hebrew particle vau is sometimes to be taken for a causal conjunction, and signifieth because, no man denieth: but that it must be taken so Gen. xiv. because kal is taken so Luke i. 42, what reason is this? But all the fathers (say you) expound Melchisedec's bringing forth of bread and wine to be a sacrifice. I grant that many do, but not all: yet do not they ground upon the conjunction causal; for Cyprian, Lib. II. Epist. 3, ad Cæcilium, readeth thus, Fuit autem sacerdos, "and he was a priest." So doth Hierome, Epist. ad Evagrium, expounding the very Hebrew text, say, Et Melchisedech rex Salem protulit panem et vinum, erat autem sacerdos Dei excelsi. The word protulit also hath Ambrose, de mysteriis initiand. Augustine upon the title of the 33rd Psalm, Cyprian in the epistle before named; and the vulgar Latin hath proferens. Hierome, Ep. ad Evagrium, sheweth that the best learned of the Hebrews' judgment was, that Melchisedec Victori Abraham obviam processerit, et in refectionem tam ipsius, quam pugnatorum ipsius, panes vinumque protulerit: "Melchisedec came forth to meet Abraham the conqueror, and for refection, as well of him as of his warriors, brought forth bread and wine." And after many interpretations of the Greek writers which he rehearseth, in the end he will determine nothing of his own judgment. The author of Scholastica Historia, cap. 64, agreeth with the interpretation of the Hebrews. "At vero Melchisedech rex Salem obtulit ei σου. [ Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶ, καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας Luke i. 42. "And blessed is the fruit of thy womb," Cranmer, Tyndale, Rheims, Authorised. "Because the fruit of thy womb is blessed," Geneva. [ ejus. Edit. Martianay, Vol. 1. p. 56.] [3 Genesis xiv. 18. The Vulgate has, "At vero Melchisedech rex Salem, proferens panem et vinum." Augustine says, Et tantus erat |